 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This time it's icc 11.1 vs. gcc 4.4.5 on running in 64-bit Debian 6.0 on an
Athlon II x4 @ 2.8 GHz (because that's all I have). Povray 3.6.1 running the
benchmark.pov file.
These are the fastest times I could muster for each compiler:
gcc 4.4.5, -march=barcelona, -ffast-math -unroll-loops
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 1 seconds (1 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 16 seconds (16 seconds)
Render Time: 0 hours 13 minutes 23 seconds (803 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 13 minutes 40 seconds (820 seconds)
icc 11.1, -march=core2
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 1 seconds (1 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 18 seconds (18 seconds)
Render Time: 0 hours 13 minutes 26 seconds (806 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 13 minutes 45 seconds (825 seconds)
And just for fun:
gcc 4.4.5, -march=barcelona -ffast-math -unroll-loops -mfpmath=387
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 1 seconds (1 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 21 seconds (21 seconds)
Render Time: 0 hours 15 minutes 32 seconds (932 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 15 minutes 54 seconds (954 seconds)
Povray official binary
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 1 seconds (1 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 28 seconds (28 seconds)
Render Time: 0 hours 23 minutes 3 seconds (1383 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 23 minutes 32 seconds (1412 seconds)
Looks like gcc and icc are neck and neck, although I've read that icc still
compiles programs that run suboptimal pathways on non-Intel processors.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow. And isn't the 3.7 binary a bit slower than 3.6?
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD <pos### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Wow. And isn't the 3.7 binary a bit slower than 3.6?
>
> --
> http://isometricland.com
I've not tested 3.7. I like doing other things on my computer while running
these things, so I used 3.6
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.06.2011 07:13, schrieb jhu:
> SharkD<pos### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Wow. And isn't the 3.7 binary a bit slower than 3.6?
>>
>> --
>> http://isometricland.com
>
> I've not tested 3.7. I like doing other things on my computer while running
> these things, so I used 3.6
As you obviously have the icpc compiler suit installed, could you do me
a favor and try compiling & running 3.7 nonetheless, and give some feedback?
As for running, I'd be most interested in behaviour regarding photons;
I've been experiencing problems there with icpc-compiled POV-Ray 3.7
ever since, but haven't managed to get any feedback about whether it's a
freak problem limited to my machine or a general issue.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 24.06.2011 07:13, schrieb jhu:
> > SharkD<pos### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> Wow. And isn't the 3.7 binary a bit slower than 3.6?
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://isometricland.com
> >
> > I've not tested 3.7. I like doing other things on my computer while running
> > these things, so I used 3.6
>
> As you obviously have the icpc compiler suit installed, could you do me
> a favor and try compiling & running 3.7 nonetheless, and give some feedback?
>
> As for running, I'd be most interested in behaviour regarding photons;
> I've been experiencing problems there with icpc-compiled POV-Ray 3.7
> ever since, but haven't managed to get any feedback about whether it's a
> freak problem limited to my machine or a general issue.
Okay. Do you want benchmark with resulting image or have me use it in general?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.06.2011 19:15, schrieb jhu:
>> As for running, I'd be most interested in behaviour regarding photons;
>> I've been experiencing problems there with icpc-compiled POV-Ray 3.7
>> ever since, but haven't managed to get any feedback about whether it's a
>> freak problem limited to my machine or a general issue.
>
> Okay. Do you want benchmark with resulting image or have me use it in general?
Thanks for your help. No benchmark needed, please just do some runs of
photons scenes (e.g. scenes/advanced/balcony and
scenes/advanced/optics), keeping your eyes peeled for sporadic (yet from
my experience frequent) crashes in particular.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
jhu <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> These are the fastest times I could muster for each compiler:
> gcc 4.4.5, -march=barcelona, -ffast-math -unroll-loops
> Total Time: 0 hours 13 minutes 40 seconds (820 seconds)
> Povray official binary
> Total Time: 0 hours 23 minutes 32 seconds (1412 seconds)
If you compile a generic 386 binary, but otherwise use the optimizations,
is there any improvement over the official binary?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 24.06.2011 07:13, schrieb jhu:
> > SharkD<pos### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> Wow. And isn't the 3.7 binary a bit slower than 3.6?
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://isometricland.com
> >
> > I've not tested 3.7. I like doing other things on my computer while running
> > these things, so I used 3.6
>
> As you obviously have the icpc compiler suit installed, could you do me
> a favor and try compiling & running 3.7 nonetheless, and give some feedback?
>
> As for running, I'd be most interested in behaviour regarding photons;
> I've been experiencing problems there with icpc-compiled POV-Ray 3.7
> ever since, but haven't managed to get any feedback about whether it's a
> freak problem limited to my machine or a general issue.
Compiling with icc (icpc) gives an error (no error with gcc though):
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/jhu/temp/povray-3.7.0.RC3/source/backend'
icpc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../.. -I../.. -I../../source -I../../source
-I../../source/base -I../../unix -I../../vfe -I../../vfe/unix -pthread
-I/usr/local/include -pipe -Wno-multichar -Wno-write-strings -s -O3 -ip -xHost
-pthread -MT fnpovfpu.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/fnpovfpu.Tpo -c -o fnpovfpu.o `test -f
'vm/fnpovfpu.cpp' || echo './'`vm/fnpovfpu.cpp
.../../source/base/image/colourspace.h(445): warning #1125: overloaded function
"pov_base::GammaCurve::IsNeutral" is hidden by
"pov_base::PowerLawGammaCurve::IsNeutral" -- virtual function override intended?
static bool IsNeutral(float gamma);
^
.../../source/base/image/colourspace.h(464): warning #1125: overloaded function
"pov_base::GammaCurve::IsNeutral" is hidden by
"pov_base::ScaledGammaCurve::IsNeutral" -- virtual function override intended?
static bool IsNeutral(float factor);
^
/usr/include/c++/4.4.5/cmath(500): error: identifier "__builtin_fpclassify" is
undefined
return __builtin_fpclassify(FP_NAN, FP_INFINITE, FP_NORMAL,
^
detected during:
instantiation of
"__gnu_cxx::__enable_if<std::__is_arithmetic<_Tp>::__value, int>::__type
std::fpclassify(_Tp) [with _Tp=float]" at line 65 of
"/usr/local/include/boost/functional/hash/detail/hash_float.hpp"
instantiation of "size_t={unsigned long}
boost::hash_detail::float_hash_value(T) [with T=float]" at line 299 of
"/usr/local/include/boost/functional/hash/hash.hpp"
/usr/include/c++/4.4.5/cmath(500): error: identifier "__builtin_fpclassify" is
undefined
return __builtin_fpclassify(FP_NAN, FP_INFINITE, FP_NORMAL,
^
detected during:
instantiation of
"__gnu_cxx::__enable_if<std::__is_arithmetic<_Tp>::__value, int>::__type
std::fpclassify(_Tp) [with _Tp=long double]" at line 65 of
"/usr/local/include/boost/functional/hash/detail/hash_float.hpp"
instantiation of "size_t={unsigned long}
boost::hash_detail::float_hash_value(T) [with T=long double]" at line 309 of
"/usr/local/include/boost/functional/hash/hash.hpp"
compilation aborted for vm/fnpovfpu.cpp (code 2)
make[3]: *** [fnpovfpu.o] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/jhu/temp/povray-3.7.0.RC3/source/backend'
make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/jhu/temp/povray-3.7.0.RC3/source'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jhu/temp/povray-3.7.0.RC3'
make: *** [all] Error 2
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: It's that time again: icc vs. gcc
Date: 27 Jun 2011 11:21:37
Message: <4e08a001@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27.06.11 06:18, jhu wrote:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 24.06.2011 07:13, schrieb jhu:
>>> SharkD<pos### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Wow. And isn't the 3.7 binary a bit slower than 3.6?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://isometricland.com
>>>
>>> I've not tested 3.7. I like doing other things on my computer while running
>>> these things, so I used 3.6
>>
>> As you obviously have the icpc compiler suit installed, could you do me
>> a favor and try compiling& running 3.7 nonetheless, and give some feedback?
>>
>> As for running, I'd be most interested in behaviour regarding photons;
>> I've been experiencing problems there with icpc-compiled POV-Ray 3.7
>> ever since, but haven't managed to get any feedback about whether it's a
>> freak problem limited to my machine or a general issue.
>
> Compiling with icc (icpc) gives an error (no error with gcc though):
>
> make[3]: Entering directory `/home/jhu/temp/povray-3.7.0.RC3/source/backend'
> icpc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../.. -I../.. -I../../source -I../../source
> -I../../source/base -I../../unix -I../../vfe -I../../vfe/unix -pthread
> -I/usr/local/include -pipe -Wno-multichar -Wno-write-strings -s -O3 -ip -xHost
> -pthread -MT fnpovfpu.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/fnpovfpu.Tpo -c -o fnpovfpu.o `test -f
> 'vm/fnpovfpu.cpp' || echo './'`vm/fnpovfpu.cpp
> .../../source/base/image/colourspace.h(445): warning #1125: overloaded function
> "pov_base::GammaCurve::IsNeutral" is hidden by
> "pov_base::PowerLawGammaCurve::IsNeutral" -- virtual function override intended?
> static bool IsNeutral(float gamma);
> ^
>
> .../../source/base/image/colourspace.h(464): warning #1125: overloaded function
> "pov_base::GammaCurve::IsNeutral" is hidden by
> "pov_base::ScaledGammaCurve::IsNeutral" -- virtual function override intended?
> static bool IsNeutral(float factor);
> ^
>
> /usr/include/c++/4.4.5/cmath(500): error: identifier "__builtin_fpclassify" is
> undefined
> return __builtin_fpclassify(FP_NAN, FP_INFINITE, FP_NORMAL,
> ^
> detected during:
> instantiation of
> "__gnu_cxx::__enable_if<std::__is_arithmetic<_Tp>::__value, int>::__type
> std::fpclassify(_Tp) [with _Tp=float]" at line 65 of
> "/usr/local/include/boost/functional/hash/detail/hash_float.hpp"
> instantiation of "size_t={unsigned long}
> boost::hash_detail::float_hash_value(T) [with T=float]" at line 299 of
> "/usr/local/include/boost/functional/hash/hash.hpp"
>
> /usr/include/c++/4.4.5/cmath(500): error: identifier "__builtin_fpclassify" is
> undefined
> return __builtin_fpclassify(FP_NAN, FP_INFINITE, FP_NORMAL,
> ^
> detected during:
> instantiation of
> "__gnu_cxx::__enable_if<std::__is_arithmetic<_Tp>::__value, int>::__type
> std::fpclassify(_Tp) [with _Tp=long double]" at line 65 of
> "/usr/local/include/boost/functional/hash/detail/hash_float.hpp"
> instantiation of "size_t={unsigned long}
> boost::hash_detail::float_hash_value(T) [with T=long double]" at line 309 of
> "/usr/local/include/boost/functional/hash/hash.hpp"
Did you rebuild boost with icc first? This looks like boost is configured
for gcc, while the compiler is of course icc.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Did you rebuild boost with icc first? This looks like boost is configured
> for gcc, while the compiler is of course icc.
>
> Thorsten
Ok, guess I'll try that next.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
