 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <37204af9.0@news.povray.org> , Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cc tutfi>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.msdos Thorsten Froehlich <fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> wrote:
: Which scene files did you use exactly? Any intention to make them public
: (and an INI file with all the settings, too)?
You can download them from http://iki.fi/warp/sptest.zip
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <37231d2f.0@news.povray.org> , Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi>
wrote:
> You can download them from http://iki.fi/warp/sptest.zip
Thank you!
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <37231d2f.0@news.povray.org> , Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi>
wrote:
> You can download them from http://iki.fi/warp/sptest.zip
Hmm, the first few scenes render ok, but you forgot to include hf.tga.
I haven't rendered the long ones yet (will do so tonight).
Here are the results so far for my PowerMac G3/300, 64 MB, virtual memory on
(note that this is _not_ based on the official compile, but the same
compiler with slightly different settings):
Test 1:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 5.0 seconds (5 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 5.0 seconds (5 seconds)
Test 2:
Time For Parse: 0 hours 0 minutes 2.0 seconds (2 seconds)
Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 12.0 seconds (12 seconds)
Test3:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 9.0 seconds (9 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 9.0 seconds (9 seconds)
Test 4:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 3 minutes 46.0 seconds (226 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 3 minutes 46.0 seconds (226 seconds)
Test 5:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 13.0 seconds (13 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 13.0 seconds (13 seconds)
Test 6:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 2 minutes 30.0 seconds (150 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 2 minutes 30.0 seconds (150 seconds)
Test 7:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 7.0 seconds (7 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 7.0 seconds (7 seconds)
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <37234e00.0@news.povray.org> , "Thorsten Froehlich"
<fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> wrote:
> In article <37231d2f.0@news.povray.org> , Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi>
> wrote:
>
>> You can download them from http://iki.fi/warp/sptest.zip
>
> Hmm, the first few scenes render ok, but you forgot to include hf.tga.
> I haven't rendered the long ones yet (will do so tonight).
> Here are the results so far for my PowerMac G3/300, 64 MB, virtual memory on
> (note that this is _not_ based on the official compile, but the same
> compiler with slightly different settings):
>
> Test 1:
> Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 5.0 seconds (5 seconds)
> Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 5.0 seconds (5 seconds)
>
> Test 2:
> Time For Parse: 0 hours 0 minutes 2.0 seconds (2 seconds)
> Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 12.0 seconds (12 seconds)
>
> Test3:
> Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 9.0 seconds (9 seconds)
> Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 9.0 seconds (9 seconds)
>
> Test 4:
> Time For Trace: 0 hours 3 minutes 46.0 seconds (226 seconds)
> Total Time: 0 hours 3 minutes 46.0 seconds (226 seconds)
>
> Test 5:
> Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 13.0 seconds (13 seconds)
> Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 13.0 seconds (13 seconds)
>
> Test 6:
> Time For Trace: 0 hours 2 minutes 30.0 seconds (150 seconds)
> Total Time: 0 hours 2 minutes 30.0 seconds (150 seconds)
>
> Test 7:
> Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 7.0 seconds (7 seconds)
> Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 7.0 seconds (7 seconds)
Please ignore these numbers, they do ***not*** represent results with the
same settings (for some reason AA wasn't on...). Sorry!
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <37235c9d.0@news.povray.org> , "Thorsten Froehlich"
<fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> wrote:
> In article <37234e00.0@news.povray.org> , "Thorsten Froehlich"
> <fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> wrote:
>
> Please ignore these numbers, they do ***not*** represent results with the
> same settings (for some reason AA wasn't on...). Sorry!
And here are the corrected numbers:
Test 1:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 5.0 seconds (5 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 5.0 seconds (5 seconds)
Test 2:
Time For Parse: 0 hours 0 minutes 2.0 seconds (2 seconds)
Time For Trace: 0 hours 1 minutes 5.0 seconds (65 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 1 minutes 7.0 seconds (67 seconds)
Test 3:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 22.0 seconds (22 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 22.0 seconds (22 seconds)
Test 4:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 5 minutes 42.0 seconds (342 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 5 minutes 42.0 seconds (342 seconds)
Test 5:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 20.0 seconds (20 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 20.0 seconds (20 seconds)
Test 6:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 10 minutes 16.0 seconds (616 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 10 minutes 16.0 seconds (616 seconds)
Test 7:
Time For Trace: 0 hours 0 minutes 41.0 seconds (41 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 41.0 seconds (41 seconds)
One note on test 5 and 6: Mac compilers can optimise the lathe code much
better and are therefore much faster than PCs.
One major reason why (even when very few memory allocations occure) the Mac
version is slower is the way POV-Ray represents colors, vectors and almost
all basic types: arrays. The compilers do _not_ manage to use the 32
floating-point registers, instead they nearly always generate load/store
instructions so all the RISC benefits are gone :-(
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: Tho### [at] csicom
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.general Thorsten Froehlich <fro### [at] charliecnsiitedu> wrote:
: Hmm, the first few scenes render ok, but you forgot to include hf.tga.
It was intentional (I wanted to keep the size of the file small). You can
use any 512x512 24 bit tga you want for the heightfield and another image
(with equal dimensions) for the image map.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
