 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Margus Ramst" <mar### [at] peak eduee> wrote:
> It's been a while since I did Windows vs Linux POV benchmars, but IIRC
> after tweaking gcc settings and recompiling, I got concistently better
> results in Linux.
>
I should add that I invariably found the s-povray target to be the slowest,
with console povray and x-povray exhibiting roughly equal performance.
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
May be you know it already, at http://students.washington.edu/sschmitt/pov/
you can download a PIII and a P4 optimized compilation of POVRAY (and a list
of benchmarks) for Windows. I guess they are much faster than compilations
for Linux. Don't beat me. I use Linux every Day and I like it but the
Windows Compilations are still faster.
Andreas Tillner
http://www.tabsnet.com/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> It's been a while since I did Windows vs Linux POV benchmars, but IIRC after
> tweaking gcc settings and recompiling, I got concistently better results in
> Linux.
And what were these settings, please?
--
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau@free.fr
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Adrien Beau" <adr### [at] sycomorefr> wrote:
> And what were these settings, please?
>
>
Well, here's the CFLAGS I have in the POV31 makefile (minus the system
version & library paths options); some may actually be redundant with the
-O3 option.
This is meant to work with gcc-2.96, so some flags might not be supported
in 2.95. The options are supposedly Athlon-optimized, although I suspect
the -march=athlon flag probably doesn't do anything useful before gcc-3.0
-O3 -Dstricmp=strcasecmp -finline-functions -ffast-math -c -ansi
-DCPU=athlon -s -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -march=athlon -malign-functions=4
-funroll-loops -fexpensive-optimizations -malign-double -fschedule-insns2
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> Well, here's the CFLAGS I have in the POV31 makefile (minus the system
> version & library paths options); some may actually be redundant with the
> -O3 option.
A simple way to check (if ever you bother) if an option actually
does something, is to remove it, recompile, and compare the
binaries (diff -s new-povray old-povray). :-)
--
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau@free.fr
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Adrien Beau" <adr### [at] sycomorefr> wrote:
>
> A simple way to check (if ever you bother) if an option actually does
> something, is to remove it, recompile, and compare the binaries (diff -s
> new-povray old-povray). :-)
>
Sure, but who cares?
If it improves things, it stays; if not - out it goes.
Simple as that ;)
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Daniel Michalik wrote:
>
> skyvase is in my opinion obsolete benchmark because scene is quite simple
> and on fast machines measures eficiency of underlaying IO subsystem, wchich
> is on Linux faster :-)
> woodbox is computationally more intensive and that is why Windows version is
> better.
>
Any idea about a new POV classic-benchmarks for this kind
of studies about cpu/compilers/etc ?
--
Thierry, 42++
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I bet this has been discussed a lot of times. This is not
difficult in theory : one scene per pov object, scenes with
lots of reflexion/refraction, scenes with radiosity, scenes
with scripts that do lot of file I/O (where Linux seems to
shine more than Windows), etc. Then render all the images
and look at the time.
Look at the time... This is the problem. Because it is
likely to be much too long for the vast majority of
people.
--
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau@free.fr
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Adrian wrote:
>Several days ago, in the French POV-Ray newsgroup,
>Martin Depardieu, a newcommer to Linux, complained
>that he found the Linux POV-Ray version much slower
>than its Windows counterpart.
Well, when some years ago I migrated to Linux, I haven't done it
*only* for speed reasons. When I tested some of my *real* scenes it
showed to be at least 5% faster on most scenes (with the official Linux
binaries and RH 6.2 standard) than the windows version, and practically
the same as the DOS version. But I've decided to use Linux for
raytracing mainly bcos I wanted stability. And that's what I got: lots
of stability. The best example is my last machine, and AMD 1.2Ghz: Linux
runs on it without any problem, but windows even refuses to install
(suwin errors). So, I don't care if it is faster, bcos it's not what I
look for... :)
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>
> So, I don't care if it is faster, bcos it's not what I
> look for... :)
I don't care (much) about the speed between the OSes. What I
wanted is top speed under Linux. Even if that top speed is
"worse" than Windows, I don't care. My experimentation was
how to bring the Linux version to maximum speed. Linux allows
you to easily recompile the programs in order to get better
performance, so why not do it? It was not yet another
Linux-is-better-that-xxx idea.
Sorry, the above paragraph is a bit confused, but I'm in
a hurry.
--
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau@free.fr
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
