POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.msdos : WinPov and DosPov speed comparison Server Time
18 Mar 2024 22:03:10 EDT (-0400)
  WinPov and DosPov speed comparison (Message 1 to 10 of 16)  
Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 6 Messages >>>
From: Nieminen Mika
Subject: WinPov and DosPov speed comparison
Date: 23 Apr 1999 07:27:05
Message: <37204af9.0@news.povray.org>
Q: Is POV-Ray for DOS faster than POV-Ray for windows?

  A: To my surprise the answer is: No.

  It has been a known fact, that POV-Ray for Windows has been always slower
than POV-Ray for DOS.
  This seem to be no longer true, at least with the MSVC compilation of
POV-Ray 3.1e for Windows.

  I made a comprehensive test about this.
  The machine: Pentium II 350MHz with 64 Megabytes of RAM.
  The programs: All the tested programs are the 3.1e version of POV-Ray.
I tested with three compilations: The official MSVC compilation of
POV-Ray for Windows, the official Watcom compilation of POV-Ray for DOS
and my own DJGPP compilation of POV-Ray for DOS (with optimization flags
-O3 -mpentiumpro -funroll_loops).
  The Windows version was run at the maximum priority without any other
programs running. The DOS versions were run from a raw DOS but with only
himem and smartdrv (except for the memory hog test in which I freed the
2 Megs occupied by smartdrv). For some strange reason I was unable to
make the cwsdpmi (the dos extender required by djgpp) to swap when it run
out of memory so there's no results for the memory hog test for the djgpp
compile. The DOS versions were also run with display turned off (the
Windows version was run with it turned on).
  All tests were rendered at 640x480 pixels with antialiasing 0.1.
  There was one big problem with the memory hog test with the DOS POV-Ray:
After rendering, the program spent about 20 minutes (!) just freeing the
swap file. The Windows version spent only a couple of minutes freeing the
memory.

  So, the results:

Test1: 3 spheres
  WinPov: 7 sec          DosPovWat: 3 sec          DosPovGcc: 4 sec

Test2: 10000 spheres
  WinPov: 1 min 4 sec    DosPovWat: 59 sec         DosPovGcc: 1 min 2 sec

Test3: 4 planes
  WinPov: 34 seconds     DosPovWat: 30 sec         DosPovGcc: 29 sec

Test4: 180 planes
  WinPov: 4 min 50 sec   DosPovWat: 4 min 51 sec   DosPovGcc: 5 min 30 sec

Test5: 1 lathe
  WinPov: 25 seconds     DosPovWat: 27 sec         DosPovGcc: 28 sec

Test6: 400 lathes
  WinPov: 13 min 37 sec  DosPovWat: 15 min 24 sec  DosPovGcc: 16 min 22 sec

Test7: 218 objects (boxes, cylinders, torus, etc. using CSG, textures,
       reflection...)
  WinPov: 45 sec         DosPovWat: 42 sec         DosPovGcc: 46 sec

Test8.1: 7301 objects (of diverse type in CSG), 100 fading light sources and
         2 area lights (memory hog, had to swap)
  WinPov: 24 min 58 sec  DosPovWat: 41 min 6 sec

Test8.2: Same scene but with only 50 light sources
  WinPov: 22 min 31 sec  DosPovWat: 24 min 16 sec

Test9: 7 glass objects (using caustics), 1 plane, focal blur
  WinPov: 29 min 17 sec  DosPovWat: 30 min 46 sec  DosPovGcc: 31 min 33 sec

Test10: A 512x512 heightfield with a 512x512 image map
  WinPov: 1 min 58 sec   DosPovWat: 2 min 11 sec   DosPovGcc: 2 min 1 sec

Test11: 81 copies of that heightfield
  WinPov: 5 min 55 sec   DosPovWat: 6 min 42 sec   DosPovGcc: 6 min 19 sec

Test12: A little mesh, a plane and scattering media
  WinPov: 5 min 57 sec   DosPovWat: 5 min 33 sec   DosPovGcc: 6 min 58 sec

Test13: Some simple objects, an area light and radiosity
  WinPov: 17 min 35 sec  DosPovWat: 28 min 24 sec  DosPovGcc: 21 min 14 sec


-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/


Post a reply to this message

From: Ken
Subject: Re: WinPov and DosPov speed comparison
Date: 23 Apr 1999 13:52:57
Message: <3720A506.9865F116@pacbell.net>
Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   Q: Is POV-Ray for DOS faster than POV-Ray for windows?
> 
>   A: To my surprise the answer is: No.
> 

  Those are some interesting results. They seem to mirror the results
I recieved when testing between the differently compiled windows versions
and 3.1 releases. It certainly supports using the msvc build of windows
if speed is your need. Where is the results for the Mac ?

  Some day instead of saying to someone going on an important mission
"God speed with you " we will be able to say instead "Pov speed with you"
Wouldn't that be nice ?

Can I presume that this will be added to the VFAQ ?

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net


Post a reply to this message

From: Bob Hughes
Subject: Re: WinPov and DosPov speed comparison
Date: 23 Apr 1999 17:31:37
Message: <3720D874.39B0C3AD@aol.com>
I'm a little astounded. Contradictory, I know, "little", "astounded".
Starting to read that I first thought, okay WinPOV is doing better
maybe. By the time I finished looking at it the variances, for the
better mostly are way different than my expectations.
Is the DOS memory stuff just outdated or something?
And that lathe, well, I figured it had to be a Windows cohort all along
anyhow, if you know what I mean.
Nice testing Nieminen.
What's a Mac? j/k! Don't test on one, if I found out it cuts rendering
50% I'd have to get me one.


Ken wrote:
> 
> Nieminen Mika wrote:
> >
> >   Q: Is POV-Ray for DOS faster than POV-Ray for windows?
> >
> >   A: To my surprise the answer is: No.
> >
> 
>   Those are some interesting results. They seem to mirror the results
> I recieved when testing between the differently compiled windows versions
> and 3.1 releases. It certainly supports using the msvc build of windows
> if speed is your need. Where is the results for the Mac ?
> 
>   Some day instead of saying to someone going on an important mission
> "God speed with you " we will be able to say instead "Pov speed with you"
> Wouldn't that be nice ?
> 
> Can I presume that this will be added to the VFAQ ?
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News


Post a reply to this message

From: Ken
Subject: Re: WinPov and DosPov speed comparison
Date: 23 Apr 1999 17:53:11
Message: <3720DD54.308CB7D7@pacbell.net>
Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> I'm a little astounded. Contradictory, I know, "little", "astounded".
> Starting to read that I first thought, okay WinPOV is doing better
> maybe. By the time I finished looking at it the variances, for the
> better mostly are way different than my expectations.
> Is the DOS memory stuff just outdated or something?
> And that lathe, well, I figured it had to be a Windows cohort all along
> anyhow, if you know what I mean.
> Nice testing Nieminen.
> What's a Mac? j/k! Don't test on one, if I found out it cuts rendering
> 50% I'd have to get me one.
> 
> Ken wrote:

  The lathe differences were noted between Pov-Ray version changes
and using the different compilers for the Windows program. This recent
test is a straight line test with the same version of Pov-Ray used
throughout the test range. I was seeing the most difference between
Pov v3.1r1 watcom and Pov v3.1d msvc6. There were a few revisions in
between and completely different programming software usedto compile it.
My results will stand unchallenged by this latest test.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net


Post a reply to this message

From: Spider
Subject: Re: WinPov and DosPov speed comparison
Date: 23 Apr 1999 18:04:28
Message: <924901165.464015691@news.povray.org>
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Nieminen Mika wrote:
<snip>
>  There was one big problem with the memory hog test with the DOS POV-Ray:
>After rendering, the program spent about 20 minutes (!) just freeing the
>swap file. The Windows version spent only a couple of minutes freeing the
>memory.
This has an easy explination.
in DOS, the program removes the whole swap file frrom the drive, it's a rather
cumbersome procedure to first empty it, and then remove it. While windows
leaves it all "as is" and only overwrites it as necessary afterwards.

If you think about it for a while I think you'll see why the speed difference
appears in this case.


//Spider
--KRN sucks.


Post a reply to this message

From: Fabien Mosen
Subject: Re: WinPov and DosPov speed comparison
Date: 23 Apr 1999 18:30:06
Message: <3720E5E5.F3BB1996@compuserve.com>
Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> What's a Mac? j/k! Don't test on one, if I found out it cuts rendering
> 50% I'd have to get me one.

Don't worry, testing between my AMD K6 and a Mac G3 (both 233 Mhz)
shows that the Mac takes almost twice the time to complete the same
rendering.  The "unofficial povray" for macintosh uses another compiler
and is faster, but still don't get close to the K6...

Cheers,
Fabien.


Post a reply to this message

From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: WinPov and DosPov speed comparison
Date: 23 Apr 1999 21:07:25
Message: <37210b3d.0@news.povray.org>
In article <37204af9.0@news.povray.org> , Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi>  
wrote:

>   Q: Is POV-Ray for DOS faster than POV-Ray for windows?
>
>   A: To my surprise the answer is: No.
>
>   It has been a known fact, that POV-Ray for Windows has been always slower
> than POV-Ray for DOS.
>   This seem to be no longer true, at least with the MSVC compilation of
> POV-Ray 3.1e for Windows.
>
>   I made a comprehensive test about this.
>   The machine: Pentium II 350MHz with 64 Megabytes of RAM.
>   The programs: All the tested programs are the 3.1e version of POV-Ray.
> I tested with three compilations: The official MSVC compilation of
> POV-Ray for Windows, the official Watcom compilation of POV-Ray for DOS
> and my own DJGPP compilation of POV-Ray for DOS (with optimization flags
> -O3 -mpentiumpro -funroll_loops).
>   The Windows version was run at the maximum priority without any other
> programs running. The DOS versions were run from a raw DOS but with only
> himem and smartdrv (except for the memory hog test in which I freed the
> 2 Megs occupied by smartdrv). For some strange reason I was unable to
> make the cwsdpmi (the dos extender required by djgpp) to swap when it run
> out of memory so there's no results for the memory hog test for the djgpp
> compile. The DOS versions were also run with display turned off (the
> Windows version was run with it turned on).
>   All tests were rendered at 640x480 pixels with antialiasing 0.1.
>   There was one big problem with the memory hog test with the DOS POV-Ray:
> After rendering, the program spent about 20 minutes (!) just freeing the
> swap file. The Windows version spent only a couple of minutes freeing the
> memory.
>
>   So, the results:
>
> Test1: 3 spheres
>   WinPov: 7 sec          DosPovWat: 3 sec          DosPovGcc: 4 sec
>
> Test2: 10000 spheres
>   WinPov: 1 min 4 sec    DosPovWat: 59 sec         DosPovGcc: 1 min 2 sec
>
> Test3: 4 planes
>   WinPov: 34 seconds     DosPovWat: 30 sec         DosPovGcc: 29 sec
>
> Test4: 180 planes
>   WinPov: 4 min 50 sec   DosPovWat: 4 min 51 sec   DosPovGcc: 5 min 30 sec
>
> Test5: 1 lathe
>   WinPov: 25 seconds     DosPovWat: 27 sec         DosPovGcc: 28 sec
>
> Test6: 400 lathes
>   WinPov: 13 min 37 sec  DosPovWat: 15 min 24 sec  DosPovGcc: 16 min 22 sec
>
> Test7: 218 objects (boxes, cylinders, torus, etc. using CSG, textures,
>        reflection...)
>   WinPov: 45 sec         DosPovWat: 42 sec         DosPovGcc: 46 sec
>
> Test8.1: 7301 objects (of diverse type in CSG), 100 fading light sources and
>          2 area lights (memory hog, had to swap)
>   WinPov: 24 min 58 sec  DosPovWat: 41 min 6 sec
>
> Test8.2: Same scene but with only 50 light sources
>   WinPov: 22 min 31 sec  DosPovWat: 24 min 16 sec
>
> Test9: 7 glass objects (using caustics), 1 plane, focal blur
>   WinPov: 29 min 17 sec  DosPovWat: 30 min 46 sec  DosPovGcc: 31 min 33 sec
>
> Test10: A 512x512 heightfield with a 512x512 image map
>   WinPov: 1 min 58 sec   DosPovWat: 2 min 11 sec   DosPovGcc: 2 min 1 sec
>
> Test11: 81 copies of that heightfield
>   WinPov: 5 min 55 sec   DosPovWat: 6 min 42 sec   DosPovGcc: 6 min 19 sec
>
> Test12: A little mesh, a plane and scattering media
>   WinPov: 5 min 57 sec   DosPovWat: 5 min 33 sec   DosPovGcc: 6 min 58 sec
>
> Test13: Some simple objects, an area light and radiosity
>   WinPov: 17 min 35 sec  DosPovWat: 28 min 24 sec  DosPovGcc: 21 min 14 sec

Which scene files did you use exactly? Any intention to make them public
(and an INI file with all the settings, too)?


    Thorsten


Post a reply to this message

From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: WinPov and DosPov speed comparison
Date: 23 Apr 1999 21:09:09
Message: <37210ba5.0@news.povray.org>
In article <3720E5E5.F3BB1996@compuserve.com> , Fabien Mosen 
<101### [at] compuservecom>  wrote:

>> What's a Mac? j/k! Don't test on one, if I found out it cuts rendering
>> 50% I'd have to get me one.
>
> Don't worry, testing between my AMD K6 and a Mac G3 (both 233 Mhz)
> shows that the Mac takes almost twice the time to complete the same
> rendering.

3.1a was very slow, 3.1d is more than 30% faster...


     Thorsten


Post a reply to this message

From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: WinPov and DosPov speed comparison
Date: 23 Apr 1999 21:10:24
Message: <37210bf0.0@news.povray.org>
In article <37210ba5.0@news.povray.org> , "Thorsten Froehlich" 
<fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> wrote:

> 3.1a was very slow, 3.1d is more than 30% faster...

Than the 3.1a _not_ than the Windows version!


Post a reply to this message

From: Fabien Mosen
Subject: Re: WinPov and DosPov speed comparison
Date: 24 Apr 1999 06:21:46
Message: <37218CB3.BADB7ABD@compuserve.com>
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
> 3.1a was very slow, 3.1d is more than 30% faster...
> 
>      Thorsten

the test was done with 3.1d...
the good news is that the "unofficial Pov" is somewhat faster,
so that particular Mac user switched to it.


Post a reply to this message

Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 6 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.