|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: OT: cpu speed & rendering time
Date: 13 Jan 2001 04:23:07
Message: <3A601E7B.3EC1149@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: OT: cpu speed & rendering time
Date: 15 Jan 2001 14:34:39
Message: <3A6350CF.7C9F6945@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
Comparisons for similar speed (mhz) have *no sense*
You should do the only reasonable comparison: similar price
Btw the athlon is the best in both fields
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Angelo 'kENpEX' Pesce wrote:
>
> >Anyone know the difference between a:
> >
> >AMD Athlon
> >Pentium III
> >Intel Celeron
> >
> >for similar speed?
>
> Comparisons for similar speed (mhz) have *no sense*
> You should do the only reasonable comparison: similar price
> Btw the athlon is the best in both fields
And in reliability? And in floating point?
(Note: I'm not sarcastic, I really ask)
--
Adrien Beau adr### [at] freefr http://adrien.beau.free.fr/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |