 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Finally I found some time to play with final version of Open Watcom 1.0 released
recently. After some tweaking I got working exacutables for win32 console
version of MegaPOV. Already impelented 'working free' MegaPOV specific changes
caused very clean compilation - only a few dedicated lines in config.h. After
that I compiled MegaPOV with 5 free-like compilers I have available for Win32
platform and made quick test to compare speed. Test is not very accurate since
my time is limited but I'm sure it can be interesting for others. All
compilations are made for Pentium Pro (usually heighiest available) with
optimization for speed (libpng, libtiff, libjpeg, zlib libraries always
recompiled with the same settings as core). Everything was done on one machine
which is Pentium II 233 MHz with 128 MB RAM with NT4 Sp6 installed. No other
processes. Everything started from one batch and glowlits.pov from MegaPOV
distribution was used. No binary difference between outputs was obtained. Here
are results:
DigitalMarc C++ 8.33.4 - 339 seconds (windows console)
MinGW 2.0.0-3 gcc 3.2 - 310 seconds (windows console)
Borland C++ 5.5 - 277 seconds (windows gui)
DJGPP 2.3 (gcc 3.2) - 202 seconds (dos application)
Open Watcom 1.0 - 194 seconds (windows console)
That was quick test with MegaPOV specific scene. I will try 3.5 scene with all
mentioned compilations and official binaries but I need more free time for that.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ABX wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> DigitalMarc C++ 8.33.4 - 339 seconds (windows console)
> MinGW 2.0.0-3 gcc 3.2 - 310 seconds (windows console)
> Borland C++ 5.5 - 277 seconds (windows gui)
> DJGPP 2.3 (gcc 3.2) - 202 seconds (dos application)
> Open Watcom 1.0 - 194 seconds (windows console)
>
> That was quick test with MegaPOV specific scene. I will try 3.5 scene with all
> mentioned compilations and official binaries but I need more free time for that.
It looks interesting but i have some doubts whether these numbers are
representative. My own tests some time ago showed that the MinGW version
is significantly faster than the Borland C++ version. What were the
optimizations used for GCC?
BTW the support libraries should not matter much when you render without
file output.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 31 Dec. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:32:08 +0100, Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
wrote:
> It looks interesting but i have some doubts whether these numbers are
> representative. My own tests some time ago showed that the MinGW version
> is significantly faster than the Borland C++ version. What were the
> optimizations used for GCC?
BORLAND:
CFLAGS=-6 -ff -H- -O2 -Oi -OS -Ov -P -q -V -vi -w
MINGW & DJGPP:
CFLAGS= -march=pentiumpro -O3 -pedantic
DIGITAL MARS:
CFLAGS= -o -v0 -cpp -mn -6 -ff -WA -Ae
WATCOM:
CFLAGS= /oneatx /oh /oi+ /ei /zp8 /6 /fp6 /zq /xs /bt=nt
I did not played much with settings - mostly used those suggested in docs.
Perhaps I can inspire somebody for further playing. I will be happy to find
propositions of other combinations.
Except Borland, development of all packages is open-like and perhaps some
improvements can be introduced into compilers. For example I would like to test
http://cmeerw.org/prog/dm/rtl.html solution. I have no idea how this can
influence.
> BTW the support libraries should not matter much when you render without
> file output.
Since image io operations are part of typicall using I decided to use it. But of
course for longer renderings its influence is less important.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> > It looks interesting but i have some doubts whether these numbers are
> > representative. My own tests some time ago showed that the MinGW
version
> > is significantly faster than the Borland C++ version. What were the
> > optimizations used for GCC?
>
> <...>
> MINGW & DJGPP:
> CFLAGS= -march=pentiumpro -O3 -pedantic
> <...>
From this list, at least one quite important thing is
missing: -fomit-frame-pointer. There are a few other things to tweak, but
the impact of not generating EBP-based stack frames outweighs all the rest.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vadim Sytnikov wrote:
> "ABX" <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
>> Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>> > It looks interesting but i have some doubts whether these numbers are
>> > representative. My own tests some time ago showed that the MinGW
> version
>> > is significantly faster than the Borland C++ version. What were the
>> > optimizations used for GCC?
>>
>> <...>
>> MINGW & DJGPP:
>> CFLAGS= -march=pentiumpro -O3 -pedantic
>> <...>
>
> From this list, at least one quite important thing is
> missing: -fomit-frame-pointer. There are a few other things to tweak, but
> the impact of not generating EBP-based stack frames outweighs all the
> rest.
I'm missing the -ffast-math flag which should have quite some impact as
well.
--
POV-Ray Objects Collection: http://objects.povworld.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:47:21 +0100, Micha Riser <mri### [at] gmxnet> wrote:
> > From this list, at least one quite important thing is
> > missing: -fomit-frame-pointer. There are a few other things to tweak, but
> > the impact of not generating EBP-based stack frames outweighs all the
> > rest.
>
> I'm missing the -ffast-math flag which should have quite some impact as
> well.
Ok. I added -fommit-frame-pointer, droped file output and tried again with:
megapov.exe +Iglowlits.pov +GAoutput.txt +W640 +H480 -A -J0.0 -FN -D
dmc: 329
mingw: 299
borland: 264
djgpp: 204
watcom: 185
then I added -ffast-math to mingw and djgpp:
dmc: 329
borland: 264
mingw: 256
watcom: 185
djgpp: 169
what are next suggestions ?
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ABX wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> what are next suggestions ?
- use a slower scene for more accurate results (benchmark.pov for example)
- try the official WinPOV and the MSVC megapov for comparison
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ABX wrote:
>
> what are next suggestions ?
* Memory aligning: -malign-double
* Loop unrolling: -funroll-loops (might get worse though),
-funroll-all-loops (likely will get worse)
* Use of profiling information.
Flags are for gcc, other compilers might have similar flags for it or
already enabled by default.
- Micha
--
POV-Ray Objects Collection: http://objects.povworld.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <18qu5v0b9uf1amnnpum810vr8upmr5qgh1@4ax.com>,
ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> megapov.exe +Iglowlits.pov +GAoutput.txt +W640 +H480 -A -J0.0 -FN -D
glowlits.pov is not a benchmark scene, and is nothing like typical
scenes. I would suggest using benchmark.pov.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:06:35 -0500, Christopher James Huff
<cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > megapov.exe +Iglowlits.pov +GAoutput.txt +W640 +H480 -A -J0.0 -FN -D
>
> glowlits.pov is not a benchmark scene, and is nothing like typical
> scenes. I would suggest using benchmark.pov.
I was not concerned much on choosing the right sphere because I considered it as
begining for further tests with various conditions. The longer test with
benchmark.pov I leaved for weekend. Now I have results:
app. | compiler | GUI | P-II | PIII |
-----------+-------------+-----+------+------+
povray 3.5 | intel | win | 2740 | 815 |
megapov | djgpp(gcc) | dos | 2865 | 852 |
megapov | mingw(gcc) | con | 2909 | 872 |
megapov | open watcom | con | 4094 | 1234 |
megapov | borland 5.5 | win | 4407 | 1332 |
megapov | dmc | con | 4907 | 1454 |
where P-II is P-II 233 MHz with
call:
application.exe benchmark.ini +Oapp +GAoutput_app.txt -J0.0 +FN
benchmark.ini:
-w96 -h96 +a0.3 +am1 +v -d -f -x
+Ibenchmark.pov
P-II:
Pentium 2 233 MHz, 128 MB, NT4 Sp 6
P-III:
Pentium 3 730 MHz, 128 MB, Win2000
Seems time for checking profiliers.
While MinGW is in fact faster than Borland compilation it seems strange that DOS
application (DJGPP) is faster than console application. It is signifficant
difference but it can means a day for a long renderings. AFAIK they use were
build with the same GCC version and I applied the same config.h for both.
And BTW: I noticed all images produced in this test are significantly different.
I have to track differences....
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 10:07:19 +0100, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:06:35 -0500, Christopher James Huff
><cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> > megapov.exe +Iglowlits.pov +GAoutput.txt +W640 +H480 -A -J0.0 -FN -D
>>
>> glowlits.pov is not a benchmark scene, and is nothing like typical
>> scenes. I would suggest using benchmark.pov.
>
> I was not concerned much on choosing the right sphere because I considered it as
> begining for further tests with various conditions. The longer test with
> benchmark.pov I leaved for weekend. Now I have results:
>
> app. | compiler | GUI | P-II | PIII |
> -----------+-------------+-----+------+------+
> povray 3.5 | intel | win | 2740 | 815 |
> megapov | djgpp(gcc) | dos | 2865 | 852 |
...
did you use profiling with ICC?
it makes povray run about 15-25% faster (forgot the exact figures).
for gcc profiling does not seem to help much with povray.
I use these...
-tpp6 -O3 -xi -restrict -long_double -ipo -ipo_obj -unroll
-prof_dir /tmp/iccprof -pc80
-prof_genx and -prof_use are the profiling options,
docs tell how to use 'em.
--
Safari - y7p### [at] sneakemailcom
"Talk is cheap. Show me the code." - Linus Torvalds
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <ou566vgg0gqih2vvlsovillshbf09t7r4g@4ax.com> , ABX
<abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> app. | compiler | GUI | P-II | PIII |
> -----------+-------------+-----+------+------+
> povray 3.5 | intel | win | 2740 | 815 |
> megapov | djgpp(gcc) | dos | 2865 | 852 |
> megapov | mingw(gcc) | con | 2909 | 872 |
> megapov | open watcom | con | 4094 | 1234 |
> megapov | borland 5.5 | win | 4407 | 1332 |
> megapov | dmc | con | 4907 | 1454 |
IIRC, Intel offers a trial version download of ICC, and the Linux version is
free (I think). So you might want to see if it isn't only a problem of bad
compilers...
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ABX wrote:
>
> app. | compiler | GUI | P-II | PIII |
> -----------+-------------+-----+------+------+
> povray 3.5 | intel | win | 2740 | 815 |
> megapov | djgpp(gcc) | dos | 2865 | 852 |
> megapov | mingw(gcc) | con | 2909 | 872 |
> megapov | open watcom | con | 4094 | 1234 |
> megapov | borland 5.5 | win | 4407 | 1332 |
> megapov | dmc | con | 4907 | 1454 |
>
That list looks quite realistic now. I miss the MSVC megapov verstion
though.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <ou566vgg0gqih2vvlsovillshbf09t7r4g@4ax.com> , ABX
> <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
>
>
>>app. | compiler | GUI | P-II | PIII |
>>-----------+-------------+-----+------+------+
>>povray 3.5 | intel | win | 2740 | 815 |
>>megapov | djgpp(gcc) | dos | 2865 | 852 |
>>megapov | mingw(gcc) | con | 2909 | 872 |
>>megapov | open watcom | con | 4094 | 1234 |
>>megapov | borland 5.5 | win | 4407 | 1332 |
>>megapov | dmc | con | 4907 | 1454 |
>
>
> IIRC, Intel offers a trial version download of ICC, and the Linux version is
> free (I think). So you might want to see if it isn't only a problem of bad
> compilers...
http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/ --> All version are
with a price tag. There is the evaluation version, though, for thirty days.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3 Mar 2003 18:04:28 -0500, Safari <y7p### [at] sneakemailcom> wrote:
> did you use profiling with ICC?
No. I used official binaries. I do not think I can use profiling over ready
binaries. I need recompile them with profiling settings which changes sense of
testing official binaries.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nathan Letwory wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> IIRC, Intel offers a trial version download of ICC, and the Linux version
>> is
>> free (I think). So you might want to see if it isn't only a problem of
>> bad compilers...
>
> http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/ --> All version are
> with a price tag. There is the evaluation version, though, for thirty
> days.
If you look at the evaluation version for Linux, you discover the free
unsupported version for uncommercial use:
http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/clin/noncom.htm
I agree however that Intel has gone a good job in hiding this gift.
Greetings
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Willhalm wrote:
> Nathan Letwory wrote:
>
>
>>Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>>
>>>IIRC, Intel offers a trial version download of ICC, and the Linux version
>>>is
>>>free (I think). So you might want to see if it isn't only a problem of
>>>bad compilers...
>>
>>http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/ --> All version are
>>with a price tag. There is the evaluation version, though, for thirty
>>days.
>
>
> If you look at the evaluation version for Linux, you discover the free
> unsupported version for uncommercial use:
> http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/clin/noncom.htm
> I agree however that Intel has gone a good job in hiding this gift.
>
> Greetings
> Thomas
Great, thanks. I thought I had browsed all the links, but apparently not :)
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 09:30:02 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
wrote:
> IIRC, Intel offers a trial version download of ICC, and the Linux version is
> free (I think). So you might want to see if it isn't only a problem of bad
> compilers...
I think there is a payment for full Linux version but I have Intel compiler in
plans. But having two active children can't test more than one compiler per
month. I leaved those with trials for the end because evaluation times cause I
should have testing enviroment ready and tested then.
BTW, Thorsten this is off topic but that ASCII table I made in this thread
doesn't work on www. Horizontal line is visible when you quoted me at
http://news.povray.org/3e64640e%241%40news.povray.org
but disappear in my originall post
http://news.povray.org/ou566vgg0gqih2vvlsovillshbf09t7r4g%404ax.com
That's not important but can be unexpected. As well as why dot is entity.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3e64693b$1@news.povray.org> , Nathan Letwory
<jes### [at] KINGKONG-letworynet> wrote:
> http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/ --> All version are
> with a price tag. There is the evaluation version, though, for thirty days.
Of course! Seems like Intel doesn't advertise it, but for POV-Ray is is
acceptable:
<http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/clin/noncom.htm>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <u0t86v4o0t05ed6p0n0nqmkecn05vdu50n@4ax.com> , ABX
<abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> BTW, Thorsten this is off topic but that ASCII table I made in this thread
> doesn't work on www. Horizontal line is visible when you quoted me at
> http://news.povray.org/3e64640e%241%40news.povray.org
> but disappear in my originall post
> http://news.povray.org/ou566vgg0gqih2vvlsovillshbf09t7r4g%404ax.com
> That's not important but can be unexpected. As well as why dot is entity.
Yes, that is normal. It is mistaken for an attachment separator in munpack
:-(
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 10:07:19 +0100, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> megapov | borland 5.5 | win | 4407 | 1332 |
I just finalized borland c++ builder 6.0 compilation and it is worse then free
5.5 compilation. 5350 vs. 4429 seconds with binaries generated from the same
makefile (the same compiler switches). I suppose nothing more can be reached
with any version of borland.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 09:39:31 +0100, Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
> > megapov | djgpp(gcc) | dos | 2865 | 852 |
> > megapov | mingw(gcc) | con | 2909 | 872 |
>
> That list looks quite realistic now.
I wonder if http://www.nat.org/grope.pdf could help. Anybody tried or this is
already implemented in compilers ?
Anybody investigated influence of
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/vccore/html/vcgrfGLWholeProgramOptimization.asp
in Visual C++ ?
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
