This is the first contribution done with the DOSBOX SVN_Daum. As is turns out I have underestimated the speed of my XP Dos which generated the same image in 1 Min 35 Sec, compared to 12 minutes. But anyway The DOSBOX SVN is a lot faster then the previous version. Please compare the calculation time with your system. ; *https://www.dropbox.com/sh/65mmzl5h3bbhh8d/AAAA8pd7WEXy5Hws4b5Cx4S4a?dl=0* ; Petta -------------------------start par--------------------------------------- 80000-16 { ; Patterns ; Time 0.12.04.86 Reso 1280/1024 ; Deep Zoom into 80000-03 ; First image from DOSBOX SVN-Daum X64 reset=2004 type=formula formulafile=mfr_13.frm formulaname=multifractal_13 function=sin/exp/exp/sin passes=t center-mag=-1.27390770772130300/-0.00000022474730471/24945.14/1/-90 params=4.123234345456565/0.3785210730307932/80000.64595749994/14235.4911\ 0306016/152048.0404808001/384.1604894012091/384.0048200059491/256.100768\ 3000996/512.1007683000993/768.1007683000987 float=y maxiter=3071 inside=maxiter periodicity=0 rseed=-2436 colors=000A80<3>540430220110zh3<35>A70860750<3>110wON<3>_EDUCBO99<2>622D\ L6<2>351gy2<38>AF09E08D0<3>580570450<3>010LKXEDM76BSQO<38>433333322<3>00\ 0pOa<3>MAGF6A735eFo<2>A3DJ57<3>612301pUn<49>636535424<3>000VO2<13>C90 } -------------------------------------------END------------------------------
Hi Petta, I sympathize with the lack of response you're getting for your amazing work. I'm sitting on a method for generating an infinite number of beautiful tiles of the square and equilateral triangle... so, every person on the planet could have their own unique tile - indeed, every person could have as many as they wanted, even their own *infinity* of the things! I've posted the details of this to the Fractint list, & got some excited response initially, but am still waiting for someone to come along and collaborate with me to make this the Next Big Thing... Tony Hanmer On 12 December 2014 at 05:35, Multifrac@t-online.de <Multifrac@t-online.de> wrote:
This is the first contribution done with the DOSBOX SVN_Daum. As is turns out I have underestimated the speed of my XP Dos which generated the same image in 1 Min 35 Sec, compared to 12 minutes. But anyway The DOSBOX SVN is a lot faster then the previous version. Please compare the calculation time with your system. ;*https://www.dropbox.com/sh/65mmzl5h3bbhh8d/AAAA8pd7WEXy5Hws4b5Cx4S4a?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/65mmzl5h3bbhh8d/AAAA8pd7WEXy5Hws4b5Cx4S4a?dl=0>* ; Petta -------------------------start par--------------------------------------- 80000-16 { ; Patterns ; Time 0.12.04.86 Reso 1280/1024 ; Deep Zoom into 80000-03 ; First image from DOSBOX SVN-Daum X64 reset=2004 type=formula formulafile=mfr_13.frm formulaname=multifractal_13 function=sin/exp/exp/sin passes=t center-mag=-1.27390770772130300/-0.00000022474730471/24945.14/1/-90 params=4.123234345456565/0.3785210730307932/80000.64595749994/14235.4911\ 0306016/152048.0404808001/384.1604894012091/384.0048200059491/256.100768\ 3000996/512.1007683000993/768.1007683000987 float=y maxiter=3071 inside=maxiter periodicity=0 rseed=-2436 colors=000A80<3>540430220110zh3<35>A70860750<3>110wON<3>_EDUCBO99<2>622D\ L6<2>351gy2<38>AF09E08D0<3>580570450<3>010LKXEDM76BSQO<38>433333322<3>00\ 0pOa<3>MAGF6A735eFo<2>A3DJ57<3>612301pUn<49>636535424<3>000VO2<13>C90 }
-------------------------------------------END------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
Am 13.12.2014 um 18:52 schrieb Tony Hanmer:
I sympathize with the lack of response you're getting for your amazing work. Thank you, Tony. I still wait for information about the generation speed on other systems, especially Windows7, 32bit. The DOSBOX-VN speed varies pending which other processes run. Especially Virtual Machines/ XP mode seems to slow it down. On my other Win 7 system, Home PRO it´s 2 Minutes faster, 12 min compared to 14 Min. As the speed can be modified some tests will help to get better results. The Fullscreen performance of DOSBOX VN is much better, the accomodation to the screen size and the switching speed. Also the trackball works perfectly, it does not with DUSBOX. With alt-taB you can switch between windows and dos. Petta
In article <548C8BC1.1010903@t-online.de>, "Multifrac@t-online.de" <Multifrac@t-online.de> writes:
Am 13.12.2014 um 18:52 schrieb Tony Hanmer:
I sympathize with the lack of response you're getting for your amazing work. Thank you, Tony. I still wait for information about the generation speed on other systems, especially Windows7, 32bit.
The DOS program is absolutely the slowest way to generate an image. It is using 16-bit code which is the slowest execution path on any modern CPU. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://ComputerGraphicsMuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://LegalizeAdulthood.wordpress.com>
Am 13.12.2014 um 23:25 schrieb Richard:
The DOS program is absolutely the slowest way to generate an image. It is using 16-bit code which is the slowest execution path on any modern CPU. Confirmed! The XP 32bit version of DOSBOX SVN is even slower. I takes full 16minutes to generate the image. Therefore I´m looking forward that you are able to identify the problem causing the failure of MFR_13. Like I said, if you send a link using multifrac@t-online.de I will assist locating the "neuralgic spot(s)". Probably it is impossible for others to analyze MFR_13 as the same variables are used over and over again to save memory and it has two features you will not understand unless explained: the warp effect and the border system. A lot of code is used to eliminate unwanted digits after the dot which are generated by fractint. That´s the reason I call it stable. Can you explain why the XP Dos mode is that fast? It takes only 95 seconds to generate the image. If "Iterated Dynamics" comes close - Wow! Petta
It would be interesting to objectify the discussion about speeds on different platforms. It certainly is possible to make informed (and strong) statements about what the performance should be under various environments, but there is nothing like actual tests. Of course trying to make meaningful benchmarks is fraught with difficulties and challenges, I'm not saying it would be easy. What might be useful is to find a fractal that runs properly on several pieces of software and compare on one machine under different environments. Or maybe several fractals, one that is running from an assembler implementation of a built-in fractal in the DOS Fractint and maybe one that uses the parser with a challenging formula. Run these two under naked DOS, Windows 95 or 98 or XP, and several virtual environments. Would be nice to find a fractal that also runs under Iterated Dynamics (easy since it runs nearly everything Fractint runs) and Manpwin or even Fractint for Windows (though the later is still 16 bit and so subject to Rich's hypothesis about 16 bit code being slow). Be aware that DOSBox was originally developed for gamers running old games, so it has mechanisms for intentionally slowing things down so they don't run too fast. For our purposes it needs to be set to run as fast as it can. See: http://www.dosbox.com/DOSBoxManual.html#SpeedHelpI t would be informative to compare DOSBox with other virtual environments on the same hardware. I am moving on implementing the wiki at Fractint.net. Not quite done and no content up yet, but this would be the perfect place for this sort of discussion and results. The holidays are looming, so we are probably talking January for the wiki to be operational. Tim
Timothy Wegner wrote:
What might be useful is to find a fractal that runs properly on several pieces of software and compare on one machine under different environments. Or maybe several fractals, one that is running from an assembler implementation of a built-in fractal in the DOS Fractint and maybe one that uses the parser with a challenging formula.
All of the above would be nice to have statistics on. And I have enough machines (at various OS versions/levels; and hardware builds) to assist with this. Will probably need at least three different fractal parameters and one involved formula.
Be aware that DOSBox.... ....needs to be set to run as fast as it can. See: http://www.dosbox.com/DOSBoxManual.html#SpeedHelpI
The above link should be: http://www.dosbox.com/DOSBoxManual.html#SpeedHelp Sincerely, P.N.L.
*CPU Core (speed up)* On x86 architectures you can try to force the usage of a dynamically recompiling core (set core=dynamic in the DOSBox configuration file). This usually gives better results if the auto detection (core=auto) fails. It is best accompanied by cycles=max. But you may also try using it with high amounts of cycles (for example 20000 or more). Note that there might be games that work worse/crash with the dynamic core (so save your game often), or do not work at all! I always set Cycles=max, but possibly you get better results defining a fixed amount as explained. It´s subject to testing. Petta
Thanks for the corrected link, Paul! First step would be picking a couple of fractals. Suggestions? I suggest one built-in (maybe a zoom in of the standard mandelbrot) and one a formula. Is there a nice complex formula that runs on Fractint, Iterated Dynamics, and Manpwin?
Timothy Wegner wrote:
First step would be picking a couple of fractals. Suggestions? I suggest one built-in (maybe a zoom in of the standard mandelbrot) and one a formula. Is there a nice complex formula that runs on Fractint, Iterated Dynamics, and Manpwin?
I agree. And as to the complex formula, how about one from Sylvie Gallet, as in the following: comment { Because of its large size, this formula requires Fractint version 19.3 or later to run. It uses Newton's formula applied to the equation z^6-1 = 0 and, in the foreground, spells out the word 'FRACTINT'. } fractint [float=y periodicity=0] {; Sylvie Gallet [101324,3444], 1996 ; requires 'periodicity=0' z = pixel-0.025 , x=real(z) , y=imag(z) , x1=x*1.8 , x3=3*x ty2 = ( (y<0.025) && (y>-0.025) ) || (y>0.175) f = ( (x<-1.2) || ty2 ) && ( (x>-1.25) && (x<-1) ) r = ( (x<-0.9) || ty2 ) && ( (x>-0.95) && (x<-0.8) ) r = r || ((cabs(sqrt(|z+(0.8,-0.1)|)-0.1)<0.025) && (x>-0.8)) r = r || (((y<(-x1-1.44)) && (y>(-x1-1.53))) && (y<0.025)) a = (y>(x3+1.5)) || (y>(-x3-1.2)) || ((y>-0.125) && (y<-0.075)) a = a && ((y<(x3+1.65)) && (y<(-x3-1.05))) c = (cabs(sqrt(|z+0.05|)-0.2)<0.025) && (x<0.05) t1 = ((x>0.225) && (x<0.275) || (y>0.175)) && ((x>0.1) && (x<0.4)) i = (x>0.45) && (x<0.5) n = (x<0.6) || (x>0.8) || ((y>-x1+1.215) && (y<-x1+1.305)) n = n && (x>0.55) && (x<0.85) t2 = ((x>1.025) && (x<1.075) || (y>0.175)) && ((x>0.9) && (x<1.2)) test = 1 - (real(f||r||a||c||t1||i||n||t2)*real(y>-0.225)*real(y<0.225)) z = 1+(0.0,-0.65)/(pixel+(0.0,.75)) : z2 = z*z , z4 = z2*z2 , n = z4*z2-1 , z = z-n/(6*z4*z) (|n|>=0.0001) && test } Later, P.N.L.
Of çourse, the whole of DOS Fractint can fit entirely in L1 cache on modern processors. That could speed things up! David W. Jones gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community http://dancingtreefrog.com ---- Richard <legalize@xmission.com> wrote:
In article <548C8BC1.1010903@t-online.de>, "Multifrac@t-online.de" <Multifrac@t-online.de> writes:
Am 13.12.2014 um 18:52 schrieb Tony Hanmer:
I sympathize with the lack of response you're getting for your amazing work. Thank you, Tony. I still wait for information about the generation speed on other systems, especially Windows7, 32bit.
The DOS program is absolutely the slowest way to generate an image. It is using 16-bit code which is the slowest execution path on any modern CPU. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://ComputerGraphicsMuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://LegalizeAdulthood.wordpress.com>
_______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
In article <20141214042822.QZP08.294400.root@dnvrco-web07>, <gnome@hawaii.rr.com> writes:
Of course, the whole of DOS Fractint can fit entirely in L1 cache on modern processors. That could speed things up!
It won't make up for the fact that every single instruction is taking the slowest path in the CPU hardware. If you're running it inside some sort of virtual machine, it's even worse. Most people have reported that the Win32 version using C runs faster then the 16-bit version using assembly. It's not 1990 anymore. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://ComputerGraphicsMuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://LegalizeAdulthood.wordpress.com>
participants (6)
-
gnome@hawaii.rr.com -
Multifrac@t-online.de -
Paul N. Lee -
Richard -
Timothy Wegner -
Tony Hanmer