ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> Windows platform without buying compiler then the fastest free compiler under
> Windows is... DJGPP working in DOS box.

  But since the official Windows compile is noticeably faster than a
DOS-djgpp compile, it's kind of non-productive to switch to a slower
version.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

On 19 May 2003 06:30:19 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Windows platform without buying compiler then the fastest free compiler under
> > Windows is... DJGPP working in DOS box.
>
> But since the official Windows compile is noticeably faster than a
> DOS-djgpp compile, it's kind of non-productive to switch to a slower
> version.

Sure. My fault. I meant 'development' of patched POV in this sentence when whole
context was about development using official package.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

> Note it is not an OS flame war - I tried to point out how useless your arguments
> are. For real POV driven production in long run I also think Linux based render
> farm can be better thought users of this production line can take benefits from
> using Windowses without any shame.


Anyway, what I just said was just my opinion over my own personnal 
experience.

-- 
Dedicated to audio/visual and interactive artwork.
http://www.geocities.com/simonlemieux/

Post a reply to this message

ABX wrote:
> 
> Considering that the most popular compiler for Linux is GCC (because available 
> "as is") and the most popular compiler for Windows is Intel C++ (because used
> for official binaries) then I think you are wrong. Binary used on _the_same_
> architecture with _the_same_ amount of CPU time will be faster on Windowses IMO.
> The other thing are priority settings, memory swapping, need of other parallel
> work and 
> 
Since there is a free available version of the Intel C++ Compiler, I 
wonder, if anyone has tested, compiling povray under linux with this 
compiler, and if the speed differences are significant.

Florian Pesth

Post a reply to this message

Florian Pesth wrote:

> Since there is a free available version of the Intel C++ Compiler, I
> wonder, if anyone has tested, compiling povray under linux with this
> compiler, and if the speed differences are significant.
> 

I have made icc binaries, you can get them from
http://www.povworld.org/povray/binaries.html
(some test times can be found somewhere in the newsgroup archive)

- Micha


-- 
POV-Ray Objects Collection: http://objects.povworld.org

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 May 2003 13:41:01 +0200, Micha Riser <mri### [at] gmxnet> wrote:
> I have made icc binaries, you can get them from
> http://www.povworld.org/povray/binaries.html
> (some test times can be found somewhere in the newsgroup archive)

http://news.povray.org/povray.unix/26169/

ABX

Post a reply to this message

ABX wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2003 13:41:01 +0200, Micha Riser <mri### [at] gmxnet> wrote:
> 
>>I have made icc binaries, you can get them from
>>http://www.povworld.org/povray/binaries.html
>>(some test times can be found somewhere in the newsgroup archive)
> 
> 
> http://news.povray.org/povray.unix/26169/
> 
> ABX

Thanks, both of you!

Florian Pesth

Post a reply to this message

Micha Riser wrote:
> I have made icc binaries, you can get them from
> http://www.povworld.org/povray/binaries.html
> 
>Pentium4 optimized
>icc, no sse2
>povray.p4.nosse2.bz2 (1538779 bytes)

SSE2 seems to be the most powerful hardware feature
for speed optimisation with P4,
so why is it off? Does it run faster without
this option?

Post a reply to this message

gk wrote:

> Micha Riser wrote:
>> I have made icc binaries, you can get them from
>> http://www.povworld.org/povray/binaries.html
>> 
>>Pentium4 optimized
>>icc, no sse2
>>povray.p4.nosse2.bz2 (1538779 bytes)
> 
> SSE2 seems to be the most powerful hardware feature
> for speed optimisation with P4,
> so why is it off? Does it run faster without
> this option?

I've tried it.. but it got slower. I don't *exactly* know why but there are
some things to consider:
- while you can use SSE2 for double precision, you can only do 2 operations
on double at once with it
- this means e.g. for the 3D-vector calculations: you save max. 1 out of 3
operation
- memory misalignment: If the memory is not 128-bit aligned it can get slow
(don't know the details here)

Conlusion: The loops that occure with POV-Ray are probably too small to gain
anything from SSE/SSE2 (there may be some exceptions) or the icc doesn't a
well enough job at generationg code for it (actually I think it was icc 6.0
when I tried it) and you would need to optimize it "by hand" (as Intel has
done for the windows binary with the noise calculations (which I failed to
"port" to Intel, that is I used Intel's special source code for the linux
binary but it got slower..)). Also I did not have a pentium4 to experiment
myself at that time. Mabye I'll give it a try once again.

- Micha

-- 
POV-Ray Objects Collection: http://objects.povworld.org

Post a reply to this message

Micha Riser wrote:
> gk wrote:
> 
> 
>>Micha Riser wrote:
>>
>>>I have made icc binaries, you can get them from
>>>http://www.povworld.org/povray/binaries.html
>>>
>>>Pentium4 optimized
>>>icc, no sse2
>>>povray.p4.nosse2.bz2 (1538779 bytes)
>>
>>SSE2 seems to be the most powerful hardware feature
>>for speed optimisation with P4,
>>so why is it off? Does it run faster without
>>this option?
> 
> 
> I've tried it.. but it got slower. I don't *exactly* know why but there are
> some things to consider:
> - while you can use SSE2 for double precision, you can only do 2 operations
> on double at once with it
> - this means e.g. for the 3D-vector calculations: you save max. 1 out of 3
> operation
> - memory misalignment: If the memory is not 128-bit aligned it can get slow
> (don't know the details here)
> 
> Conlusion: The loops that occure with POV-Ray are probably too small to gain
> anything from SSE/SSE2 (there may be some exceptions) or the icc doesn't a
> well enough job at generationg code for it (actually I think it was icc 6.0
> when I tried it) and you would need to optimize it "by hand" (as Intel has
> done for the windows binary with the noise calculations (which I failed to
> "port" to Intel, that is I used Intel's special source code for the linux
> binary but it got slower..)). Also I did not have a pentium4 to experiment
> myself at that time. Mabye I'll give it a try once again.
> 
> - Micha
> 
I see. Thank you for this binary,
it run really faster than gcc version.
My quick test shows that it is even
a bit faster than standard icl under W2k.
I'll try to get more tests soon(hope).

Gleb

Post a reply to this message