 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Last night, I went to visit the POVbench Homepage to see how my Duron
700 compares with the other chips.
Near the bottom of the single-processors chart I notice that it takes
about 30 minutes for a 486DX 50 Mhz (the one I started with) to complete
the skyvase scene.
Now it takes a mere 32 seconds to do the same. That's a 60 fold
improvement in 8 years !
-> I'll never complain again about render time again.
Now at the very top, far from the Thunderbird875 and Pentium III 933
(25 seconds for both of them), comes a PSX2 with an Emotio Engine that
computes the scene in 5 seconds at 300 Mhz and for 589 $ !!!!!!!!!!!
That beast beats some very expensive parallel computer boxes !
First, is this render time genuine ? Some figures on the chart look very
optimistic.
Second, is it the chip found on the Play station II as I think it is,
and how did the guys manage to make the processor render the scene ?
If Povray can be run on it, so can be any other software. I am highly
interested there.
Media + focal_blur + radiosity + AA + area_light + isosurface +
hair_macro at 700000 pps ! What a dream.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
BTW, here is the link :
http://www.haveland.com/index.htm?povbench/index.htm
> Last night, I went to visit the POVbench Homepage to see how my Duron
> 700 compares with the other chips.
>
> Near the bottom of the single-processors chart I notice that it takes
> about 30 minutes for a 486DX 50 Mhz (the one I started with) to complete
> the skyvase scene.
> Now it takes a mere 32 seconds to do the same. That's a 60 fold
> improvement in 8 years !
> -> I'll never complain again about render time again.
>
> Now at the very top, far from the Thunderbird875 and Pentium III 933
> (25 seconds for both of them), comes a PSX2 with an Emotio Engine that
> computes the scene in 5 seconds at 300 Mhz and for 589 $ !!!!!!!!!!!
> That beast beats some very expensive parallel computer boxes !
> First, is this render time genuine ? Some figures on the chart look very
> optimistic.
> Second, is it the chip found on the Play station II as I think it is,
> and how did the guys manage to make the processor render the scene ?
> If Povray can be run on it, so can be any other software. I am highly
> interested there.
>
> Media + focal_blur + radiosity + AA + area_light + isosurface +
> hair_macro at 700000 pps ! What a dream.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Second, is it the chip found on the Play station II as I think it is,
>and how did the guys manage to make the processor render the scene ?
>If Povray can be run on it, so can be any other software. I am highly
>interested there.
These might be interesting:
http://mail.planetx.com/transhumantech/msg01355.html
http://www.beowulf.org/listarchives/beowulf/1999/09/0032.html
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ingo wrote:
>http://www.beowulf.org/listarchives/beowulf/1999/09/0032.html
>
For lots on this do a search for "Sony Playstation Beowulf Project". I
used http://www.ussc.alltheweb.com/ In the found links you may have to
replace the o in beowolf by a u: beowulf. There is also a mailinglist
http://www.beowulf.org/listarchives/beowulf/1999/09/0065.html
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sony is making a computer based off of the emotion engine. It will be a
graphics workstation and be about 20k I think.
>
> Last night, I went to visit the POVbench Homepage to see how my Duron
> 700 compares with the other chips.
>
> Near the bottom of the single-processors chart I notice that it takes
> about 30 minutes for a 486DX 50 Mhz (the one I started with) to complete
> the skyvase scene.
> Now it takes a mere 32 seconds to do the same. That's a 60 fold
> improvement in 8 years !
> -> I'll never complain again about render time again.
>
> Now at the very top, far from the Thunderbird875 and Pentium III 933
> (25 seconds for both of them), comes a PSX2 with an Emotio Engine that
> computes the scene in 5 seconds at 300 Mhz and for 589 $ !!!!!!!!!!!
> That beast beats some very expensive parallel computer boxes !
> First, is this render time genuine ? Some figures on the chart look very
> optimistic.
> Second, is it the chip found on the Play station II as I think it is,
> and how did the guys manage to make the processor render the scene ?
> If Povray can be run on it, so can be any other software. I am highly
> interested there.
>
> Media + focal_blur + radiosity + AA + area_light + isosurface +
> hair_macro at 700000 pps ! What a dream.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
20k ?
20 000 $ ?
Fabien
> Sony is making a computer based off of the emotion engine. It will be a
> graphics workstation and be about 20k I think.
>
> >
> > Last night, I went to visit the POVbench Homepage to see how my Duron
> > 700 compares with the other chips.
> >
> > Near the bottom of the single-processors chart I notice that it takes
> > about 30 minutes for a 486DX 50 Mhz (the one I started with) to complete
> > the skyvase scene.
> > Now it takes a mere 32 seconds to do the same. That's a 60 fold
> > improvement in 8 years !
> > -> I'll never complain again about render time again.
> >
> > Now at the very top, far from the Thunderbird875 and Pentium III 933
> > (25 seconds for both of them), comes a PSX2 with an Emotio Engine that
> > computes the scene in 5 seconds at 300 Mhz and for 589 $ !!!!!!!!!!!
> > That beast beats some very expensive parallel computer boxes !
> > First, is this render time genuine ? Some figures on the chart look very
> > optimistic.
> > Second, is it the chip found on the Play station II as I think it is,
> > and how did the guys manage to make the processor render the scene ?
> > If Povray can be run on it, so can be any other software. I am highly
> > interested there.
> >
> > Media + focal_blur + radiosity + AA + area_light + isosurface +
> > hair_macro at 700000 pps ! What a dream.
> >
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Found another link.
"15 times faster than a 400-MHz Celeron at handling tasks like full-motion
video"
at
http://www.pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0,1510,15038,00.html
> ingo wrote:
>
> >http://www.beowulf.org/listarchives/beowulf/1999/09/0032.html
> >
>
> For lots on this do a search for "Sony Playstation Beowulf Project". I
> used http://www.ussc.alltheweb.com/ In the found links you may have to
> replace the o in beowolf by a u: beowulf. There is also a mailinglist
> http://www.beowulf.org/listarchives/beowulf/1999/09/0065.html
>
> Ingo
>
> --
> Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
> Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> "15 times faster than a 400-MHz Celeron at handling tasks like full-motion
> video"
Yeah, well I'm not sure that is really a fair comparison. Celeron and its like
are much more general processors, and Celeron is far from ideally suited for
high-bandwidth video. I'm sure a similar speed advantage exists for video cards
with hardware accelerated FMV. Speaking from my innate wisdom only, but isn't
the PS2 processor a combination of general-purpose and video processor?
Anyway, the PS2 is indeed impressive. It's just that to me a console screams
"toy", whatever its processing power ;)
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peak eduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Now at the very top, far from the Thunderbird875 and Pentium III 933
> (25 seconds for both of them), comes a PSX2 with an Emotio Engine that
> computes the scene in 5 seconds at 300 Mhz and for 589 $ !!!!!!!!!!!
> That beast beats some very expensive parallel computer boxes !
Video game consoles are sold a fair bit under cost and profit is made
through game licensing.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>It's just that to me a console screams "toy",
>whatever its processing power ;)
weren't all those old computers more like a "toys"
with advanced graphics and sound than an old
ibm pc with k3wl spreadsheets?
still they made nice stuff with those toys. and still do.
afaik it's not the hardware/software which is creative.
it's the user.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
