 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> So, g++ gives 7h50m and icc gives 40 mins? Those damned freetards! ;)
>
> Naaah - it's not *that* bad. You forgot the QuadCore speedup.
>
>
It's not only the multithreading and compiler. I have only one core (AMD
64 3500+) and I compiled my 3.6 from source, with gcc and probalby -O2
and -march=athlon64 (or w/e they are supposed to be). I think the
3.7-b29 was downloaded from povray.org. So, actually 3.6 should probably
be faster as it was optimized for this CPU, but no - 3.7 is (at least
for the "Eva Sails Away"-image) like ten times faster.
-- Arttu Voutilainen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Arttu Voutilainen <blizzara.REM0VE7H!S### [at] zbxtSP4MM3Rnet> wrote:
> It's not only the multithreading and compiler. I have only one core (AMD
> 64 3500+) and I compiled my 3.6 from source, with gcc and probalby -O2
> and -march=athlon64 (or w/e they are supposed to be). I think the
> 3.7-b29 was downloaded from povray.org. So, actually 3.6 should probably
> be faster as it was optimized for this CPU, but no - 3.7 is (at least
> for the "Eva Sails Away"-image) like ten times faster.
Optimization for the official 3.7 beta 29 binary is probably -O3, and it comes
optimized for 64 bit as well.
"ten times faster" sounds a bit unlikely to me however. How much time are we
talking about?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
>
> Optimization for the official 3.7 beta 29 binary is probably -O3, and it comes
> optimized for 64 bit as well.
>
> "ten times faster" sounds a bit unlikely to me however. How much time are we
> talking about?
>
I don't remember the times, but the difference was incredible. I guess
Arttu has them written down and will provide them, but I'll add
something: Eva sails away was also rendered (at least partly) on A64 X2
4450e (2,3GHz) with enough memory and C/CXXFLAGS "-march=athlon64 -O1
-pipe" with 3.6 and it took multiple times against the mentioned A64
3500+/3.7.
I also have one possible explanation: IIRC the image uses radiosity and
AFAIK the radiosity implementations differ between 3.6 and 3.7, being
able to create huge differences between render times. Feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Arttu Voutilainen <blizzara.REM0VE7H!S### [at] zbxtSP4MM3Rnet> wrote:
>> It's not only the multithreading and compiler. I have only one core (AMD
>> 64 3500+) and I compiled my 3.6 from source, with gcc and probalby -O2
>> and -march=athlon64 (or w/e they are supposed to be). I think the
>> 3.7-b29 was downloaded from povray.org. So, actually 3.6 should probably
>> be faster as it was optimized for this CPU, but no - 3.7 is (at least
>> for the "Eva Sails Away"-image) like ten times faster.
>
>
> Optimization for the official 3.7 beta 29 binary is probably -O3, and it comes
> optimized for 64 bit as well.
>
> "ten times faster" sounds a bit unlikely to me however. How much time are we
> talking about?
>
>
I just tried: 3.6: 1min 27s vs 3.7b29: 5s
The images look different, but that is caused by different handling of
gamma. Otherwise I can't see any differences in them.
Both used the same scene and same ini. Radiosity was not used, nor focal
blur, nor media. I guess the difference comes from bounding boxes or
something like that, as IIRC it is caused mostly by grass.
-- Arttu Voutilainen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Arttu Voutilainen wrote:
>
> I just tried: 3.6: 1min 27s vs 3.7b29: 5s
That has to be eased down, the production version wasn't nearly that fast.
> Both used the same scene and same ini. Radiosity was not used, nor focal
> blur, nor media. I guess the difference comes from bounding boxes or
> something like that, as IIRC it is caused mostly by grass.
OK, my guess about radiosity difference weren't the answer. Try
disabling the grass, so we'll see? :)
> -- Arttu Voutilainen
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Arttu Voutilainen wrote:
>> I just tried: 3.6: 1min 27s vs 3.7b29: 5s
>
> That has to be eased down, the production version wasn't nearly that fast.
>
Yeah, for production it was like 240 hours with 3.6 for half of the
scene, and 2-3 days for 3.7 for the whole scene (but in a much lower
resolution)..
>> Both used the same scene and same ini. Radiosity was not used, nor focal
>> blur, nor media. I guess the difference comes from bounding boxes or
>> something like that, as IIRC it is caused mostly by grass.
>
> OK, my guess about radiosity difference weren't the answer. Try
> disabling the grass, so we'll see? :)
>
Without grass it comes down to 3.6: 6s vs 3.7: 5s. Those times are the
ones povray itself told me, so that might cause the difference (IIRC 3.7
counts used time somehow differently to 3.6?)
>> -- Arttu Voutilainen
>
> -Aero
-- Arttu Voutilainen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Arttu Voutilainen wrote:
>> I just tried: 3.6: 1min 27s vs 3.7b29: 5s
>
> That has to be eased down, the production version wasn't nearly that fast.
>
>> Both used the same scene and same ini. Radiosity was not used, nor focal
>> blur, nor media. I guess the difference comes from bounding boxes or
>> something like that, as IIRC it is caused mostly by grass.
>
> OK, my guess about radiosity difference weren't the answer. Try
> disabling the grass, so we'll see? :)
>
I tried also with grass disabled and radiosity enabled, and got 3.6: 21s
vs 3.7: 8s.
>> -- Arttu Voutilainen
>
> -Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> > "ten times faster" sounds a bit unlikely to me however. How much time are we
> > talking about?
>
What I meant was, are we talking about seconds vs. tens of seconds, or more like
hours vs. tens of hours?
> I also have one possible explanation: IIRC the image uses radiosity and
> AFAIK the radiosity implementations differ between 3.6 and 3.7, being
> able to create huge differences between render times. Feel free to
> correct me if I'm wrong.
You're not wrong, but I wouldn't attribute too much of a speedup to those
difference. I can only imagine a considerable gain from those if you're using a
high count combined with a high recursion limit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Arttu Voutilainen <blizzara.REM0VE7H!S### [at] zbxtSP4MM3Rnet> wrote:
>
> I just tried: 3.6: 1min 27s vs 3.7b29: 5s
> Both used the same scene and same ini. Radiosity was not used, nor focal
> blur, nor media. I guess the difference comes from bounding boxes or
> something like that, as IIRC it is caused mostly by grass.
>
Speaking strictly of v3.6.1: I've lately noticed that some of my own complex
scenes render *much* faster when setting Bounding=off. I never thought of
trying that trick, and just stumbled onto it. But it does show some kind of
problem/deficiency with auto-bounding. Clipka mentioned in a recent post that
bounding in 3.7 has been re-worked; so perhaps that's one of the reasons for
the speedup.
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Forgot to mention what a gorgeous image this is! The subdued lighting really
sells it. I can't even begin to imagine how much time and thought you put into
this. Your efforts are appreciated!
KW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
