 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ian J Burgmyer
Subject: Re: 2.8 GHz chip is 2.5 times slower than 1 GHz
Date: 15 Mar 2003 00:07:54
Message: <3e72b52a$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg M. Johnson's furious key-hammering produced this:
> 3) The new PC went into a sleep mode by the next morning, a harder, deeper
> sleep, and I know it does so after a much shorter time than the old one.
That's the cause of the inconsistancies.
> Perhaps the folks who design sleep modes never consider you might need to
> do some CPU-intensive stuff while you're away: they probably figure that if
> you're not typing at the word processor, you have absolutely no need for the
> CPU at all.
If the computer's sleep state were based on CPU usage the system would never
enter sleep mode. Any OS you use has to constantly run through instructions in
order to keep the system running smoothly. Take a quick look in your Windows
task manager (go to the performance tab and don't move the mouse at all).
You'll notice that the processor utilization hangs between 0% and 2%. Remember
that, even though you aren't going anything, background processes and services
still need a small chunk of CPU time to do their thing.
Knowing that, you could argue that CPU utilization can be checked before the
computer drops into sleep mode. I don't believe this is easily possible. CPU
utilization is (I believe) an abstraction made by software based on how it
divides CPU time between the various tasks that are running. Implementing
something like this in a computer's BIOS would probably be impossible without
changing the entire architecture to the point of having the BIOS handle multi-
tasking, a choice that would be very expensive and not allow for the same degree
of freedom that OS developers have.
This is getting a bit off-topic. Followups set.
--
/*^*/light_source{100*<-5,2,-5>2}#macro I(i,n)#while(strlen(i)>=n)#local A=asc(
substr(i,n,1));#local a=asc(substr(i,n+1,1));cylinder{<div(A,8)-12,mod(A,8)-4,4
><div(a,8)-12,mod(a,8)-4,4>,0.1pigment{rgb z}}#local n=n+2;#end#end I("ScUe[]"1
/*<*/)I("mkmtlttk"1)//@_$#!,:<"Thhis polysig brought to you by Ian Burgmyer :)"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Greg M Johnson
Subject: Re: 2.8 GHz chip is 2.5 times slower than 1 GHz
Date: 15 Mar 2003 08:08:46
Message: <3e7325de$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ian J. Burgmyer" <the### [at] mac com> wrote in message
news:3e72b1ca$1@news.povray.org...
> > (I've seen renders hang due to a warning message from XP)
>
> Shouldn't happen in Windows. Even if a window popped up in front of
POV-Ray it
> should keep tracing in the background.
>
This is definitely happening.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: 2.8 GHz chip is 2.5 times slower than 1 GHz
Date: 16 Mar 2003 14:58:59
Message: <3e74d783@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg M. Johnson <gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> I got a new WinXP PC with a 2.8 GHz chip.
Which chip? That would be nice to know.
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ian J Burgmyer
Subject: Re: 2.8 GHz chip is 2.5 times slower than 1 GHz
Date: 19 Mar 2003 00:24:08
Message: <3e77fef8$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp's furious key-hammering produced this:
>> I got a new WinXP PC with a 2.8 GHz chip.
>
> Which chip? That would be nice to know.
Most likely a Pentium 4. Most people refer to Athlons with the AMD name
(Athlon 2800+).
--
/*^*/light_source{100*<-5,2,-5>2}#macro I(i,n)#while(strlen(i)>=n)#local A=asc(
substr(i,n,1));#local a=asc(substr(i,n+1,1));cylinder{<div(A,8)-12,mod(A,8)-4,4
><div(a,8)-12,mod(a,8)-4,4>,0.1pigment{rgb z}}#local n=n+2;#end#end I("ScUe[]"1
/*<*/)I("mkmtlttk"1)//@_$#!,:<"Thhis polysig brought to you by Ian Burgmyer :)"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
