 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dear All:
I have some trouble when I configure POVRAY-3.5 on Redhad 7.3
As I type make, some error messages coming up as following:
.....
In file included from bbox.cpp:47:
optout.h:76: syntax error before `extern'
.....
I had change line 49 in file "optout.h" like this:
#define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled by:"
Jong
#define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_2 "FILL IN NAME HERE...."
#define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_3 "The POV-Ray Team(tm) is not responsible for
supporting this version."
Is there any error in my configuration?
How should I do to solve the problem?
Thanks for the Help!
Jong
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Your syntax error is here :
#define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled by:"
Jong <=====
it should be :
#define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled
by: Jong"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gRRosminet <pov### [at] les-charles net> wrote:
> Your syntax error is here :
>
> #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled by:"
> Jong <=====
>
> it should be :
> #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled
> by: Jong"
Thanks a lot! I pass that problem.
But now new troble coming up.
The error message say that:
.....
jpeg_pov.cpp:142:21: jpeglib.h: No such file or directory
make[1]: *** [jpeg_pov.o] Error 1
.....
It looks like that I don't have jpeglib.h in my OS.
Is it possible to ignore this error message?
Where can I find jpeglib.h to make the install pass?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
you'll need to install the jpeg, png and tiff libs with developpement
(frequently named "-devel") packages otherwise you won't be able to
compile/link povray. All these may be available on your distrib's CDs.
As config files are cached by ./configure, you may need to completly
delete the directory and re-extract the archive.
jong wrote:
> gRRosminet <pov### [at] les-charlesnet> wrote:
>
>>Your syntax error is here :
>>
>>#define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled by:"
>>Jong <=====
>>
>>it should be :
>>#define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled
>>by: Jong"
>
>
> Thanks a lot! I pass that problem.
> But now new troble coming up.
> The error message say that:
>
> .....
> jpeg_pov.cpp:142:21: jpeglib.h: No such file or directory
> make[1]: *** [jpeg_pov.o] Error 1
> .....
>
> It looks like that I don't have jpeglib.h in my OS.
> Is it possible to ignore this error message?
> Where can I find jpeglib.h to make the install pass?
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled by:"
> Jong
> #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_2 "FILL IN NAME HERE...."
> #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_3 "The POV-Ray Team(tm) is not responsible for
> supporting this version."
Given what you did above, I'd suggest you do not try compiling povray,
but rather use the official Linux binary that should work on your RedHat distro.
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled
> by: Jong"
No, the correct answer is to fill in DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_2,
which is clearly stated as "FILL IN NAME HERE....".
Fortunately this *very basic and documented* stuff will simply
vanish in 3.6...
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Calimet wrote:
> Given what you did above, I'd suggest you do not try compiling povray,
> but rather use the official Linux binary that should work on your RedHat
> distro.
>
> - NC
>
On the contrary, he should compile Povray because he doesn't it will bee
very very slow (optimized for pentium 1) whereas using an optimized
version can improve performances by 50% !!! (to do this, you'll need to
modify the Makefile => ask for it when you'll be ready)
There is no matter in compiling povray or something else even if you
don't know how to do ! remember that you didn't know how to do at the
begining, but you have learn it ! why wouldn't he be able to learn it too ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> very very slow (optimized for pentium 1) whereas using an optimized
> version can improve performances by 50% !!!
You mean that the official binary was compiled with no optimization
at all ? (frankly I never tried it)
> (to do this, you'll need to
> modify the Makefile => ask for it when you'll be ready)
May I ?
Ok, go on, I'm ready ;-)
> There is no matter in compiling povray or something else even if you
> don't know how to do ! remember that you didn't know how to do at the
> begining, but you have learn it ! why wouldn't he be able to learn it too ?
I simply made a very straightforward assumption: if someone makes
such an obvious mistake (as seen in the initial post), it is very likely
that he/she will have lots of trouble to compile povray at all, given
that the build system in the source of 3.50c is far from being complete
is known to have serious flaws (especially if you try to use it on anything
but a Linux box, which is actually the case here).
Yet I admit that trying is indeed a good way to learn things, but
it'll most likely take quite some time. This is not necessarily what Jong
is asking for (just a guess from his posts).
But I should not make assumptions anyway, that's not a good idea
in general, and when programming in particular :-)
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> the build system in the source of 3.50c is far from being complete
> is known to have serious flaws (especially if you try to use it on anything
> but a Linux box, which is actually the case here).
I should not only avoid making assumptions, but also read again
before posting. So, add an "and" at the end of the first line, and
replace "actually" by "fortunately not" :-)
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Calimet wrote:
>> very very slow (optimized for pentium 1) whereas using an optimized
>> version can improve performances by 50% !!!
>
>
> You mean that the official binary was compiled with no optimization
> at all ? (frankly I never tried it)
There has been an early 3.5 official binary version compiled without
optimization but the current official version is compiled with -O3. And
as you also observed some time ago the speed advantage with using more
fancy (processor specific and possibly faulty) optimizations is
marginal. There is absolutely no need to compile POV-Ray from source
just for the speed advantage (to actually save time this way, even if
you have experience compiling programs yourself, you will have to render
quite a lot of very slow scenes).
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gRRosminet wrote:
> As config files are cached by ./configure, you may need to completly
> delete the directory and re-extract the archive.
>
No. Juste delete "config.cache" can do the job...
--
http://tth.vaboofer.com/Cette/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Nicolas Calimet wrote:
>
>>> very very slow (optimized for pentium 1) whereas using an optimized
>>> version can improve performances by 50% !!!
>>
>>
>>
>> You mean that the official binary was compiled with no optimization
>> at all ? (frankly I never tried it)
>
>
> There has been an early 3.5 official binary version compiled without
> optimization but the current official version is compiled with -O3. And
> as you also observed some time ago the speed advantage with using more
> fancy (processor specific and possibly faulty) optimizations is
> marginal. There is absolutely no need to compile POV-Ray from source
> just for the speed advantage (to actually save time this way, even if
> you have experience compiling programs yourself, you will have to render
> quite a lot of very slow scenes).
>
> Christoph
>
If you take a look at the generated Makefile, povray is compiled with
march=i586. This is why the official binary is so slow : it doesn't take
advantage of SSE/SSE2/3DNow2 instructions which are really faster than
standards ones and which can be executed at the same time than other
standard ones.
If you have an athlon thunderbird and compile povray with -march=athlon
instead of -march=i586, you'll get a povray running about 30% faster
than the original one. So I let you imagine what you can get with a
athlon xp or pentium 4 optimized version.
>> (to do this, you'll need to modify the Makefile => ask for it when
you'll be ready)
> May I ?
> Ok, go on, I'm ready
on a clean extraction, you can change this parameters just after the
./configure : edit the Makefile and look for the line that begin with
CFLAGS. The mcpu=i586 and march=i586 options can be replaced by the ones
corresponding to your computer (i686, athlon, pentium3, athlon-xp,
pentium4 ... take a look at gcc man page).
the CXXFLAGS line should be replaced by CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
That's all !
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gRRosminet wrote:
>
> If you take a look at the generated Makefile, povray is compiled with
> march=i586. This is why the official binary is so slow : it doesn't take
> advantage of SSE/SSE2/3DNow2 instructions which are really faster than
> standards ones and which can be executed at the same time than other
> standard ones.
> If you have an athlon thunderbird and compile povray with -march=athlon
> instead of -march=i586, you'll get a povray running about 30% faster
> than the original one. So I let you imagine what you can get with a
> athlon xp or pentium 4 optimized version.
No, i am pretty sure when you get such results you have not made a
serious comparison. When you come up with such numbers it would be
adequate to back them up with some benchmark results and offer the used
executables for others to verify.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> povray is compiled with
> march=i586. This is why the official binary is so slow : it doesn't take
> advantage of SSE/SSE2/3DNow2 instructions which are really faster than
> standards ones
To take advantage of such specialized instructions, you have to
make your program _use_ them, which is not the case in povray because its
code is mostly doing (double precision) floating-point arithmetics.
> If you have an athlon thunderbird and compile povray with -march=athlon
> instead of -march=i586, you'll get a povray running about 30% faster
> than the original one.
Please report results of running benchmark.ini with a version
compiled using -march=i586 and another with -march=athlon, using the
same compiler of course.
> [snip]
> the CXXFLAGS line should be replaced by CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
> That's all !
"Thanks for teaching" (private joke) :-)
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <40b217d1$1@news.povray.org> , Nicolas Calimet
<pov### [at] freefr> wrote:
> "Thanks for teaching" (private joke) :-)
Wasn't that "lecturing"? ;-)
(Someone who knows what this joke was about.)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> No, i am pretty sure when you get such results you have not made a
> serious comparison. When you come up with such numbers it would be
> adequate to back them up with some benchmark results and offer the used
> executables for others to verify.
>
> Christoph
I have downloaded the official binary for linux and ran the benchmark.
Official : 45 minutes 08 seconds ( 2708 seconds )
gcc pentium4 optimized : 36 minutes 43 seconds ( 2203 seconds )
ICC pentium4 optimized : 33 minutes 01 seconds ( 1981 seconds )
ratios (official / optimized) :
Official : 1
gcc pentium4 optimized : 1.229
icc pentium4 optimized : 1.367
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <40b229f2@news.povray.org> , gRRosminet <pov### [at] les-charlesnet>
wrote:
> I have downloaded the official binary for linux and ran the benchmark.
>
> Official : 45 minutes 08 seconds ( 2708 seconds )
> gcc pentium4 optimized : 36 minutes 43 seconds ( 2203 seconds )
> ICC pentium4 optimized : 33 minutes 01 seconds ( 1981 seconds )
And the gcc and Intel C++ compiler versions happen to be?
I suppose they were more recent versions of the compiler used for the
official version two years ago? If so, your statement about optimisations
happens to have no validity at all...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <40b229f2@news.povray.org> , gRRosminet <pov### [at] les-charlesnet>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I have downloaded the official binary for linux and ran the benchmark.
>>
>>Official : 45 minutes 08 seconds ( 2708 seconds )
>>gcc pentium4 optimized : 36 minutes 43 seconds ( 2203 seconds )
>>ICC pentium4 optimized : 33 minutes 01 seconds ( 1981 seconds )
>
>
> And the gcc and Intel C++ compiler versions happen to be?
>
> I suppose they were more recent versions of the compiler used for the
> official version two years ago? If so, your statement about optimisations
> happens to have no validity at all...
I unsubscribe povray.unix.
I should have done it way before, just as I has already done for most
official ngs. Nobody in the community needs this kind of permanent
aggressivity. Please try to get a life.
--
François DISPOT -- http://www.wozzeck.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <40b22c37$1@news.povray.org> , Fran�ois Dispot
<woz### [at] club-internetfr> wrote:
>>>I have downloaded the official binary for linux and ran the benchmark.
>>>
>>>Official : 45 minutes 08 seconds ( 2708 seconds )
>>>gcc pentium4 optimized : 36 minutes 43 seconds ( 2203 seconds )
>>>ICC pentium4 optimized : 33 minutes 01 seconds ( 1981 seconds )
>>
>>
>> And the gcc and Intel C++ compiler versions happen to be?
>>
>> I suppose they were more recent versions of the compiler used for the
>> official version two years ago? If so, your statement about optimisations
>> happens to have no validity at all...
>
> I unsubscribe povray.unix.
>
> I should have done it way before, just as I has already done for most
> official ngs. Nobody in the community needs this kind of permanent
> aggressivity. Please try to get a life.
There is not a single aggressive word in my statement at all. Yet, you
start a personal insult out of thin air. If you don't want to read simple
questions and plain statements about obvious facts, I suppose to unsubscribe
is indeed the only way to go.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Official : 45 minutes 08 seconds ( 2708 seconds )
> gcc pentium4 optimized : 36 minutes 43 seconds ( 2203 seconds )
> ICC pentium4 optimized : 33 minutes 01 seconds ( 1981 seconds )
As was implied by Thorsten's answer, to make a reliable comparison
you cannot simply use the two-years-old official binary, which was probably
compiled at best with gcc-3.1.x. You should take the source and recompile
them with the gcc you are using to produce your pentium4-optimized version.
Also please report the gcc and icc versions as well as the details
of processor and OS on which you run the benchmarks. Also be sure to render
the benchmark.ini file (and its accompagnying benchmark.pov scene) available
on povray.org at http://www.povray.org/download/benchmark.php
Please note there is no agressivity at all in this suggestion:
I'm actually quite interested in seeing such results -- when benchmarks
are made properly.
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Calimet wrote:
>> Official : 45 minutes 08 seconds ( 2708 seconds )
>> gcc pentium4 optimized : 36 minutes 43 seconds ( 2203 seconds )
>> ICC pentium4 optimized : 33 minutes 01 seconds ( 1981 seconds )
>
>
> As was implied by Thorsten's answer, to make a reliable comparison
> you cannot simply use the two-years-old official binary, which was probably
> compiled at best with gcc-3.1.x. You should take the source and recompile
> them with the gcc you are using to produce your pentium4-optimized version.
Pentium 1 (i586) is about 8 years old, so I don't think it still is in
developpement, but I'll recompile it to get better comparison data.
> Also please report the gcc and icc versions as well as the details
> of processor and OS on which you run the benchmarks.
gcc is :
gcc (GCC) 3.2.2 (Mandrake Linux 9.1 3.2.2-3mdk)
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
and ICC is v8.0
> Also be sure to
> render
> the benchmark.ini file (and its accompagnying benchmark.pov scene)
> available
> on povray.org at http://www.povray.org/download/benchmark.php
Of course it is ! that's the first thing I have done !
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Also be sure to render
>> the benchmark.ini file (and its accompagnying benchmark.pov scene)
>> available
>> on povray.org at http://www.povray.org/download/benchmark.php
>
> Of course it is ! that's the first thing I have done !
It was not so obvious from my point since benchmark.ini is not
distributed with the povray-3.50c source code (only benchmark.pov).
Thanks for doing the benchs.
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message >
> And the gcc and Intel C++ compiler versions happen to be?
>
> I suppose they were more recent versions of the compiler used for the
> official version two years ago? If so, your statement about optimisations
> happens to have no validity at all...
>
> Thorsten
>
They might have no validity from a true benchmarking perspective. However
they illustrate that compiling the source with a recent compiler can improve
performance when compared to using the official binary distribution. While
it is helpfull to understand where exactly the performance gain is comming
from, to me that is secondary to the fact that there is a performance gain.
I can understand how you want to make sure benchmarks are really comparing
apples to apples.
-ross
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Calimet wrote:
>>> Also be sure to render
>>> the benchmark.ini file (and its accompagnying benchmark.pov scene)
>>> available
>>> on povray.org at http://www.povray.org/download/benchmark.php
>>
>>
>> Of course it is ! that's the first thing I have done !
>
>
> It was not so obvious from my point since benchmark.ini is not
> distributed with the povray-3.50c source code (only benchmark.pov).
>
> Thanks for doing the benchs.
>
> - NC
>
In fact, I didn't know how to run the benchmark and that's why I have
look for this immediately
The test with povray compiled without optimisations on my pc has just
ended : 45 minutes 13.0 seconds (2713 seconds)
3 seconds longer : this is not signifiant.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The test with povray compiled without optimisations on my pc has just
> ended : 45 minutes 13.0 seconds (2713 seconds)
>
> 3 seconds longer : this is not signifiant.
So if I understand you correctly, you do obtain:
gcc 3.2.2 -march=i586 : 45 minutes 13 seconds ( 2713 seconds )
gcc 3.2.2 -march=pentium4 : 36 minutes 43 seconds ( 2203 seconds )
icc 8.0 -tpp7 : 33 minutes 01 seconds ( 1981 seconds )
Is this right ?
I'd be interested if you could post the full gcc/icc command-line
that you actually used to compile the binaries :-)
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <40b250b5$1@news.povray.org> , "Ross" <rli### [at] everestkcnet>
wrote:
> They might have no validity from a true benchmarking perspective. However
> they illustrate that compiling the source with a recent compiler can improve
> performance when compared to using the official binary distribution. While
> it is helpfull to understand where exactly the performance gain is comming
> from, to me that is secondary to the fact that there is a performance gain.
This is not the point. The point is that you cannot take some old version
of a compiler that was set to optimise for one processor and compare it with
a newer version of the same compiler set to optimise for another processor
and conclude anything valid about the effect of the optimisations. It is
like taking a 1949 Porsche 356 with a top speed of about 140 km/h and
compare it to a 2004 Golf with a top speed of about 160 km/h (smallest
engine) and concluding that a Golf is faster than a Porsche.
As such, only using the same compiler version can possibly be used to
compare optimisation efficiency. So, looking at the example, and taking any
2004 Porsche, one will quickly find all models have a top speed of over 200
km/h. So, now only one variable is left (the car type) and as such the
comparison is valid.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Calimet wrote:
>> The test with povray compiled without optimisations on my pc has just
>> ended : 45 minutes 13.0 seconds (2713 seconds)
>>
>> 3 seconds longer : this is not signifiant.
>
>
> So if I understand you correctly, you do obtain:
>
> gcc 3.2.2 -march=i586 : 45 minutes 13 seconds ( 2713 seconds )
> gcc 3.2.2 -march=pentium4 : 36 minutes 43 seconds ( 2203 seconds )
> icc 8.0 -tpp7 : 33 minutes 01 seconds ( 1981 seconds )
>
> Is this right ?
>
> I'd be interested if you could post the full gcc/icc command-line
> that you actually used to compile the binaries :-)
>
> - NC
>
The GCC CFLAGS variable was the one used in the original one with only
'i586' replaced by 'pentium4'
the icc CFLAGS variable was :
CFLAGS = -O3 -mcpu=pentium4 -march=pentium4 -ip
(-tpp7 is like -mcpu=pentium4, -march=pentium4 could be replaced by -xP)
-ip adds Interprocedural Optimizations (IPO)
more optimisations could be realized with Profile-guided Optimizations
(PGO) and static linking
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Calimet <pov### [at] freefr> wrote:
> > #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled by:"
> > Jong
> > #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_2 "FILL IN NAME HERE...."
> > #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_3 "The POV-Ray Team(tm) is not responsible for
> > supporting this version."
>
> Given what you did above, I'd suggest you do not try compiling povray,
> but rather use the official Linux binary that should work on your RedHat distro.
>
> - NC
Yes. I had use the official Linux binary and it works pretty good on RedHat.
But as I try to install parallel patch as describe by
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.programming/thread/%3C3E40469B.3080402@web.de%3E/
The configuration needs Makefile.am in all POVRAY folder which can only be
found in POVRAY source code.
So, that's why I try to compiling povray source now.
Maybe I have to ask for the binary of parapov...
Is there have another way to configure parapov without compiling the source
code?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gRRosminet wrote:
>
> I have downloaded the official binary for linux and ran the benchmark.
>
> Official : 45 minutes 08 seconds ( 2708 seconds )
> gcc pentium4 optimized : 36 minutes 43 seconds ( 2203 seconds )
> ICC pentium4 optimized : 33 minutes 01 seconds ( 1981 seconds )
>
> ratios (official / optimized) :
> Official : 1
> gcc pentium4 optimized : 1.229
> icc pentium4 optimized : 1.367
My test results look quite different:
official 3.5: 2394s
3.6 RC1 (gcc 3.4): 2292s
3.6, optimized* (gcc 3.4): 2274s
*) -march=athlon-xp -mfpmath=sse -mmmx -msse -m3dnow
And before someone asks: profiling based optimization also does not
change much about this (i tested this some time ago).
The most likely explanation for your results to me seems the pentium 4
being particularly bad at running code not specifically optimized for
its design.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <c8uv2j$rvd$1@chho.imagico.de> , Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> official 3.5: 2394s
> 3.6 RC1 (gcc 3.4): 2292s
> 3.6, optimized* (gcc 3.4): 2274s
>
> *) -march=athlon-xp -mfpmath=sse -mmmx -msse -m3dnow
>
> And before someone asks: profiling based optimization also does not
> change much about this (i tested this some time ago).
>
> The most likely explanation for your results to me seems the pentium 4
> being particularly bad at running code not specifically optimized for
> its design.
Note: You cannot compare 3.5 and 3.6 benchmark results as anti-aliasing
changed a bit and a photons change makes those much faster. As such, only
the two 3.6 results you posted can be compared.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> gRRosminet wrote:
>
>>
>> I have downloaded the official binary for linux and ran the benchmark.
>>
>> Official : 45 minutes 08 seconds ( 2708 seconds )
>> gcc pentium4 optimized : 36 minutes 43 seconds ( 2203 seconds )
>> ICC pentium4 optimized : 33 minutes 01 seconds ( 1981 seconds )
>>
>> ratios (official / optimized) :
>> Official : 1
>> gcc pentium4 optimized : 1.229
>> icc pentium4 optimized : 1.367
>
>
> My test results look quite different:
>
> official 3.5: 2394s
> 3.6 RC1 (gcc 3.4): 2292s
> 3.6, optimized* (gcc 3.4): 2274s
>
> *) -march=athlon-xp -mfpmath=sse -mmmx -msse -m3dnow
>
> And before someone asks: profiling based optimization also does not
> change much about this (i tested this some time ago).
>
> The most likely explanation for your results to me seems the pentium 4
> being particularly bad at running code not specifically optimized for
> its design.
>
> Christoph
>
Could you try it with an optimized version of 3.5 ?
The first time I tried to compile an optimized version of povray, it was
on an Athlon Thunderbird and I get very good results on a personal scene
(wich didn't use so many functionnalities as the benchmark one)
for my pentium 4, an other explanation could be that the sse2
instruction are really better on floating point than sse.
In your case, you limit yourself at using SSE instruction whereas Athlon
processors have an excelent fpu unit. you should replace -mfpmath=sse by
-mfpmath=sse,387
Here is the GCC man page about this option :
sse,387
Essayer d'utiliser les deux jeux d'instructions simultanément.
Cela double effectivement le nombre de registres disponibles et
également les ressources à l'exécution sur des puces disposant
d'unités d'exécution séparées pour les instructions 387 et SSE.
Thierry
P.S. : please don't tell me that P4 is a bad processor : I know it but I
don't want to hear about it ! ;-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>
> Note: You cannot compare 3.5 and 3.6 benchmark results as anti-aliasing
> changed a bit and a photons change makes those much faster. As such, only
> the two 3.6 results you posted can be compared.
That obviously depends on the purpose of your comparison. If you want
to know if your scenes render faster with the new version the comparison
of 3.5 and 3.6 benchmark results does make sense. Of course you will
have to keep in mind that the speed difference might mostly be due to
the use of photons.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gRRosminet wrote:
>
> Could you try it with an optimized version of 3.5 ?
No time for that at the moment but i don't see any reason why processor
specific optimization should work so much better there.
> for my pentium 4, an other explanation could be that the sse2
> instruction are really better on floating point than sse.
> In your case, you limit yourself at using SSE instruction whereas Athlon
> processors have an excelent fpu unit. you should replace -mfpmath=sse by
> -mfpmath=sse,387
Does not change that much: 2197s
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> sse,387
> Essayer d'utiliser les deux jeux d'instructions simultanément.
> Cela double effectivement le nombre de registres disponibles et
> également les ressources à l'exécution sur des puces disposant
> d'unités d'exécution séparées pour les instructions 387 et SSE.
>
And from the english man page:
sse,387
Attempt to utilize both instruction sets at once. This effec-
tively double the amount of available registers and on chips
with separate execution units for 387 and SSE the execution
resources too. Use this option with care, as it is still
experimental, because the gcc register allocator does not model
separate functional units well.
:-)
BTW, I realized that my statement about povray not being able
to use SSE/SSE2/similar instructions seems plain wrong, as I thought
those were (still) limited to single-precision arithmetics.
My bad.
So it's seems they could be actually quite valuable, and
I will consider them in the new configure script for 3.6. Thanks
for pointing this out.
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
