 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
An athlon 2400 (2GHz) running Linux.
Yes, it's one of the many machines I have.
The linux version of povray is much slower
than the windows versions (I'd say ~ 30%
slower)
Sure, I'll send you one at the end of the day.
"Gary Blessing" <ble### [at] icefog net> wrote in message
news:4059b534@news.povray.org...
> ummm......WOW!......1664h is aprox. 69 days or 2.3 monthes...... you must
> have lots and lots of patience!!(and another computer to use?) how fast of
a
> machine did it take?
>
> BTW. its fantastic! I would like to have a desktop sized version.
>
>
> "Steven Pigeon" <pig### [at] iroumontrealca> wrote in message
> news:405999a5@news.povray.org...
> >
> > 1664h 27m 31.0 s
> >
> > Radiosity, photons, dispersion, focal blur, media.
> > All the good things.
> >
> > (I have a desktop-sized render, if you want it,
> > just ask)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Steven Pigeon, Ph. D.
> > pig### [at] iroumontrealca
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steven Pigeon wrote:
>
> The linux version of povray is much slower
> than the windows versions (I'd say ~ 30%
> slower)
Do you have any actual numbers supporting this statement?
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 07 Mar. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Off hand, no. I did some tests a while ago
(when I installed Povray on my linux box)
and that's the feel I had. I did not rebuild
the exe for my specific machine, for either
versions.
But I could compare one of the examples
from the pov ray distro and check what
are the timings.
Best,
S.
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:c3ce09$6p5$1@chho.imagico.de...
> Steven Pigeon wrote:
> >
> > The linux version of povray is much slower
> > than the windows versions (I'd say ~ 30%
> > slower)
>
> Do you have any actual numbers supporting this statement?
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
> HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
> Last updated 07 Mar. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steven Pigeon wrote:
> Off hand, no. I did some tests a while ago
> (when I installed Povray on my linux box)
> and that's the feel I had. I did not rebuild
> the exe for my specific machine, for either
> versions.
>
> But I could compare one of the examples
> from the pov ray distro and check what
> are the timings.
If you do so i'd suggest to use benchmark.pov.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 07 Mar. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gary Blessing wrote:
> BTW. its fantastic! I would like to have a desktop sized version.
me too, me too!! *jumps up and down*
it's absolutely wonderful!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Marc Roth" <mar### [at] rothconsultcom> wrote in message
news:405a45d3$1@news.povray.org...
> Gary Blessing wrote:
>
> > BTW. its fantastic! I would like to have a desktop sized version.
>
> me too, me too!! *jumps up and down*
>
> it's absolutely wonderful!
Me four! Er, three!!
I have a Linux box running Debian Linux @ 700 Mhz and I've found it renders
just slightly slower than my 1.5 Ghz machine so I can't complain. Of course,
I chose Debian just so I could strip-it down just to run POV-Ray as a
render-slave. I imagine running any sort of windowing system would put a lot
of overhead on it. I run Exceed on my Windows box as the client so that's
how I get to view renderings in-progress without having to install an
X-Server.
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok. Monitoring CPU time, 99.7% went to povray,
0.3% to everything else (including ssl/ssh, the shell,
and top).
I remember trying something with lots of radiosity
samples, and that the 2GHz linux machine rendered
the picture in about 20-30% more time than the
1.7GHz windows box povray. Both ahtlon machines,
lots of ram (1G)
Maybe it depends on what exactly is rendered?
I'll run a few test in a week or so, when I come back
from the Antilles (yay! vacations!)
Best,
S.
--
Steven Pigeon, Ph. D.
pig### [at] iroumontrealca
"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:405a795e$1@news.povray.org...
> "Marc Roth" <mar### [at] rothconsultcom> wrote in message
> news:405a45d3$1@news.povray.org...
> > Gary Blessing wrote:
> >
> > > BTW. its fantastic! I would like to have a desktop sized version.
> >
> > me too, me too!! *jumps up and down*
> >
> > it's absolutely wonderful!
>
> Me four! Er, three!!
>
> I have a Linux box running Debian Linux @ 700 Mhz and I've found it
renders
> just slightly slower than my 1.5 Ghz machine so I can't complain. Of
course,
> I chose Debian just so I could strip-it down just to run POV-Ray as a
> render-slave. I imagine running any sort of windowing system would put a
lot
> of overhead on it. I run Exceed on my Windows box as the client so that's
> how I get to view renderings in-progress without having to install an
> X-Server.
>
> --
> - Respectfully,
> Dan
> http://<broken link>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Steven Pigeon" <pig### [at] iroumontrealca> wrote in message
news:405a8251$1@news.povray.org...
> Ok. Monitoring CPU time, 99.7% went to povray,
> 0.3% to everything else (including ssl/ssh, the shell,
> and top).
>
> I remember trying something with lots of radiosity
> samples, and that the 2GHz linux machine rendered
> the picture in about 20-30% more time than the
> 1.7GHz windows box povray. Both ahtlon machines,
> lots of ram (1G)
>
> Maybe it depends on what exactly is rendered?
> I'll run a few test in a week or so, when I come back
> from the Antilles (yay! vacations!)
Hmmm... if you'd like to do some stats with a test scene, I can fire up my
box and get you some stats on what I get over here. It might be an
interesting excercise. What flavor of Linux are you running?
PS: thanks for the desktop image! It makes a FANTASTIC DESKTOP IMAGE!!!
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:405a857a$1@news.povray.org...
> "Steven Pigeon" <pig### [at] iroumontrealca> wrote in message
> news:405a8251$1@news.povray.org...
> > Ok. Monitoring CPU time, 99.7% went to povray,
> > 0.3% to everything else (including ssl/ssh, the shell,
> > and top).
> >
> > I remember trying something with lots of radiosity
> > samples, and that the 2GHz linux machine rendered
> > the picture in about 20-30% more time than the
> > 1.7GHz windows box povray. Both ahtlon machines,
> > lots of ram (1G)
> >
> > Maybe it depends on what exactly is rendered?
> > I'll run a few test in a week or so, when I come back
> > from the Antilles (yay! vacations!)
>
> Hmmm... if you'd like to do some stats with a test scene, I can fire up my
> box and get you some stats on what I get over here. It might be an
> interesting excercise. What flavor of Linux are you running?
>
> PS: thanks for the desktop image! It makes a FANTASTIC DESKTOP IMAGE!!!
>
Ditto! Thanks!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steven Pigeon wrote:
> 1664h 27m 31.0 s
>
> Radiosity, photons, dispersion, focal blur, media.
> All the good things.
>
> (I have a desktop-sized render, if you want it,
> just ask)
i'm so sorry, can you send the desktop-sized one again, my spam-filter
ate it... i use popfile which is set to quarantine spam-messages, but it
often messes up quarantined attachments.
ciao,
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
