On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:34:46 +0200, "Groucho" <gro### [at] tripod com> wrote:
> Comparing the render time of the same model with versions 3.5 and 3.6 I
> always get that 3.6 takes around 30% more time to render than 3.5.
>
> I'm using the Windows version on a P4 2.4GHz with 512MB and I always tested
> with files that doesn't need to page memory.
Well, "files that doesn't need to page memory" can be something you can think
happen but it can be otherwise. I can easily write scene in a few lines which
needs more memory that all computer I have ever seen had. Size of the scene
file doesn't determine memory usage during rendering.
In the scene you have about 100 spheres all with some transparency. Every
surface on the ray path increases memory usage. Spheres can be overlaped and
bounding hierarchy (something related to raytracing algorithm) can be harder
to walk.
> There is anything to tune? Is it normal?
I would do as follow:
1. Turn off transparency and compare speed between versions
2. Turn off overlaping spheres and compare between versions
3. Determine dependency between number of spheres and slowdown.
None of above could be of much help for you but it could give us some overview
what could be problematic. Be sure you use 3.5 and 3.6 under the same
conditions of your OS and be sure that difference is really large. Note that
talking abou difference of 30% in case of 10 second long render is somehow
misleading because there is so many OS related activity that it influence
rendering time. It could be worth to compary some longer renders.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
