 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> actually rendering. Fast systems should render at high resolutions, while
> slow systems should render it at low resolutions.
What about features that use some treshold to decide whether to
make more computations or not? Anti aliasing, reflections, media,
focal blur, radiosity etc. The pixels/second reading wouldn't be
same at different resolutions.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > : nuff said.
> >
> > By the way, what does this mean? I have seen it many times but I have
> > no idea...
>
> nuff said <-> enough said (on this subject).
I've also seen it used to imply 'I've said all I'm going to say on this
subject'
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jamie Davison" <jam### [at] ntlworld com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15ec4a7dcdd94ec79899c1@news.povray.org...
> > > : nuff said.
> > >
> > > By the way, what does this mean? I have seen it many times but I
have
> > > no idea...
> >
> > nuff said <-> enough said (on this subject).
>
> I've also seen it used to imply 'I've said all I'm going to say on this
> subject'
Darn, because I saw a chance to ask why gh=f anyhow. <g>
Can't think of anyone else around here with a "gh" in their name, probably
is though ("though"... no "f" sound there). Ha ha. Pay no attention to me.
I've been asked if Hughes is pronounced Hufes before, believe it or not.
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3b819dc2@news.povray.org...
> Steve <ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote:
> : nuff said.
>
> By the way, what does this mean? I have seen it many times but I have
> no idea...
Enough said - it comes from Marvel Comics, Stan Lee's Soapbox back in the '60s
IIRC
(f'ups set to o.t.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 01:41:08 +0100, "Scott Hill"
<nos### [at] nospamthanks> wrote:
> Is this true ? The fact that no-ones picked it up implies it is, I
>guess, but I thought POV wasn't going C++ until 4.0...
Some parts of 3.5 are in C++, and it does require a C++ compiler to
build.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2001-08-20 12:56, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>> - radiosity scene (high memory use and very random access to memory)
>
> High memory use would be bad. You can't know how much memory every
> computer has installed and if someone runs out of memory, and has
> to resort to disk swapping, it will negate their render time as
> accurate.
Their render times are still accurate. Render time does depend on the
amount of memory you have (and the quality of the swapping algorithm and
the speed of the disks) for large scenes. Memory is as much (or even
more) constricting to my scenes than CPU power is. Therefore a benchmark
suite should contain scenes with varying amounts of memory.
> There are still people running machines with much less
> than 128 megs and even those people with 128 megs installed have
> the OS using up much of those resources.
Right. This means that they cannot expect good performance when
rendering large scenes. Just like someone with a slow CPU cannot expect
good performance when rendering scenes which need a lot of CPU power.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Oder glaubst du "Bugtraq" waere eine
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | Science-Fiction TV-Serie ueber Schaben
| | | hjp### [at] hjpat | im Weltall?
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Juergen P. Meier in dcsm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Warp wrote:
>>
>> 1. It has more than one scene file, each one benchmarking its own important
>> area in rendering, for example one for raw raytracing speed, one
>> which takes long to parse, one which uses lots of memory, etc.
>
> Then, you would have multiple metrics. IMNSHO, it's a bad thing,
No, it's a good thing, because benchmarks with only a single metric are
almost useless in comparing systems.
> because everyone will wants soon it's own test scene.
The number of test scenes should be small enough that a reasonable
number of systems will be tested with each. But there should be enough
to highlight different aspects of systems, and having several scenes
also makes it easier to replace them over time without invalidating all
results.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Oder glaubst du "Bugtraq" waere eine
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | Science-Fiction TV-Serie ueber Schaben
| | | hjp### [at] hjpat | im Weltall?
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Juergen P. Meier in dcsm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2001-08-20 15:59, Ben Chambers <bdc### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Even though multiprocessor systems have been around for years, I still don't
> know anyone who has one.
I had one (a dual 90 MHz Pentium). We also have several at the
institute (they are a bit newer, though :-).
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Oder glaubst du "Bugtraq" waere eine
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | Science-Fiction TV-Serie ueber Schaben
| | | hjp### [at] hjpat | im Weltall?
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Juergen P. Meier in dcsm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: Isn't it time for a new pov benchmark?
Date: 26 Aug 2001 17:36:09
Message: <3b896bc9@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <slr### [at] fwicom> , ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron
Parker) wrote:
> But that would prevent people with real-world processors from participating
> at all. I hate to think how long it would take this P200 to run the
> benchmark, for example, but even a Duron 650 would have a tough time of it,
> and that's a current processor. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't
> expect to break the gigahertz barrier for at least another year or two.
But skyvase.pov took hours to render too when it was first created ...
IMO, the longer it takes the better, up to a certain extend of course. I
would say 48 or even more hours on a slow (i.e. P90 system) would still do
the job for most people. One could for example let it render on a sunny
weekend without suffering from computer withdrawal while POV-Ray blocks the
system ;-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> But skyvase.pov took hours to render too when it was first created ...
>
> IMO, the longer it takes the better, up to a certain extend of course. I
> would say 48 or even more hours on a slow (i.e. P90 system) would still do
> the job for most people. One could for example let it render on a sunny
> weekend without suffering from computer withdrawal while POV-Ray blocks the
> system ;-)
I coudn't stand not being connected to the internet for that long !
As soon as I did it would skew the results.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
