 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <chrishuff-88B0A4.17280307042001@news.povray.org> , Chris
Huff <chr### [at] mac com> wrote:
> The Dreamcast's processor runs at 200MHz, it should render skyvase.pov
> in far less than 3 hours, even with an unoptimized compiler.
Maybe (I do not know about the SH) the FPU only supports
single-precision floating point numbers in hardware? If the compiler is
then forced to generate code for it you would get such a slowdown...
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <MPG.1539782b51913029898ad@news.povray.org> ,
jam### [at] ntlworldcom (Jamie Davison) wrote:
> Yep, but IIRC the SH4 is a RISC chip, and I've never seen POV running at
> any great speed on a RISC chip
Even if you have not seen it, this is simply an incorrect
generalisation!
> (Caveat: My experience of POV on RISC
> machines is limited to Acorn Archimedes systems which compared *Very*
Because it didn't have an FPU?
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3acf994e$1@news.povray.org>, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Maybe (I do not know about the SH) the FPU only supports
> single-precision floating point numbers in hardware? If the compiler is
> then forced to generate code for it you would get such a slowdown...
I looked for specifications on it, and couldn't find any in-depth
information, but I did see a reference to a 64-bit floating point
unit...I interpreted that as a unit that handles 64-bit floats, though
it could be a vector unit handling 2 32-bit floats, or something similar.
If it does double-precision through software, that would slow it
down a lot...nothing to do with it being a RISC processor, though.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Maybe (I do not know about the SH) the FPU only supports
> single-precision floating point numbers in hardware? If the compiler is
> then forced to generate code for it you would get such a slowdown...
don't forget that while a DC maybe able to handle very complex 3d geometry,
this is almost certainly handled by the gfx chipset to a certain degree, the
main cpu doesn't have to be (and probably isn't) up to much in terms of
actual computing power.
now if pov could figure out a way to use the geometry engines on 3d hardware
to do some floating point crunching :P
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
Hi-Impact database driven web site design & e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3acfbe85@news.povray.org>, "Rick [Kitty5]"
<ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
> now if pov could figure out a way to use the geometry engines on 3d
> hardware to do some floating point crunching :P
I doubt the geometry engines are any more capable at double-precision
calculations...and sending the information back and forth would probably
be even slower.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 3 HOURS !?! My old XT could do it in 3 hours!
From what I can tell, the guy left it running at minimum priority because
that machine isn't just for rendering, but is also a webserver, and he
didn't want any slowdowns. So that benchmark is not accurate at all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > (Caveat: My experience of POV on RISC
> > machines is limited to Acorn Archimedes systems which compared *Very*
>
> Because it didn't have an FPU?
Quite possibly. I forgot to mention that this was about 6 or so years
ago and given how much things have moved on I wasn't really expecting the
current crop of RISC based machines to have the same flaws.
Well, that'll teach me to fling off a quick comment without thinking too
much about things first... :)
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Yep, but IIRC the SH4 is a RISC chip, and I've never seen POV running at
> > any great speed on a RISC chip (Caveat: My experience of POV on RISC
> > machines is limited to Acorn Archimedes systems which compared *Very*
> > poorly, even to my old 486DX2/66, and so may not apply to the SH4)
>
> The PowerPC processors are RISC, and while they aren't the top
> performers, they are far better than you implied. My 350MHz G3 rendered
> skyvase.pov at 640*480, using adaptive antialiasing with a threshold of
> 0.3, in 1 minute 33 seconds.
Pretty good, My PII-300 manages 2'20" with method 1, and 3'3" with method
2.
Oh, and please note I wasn't having a go at Macs, in fact I'd forgotten
that they were RISC based while I wrote my previous post.
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jamie Davison <jam### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote:
: Yep, but IIRC the SH4 is a RISC chip, and I've never seen POV running at
: any great speed on a RISC chip
The 333MHz sparcv9 processor used in the Sun Ultra 5 is a RISC processor.
POV-Ray renders there faster than with a P-II 350MHz.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I saw the other posts about speeds and remembered I quick look I did a while
ago. Alpha's came out at about 2-3x pixels per megahertz compared even to a
TBird.
Alpha's smoke most other CPU's when it comes to raytracing :)
---
Michael Brown
Physics is no fun if you disregard friction.
"Jamie Davison" <jam### [at] ntlworldcom> wrote in message
news:MPG.1539782b51913029898ad@news.povray.org...
> > > While we are awaiting the actual benchmark figures, I think it will be
safe
> > > to assume that its around the 3 hours mark for the standard
skyvase.pov at
> > > 640x480.
> >
> > 3 HOURS !?! My old XT could do it in 3 hours!
>
> Yep, but IIRC the SH4 is a RISC chip, and I've never seen POV running at
> any great speed on a RISC chip (Caveat: My experience of POV on RISC
> machines is limited to Acorn Archimedes systems which compared *Very*
> poorly, even to my old 486DX2/66, and so may not apply to the SH4)
>
> Bye for now,
> Jamie.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
