John VanSickle wrote:

>
> What kind of memory do you have plugged into it?  If it's DRAM instead
> of SDRAM, you're seeling yourself short.
>

Thanks for your reply John. It's PC100 SDRAM.

Post a reply to this message

Scott Sexton & David Lewis wrote:
> 
> John VanSickle wrote:
> 
> >
> > What kind of memory do you have plugged into it?  If it's DRAM
> > instead of SDRAM, you're seeling yourself short.
> 
> Thanks for your reply John. It's PC100 SDRAM.

Assuming it's not faulty, it's not the problem.
-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

In article <37ef2389@news.povray.org>, Nieminen Juha <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:
>Scott Sexton & David Lewis <2b### [at] cheerfulcom> wrote:
>: I have a newish eMachine (low priced PC) with an AMD 333Mhz K2 that
>: renders all my old povray scenes slower than my laptop with a 120Mhz
>: Pentium (like 1/3 the speed rather than 3 times faster, as I would think
>: it should). This very slow rendering performance occurs under both the
>: Win98 and Mandrake Linux 6.0 OS installations on the eMachine so it does
>: not appear to be a OS or software installation problem to me. (Perhaps
>: the K2's L2 cache? but the laptop is older and only has smallish
>: processor cache anyway.)
>
:
>  Also I think that AMD has a quite slow FPU.

This is what I was told about my Evergreen 586 upgrade to my PC. A while ago I 
rendered that simple glass that I made in sPatch... it took 7 hours to render 
(setting max_trace_level high was part of the problem) but I was told then 
that the AMD FPUs aren't that fast, however I never did hear back from that 
person if they knew if it was all AMDs or just the older 586s....

This is something I need to look into. When I replace this PC with a new one 
(I'm thinking about keeping the machine I got and run Linux on it, but anyway) 
I don't want to go out and buy a poor performace FPU if I'm going to continue 
to do stuff with POV (and I think I'm hooked now.... "you know you've been 
raytracing too long when you setup a seperate configuration and icon for the 
POVray Newsgroups).

PHIL

---------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Philip Bartol wrote:
> 
> This is what I was told about my Evergreen 586 upgrade to my PC. A while ago I
> rendered that simple glass that I made in sPatch... it took 7 hours to render
> (setting max_trace_level high was part of the problem) but I was told then
> that the AMD FPUs aren't that fast, however I never did hear back from that
> person if they knew if it was all AMDs or just the older 586s....
> 
> This is something I need to look into. 


I've just tried to find out about this. It's not easy to tell. AMD may be a bit
slower on FPUs but is more efficient on memory management and other things so
I've been told. The way I interpreted all information Intel is a few percent
faster but it's also more expensive (about 15% over here - with 450Mhz).
I opted for AMD but I don't think that was a 100% rational choice.

Remco

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:19:11 +0200, Remco de Korte wrote:
>Philip Bartol wrote:
>> 
>> This is what I was told about my Evergreen 586 upgrade to my PC. A while ago I
>> rendered that simple glass that I made in sPatch... it took 7 hours to render
>> (setting max_trace_level high was part of the problem) but I was told then
>> that the AMD FPUs aren't that fast, however I never did hear back from that
>> person if they knew if it was all AMDs or just the older 586s....
>> 
>> This is something I need to look into. 
>
>I've just tried to find out about this. It's not easy to tell. AMD may be a bit
>slower on FPUs but is more efficient on memory management and other things so
>I've been told. The way I interpreted all information Intel is a few percent
>faster but it's also more expensive (about 15% over here - with 450Mhz).
>I opted for AMD but I don't think that was a 100% rational choice.

I have an AMD K6/233 at home.  When I bought it, it was the best bang for the
buck.  Yes, the FPU might be a little slower, but I'm betting it's not slow 
enough to make up for the extra 100 MHz or so I could afford by not buying 
Intel.

Post a reply to this message

Even if I wanted to use AMD I can't.  (not that I'd want to)

The reason being that 3D Studio MAX is specific to Intel processors.

Post a reply to this message

Just saw a stock market analyst commenting on AMD this morning.  He said
they were the worst managed business (in the US, World? something like that)
and they cannot keep the supply up with demand for their CPUs.  I'm just
telling about this, not opinion from myself.  I only go with Intel because
I'm a grazing animal <moo>.

Bob

Lance Birch <lan### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:37f0cb37@news.povray.org...
> Even if I wanted to use AMD I can't.  (not that I'd want to)
>
> The reason being that 3D Studio MAX is specific to Intel processors.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:

> Actually, POV depends pretty much on raw MHz. AMD's FPU might be a
> factor, but I
> don't think the classic Pentium has a much better unit. Perhaps
> something
> radical has been done in the BIOS, like turning off all processor
> caches. I
> cannot think of any peripheral that could slow down POV by a
> significant amount.
> How is the overall system performance? Does it swap a lot? Also, could
> you give
> a benchmark time for POV (e.g. skyvase.pov @ 640x480 AA 0.3)

The overall performance of the eMachine has been very good. It has only
been POV that shocked me. It does not need to use swap space much at all
since there is 160 MB of SDRAM and the POV scenes were fairly simple
although time consuming because of reflections.

Skyvase.pov rendered in 4 minutes and 57 seconds at a quality of 9,
640x480 AA 0.3. I will also try skyvase.pov on my old P120 laptop.

I will check the BIOS to see if I have inadvertently turned off the
processor cache or something else.

Thank you for the input Margus (and others too) !


(Later the next day) Well, I found the problem now that I studied the
system a little more carefully. It seems that both Netscape under Linux
and IE5 under Windows take lots of processor time even when they are
sitting idle. I usually have a browser open almost continuously since I
use a cable modem with an always live connection. Thanks again for all
the feedback on my question, the rendering time is now what it should be
for skyvase.pov on a K6-2 333 Mhz, about 2 minutes. I just have to make
sure I close any resource hogging browsers down when they are not in use
if I am rendering a time consuming scene!

Post a reply to this message

That's exactly correct actually.

That's why Gateway is dropping their AMD line soon.  AMD had problems with
the processors and couldn't supply Gateway with enough, causing a 5 week
backlog (which lost Gateway $200 million BTW...).

Also the other problem with AMD right now is that the Athalon processors are
relying on boards made in Taiwan, and of course the earthquakes caused
problems for the board manufacturers meaning that there is a shortage of
boards that support the new chip...

If they don't watch it they might just sink like Cyrix did.

Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:37f1276b@news.povray.org...
> Just saw a stock market analyst commenting on AMD this morning.  He said
> they were the worst managed business (in the US, World? something like
that)
> and they cannot keep the supply up with demand for their CPUs.  I'm just
> telling about this, not opinion from myself.  I only go with Intel because
> I'm a grazing animal <moo>.

Post a reply to this message

In article <37F190F1.15F6CFE8@cheerful.com>, Scott Sexton & David Lewis
<2b### [at] cheerfulcom> wrote:
>(Later the next day) Well, I found the problem now that I studied the
>system a little more carefully. It seems that both Netscape under Linux
>and IE5 under Windows take lots of processor time even when they are
>sitting idle. I usually have a browser open almost continuously since I
>use a cable modem with an always live connection. Thanks again for all
>the feedback on my question, the rendering time is now what it should be
>for skyvase.pov on a K6-2 333 Mhz, about 2 minutes. I just have to make
>sure I close any resource hogging browsers down when they are not in use
>if I am rendering a time consuming scene!

Sounds like maybe it's time to look into Opera... you gotta figure that MS is 
he king of BloatWare and Netscape isn't the smallest piece of software out 
their either. Back in the day (when I only had 4MB of RAM) I test installed a 
copy of IE4 (I was going to be installing it for someone on their office 
computer) and it rendered my Windows 3.11 useless from the splash screen on. I 
had to manually removed the components from DOS before I could get it up and 
running again.

BTW have you checked it when shutting off all sorts of Java?

PHIL

---------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message