In article <3e2d56b8@news.povray.org>,
 "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

> Yes, they use chess2.pov for POV-Ray 3.1 and as far as I know they still use
> optics.pov for POV-Ray 3.5.

Still? Meaning they've used it before?
It is definitely not a good general benchmark scene, its purpose is to 
demonstrate media photons. How could they miss the new benchmark scene, 
and what could make them choose optics.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

In article <cja### [at] netplexaussieorg> , 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>  wrote:

> Still? Meaning they've used it before?

Yes, since August.  I had pointed out to them in detail that using
optics.pov is problematic (and got a response), but of course only after
they published first results in the print issue.  So it was too late for
them to change.  I suppose this is one reason why they now report results
for POV-Ray 3.1 as well as POV-Ray 3.5 again (in August they only reported
3.5 results).  As you know, the problem with optics.pov is that is spends a
lot of time in photon code, which is more searching than FPU usage.

> It is definitely not a good general benchmark scene, its purpose is to

Very true.

> demonstrate media photons. How could they miss the new benchmark scene,
> and what could make them choose optics.pov?

I don't know.  I guess they were afraid POV-Ray was specially optimized for
benchmark.pov, which to some extend is true (also not for specific
processors per-se), but it is still a better choice.  And optics.pov takes
reasonably long, so to someone who does not know the implementation details
it may seem like a good benchmark scene :-(

However, I have to admit that even when putting all the optimisation aside,
the raw benchmark.pov isn't a perfect benchmark as I found after doing some
extensive profiling.  It turns out a very few object types dominate the
tracing process, which creates a bias  and only evaluates a small amount of
code.  It can be fixed*, but then the scene looks really terrible...

    Thorsten

* I will post details elsewhere.

____________________________________________________
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 Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:14:41 -0600, "Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote:
>Looks like this might be worth waiting for. I've got an Athlon 1.2 right now
>which is starting to seem a little slow, but I've been thinking about
>waiting for this new chip since I heard about it in October.
>
> -Shay
I've also been waiting for this chip - my Celeron 466 has served me
well over the years but it's seriously underpowered for the apps I'm
using now (and a few games I'd like to get 8o). I'm looking forward to
trying out PovRay64 on WinXP64!

Scott

Post a reply to this message

I am already waiting for "my A64". :-)

If we take a look on the Processor-Architecture wqe got from Intel the last
years,
we find out that it was often "marketing - oriented".

Instead of putting more power into the "already in use"_FPU they made a new
one
called it MMX,SSE,SSE-2 - clearly in mind that they need this marketing
trick
to get exclusivity leaving the customers "with the old chips" behind.

At the same time, they changed from "Slot to Socket" and back and again,
changed the design of chipsets, and Power-supply and mainbord-formfactor,
 just to force people to go the hard way for an upgrade and buy "everything
new".

While AMD keeps on his Socket/Slot as long as possible to enable people to
go
the "easy way" for an upgrade.

Thats for me an argument to look two times before buying Intel-CPU,
so long I can get a hammer from an "honest company".

Technically the PIV we must say that the actual PIV is not the chip to
compete
with the AMD-64.

Intel will also bring something new (bigger cache ?) that time, so we should
not make
finaly technical  conclusions now.

--Theo

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------Distributed Network-Rendering or Local
SMP-Rendering on all CPU's you have.
With SMPOV und POV-Ray 3.5. * Download free at:
http://www.it-berater.org/smpov.htm


"Scott Moore" <noo### [at] nospamcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2naq2vsm7uh5urj230qfohibje9g1dqdts@4ax.com...
> Came across this article http://www.ct.heise.de/ct/english/02/26/018/
> that tests AMD's 64bit CPU against Athlon XP and Pentium 4. POVRay was
> among the other apps in the test. See table at the end for results.
>
> Scott

Post a reply to this message