[Radiance-general] The sub-4K second benchmark barrier...

[Mark Stock]

Rob,

As it stands, rpict will only open one process, which will only 
load up one core.

I would also like to begin collecting multiprocessor benchmarks, 
but there was once confusion as to how to get a consistent 
measurement across different platforms. Is rad with "-N" a better 
or more consistent tool for preparing multiprocessor benchmarks, 
or is the runsmp script in bench4 better?

I already have a handful of benchmark runs using the runsmp 
script (though it allows more variables such as NCPU and number 
of subdivisions, both of which strongly affect runtime).

Or is it likely that rpict itself will soon support pthreads?

Any input would be appreciated.

Mark
mstock at umich.edu

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, Fitzsimmons, Rob wrote:

> I ran Mark's Benchmark test on my iMac 10.4.7 Core2Dou 2.14 GHz 1 GB RAM
> with Radiance 3.8 Universal binary and I got times around 9000 seconds.
> Seems too long.
> I was hoping it would be in the 4K region. Of course I closed the shell
> before copying the times, so I don't have the exact number.
> For a Core2Duo, does Radiance use both processors, or would I have to use
> rad with -N 2?
> I know you have to do that with a render farm or any multiple processor
> machine, but since the Core2Duo is 2 on one chip, I'm not sure.
> For the benchmark itself, I saw Mark only wants single processor results.
> Rob F
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Guglielmetti [mailto:rpg at rumblestrip.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 9:40 AM
> To: Radiance general discussion
> Cc: Ferdinand Schmid
> Subject: [Radiance-general] The sub-4K second benchmark barrier...
>
> ...has been broken!
>
> That's right, people.  One of the beloved render farm machines at my office
> just turned in a sub-4K second timing on the Mark Stock Radiance benchmark
> scene.  SSSssssssss!
>
> What's interesting to note is that there are subtle differences in cpu
> speed, even among the same cpu model.  I assume this is due to different
> voltage settings on the motherboards, but I'm not positive.  I also wonder
> how much of the speedup is attributable to the use of the new official
> release of Radiance 3.8.  Another interesting thing is that three of four
> benchmarks had the same exact number of rays traced.  I find this a little
> odd.
>
> I was hoping Greg and maybe Ferdinand (builder and maintainer of my office's
> render farm systems) could weigh in on this.  I have a couple other
> benchmark timings and stats to add to the site
> (http://mark.technolope.org/pages/rad_bench.html) as well, I was hoping
> others have installed the official 3.8 and were doing similar testing.
>
> Happy benchmarking.
>
> - Rob
>
> _______________________________________________
> Radiance-general mailing list
> Radiance-general at radiance-online.org
> http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
>
> _______________________________________________
> Radiance-general mailing list
> Radiance-general at radiance-online.org
> http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
>
>
>