Nicolas Calimet <pov### [at] freefr> wrote:
> - try running the official benchmark with your binary, and compare the result
> with those on the page linked by Florian.  I suppose you should get a CPU time
> in the order of 1200-1250 seconds (64-bit binary, single core).

I had seen the Florian article before. I've just gotten through running
benchmark.pov and the results are

1265 sec on the Opteron
1969 sec on the Pentium M laptop

These are comparable to the results in the Florian article (fudging for
different processor speeds) so I'm now convinced that there is not
something badly wrong with the build. Concerned that I might be imagining
things I ran my scene file again. The results are

2727 sec on the Opteron
907 sec on the Pentium M

This difference is actually a little worse then I reported above because I
had inadvertantly made a change to the scene file on the laptop that made
it run a little slower. So clearly there is something in my scene file. The
file is large (53MB) but consists of 240K smooth triangles in a mesh, a
little CSG, two superellipsoids and a lot of transparency.

> try running your scene
> with the official 32-bit Linux binary.  In principle you should run even
> more slower.  Otherwise, there might be something very specific in your scene
> (some POV feature that is not used in the official benchmark) that reveals
> an optimization problem in your binary (e.g. with SSE2 usage) or instability
> in the system (e.g. again a possible 64-bit specific problem, a buggy math
> or C library).
>
> - try running with 3.7.0.beta.16.linux-x86-64.  This binary was prepared using
> the same compiler as yours and similar optimization flags.  Due to the many
> changes in 3.7, the binary might render your scene faster on a single core.
> Of course, in such a case you might consider running on as many cores as are
> available on this machine  :-)
>
>
>  - NC

I will try the official binary and the 3.7 beta next.

- steve

Post a reply to this message