 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 05.07.2014 00:34, schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> something seriously screwy with the mac output. Like half the image is black,
> which I guess accounts for the speed.
Can you be a bit more specific?
The image Jerome posted in povray.beta-test looked like someone had set
the light brightness to a negative value: Only the shadows were
non-black. Is that what you're seeing, too?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomore hotmailcom> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Another thing to check: Try rendering some other scene (with the exact
> > same settings) to see how the difference in time goes.
> >
> > --
> > - Warp
>
>
> Well, the settings aren't the same, but I did render my lotus gas lamp and it
> looks just fine... Though, as expected, it does take much longer.
>
> I think there might be a problem with the calculation of mesh objects or mesh2
> objects in my build because looking at the output image from rendering the
> benchmark, there seem to be a lot of missing surfaces.
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.
Were you able to compile the stable source? Curious to see what the PPC 970
benchmark numbers really are.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> > Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > > Another thing to check: Try rendering some other scene (with the exact
> > > same settings) to see how the difference in time goes.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Warp
> >
> >
> > Well, the settings aren't the same, but I did render my lotus gas lamp and it
> > looks just fine... Though, as expected, it does take much longer.
> >
> > I think there might be a problem with the calculation of mesh objects or mesh2
> > objects in my build because looking at the output image from rendering the
> > benchmark, there seem to be a lot of missing surfaces.
> >
> > Regards,
> > A.D.B.
>
> Were you able to compile the stable source? Curious to see what the PPC 970
> benchmark numbers really are.
the configure script tried to set BUILD_ARCH to x86_64_unknown_linux_gnu
it failed while testing boost_thread
Regards,
A.D.B
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> the configure script tried to set BUILD_ARCH to x86_64_unknown_linux_gnu
>
> it failed while testing boost_thread
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B
That's really weird. I'll see if I can post up a static PPC binary within the
next 24 hours for you to try out. Getting late over here and baby is crying...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> That's really weird. I'll see if I can post up a static PPC binary within the
> next 24 hours for you to try out. Getting late over here and baby is crying...
Unable to compile a static binary. Instead I compiled a dynamic binary and
bundled the libraries it's linked to. Just posted it with descriptions in
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.misc/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.07.2014 23:17, schrieb clipka:
> Jerome and I have spent the last days wrestling with Linux build
> problems in the current master; and although the most up-to-date version
> seems to build now with icpc, g++ and clang, the g++ build is
> dysfunctional and doesn't render the benchmark scene properly (and also
> too fast).
That problem should be solved now in the current master; Anthony, would
you mind giving it another try on the G5?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 04.07.2014 23:17, schrieb clipka:
>
> > Jerome and I have spent the last days wrestling with Linux build
> > problems in the current master; and although the most up-to-date version
> > seems to build now with icpc, g++ and clang, the g++ build is
> > dysfunctional and doesn't render the benchmark scene properly (and also
> > too fast).
>
> That problem should be solved now in the current master; Anthony, would
> you mind giving it another try on the G5?
Seems to be fixed.
Render Time:
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 6 seconds (6.402 seconds)
using 7 thread(s) with 7.346 CPU-seconds total
Radiosity Time: No radiosity
Trace Time: 0 hours 12 minutes 12 seconds (732.817 seconds)
using 4 thread(s) with 2889.894 CPU-seconds total
POV-Ray finished
Image looks good too.
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Am 04.07.2014 23:17, schrieb clipka:
> >
> > > Jerome and I have spent the last days wrestling with Linux build
> > > problems in the current master; and although the most up-to-date version
> > > seems to build now with icpc, g++ and clang, the g++ build is
> > > dysfunctional and doesn't render the benchmark scene properly (and also
> > > too fast).
> >
> > That problem should be solved now in the current master; Anthony, would
> > you mind giving it another try on the G5?
>
> Seems to be fixed.
>
> Render Time:
> Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 6 seconds (6.402 seconds)
> using 7 thread(s) with 7.346 CPU-seconds total
> Radiosity Time: No radiosity
> Trace Time: 0 hours 12 minutes 12 seconds (732.817 seconds)
> using 4 thread(s) with 2889.894 CPU-seconds total
> POV-Ray finished
>
> Image looks good too.
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.
That's odd. Clock for clock, it's not much faster than a PowerPC 74xx.
PowerPC 7400 @ 466 MHz
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 37 seconds (37.148 seconds)
using 7 thread(s) with 36.298 CPU-seconds total
Radiosity Time: No radiosity
Trace Time: 4 hours 29 minutes 44 seconds (16184.849 seconds)
using 4 thread(s) with 16095.266 CPU-seconds total
That's 34.71 pps/GHz for the 7400 and 35.77 pps/core/GHz for your 970MP.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > > Am 04.07.2014 23:17, schrieb clipka:
> > >
> > > > Jerome and I have spent the last days wrestling with Linux build
> > > > problems in the current master; and although the most up-to-date version
> > > > seems to build now with icpc, g++ and clang, the g++ build is
> > > > dysfunctional and doesn't render the benchmark scene properly (and also
> > > > too fast).
> > >
> > > That problem should be solved now in the current master; Anthony, would
> > > you mind giving it another try on the G5?
> >
> > Seems to be fixed.
> >
> > Render Time:
> > Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 6 seconds (6.402 seconds)
> > using 7 thread(s) with 7.346 CPU-seconds total
> > Radiosity Time: No radiosity
> > Trace Time: 0 hours 12 minutes 12 seconds (732.817 seconds)
> > using 4 thread(s) with 2889.894 CPU-seconds total
> > POV-Ray finished
> >
> > Image looks good too.
> >
> > Regards,
> > A.D.B.
>
> That's odd. Clock for clock, it's not much faster than a PowerPC 74xx.
>
> PowerPC 7400 @ 466 MHz
> Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 37 seconds (37.148 seconds)
> using 7 thread(s) with 36.298 CPU-seconds total
> Radiosity Time: No radiosity
> Trace Time: 4 hours 29 minutes 44 seconds (16184.849 seconds)
> using 4 thread(s) with 16095.266 CPU-seconds total
>
> That's 34.71 pps/GHz for the 7400 and 35.77 pps/core/GHz for your 970MP.
I can't remember much from the last time I took Computer Organization and
Architecture... It wasn't my strongest subject by far... but the speedup gained
from parallel processing is a function of how much of the application in
question is parallel vs how much is serial.
Have you run the numbers?
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
>
> I can't remember much from the last time I took Computer Organization and
> Architecture... It wasn't my strongest subject by far... but the speedup gained
> from parallel processing is a function of how much of the application in
> question is parallel vs how much is serial.
>
> Have you run the numbers?
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.
I was just expecting the 970 to be faster per core per clock since it's based on
POWER4.
POWER8, however, is apparently going to be quite a beast.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
