 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
High!
When trying surface scenes of Ghurghusht with low illumination angles, I
found out that even at 768 by 576 pixels, renderings becomes dead slow -
on my machine (Athlon 64 3500+) such a scene takes about 2 hours!
Is there a way to speed things up? I firstly thought that decreasing
intervals could help - but obviously not...
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<yaz### [at] gmx de> wrote:
> High!
>
> When trying surface scenes of Ghurghusht with low illumination angles,
I
> found out that even at 768 by 576 pixels, renderings becomes dead slow
-
> on my machine (Athlon 64 3500+) such a scene takes about 2 hours!
>
> Is there a way to speed things up? I firstly thought that decreasing
> intervals could help - but obviously not...
>
> See you in Khyberspace!
>
> Yadgar
How much RAM do you have?
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann
Subject: Re: How to speed up media scenes?
Date: 7 Apr 2010 10:33:50
Message: <4bbc97ce@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
High!
Nekar Xenos wrote:
> How much RAM do you have?
1.5 gigabytes!
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Buy a new computer - at least new mainboard, processor and fast RAM. Povray
can really be fun with a new pc.
Until I got me a new pc last year I had lost almost all interest in povray -
it seemed way too slow. Try a scene, render, wait an hour or two, try again,
no fun at all. Then I bought a new pc - and a whole new world opened up.
Here's a result form my experience: (new beta version, benchmark)
Intel Q9550, 4 GB RAM (3 GB usable under Win-XP-32), benchmark time: 91.72 s
Athlon XP 3000+, 1GB RAM, benchmark time: 894 s
Apart from this: installing a 64-bit OS might speed things up a bit, but for
real speed improvements you'll have to upgrade, if possible. More RAM,
faster cpu, best a new pc. Sorry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nekar Xenos
Subject: Re: How to speed up media scenes?
Date: 7 Apr 2010 15:09:25
Message: <op.vas3hwq1ufxv4h@xena>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:47:33 +0200, TC get-enough-spam-already-2498.com>
<do-not-reply@i-do> wrote:
> Buy a new computer - at least new mainboard, processor and fast RAM.
> Povray
> can really be fun with a new pc.
>
> Until I got me a new pc last year I had lost almost all interest in
> povray -
> it seemed way too slow. Try a scene, render, wait an hour or two, try
> again,
> no fun at all. Then I bought a new pc - and a whole new world opened up.
>
> Here's a result form my experience: (new beta version, benchmark)
>
> Intel Q9550, 4 GB RAM (3 GB usable under Win-XP-32), benchmark time:
> 91.72 s
>
> Athlon XP 3000+, 1GB RAM, benchmark time: 894 s
>
> Apart from this: installing a 64-bit OS might speed things up a bit, but
> for
> real speed improvements you'll have to upgrade, if possible. More RAM,
> faster cpu, best a new pc. Sorry.
>
>
>
I wonder what the over-clocking possibilities are the Athlon XP3500+ ?
--
-Nekar Xenos-
"The spoon is not real"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I wonder what the over-clocking possibilities are the Athlon XP3500+ ?
Overclocking often leads to buying a new cpu, sooner than later. ;-)
Frankly, I never understood the public obsession with overclocking. Why risk
to have an unstable system and invest heavily in cooling hardware instead of
just buying a better cpu?
If you do not have the money for buying better hardware (a state which is
not unfamiliar for me, alas) then risking your system by overclocking is
probably not a smart move. And if you have the money, why bother?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> High!
>
> When trying surface scenes of Ghurghusht with low illumination angles, I
> found out that even at 768 by 576 pixels, renderings becomes dead slow -
> on my machine (Athlon 64 3500+) such a scene takes about 2 hours!
>
> Is there a way to speed things up? I firstly thought that decreasing
> intervals could help - but obviously not...
>
> See you in Khyberspace!
>
> Yadgar
Use the default sampling mode of 3.
NEVER EVER use more that intervals 1: The default value. If you need
more samples, only use samples xx. You only use 1 samples value. Any
value after a comma will be totaly ignored.
intervals 10 samples 10 is WAY slower than samples 200, for half the
number of samples.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Overclocking often leads to buying a new cpu, sooner than later. ;-)
"often"? More like "pretty much never". Unless you do something really
crazy/stupid (like setting the core voltage way too high with a specialist
BIOS) you're not going to fry a CPU. All processors for a long time now
have had internal temperature sensors that will shut down the CPU long
before any damage is done. Even when the heatsink fell off my old AMD
XP2400+ it just shut itself down after 30 seconds or so (and the next 50
times I tried to restart it and reinstall windows before I opened it up!) -
still works fine today.
> Frankly, I never understood the public obsession with overclocking.
More bang per buck, in some cases it can be quite a significant increase if
you are lucky.
> Why risk to have an unstable system and invest heavily in cooling hardware
> instead of just buying a better cpu?
In the majority of cases you can overclock without needing any new hardware
or having any stability issues. CPUs are designed to work in absolute worst
case conditions, 99.9% of the time people are not using them under these
conditions so they can be overclocked and be perfectly stable.
[Follow-up set to off-topic]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
High!
Alain wrote:
> Use the default sampling mode of 3.
> NEVER EVER use more that intervals 1: The default value. If you need
> more samples, only use samples xx. You only use 1 samples value. Any
> value after a comma will be totaly ignored.
> intervals 10 samples 10 is WAY slower than samples 200, for half the
> number of samples.
???
According to the POV-Ray 3.6 manual, the default intervals value is 10,
not 1...
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> High!
>
> Alain wrote:
>
>> Use the default sampling mode of 3.
>> NEVER EVER use more that intervals 1: The default value. If you need
>> more samples, only use samples xx. You only use 1 samples value. Any
>> value after a comma will be totaly ignored.
>> intervals 10 samples 10 is WAY slower than samples 200, for half the
>> number of samples.
>
> ???
>
> According to the POV-Ray 3.6 manual, the default intervals value is 10,
> not 1...
>
The manual is out of date. The default value is 10 for methods 1
and 2, but it is 1 for method 3.
Jerome
--
mailto:jeb### [at] freefr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
