 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Before I post my actual timings, I'd just like to air my preliminary gut
reaction that my properly-installed/downloaded 3.5 binary on Libranet
Linux (chiefly based on Debian woody, with 2.4.x kernel) running on a
Celeron 400 with 128 MB RAM, is SLOWER than the Povray 3.0.xx .deb that
came with Debian potato. I may have to revert, unless I can be
convinced otherwise. (I'm not an advanced user, and I'm struggling
along on one particular project, so I may not even notice the
improvements for awhile....
Also, my quality param. (Q2 for rough views just to check obj.
placement) doesn't seem to make any difference. Should I copy a
povray.ini to my home dir. and tweak it for my usual settings?
TIA as always,
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Try downloading the source and compiling it.
Due to a human mistake the official binary was compiled with no
optimizations, which makes it awfully slow. (I don't know if an updated
binary has already been made available.)
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Try downloading the source and compiling it.
> Due to a human mistake the official binary was compiled with no
> optimizations, which makes it awfully slow. (I don't know if an updated
> binary has already been made available.)
>
I noticed Mark Gordon posted a note about placing a new Linux binary
up to address the I/O restriction problem. I downloaded it a little while
ago and ran benchmark.pov on it and it is a lot faster than the older
non-optimized version was. It's not as fast as can be achieved with
doing your own compile using various optimization settings but it's
a definite improvement. Thanks Mark :)
Times are as follows:
Windows prebuilt = 25m 48s (1548s)
older Linux prebuilt = 55m 40s (3340s)
new (8/7) Linux prebuilt = 34m 10s (2050s)
gcc3 athlon optimized = 24m 19s (1459s)
-Roz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Aug 2002 23:40:41 -0400, Roz wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Try downloading the source and compiling it. Due to a human mistake
>> the official binary was compiled with no
>> optimizations, which makes it awfully slow. (I don't know if an updated
>> binary has already been made available.)
>>
>>
> I noticed Mark Gordon posted a note about placing a new Linux binary up
> to address the I/O restriction problem. I downloaded it a little while
> ago and ran benchmark.pov on it and it is a lot faster than the older
> non-optimized version was. It's not as fast as can be achieved with
> doing your own compile using various optimization settings but it's a
> definite improvement. Thanks Mark :)
>
> Times are as follows:
>
> Windows prebuilt = 25m 48s (1548s) older Linux prebuilt =
> 55m 40s (3340s) new (8/7) Linux prebuilt = 34m 10s (2050s) gcc3 athlon
> optimized = 24m 19s (1459s)
>
> -Roz
The error Warp notes in the original binary has been fixed in the updated
one. Additional optimizations (e.g. Pentium II optimizations) may
sacrifice portability, so I'm not using them in the official binary at
this point.
-Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Gordon wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Aug 2002 23:40:41 -0400, Roz wrote:
> The error Warp notes in the original binary has been fixed in the updated
> one. Additional optimizations (e.g. Pentium II optimizations) may
> sacrifice portability, so I'm not using them in the official binary at
> this point.
>
> -Mark Gordon
Thought ya did that based on the speed I saw last night when rendering
benchmark.pov with the new binary (dated 8/7). I agree with the need
to keep it portable. That's probably why it's statically linked too.
Even so, your "compatible" optimizations improved the speed from
55m to 34m. I think that's a really good improvement!
You could also try the Intel compiler at some point if you're feeling
adventurous. From looking at Micha's speed postings, the Intel compile
was a bit faster than the gcc one.
-Roz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
But for those of us who don't know our way around source code, how easy
is it to find the file(s) to optimize, and make the appropriate
changes. I'm not just a newbie to POV, I'm a total stranger in a
strange land when it comes to hacking.
Is "rolling my own" a realistic option, then?
--Mark W.
Roz wrote:
>
> Warp wrote:
> > Try downloading the source and compiling it.
> > Due to a human mistake the official binary was compiled with no
> > optimizations, which makes it awfully slow. (I don't know if an updated
> > binary has already been made available.)
> >
>
> I noticed Mark Gordon posted a note about placing a new Linux binary
> up to address the I/O restriction problem. I downloaded it a little while
> ago and ran benchmark.pov on it and it is a lot faster than the older
> non-optimized version was. It's not as fast as can be achieved with
> doing your own compile using various optimization settings but it's
> a definite improvement. Thanks Mark :)
>
> Times are as follows:
>
> Windows prebuilt = 25m 48s (1548s)
> older Linux prebuilt = 55m 40s (3340s)
> new (8/7) Linux prebuilt = 34m 10s (2050s)
> gcc3 athlon optimized = 24m 19s (1459s)
>
> -Roz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark M. Wilson wrote:
> But for those of us who don't know our way around source code, how easy
> is it to find the file(s) to optimize, and make the appropriate
> changes. I'm not just a newbie to POV, I'm a total stranger in a
> strange land when it comes to hacking.
> Is "rolling my own" a realistic option, then?
> --Mark W.
If you're unfamiliar with Makefiles and editing source files, such as
optout.h, then it would probably be easier for you to download and
use one of the prebuilt optimized binaries others have provided rather
than roll your own. Or at the very least, try downloading and installing
the new Linux binary from:
http://www.povray.org/download
It will be much faster than what you currently have and installation
should be straightforward (instructions are on the download page).
Micha Riser has provided some prebuilt binaries at the following url:
http://www.povworld.org/povray/binaries.html
Unfortunately, I cannot pull this page up right now to see what cpus
have been targeted. You have a Celeron and I'm not sure if the Pentium
optimized ones will work. It won't hurt to try though (except for
bandwidth). Just extract a prebuilt binary into its own directory and
run it from there with './povray [options] [scene-file]' (no quotes).
But at the very least, try the new one from POV-Ray's site and save
yourself some rendering time.
-Roz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Roz wrote:
>
> Micha Riser has provided some prebuilt binaries at the following url:
>
> http://www.povworld.org/povray/binaries.html
>
> Unfortunately, I cannot pull this page up right now to see what cpus
> have been targeted.
Unfortunately the server's connection is broken and I have no physical
access to it till Monday :( So be a bit patient.
> You have a Celeron and I'm not sure if the Pentium
> optimized ones will work. It won't hurt to try though (except for
> bandwidth). Just extract a prebuilt binary into its own directory and
> run it from there with './povray [options] [scene-file]' (no quotes).
I am not sure if the Pentium III-optimized binary runs on Celerons but I
suppose it does (at least on some, AFAIK there are quite some different
sub-types of Celeron CPUs). Otherwise there is also a version for generic
pentium compatible cpus (which probably is still quite a bit faster than
the new official).
- Micha
--
http://objects.povworld.org - the POV-Ray Objects Collection
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks! But now the power supply on my box is dead, so it will be
awhile.... >:-(
--Mark W.
Roz wrote:
>
> Mark M. Wilson wrote:
> > But for those of us who don't know our way around source code, how easy
> > is it to find the file(s) to optimize, and make the appropriate
> > changes. I'm not just a newbie to POV, I'm a total stranger in a
> > strange land when it comes to hacking.
> > Is "rolling my own" a realistic option, then?
> > --Mark W.
>
> If you're unfamiliar with Makefiles and editing source files, such as
> optout.h, then it would probably be easier for you to download and
> use one of the prebuilt optimized binaries others have provided rather
> than roll your own. Or at the very least, try downloading and installing
> the new Linux binary from:
>
> http://www.povray.org/download
>
> It will be much faster than what you currently have and installation
> should be straightforward (instructions are on the download page).
>
> Micha Riser has provided some prebuilt binaries at the following url:
>
> http://www.povworld.org/povray/binaries.html
>
> Unfortunately, I cannot pull this page up right now to see what cpus
> have been targeted. You have a Celeron and I'm not sure if the Pentium
> optimized ones will work. It won't hurt to try though (except for
> bandwidth). Just extract a prebuilt binary into its own directory and
> run it from there with './povray [options] [scene-file]' (no quotes).
>
> But at the very least, try the new one from POV-Ray's site and save
> yourself some rendering time.
>
> -Roz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Roz wrote:
>
Just extract a prebuilt binary into its own directory and
> run it from there with './povray [options] [scene-file]' (no quotes).
>
Ugh, would I always have to run it from its own directory? I suppose
adding said dir. would be too confusing, assuming I hadn't uninstalled
the other binary, and that's the reason?
> But at the very least, try the new one from POV-Ray's site and save
> yourself some rendering time.
Am I correct in thinking that the new on the POV-Ray site is a "revised"
3.5?
--Mark W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mark M. Wilson" wrote:
> I suppose
> adding said dir. would be too confusing...
I meant, "adding said dir. _TO MY PATH_ :-)
--Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark M. Wilson wrote:
>
>
> Roz wrote:
>>
> Just extract a prebuilt binary into its own directory and
>> run it from there with './povray [options] [scene-file]' (no quotes).
>>
>
> Ugh, would I always have to run it from its own directory?
No, you can also specify the ful path e.g. if you have unpacked it into
/home/testuser/thisdirectory/ then call it with
/home/testuser/thisdirectory/povray
> I suppose
> adding said dir. would be too confusing, assuming I hadn't uninstalled
> the other binary, and that's the reason?
You could just copy it into a directory that is already in your path, e.g.
/usr/local/bin/. But don't call it 'povray' then when you want to keep the
original. My new binaries have different names anyways (like
povray.pentium3) so there will be no problem.
> Am I correct in thinking that the new on the POV-Ray site is a "revised"
> 3.5?
Yes, the new official binary is faster but still quite a bit slower than
mines. A quick test on chess2.pov gave:
old official binary: 181s
new official binary: 134s
my generic-pentium binary: 109s
my pentium III binary: 96s
my pentium3 icc binary: 79s
BTW: povworld.org is back up!
- Micha
--
http://objects.povworld.org - the POV-Ray Objects Collection
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Another note: My 'pentium' binary should work on all pentium compatible
CPUs, that is all AMDs (k6, athlon, duron, xp) and of course all intels
(celeron, pentium I / II / III, pentium4) - just on everything that claims
to be pentium compatible (I don't think anybody wants to do ray-tracing on
a non-pentium compatible x86 cpu anymore.)
--
http://objects.povworld.org - the POV-Ray Objects Collection
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark M. Wilson <mmw### [at] ncsl dcrstatencus> wrote:
>> I suppose
>> adding said dir. would be too confusing...
> I meant, "adding said dir. _TO MY PATH_ :-)
Why would it be too confusing?
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark M. Wilson wrote:
>
> Roz wrote:
>
> Just extract a prebuilt binary into its own directory and
>
>>run it from there with './povray [options] [scene-file]' (no quotes).
>>
>
>
> Ugh, would I always have to run it from its own directory? I suppose
> adding said dir. would be too confusing, assuming I hadn't uninstalled
> the other binary, and that's the reason?
The only reason was just a safeguard for testing purposes. If it does
work good for you then you can copy it over to one of your default
paths such as:
cp /pathto/testbinary/povray /usr/local/bin/povray.fast
Then you can invoke it with just 'povray.fast [options] ...'. You can
overwrite it if you prefer or move the current binary to a backup
like 'mv /usr/local/bin/povray /usr/local/bin/povray.snail' prior to
copying the faster binary into the /usr/local/bin directory. This is
what I did because I'm used to typing 'povray ...' to render stuff
but I didn't want to lose the original file in case of problems or
to run a benchmark comparison.
>
>>But at the very least, try the new one from POV-Ray's site and save
>>yourself some rendering time.
>
>
> Am I correct in thinking that the new on the POV-Ray site is a "revised"
> 3.5?
Yep. However, I agree with Micha Riser about the Pentium optimized ones
being even faster than the new official binary. Read Micha's replies to
your posts and check out the Pentium compatible optimized binary.
-Roz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
>
> Why would it be too confusing?
>
Because I'd end up having two POV binaries on the system, and if the
paths to both of them were in my PATH, then bash would not know which
one I wanted and, well, I don't really know what it would do...
I've never had conflicting binaries on my system, I don't think. I'm
too G-D lazy to type a whole path, although Roz's response about
povray.fast and povray.snail gives me ideas about aliases....
-Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Roz wrote:
>
> Yep. However, I agree with Micha Riser about the Pentium optimized ones
> being even faster than the new official binary. Read Micha's replies to
> your posts and check out the Pentium compatible optimized binary.
>
Will do. Much obliged, thanks!
--Mark W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark M. Wilson <mmw### [at] ncsldcrstatencus> wrote:
> Because I'd end up having two POV binaries on the system
POV-Ray binaries don't need to be called 'povray'. You can rename them
to whatever you like.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Also useful. :-] Thanks!
-Mark W.
Warp wrote:
>
> Mark M. Wilson <mmw### [at] ncsldcrstatencus> wrote:
> > Because I'd end up having two POV binaries on the system
>
> POV-Ray binaries don't need to be called 'povray'. You can rename them
> to whatever you like.
>
> --
> #macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
> N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
> N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
