I got a new WinXP PC with a 2.8 GHz chip.  I ran the benchmark.pov scene
this PC and an old one with 1 GHz.  Both boxes are WinXP.

Results:
  2.8 GHz  13361  secs
  1.0 GHz    5315 secs.

Comments:

1) This *does* play in to my cynicism that advances in hardware are going to
be taken up by the demands of the operating system for ads,  checks on the
internet for Windows bugifixes every other minute, etc...

2) I just downloaded 3.5 and didn't make any checks for render priority,
etc. Perhaps this makes all the difference in the world.

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.
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.   I've always wondered how povray interacts with the sleep cycle
of various versions of windows.

4) On my 1 GHz PC, I  have several times seen povray's render get hung up by
an error message from WinXP that it had lost contact with the internet.
Now, I may be pushing the envelope even further by having two PC's with
wireless modems right next to each other.  WinXP is always giving me
messages about the status of this connection, and it's even more
intermittent now that I have two PC's on my wireless router.  It's also
likely that my brand of wireless modem is not WinXP-friendly, which may
cause additonal problems.     I also (stupidly) may have asked the PC
company to install network capabilities (a lan card??) that I don't even
need, and this may cause WinXP to spend lots of time fussing over it.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3e71e290$1@news.povray.org> , "Greg M. Johnson" 
<gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> I got a new WinXP PC with a 2.8 GHz chip.  I ran the benchmark.pov scene
> this PC and an old one with 1 GHz.  Both boxes are WinXP.
>
> Results:
>   2.8 GHz  13361  secs
>   1.0 GHz    5315 secs.

Something is misconfigured.  That's all ;-)

    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

"Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e71e290$1@news.povray.org...

> cause additonal problems.     I also (stupidly) may have asked the PC
> company to install network capabilities (a lan card??) that I don't even
> need, and this may cause WinXP to spend lots of time fussing over it.

Just as a little side note (and this may be fixed under xp) - make sure that you
disable any unused network cards in the device manager. On booting, windows 95,
98 and 2000* spend a lot of time trying to find something useful to do with
network cards, even if they are not connected to anything.

The indicator that this is happening is a long pause in the boot-up not
accompanied by much in the way of disk activity.

* I haven't exactly experienced this with a card under 2000 - it was some AOL
protocol or other (installed AOL to help out a friend - had to delete the
protocol before boot-times went back to normal).

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3e71f4ef$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Something is misconfigured.  That's all ;-)
>

Do you suspect it's an outright  warranty issue or is this just a humorous
comment?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:04:40 -0500, "Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom>
wrote:
> "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
> news:3e71f4ef$1@news.povray.org...
> > Something is misconfigured.  That's all ;-)
>
> Do you suspect it's an outright  warranty issue or is this just a humorous
> comment?

knowledge?

Did you used WinGUI installed over previous version ? Did you used benchmark
from menu of from file ? Did you had the same priority settings verified ? Both
had energy saving off ? Non other applications ? Any other benchmark application
tested ?

ABX

Post a reply to this message

In article <3e71e290$1@news.povray.org>, "Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-
)565### [at] aolcom> says...
> I got a new WinXP PC with a 2.8 GHz chip.  I ran the benchmark.pov scene
> this PC and an old one with 1 GHz.  Both boxes are WinXP.
> 
> Results:
>   2.8 GHz  13361  secs
>   1.0 GHz    5315 secs.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> 1) This *does* play in to my cynicism that advances in hardware are going to
> be taken up by the demands of the operating system for ads,  checks on the
> internet for Windows bugifixes every other minute, etc...
> 
Well, I seem to remember someone once saying that, "if you idiot proof 
things enough, only an idiot will want to use them." I think in some 
respects Windows is starting to approach that level. The blasted OS 
already liked to do incomprehensibly useless things in Win98 (like 
letting some programs spawn 20 dial-up connection wizards if they 
couldn't access the internet), now it does even more stuff behind your 
back in XP. lol

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message

Was that an Intel or AMD CPU?

- Nekar Xenos

Post a reply to this message

3e71e290$1@news.povray.org...
> I got a new WinXP PC with a 2.8 GHz chip.  I ran the benchmark.pov scene
> this PC and an old one with 1 GHz.  Both boxes are WinXP.
>
> Results:
>   2.8 GHz  13361  secs
>   1.0 GHz    5315 secs.

Sorry, it doesn't make any sense. You sure you didn't forget the
antialiasing on the 1GHz machine ? This alone would make these figures
consistent.
The only other reason I can think of is a RAM issue (not enough RAM on the
2.8 GHz machine) but I'm not sure the benchmark is such a RAM hog.

G.


--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

I've now been able to try again.
Second try on the 2.8GHz machine:   2446 secs (vs. 13361 on first try).

Last night, I hit the Render button and went to sleep.  Next morning PC was
in sleep mode (a deeper one than I usually see on the 1.0 machine). and the
next morning the  Message board said 13361 secs.

This morning I hit Render again and went to work.  When I was able to check
the PC again, it said 2446 secs.


So two wacky things going on:
1) WinXP's overagressive sleep mode.
2) WinXP's extreme neurosis about the state of its connectivity to the
internet (I've seen renders hang due to a warning message from XP).

Both cases  512 x 384 AA 0.3 of benchmark.

Will try new experiments.


"Gilles Tran" <git### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
news:3e726dfb$1@news.povray.org...

>
> Sorry, it doesn't make any sense. You sure you didn't forget the
> antialiasing on the 1GHz machine ? This alone would make these figures
> consistent.

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson's furious key-hammering produced this:
> So two wacky things going on:
> 1) WinXP's overagressive sleep mode.

As far as I know, Windows XP does little but tell the computer's BIOS when to
go into sleep mode.  Also, if going into sleep mode were based on processor
activity, the computer would never go into sleep mode.

> 2) WinXP's extreme neurosis about the state of its connectivity to the
> internet

Make sure the auto-update features are off and MSN Messenger is shut down.

> (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.

-- 
/*^*/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