 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all,
Is it just me or is POV 3.1d slower than the last version?, Especially when
using rad and AA (9x9 rays)
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Is it just me or is POV 3.1d slower than the last version?, Especially when
> using rad and AA (9x9 rays)
>
> Rick
Of all the tests I ran prior to it's release the opposite was true in
all cases. While I ran no performance tests on radiosity I did casualy
run a couple files with it turned on and recall is rendered surprisingly
fast. If you are running an old 486 machine you might have suffered
a performance degradation but anybody with a pentium or better machine
should see a performance increase in several different types of rendering
situations.
Often times if it's rendering slowly it's more related to the construction
of the scene than it is anything else. Transparent textures, multiple csg's,
and lots of reflection all take their toll on the the old render clock.
Take a look at the test results I submitted to Chris Cason either by
looking in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions or hit the link below
to go straight to it.
http://www.povray.org/cgi-bin/dnewsweb?cmd=article&group=povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions&item=9
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am running on a AMD K6 233, maybe its just windoze 987, being a pig.
I have just got thwe msdos version od 3.1d, so will be rendering complex
scenes in that from pure dos, that should be much faster! - I like to start
my renders before bed, and have them ready when i get up :)
Rick
Ken wrote in message <36DEC8AD.9C796FD1@pacbell.net>...
>Rick wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> Is it just me or is POV 3.1d slower than the last version?, Especially
when
>> using rad and AA (9x9 rays)
>>
>> Rick
>
> Of all the tests I ran prior to it's release the opposite was true in
>all cases. While I ran no performance tests on radiosity I did casualy
>run a couple files with it turned on and recall is rendered surprisingly
>fast. If you are running an old 486 machine you might have suffered
>a performance degradation but anybody with a pentium or better machine
>should see a performance increase in several different types of rendering
>situations.
> Often times if it's rendering slowly it's more related to the
construction
>of the scene than it is anything else. Transparent textures, multiple
csg's,
>and lots of reflection all take their toll on the the old render clock.
> Take a look at the test results I submitted to Chris Cason either by
>looking in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions or hit the link below
>to go straight to it.
>
>http://www.povray.org/cgi-bin/dnewsweb?cmd=article&group=povray.announce.fr
equently-asked-questions&item=9
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am curious, just how much faster does the DOS version render? Can anyone
give me an approximate percentage? After all, a scene that takes 20 hours
being rendered in 19 hours really makes no difference. It would need to be
20-50 percent faster to really impact.
On the subject, what about the Linux version?
Thanks
Gordon
<gbentley#birdcameron.com.au>
Rick wrote in message <36e097a6.0@news.povray.org>...
>I am running on a AMD K6 233, maybe its just windoze 987, being a pig.
>
>I have just got thwe msdos version od 3.1d, so will be rendering complex
>scenes in that from pure dos, that should be much faster! - I like to start
>my renders before bed, and have them ready when i get up :)
>
>Rick
>
>Ken wrote in message <36DEC8AD.9C796FD1@pacbell.net>...
>>Rick wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> Is it just me or is POV 3.1d slower than the last version?, Especially
>when
>>> using rad and AA (9x9 rays)
>>>
>>> Rick
>>
>> Of all the tests I ran prior to it's release the opposite was true in
>>all cases. While I ran no performance tests on radiosity I did casualy
>>run a couple files with it turned on and recall is rendered surprisingly
>>fast. If you are running an old 486 machine you might have suffered
>>a performance degradation but anybody with a pentium or better machine
>>should see a performance increase in several different types of rendering
>>situations.
>> Often times if it's rendering slowly it's more related to the
>construction
>>of the scene than it is anything else. Transparent textures, multiple
>csg's,
>>and lots of reflection all take their toll on the the old render clock.
>> Take a look at the test results I submitted to Chris Cason either by
>>looking in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions or hit the link
below
>>to go straight to it.
>>
>>http://www.povray.org/cgi-bin/dnewsweb?cmd=article&group=povray.announce.f
r
>equently-asked-questions&item=9
>>
>>--
>>Ken Tyler
>>
>>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gordon wrote:
>
> I am curious, just how much faster does the DOS version render? Can anyone
> give me an approximate percentage? After all, a scene that takes 20 hours
> being rendered in 19 hours really makes no difference. It would need to be
> 20-50 percent faster to really impact.
>
> On the subject, what about the Linux version?
>
> Thanks
> Gordon
> <gbentley#birdcameron.com.au>
I have heard conflicting reports on this issue. Personaly I have experimented
a bit but could not detect enough of a difference to warrent installing a dos
version. You might take a look at the Pov benchmark page and see if anybody
has posted comparson times for the same machine using the different versions.
There is a lot of data available there if you have the time to sift through
it all.
http://www.haveland.com/povbench/
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've noticed faster renders using DOS versus Windows, on average about 8
minutes less per hour. But it is subjective to the scene file and the
machine setup I think, so if anything you might say Windows takes 105%
to 120% longer to render. The variances people see doesn't permit a firm
statement on it I believe. Suffice it to say Windows will probably
always be the slower.
Ken wrote:
>
> Gordon wrote:
> >
> > I am curious, just how much faster does the DOS version render? Can anyone
> > give me an approximate percentage? After all, a scene that takes 20 hours
> > being rendered in 19 hours really makes no difference. It would need to be
> > 20-50 percent faster to really impact.
> >
> > On the subject, what about the Linux version?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Gordon
> > <gbentley#birdcameron.com.au>
>
> I have heard conflicting reports on this issue. Personaly I have experimented
> a bit but could not detect enough of a difference to warrent installing a dos
> version. You might take a look at the Pov benchmark page and see if anybody
> has posted comparson times for the same machine using the different versions.
> There is a lot of data available there if you have the time to sift through
> it all.
>
> http://www.haveland.com/povbench/
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aol com?PoV
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have installed POV for dos, and use it for overnight animation renders,
and it is well worth it!!!
a performace of 120% on avaerge make a huge difference when rendering
hundres of frames!!
Rick
Bob Hughes wrote in message <36E4D769.F66BDA0F@aol.com>...
>I've noticed faster renders using DOS versus Windows, on average about 8
>minutes less per hour. But it is subjective to the scene file and the
>machine setup I think, so if anything you might say Windows takes 105%
>to 120% longer to render. The variances people see doesn't permit a firm
>statement on it I believe. Suffice it to say Windows will probably
>always be the slower.
>
>
>Ken wrote:
>>
>> Gordon wrote:
>> >
>> > I am curious, just how much faster does the DOS version render? Can
anyone
>> > give me an approximate percentage? After all, a scene that takes 20
hours
>> > being rendered in 19 hours really makes no difference. It would need to
be
>> > 20-50 percent faster to really impact.
>> >
>> > On the subject, what about the Linux version?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Gordon
>> > <gbentley#birdcameron.com.au>
>>
>> I have heard conflicting reports on this issue. Personaly I have
experimented
>> a bit but could not detect enough of a difference to warrent installing a
dos
>> version. You might take a look at the Pov benchmark page and see if
anybody
>> has posted comparson times for the same machine using the different
versions.
>> There is a lot of data available there if you have the time to sift
through
>> it all.
>>
>> http://www.haveland.com/povbench/
>>
>> --
>> Ken Tyler
>>
>> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
>
>--
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
> mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On this topic: I did some testing of this and, under windoze 98, the
POV-Ray rendering engine gets 85%-95% of the processor time. I don't know
how this translates into relative speeds, though
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
