 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just for fun, here's the benchmark results from my main machine and *former*
rendering platform, an Asus Eee 904 (1.6GHz Atom N270, 2GB RAM, Windows XP SP3.)
(This is running POV-Ray 3.6, but since it's a single-core processor, I don't
know that there'd be much gain from 3.7.)
Total Scene Processing Times
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 3 seconds (3 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 1 minutes 43 seconds (103 seconds)
Render Time: 1 hours 36 minutes 35 seconds (5795 seconds)
Total Time: 1 hours 38 minutes 21 seconds (5901 seconds)
CPU time used: kernel 1.25 seconds, user 5851.02 seconds, total 5852.27 seconds
Render averaged 25.20 PPS over 147456 pixels
Yeah, you can see why the emphasis is on "former."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"commodorejohn" <com### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Just for fun, here's the benchmark results from my main machine and *former*
> rendering platform, an Asus Eee 904 (1.6GHz Atom N270, 2GB RAM, Windows XP SP3.)
> (This is running POV-Ray 3.6, but since it's a single-core processor, I don't
> know that there'd be much gain from 3.7.)
>
> Total Scene Processing Times
> Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 3 seconds (3 seconds)
> Photon Time: 0 hours 1 minutes 43 seconds (103 seconds)
> Render Time: 1 hours 36 minutes 35 seconds (5795 seconds)
> Total Time: 1 hours 38 minutes 21 seconds (5901 seconds)
> CPU time used: kernel 1.25 seconds, user 5851.02 seconds, total 5852.27 seconds
> Render averaged 25.20 PPS over 147456 pixels
>
> Yeah, you can see why the emphasis is on "former."
You were using an Atom as a rendering platform? Ouch. Also, try running 3.6 on
the PowerPC.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"commodorejohn" <com### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Found some old benchmark of a 1.8 GHz PPC 970 here:
> > http://news.povray.org/povray.macintosh/thread/%3C3f94a116$1@news.povray.org%3E/
> Well, stunningly enough for all the trouble I had with it the first time, 3.7RC3
> compiled without a hitch now (GCC 4.4.5) and runs just fine. So, here's what I
> got for povray --benchmark on my machine (dual-CPU dual-core PPC 970MP @ 2.5GHz,
> 4GB RAM, Debian Squeeze PPC64.)
>
> Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 1 seconds (1.407 seconds)
> using 1 thread(s) with 1.403 CPU-seconds total
> Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 6 seconds (6.445 seconds)
> using 7 thread(s) with 7.395 CPU-seconds total
> Trace Time: 0 hours 12 minutes 1 seconds (721.406 seconds)
> using 4 thread(s) with 2848.433 CPU-seconds total
> Didn't give me an official total time, but that works out to 729.258 seconds
> (~12 min 9 sec) or so. Not quite as good on a per-CPU-per-clock basis as that
> 1.8GHz G5 benchmark, but still not too bad!
>
> (Certainly gave the cooling system a workout! Thank God for the big-bladed
> lower-RPM fans in this thing, or it'dve been like a jet take-off in my computer
> room!)
Here's mine on 3.7 (Athlon II x4 630, 2.8 GHz)
Render Time:
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 2 seconds (2.904 seconds)
using 7 thread(s) with 3.359 CPU-seconds total
Radiosity Time: No radiosity
Trace Time: 0 hours 6 minutes 11 seconds (371.209 seconds)
using 4 thread(s) with 1465.740 CPU-seconds total
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"commodorejohn" <com### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Just for fun, here's the benchmark results from my main machine and *former*
> rendering platform, an Asus Eee 904 (1.6GHz Atom N270, 2GB RAM, Windows XP SP3.)
> (This is running POV-Ray 3.6, but since it's a single-core processor, I don't
> know that there'd be much gain from 3.7.)
Actually, the N270 has hyperthreading, so 3.7 would show some gain with it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> You were using an Atom as a rendering platform? Ouch. Also, try running 3.6 on
> the PowerPC.
Yeah, that was strictly a case of "work with what you have," my computer budget
isn't very high. (I do also have a Pentium 4 box at work, but that's not so
great either, being an old DDR-233 machine with a pre-Extreme Edition P4.) As
for running the 3.6 benchmark on the G5, here's the results:
Total Scene Processing Times
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 1 seconds (1 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 42 seconds (42 seconds)
Render Time: 0 hours 29 minutes 59 seconds (1799 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 30 minutes 42 seconds (1842 seconds)
> Actually, the N270 has hyperthreading, so 3.7 would show some gain with it.
Ah, interesting. Just for the sake of completeness, here's the results of the
3.7 benchmark on the Eee:
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 3 seconds (3.844 seconds)
using 1 thread(s) with 3.796 CPU-seconds total
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 20 seconds (20.453 seconds)
using 4 thread(s) with 20.468 CPU-seconds total
Trace Time: 2 hours 43 minutes 27 seconds (9807.313 seconds)
using 1 thread(s) with 9787.750 CPU-seconds total
And a total time given of 9812.92 seconds.
And I noticed a note that the 3.6 and 3.7 benchmarks are actually different
enough to be incomparable, silly me. So, comparing apples to apples and oranges
to same: my G5 runs at 3.2x the speed of my Eee on the single-core 3.6
benchmark, and at 13.45x the speed on the multi-threaded 3.7 benchmark. Yow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"commodorejohn" <com### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Actually, the N270 has hyperthreading, so 3.7 would show some gain with it.
> Ah, interesting. Just for the sake of completeness, here's the results of the
> 3.7 benchmark on the Eee:
>
> Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 3 seconds (3.844 seconds)
> using 1 thread(s) with 3.796 CPU-seconds total
> Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 20 seconds (20.453 seconds)
> using 4 thread(s) with 20.468 CPU-seconds total
> Trace Time: 2 hours 43 minutes 27 seconds (9807.313 seconds)
> using 1 thread(s) with 9787.750 CPU-seconds total
> And a total time given of 9812.92 seconds.
Something's not right. Either povray isn't properly detecting the number of CPUs
or you're not running an SMP kernel. Here's what I get on my Acer Aspire One
(N270 @ 1.6 GHz):
povray --benchmark -WT2
Render Time:
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 21 seconds (21.580 seconds)
using 5 thread(s) with 25.332 CPU-seconds total
Radiosity Time: No radiosity
Trace Time: 1 hours 43 minutes 53 seconds (6233.633 seconds)
using 2 thread(s) with 12354.025 CPU-seconds total
povray --benchmark -WT1
Render Time:
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 24 seconds (24.673 seconds)
using 4 thread(s) with 24.655 CPU-seconds total
Radiosity Time: No radiosity
Trace Time: 2 hours 52 minutes 17 seconds (10337.888 seconds)
using 1 thread(s) with 10316.611 CPU-seconds total
There's a significant speedup with 2 threads vs. 1 thread.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Something's not right. Either povray isn't properly detecting the number of CPUs
> or you're not running an SMP kernel.
It's Windows XP 32-bit SP3 - do I have to enable anything to have SMP support?
> Here's what I get on my Acer Aspire One
> (N270 @ 1.6 GHz):
> There's a significant speedup with 2 threads vs. 1 thread.
Hmm...not sure how one would go about doing the --WT options on XP, the
benchmark is launched from the GUI and it doesn't seem too interested in
command-line options...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"commodorejohn" <com### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Something's not right. Either povray isn't properly detecting the number of CPUs
> > or you're not running an SMP kernel.
> It's Windows XP 32-bit SP3 - do I have to enable anything to have SMP support?
>
> > Here's what I get on my Acer Aspire One
> > (N270 @ 1.6 GHz):
> > There's a significant speedup with 2 threads vs. 1 thread.
> Hmm...not sure how one would go about doing the --WT options on XP, the
> benchmark is launched from the GUI and it doesn't seem too interested in
> command-line options...
The benchmark scene file has recommended command-line settings. So just use
those and add -WT2 at the end.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:07:39 -0400, jhu wrote:
>
> > "commodorejohn" <com### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> In the past I've had some fun playing around with POV-Ray via Moray for
> >> Windows on a handful of different PCs. Recently, though, I acquired a
> >> Power Mac G5 that I've installed Debian on, and as its overall
> >> horsepower is several times that of even my previous P4 tower, I
> >> thought it would be nice to start using it for rendering as well as
> >> just general Linux acclimation.
> >>
> >> I got POV-Ray itself built and installed with no trouble; however, I'm
> >> having a heck of a time finding a modeller to use with it. I've looked
> >> at a number of ones from the "Links" section, but most of them appear
> >> to be dead or abandoned years ago. Truevision looks promising, but the
> >> latest tarball is throwing errors about conflicting declarations at me,
> >> and the CVS server doesn't seem to be working...
> >>
> >> All I really want here is a simple modeller along the lines of Moray
> >> that I can use for hobby rendering, and that will build without a big
> >> fuss. Can anyone give me some suggestions?
> >
> > You could always use the Povray SDL. It's not that difficult. Also, you
> > can pick up an old and cheap core2 or athlon ii computer that is much
> > faster than the ppc970.
>
> Well, it can be difficult if you don't have a good visual way of
> thinking. I have difficulty visualizing what I want to see on the screen
> without actually seeing it.
>
> Jim
hi
in linux kpovmodeler is the best program i find, but require some little source
mod and recompile for pov3.7
kpovmodeler has the opportunity to place "raw povray source" for include macro
or what you want for example the included macro rad_def.inc or makegrass macro
from Gilles Tran http://www.oyonale.com etc.
another is y.a.p.r.m. but is incomplete
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:12:22 EST
"eticre" <eti### [at] tinit> wrote:
> hi
> in linux kpovmodeler is the best program i find, but require some little source
> mod and recompile for pov3.7
> kpovmodeler has the opportunity to place "raw povray source" for include macro
> or what you want for example the included macro rad_def.inc or makegrass macro
> from Gilles Tran http://www.oyonale.com etc.
>
> another is y.a.p.r.m. but is incomplete
See my note posted above, please.
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
