Some major tech sites use povray for their CPU benchmarks. However, they don't
necessarily use the latest builds. For example:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/40

This site is using beta 23, and their numbers seem unusually high. For example,
an Athlon II x4 630 is reported on their site to be 2227 pixels/second. However,
when I run RC3 on my computer (same CPU), I only get 706 pixels/second. I just
want to see how accurate their numbers are.

Post a reply to this message

On 03.09.11 22:44, jhu wrote:
> Some major tech sites use povray for their CPU benchmarks. However, they don't
> necessarily use the latest builds. For example:
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/40
>
> This site is using beta 23, and their numbers seem unusually high. For example,
> an Athlon II x4 630 is reported on their site to be 2227 pixels/second. However,
> when I run RC3 on my computer (same CPU), I only get 706 pixels/second. I just
> want to see how accurate their numbers are.

You cannot compare different betas and their results. Use the current 
release candidate for comparisons. Old betas are not available.

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

> Some major tech sites use povray for their CPU benchmarks. However, they don't
> necessarily use the latest builds. For example:
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/40
>
> This site is using beta 23, and their numbers seem unusually high. For example,
> an Athlon II x4 630 is reported on their site to be 2227 pixels/second. However,
> when I run RC3 on my computer (same CPU), I only get 706 pixels/second. I just
> want to see how accurate their numbers are.
>
>
The key question is:
Do they use the same scene as you are? With the same options?

Post a reply to this message

Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:

> > Some major tech sites use povray for their CPU benchmarks. However, they don't
> > necessarily use the latest builds. For example:
> > http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/40
> >
> > This site is using beta 23, and their numbers seem unusually high. For example,
> > an Athlon II x4 630 is reported on their site to be 2227 pixels/second. However,
> > when I run RC3 on my computer (same CPU), I only get 706 pixels/second. I just
> > want to see how accurate their numbers are.
> >
> >
> The key question is:
> Do they use the same scene as you are? With the same options?

As far as I remember they're using the benchmark menu option.

Post a reply to this message

On 04.09.11 02:38, Alain wrote:

>> Some major tech sites use povray for their CPU benchmarks. However, they
>> don't
>> necessarily use the latest builds. For example:
>> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/40
>>
>> This site is using beta 23, and their numbers seem unusually high. For
>> example,
>> an Athlon II x4 630 is reported on their site to be 2227 pixels/second.
>> However,
>> when I run RC3 on my computer (same CPU), I only get 706 pixels/second. I
>> just
>> want to see how accurate their numbers are.
>>
> The key question is:
> Do they use the same scene as you are? With the same options?

No, that question is not relevant. You cannot compare different betas. No 
knowledge of any option or scene settings can change this. That is all.

	Thorsten, POV-Team

Post a reply to this message

Le 04/09/2011 04:26, jhu nous fit lire :
> Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
>> Le 2011/09/03 16:44, jhu a écrit :
>>> Some major tech sites use povray for their CPU benchmarks. However, they don't
>>> necessarily use the latest builds. For example:
>>> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/40
>>>
>>> This site is using beta 23, and their numbers seem unusually high. For example,
>>> an Athlon II x4 630 is reported on their site to be 2227 pixels/second. However,
>>> when I run RC3 on my computer (same CPU), I only get 706 pixels/second. I just
>>> want to see how accurate their numbers are.
>>>
>>>
>> The key question is:
>> Do they use the same scene as you are? With the same options?
> 
> As far as I remember they're using the benchmark menu option.
> 
> 
Benchmark was in a somehow-light-version in the previous beta (as some
features were not yet fully implemented), so comparing between beta is
not ok.

Just my 0.02€.

And for added tax-value, they are not specifying the compiler.
I got different result between intel and gnu for my 980X:

icpc around 2016 PPS, g++ around 1691 PPS
(these result are bullshit: with 12 threads, icpc take 2:10, g++ take
2:35, but not all threads are still running near the end)

At least with these data, you can adjust the 6424 (that's 40 seconds,
yes, I got to perform that with gnu on earlier beta, as far as I
remember) { with the 1691.)
So their 2227 should be 2227*1691/6424 == 586.
Which is not your result because *you cannot compare between beta*.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/03/2011 09:38 PM, Alain wrote:

>> Some major tech sites use povray for their CPU benchmarks. However,
>> they don't
>> necessarily use the latest builds. For example:
>> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/40
>>
>> This site is using beta 23, and their numbers seem unusually high. For
>> example,
>> an Athlon II x4 630 is reported on their site to be 2227
>> pixels/second. However,
>> when I run RC3 on my computer (same CPU), I only get 706
>> pixels/second. I just
>> want to see how accurate their numbers are.
>>
>>
> The key question is:
> Do they use the same scene as you are? With the same options?
>
>
AFAIK Most folks doing "official" benchmarking use the built-in version 
for testing ... a while back (2010/08/26 - 2010/12/20) changes #5105, 
#5129, #5255, and #5280 were efforts to synchronize the distribution 
scene file and the built-in version. Also (as some others have 
mentioned) there are more than several reasons that make comparing 
results with "older" versions like comparing apples and oranges ;-)

Post a reply to this message