 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On the download page for POV-Ray for Windows, there is a link to a
PVENGINE.EXE that is compiled with Visual C++ v6, and is optimized for
Pentium II. Would this be faster than the original PVENGINE.EXE on a 450 MHz
K6 II? Is there any point in downloading it?
--ll
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lars Luthman wrote:
>
> On the download page for POV-Ray for Windows, there is a link to a
> PVENGINE.EXE that is compiled with Visual C++ v6, and is optimized for
> Pentium II. Would this be faster than the original PVENGINE.EXE on a 450 MHz
> K6 II? Is there any point in downloading it?
>
> --ll
There might be compiler differences that will give you increased performance
even though you are not running a Pentium CPU. Both versions are optimized for
the pentium II architecture so the only real difference are compiler
specific.
For example when the POV-Team first released the two different versions,
Watcom and MSVC6++, I did quite a bit of benchmark testing for them. My
own system only has a Pentium I processor but I realized significant
increases in performance for some types of POV-Ray operations when using
the MSVC6++ compile of the program. You can see the results of these tests
in the announcements group on this server. I would say there is a chance
that you will realize some improvement in performance just because the two
compilers have different optimizations.
If you do decide to try it I would love to hear back from you whether you
notice any appreciable difference on the K6 processor.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken skrev i meddelandet <38C127E9.8AF04006@pacbell.net>...
>
> If you do decide to try it I would love to hear back from you whether you
>notice any appreciable difference on the K6 processor.
>
Downloaded and tried it - rendered "chess2.pov" at 640x480 with
anti-aliasing:
Watcom: 27 min 35 sec
MSVC6++: 24 min 34 sec
Not a huge difference, but still a difference.
--ll
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lars Luthman wrote:
>
> Ken skrev i meddelandet <38C127E9.8AF04006@pacbell.net>...
> >
> > If you do decide to try it I would love to hear back from you whether you
> >notice any appreciable difference on the K6 processor.
> >
>
> Downloaded and tried it - rendered "chess2.pov" at 640x480 with
> anti-aliasing:
>
> Watcom: 27 min 35 sec
> MSVC6++: 24 min 34 sec
>
> Not a huge difference, but still a difference.
I would consider that an appreciable difference where raytracing is concerned.
Thanks for the feedback.
--
Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In supposing there might be some relevance to this at all I tried comparing
MegaPov 0.4 (msvc) with WinPOV-Ray (watcom) using the chess2.pov scene file too
and got just a 15 second difference, official POV being the faster of the two.
Although not perfect testing conditions I think it was probably a fair enough
check. Render times 20:36 and 20:21.
Bob
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:38C16B5C.4B8BD1B0@pacbell.net...
|
|
| Lars Luthman wrote:
| >
| > Ken skrev i meddelandet <38C127E9.8AF04006@pacbell.net>...
| > >
| > > If you do decide to try it I would love to hear back from you whether you
| > >notice any appreciable difference on the K6 processor.
| > >
| >
| > Downloaded and tried it - rendered "chess2.pov" at 640x480 with
| > anti-aliasing:
| >
| > Watcom: 27 min 35 sec
| > MSVC6++: 24 min 34 sec
| >
| > Not a huge difference, but still a difference.
|
|
| I would consider that an appreciable difference where raytracing is concerned.
|
| Thanks for the feedback.
|
| --
| Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
| http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dang it. Doesn't mean much unless I say the renders were with a Pentium III CPU
and not a K6-2. Sorry. But then I haven't a clue as to what is good or bad
about not using a Pentium II and the optimizations there are for it thus what a
PIII might be doing differently and all that.
Bob
"Bob Hughes" <omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote in message
news:38c17c44@news.povray.org...
| In supposing there might be some relevance to this at all I tried comparing
| MegaPov 0.4 (msvc) with WinPOV-Ray (watcom) using the chess2.pov scene file
too
| and got just a 15 second difference, official POV being the faster of the two.
| Although not perfect testing conditions I think it was probably a fair enough
| check. Render times 20:36 and 20:21.
|
| Bob
|
| "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
| news:38C16B5C.4B8BD1B0@pacbell.net...
| |
| |
| | Lars Luthman wrote:
| | >
| | > Ken skrev i meddelandet <38C127E9.8AF04006@pacbell.net>...
| | > >
| | > > If you do decide to try it I would love to hear back from you whether
you
| | > >notice any appreciable difference on the K6 processor.
| | > >
| | >
| | > Downloaded and tried it - rendered "chess2.pov" at 640x480 with
| | > anti-aliasing:
| | >
| | > Watcom: 27 min 35 sec
| | > MSVC6++: 24 min 34 sec
| | >
| | > Not a huge difference, but still a difference.
| |
| |
| | I would consider that an appreciable difference where raytracing is
concerned.
| |
| | Thanks for the feedback.
| |
| | --
| | Ken Tyler - 1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
| | http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
|
|
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote in message <38c17c44@news.povray.org>...
>In supposing there might be some relevance to this at all I tried comparing
>MegaPov 0.4 (msvc) with WinPOV-Ray (watcom) using the chess2.pov scene file
too
>and got just a 15 second difference, official POV being the faster of the
two.
>Although not perfect testing conditions I think it was probably a fair
enough
>check. Render times 20:36 and 20:21.
My comparisons of render times of skyvase.pov on a 400Mhz AMD K6-II
(640x480, no AA):
SkyPov (Custom version based on 3.1g superpatch): 122s
MegaPov 0.3: 96s
SuperPatch 3.1e: 91s
POV-Ray 3.1e (watcom): 81s
UVPov 6.1: 79 s
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lars Luthman wrote:
>
> Ken skrev i meddelandet <38C127E9.8AF04006@pacbell.net>...
> >
> > If you do decide to try it I would love to hear back from you whether you
> >notice any appreciable difference on the K6 processor.
> >
>
> Downloaded and tried it - rendered "chess2.pov" at 640x480 with
> anti-aliasing:
>
> Watcom: 27 min 35 sec
> MSVC6++: 24 min 34 sec
>
> Not a huge difference, but still a difference.
>
> --ll
On a 650 Mhz Athlon (Stop drooling!)
Watcom: 12 min 02 sec.
MSVC++: 11 min 32 sec.
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreq | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
attglobal.net - Calvin
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes <omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=pov-news:> wrote:
: In supposing there might be some relevance to this at all I tried comparing
: MegaPov 0.4 (msvc) with WinPOV-Ray (watcom)
You should know that MegaPov 0.4 is slower than the official povray. Nathan
has been working on this problem-
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
