 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I know that linux supposedly renders faster than windoze, that bus speed is
important, that the graphics card doesn't seem to effect render speed, etc.
The reason I post this is due to the fact that affordable hardware solutions
have increased in number in recent years and I'm considering purchasing a
second machine with raytracing in mind. Within reason, what are some of the
better PC configurations for this?
What hardware components have the best cost vs. improvement of render speed
ratio?
A big athlon or pIV? Dual processors? Bus speed? Lots of extra ram?
In essence, where is my money best spent, for raytracing?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
October wrote:
>
> I know that linux supposedly renders faster than windoze, that bus speed is
> important, that the graphics card doesn't seem to effect render speed, etc.
> The reason I post this is due to the fact that affordable hardware solutions
> have increased in number in recent years and I'm considering purchasing a
> second machine with raytracing in mind. Within reason, what are some of the
> better PC configurations for this?
>
> What hardware components have the best cost vs. improvement of render speed
> ratio?
>
> A big athlon or pIV? Dual processors? Bus speed? Lots of extra ram?
>
> In essence, where is my money best spent, for raytracing?
There was a lot of discussion in the past about this topic, what hardware
is most effective really depends on your needs, in general you can say
that a fast FPU is very important. Memory requirements much depend on the
scenes you are rendering. For details esp. concerning the P4 vs. Athlon
topic you should look up the old postings in this group.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nothing will ever be fast enough. You'll get used to the
speed of the new machine within a very short time, so you'll
need a faster machine etc. And if you wait for six months
you'll be able to buy something faster with your money.
So to summarise, what's the point?
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
6:52pm up 10 days, 20:31, 2 users, load average: 1.15, 1.32, 1.32
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
October wrote:
>
> What hardware components have the best cost vs. improvement of render speed
> ratio?
It seems that with Duron you get more speed for the money. With Athlon
it's 100% more cost and 20% more speed.
______________________________________________________________________
Kari Kivisalo http://www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a882487@news.povray.org> , "October"
<oct### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> A big athlon or pIV? Dual processors? Bus speed? Lots of extra ram?
>
> In essence, where is my money best spent, for raytracing?
This whole issue has been covered numerous times in just the past few
weeks. As messages do not expire in this group you can just set your
newsreader to read more (or all 25000+ if you really want...) messages
and find a lot of good and relevant information.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Athlon 950 are $125. Hard to beat that.
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
>
> October wrote:
> >
> > What hardware components have the best cost vs. improvement of render speed
> > ratio?
>
> It seems that with Duron you get more speed for the money. With Athlon
> it's 100% more cost and 20% more speed.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Kari Kivisalo http://www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
