"Norbert Kern" <nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:

> After replacing the still missing file "Warp - 001.png" I started an overnight
> test render with your settings.
>
> It's a pity to not have the time to complete the render - after 9:04:55 I
> stopped it.
>
> 224896 pixels were rendered at that time (pretracing 0:50:22; 6243 MB RAM at
> stopping).
>
> This means 413 ppm including pretracing and 455 ppm excluding pretracing.
>
> Hope it helped a bit.


Forgot some details - Intel i7-5960X 3.0 GHz, 16 threads, 32 GB RAM


Norbert

Post a reply to this message

Thanks a lot! :-)
How many percent did you complete, do you remember?

Pretracing just 50 minutes? On my system, it took a whole day and the
whole night or so.

But it shows me also, what I needed to know: that other computer specs
can lead not just to small time benefits in rendering, but even to quite
remarkable time benefits.

I needed to know this, because I am considering more and more, because
of the slowness of my system, to use render farms for future test and
full renders. The bad thing is, that will take money. I live in the
so-called "Third World", and we people here have to work much longer to
earn our equivalent of one US Dollar than the average person in the USA
or in Western Europe. Means, for me this is a really big decision. Thus
my call for test renders.

If the results wouldn't be so dramatically different to my own time
consumption, I would have waited for more test renders of other persons.
But seeing such a big difference, I understand that only other computers
can deliver me my renders in an acceptable time.

Example: my own test render (same conditions as yours) lasts now already
4 days and 15 hours (right now at 19 pixels/minute), and still, I have
achieved only 9% of the entire render - that is, to remember, only a
PARTIAL rendering of the even much larger scene.

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski <jam### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Thanks a lot! :-)
> How many percent did you complete, do you remember?

16 % completed

> Example: my own test render (same conditions as yours) lasts now already
> 4 days and 15 hours (right now at 19 pixels/minute), and still, I have
> achieved only 9% of the entire render - that is, to remember, only a
> PARTIAL rendering of the even much larger scene.

Hmmm, how long did it take to render your nice predecessor version
(http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.animations/message/%3C4470f05b%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C4470f05b%40news.povray.
org%3E)?



Norbert

Post a reply to this message

That one didn't had as many details on the hull as this one. I was able
to even make a video animation of it which is still on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N1bE1nIIWI

This time, I have lots of additional shapes on the hull, and also
additional CSGs. And not anymore the same computer, only a laptop.
HP Presario CQ57:
Intel Celeron CPU B800 @ 1.5 GHz
8 GB RAM
64 Bit Windows 7

How many hours did you render that part in total to get those 16%?

Post a reply to this message

On 1/28/2016 2:43 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> That one didn't had as many details on the hull as this one. I was able
> to even make a video animation of it which is still on YouTube.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N1bE1nIIWI
>
> This time, I have lots of additional shapes on the hull, and also
> additional CSGs. And not anymore the same computer, only a laptop.
> HP Presario CQ57:
> Intel Celeron CPU B800 @ 1.5 GHz
> 8 GB RAM
> 64 Bit Windows 7
>
> How many hours did you render that part in total to get those 16%?
>

His computer is roughly 16x as fast as yours, probably more.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Horvath wrote:

> On 1/28/2016 2:43 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>> That one didn't had as many details on the hull as this one. I was able
>> to even make a video animation of it which is still on YouTube.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N1bE1nIIWI
>>
>> This time, I have lots of additional shapes on the hull, and also
>> additional CSGs. And not anymore the same computer, only a laptop.
>> HP Presario CQ57:
>> Intel Celeron CPU B800 @ 1.5 GHz
>> 8 GB RAM
>> 64 Bit Windows 7
>>
>> How many hours did you render that part in total to get those 16%?
>>
> 
> His computer is roughly 16x as fast as yours, probably more.
> 
> 
> Mike


Have a look here 
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-5960X-vs-Intel-Celeron-B800
-- 

Ger

Post a reply to this message

On 1/28/2016 6:09 PM, Ger wrote:
> Mike Horvath wrote:
>
>> On 1/28/2016 2:43 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>> That one didn't had as many details on the hull as this one. I was able
>>> to even make a video animation of it which is still on YouTube.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N1bE1nIIWI
>>>
>>> This time, I have lots of additional shapes on the hull, and also
>>> additional CSGs. And not anymore the same computer, only a laptop.
>>> HP Presario CQ57:
>>> Intel Celeron CPU B800 @ 1.5 GHz
>>> 8 GB RAM
>>> 64 Bit Windows 7
>>>
>>> How many hours did you render that part in total to get those 16%?
>>>
>>
>> His computer is roughly 16x as fast as yours, probably more.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> Have a look here
> http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-5960X-vs-Intel-Celeron-B800
>

Oops. I didn't realize the Celeron was a dual core processor.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski <jam### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> That one didn't had as many details on the hull as this one. I was able
> to even make a video animation of it which is still on YouTube.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N1bE1nIIWI
>
> This time, I have lots of additional shapes on the hull, and also
> additional CSGs. And not anymore the same computer, only a laptop.
> HP Presario CQ57:
> Intel Celeron CPU B800 @ 1.5 GHz
> 8 GB RAM
> 64 Bit Windows 7
>
> How many hours did you render that part in total to get those 16%?


ca. 9 h 5 min.


Greetings to Jamaica,
Norbert

Post a reply to this message

Ah. Thanks for telling me. :-D

Post a reply to this message

Yip.

Post a reply to this message