And another one here, just in case...

:o)

-- 
http://www.teleport.com/~dearmad

But why bother?  I'm not interesting.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:34:52 -0500, "Greg M. Johnson"
<gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:

>Anyone know the difference between a:
>
>AMD Athlon
>Pentium III
>Intel Celeron
>
>for similar speed?

Performance at the same CPU clock is in the order you have specified
them, fastest on top. The Pentium III is better suited for games
(better supported AGP on the mainboard).

Check Tom's Hardware Guide (any search engine should be able find it),
it is the number one place for such FAQs.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Ben Chambers wrote:
> 
> Is this information posted on the web?
> ...Chambers

I don't think so.

Might check yourself: http://www.heise.de/ct/

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:

> "Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > Anyone know the difference between a:
> >
> > AMD Athlon
> > Pentium III
> > Intel Celeron
> >
> > for similar speed?
>
> You have 'em in order. Any of the new AMDs should give POV a significant
> boost over Intel for equivalent MHz, and those all come in the same
> range (Athlon and PIII up to around 1.2GHz I believe). The Pentium IV
> allows clock speeds much higher but actually does less per cycle IIRC,
> so in the end a high-end PIV is probably slower rendering than a
> high-end PIII. My advice, go for AMD. (And for equivalent MHz the mac
> chips waste any of them, but they don't come nearly as fast in MHz; I'm
> pretty sure the fastest PC chips still beat the fastest mac chips. But
> macs don't count. ;)
>
> --
> David Fontaine

Motorola makes the PowerPC G4 733mhz processor.  Why are you calling it a
mac chip Apple has little to do with its development from my understanding.

Anyway I recommend the AMD processor despite the local economy's near
complete dependence on Intel.  Intel has just made so many mistakes in the
last year.  They recalled a million motherboards.  I had one of them, and I
can't tell you how many times I thought I figured out why my computer was
behaving so badly.  Oh the frustration.  Well lets hope their 64 bit
processors will be better.

Dan Johnson

Post a reply to this message

In article <3A5FC650.E20A9960@faricy.net>, David Fontaine 
<dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:

> (And for equivalent MHz the mac chips waste any of them, but they 
> don't come nearly as fast in MHz; I'm pretty sure the fastest PC 
> chips still beat the fastest mac chips. But macs don't count. ;)

The "Mac chips" are PowerPCs, which are mainly made by Motorola. Apple, 
Motorala, and IBM worked together on these chips, but apparently 
Motorola makes the specific ones used in Macs. (and they don't seem to 
be working together as much any more)
And while there are PowerPC G4 machines out with over 700MHz (and dual 
533MHz G4 machines), the different architectures mean you can't compare 
MHz directly to the Pentium compatible chips. There are some things the 
PPC chips are *much* faster at, and other things they are a bit slower 
at, with the same MHz rating. The biggest advantage is integer math, or 
single-precision float math using the Altivec (Velocity Engine) SIMD 
acceleration, which means these processors aren't that great for POV, 
which very heavily uses double-precision floats and can't take advantage 
of SIMD instructions. Not surprisingly, Macs are best at things like 
PhotoShop.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
: Believe or not, the above is usually true for the three processors you named.
: In my experience, the main factor in POV performance is the processor's FPU
: (Floating Point Unit)

  This is a totally wild guess, but examining the povray code, I would say
that far less than 50% of it (when compiled to machine code) is FPU code.
Perhaps 10% or even less.

  Of course the FPU code is concentrated on places which are called
frequently, which raises the % of executed FPU code compared to executed
CPU code. Still, I would say that less than 50% of the code executed by
povray is FPU code.
  So the CPU execution speed would play an important role in rendering times.

  My point in my (sarcastic) answer was totally misunderstood.
  What I said was: "If povray rendering speed is the same in all three
processors, then it doesn't matter which one you use."
  I didn't say that the rendering speed is the same in the three processors.

-- 
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););}    /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Dan Johnson wrote:

> Anyway I recommend the AMD processor despite the local economy's near
> complete dependence on Intel.  Intel has just made so many mistakes in the
> last year.  They recalled a million motherboards.  I had one of them, and I
> can't tell you how many times I thought I figured out why my computer was
> behaving so badly.  Oh the frustration.  Well lets hope their 64 bit
> processors will be better.

Ooh, that sucks. Intel does seem to be going downhill.

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

At least AMD is going uphill. I like to see a little change of scenery.

Post a reply to this message

I found this reference, too:

Post a reply to this message

Ben Chambers wrote:
> 
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
> BTW, the German c't magazine regularly publishes Povray benchmark results
> 
> > for all CPUs.
> >
> > Christoph
> >
> 
> Is this information posted on the web?
> ...Chambers

I just looked up some values from previous tests, they used the chess2
scene coming with povray 3.1 with 320x240 -aa, but did not specify any
further details, especially not the focal blur quality used.  I tested it
with FB_Quality_Default on my K6/500 while some other apps where running
and came to 253 PPS which seems quite reasonable. :-(

Even though chess2.pov is one of the larger sample scenes from povray 3.1
it nearly only uses the CPU (< 1Mb memory use) and therefore i did not
include any other information on the test systems used.  

The last issue of the c't (02/2001) contained a test of Pentium 4 systems,
therefore there are quite a lot of values for this processor.

Celeron 533 MHz       333 PPS
Celeron 600 MHz       339 PPS
Pentium 3 733 MHz     512 PPS      
Pentium 3 750 MHz     522 PPS    
Pentium 3 866 MHz     604 PPS
Pentium 3 1.0 GHz     691/704/691 PPS
Pentium 4 1.4 GHz     738/724/745/745/791/731 PPS
Pentium 4 1.5 GHz     791/783 PPS
Pentium 4 1.6 GHz     834 PPS
Duron 600 MHz         471/474 PPS
Duron 650 MHz         515/515 PPS
Duron 700 MHz         552/556/560 PPS
Athlon 1.2 GHz        960/948 PPS


Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message