 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> When I was in school, we weren't even allowed to use calculators never mind have
> access to a computer. The youth of today … :)
Stephen, when you and I were in school, the slide rule was considered to
be cutting edge technology :-)
BTW Remind me to listen to the Kat when she suggests that going for a
drink with a bad back is not a good idea
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> There was somewhere out there a Cray-2 (I think) you could log into via
> telnet and run apps. It had POV-Ray on it already, an older version (2.x
> or maybe 3.0) I ran a basic scene from the samples and was surprised at
> how long it actually took.
Heh. One of the developers working on the Glasgow Haskell Compiler
commented off-hand that he had tried Haskell's STM implementation on a
machine with 128 CPUs and it had achieved a good speedup.
...OK, WHERE the HELL do you buy something that has 128 CPUs in it?? O_O
This information surely has a most direct relevance to all who worship
POV-Ray...!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> Stephen, when you and I were in school, the slide rule was considered to
> be cutting edge technology :-)
I saw a collection of slide rules yesterday... Of course, the really
"cutting edge" ones were the *spiral* rules. ;-)
I think the most amusing fact was my dad commenting "oh hey, that's the
model of slide rule we used to use at Glaxo. That brown one there..."
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> ...OK, WHERE the HELL do you buy something that has 128 CPUs in it?? O_O
> This information surely has a most direct relevance to all who worship
> POV-Ray...!
>
Probably a custom order for an OEM.
Mmm.. 128+ rendering blocks in POV-Ray 3.7 ... Sign me up!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> There was somewhere out there a Cray-2 (I think) you could log into via
> telnet and run apps. It had POV-Ray on it already, an older version (2.x
> or maybe 3.0) I ran a basic scene from the samples and was surprised at
> how long it actually took.
The speed of Crays don't come from CPU speed, but from havint a *lot*
of them (as well as fast memory buses, etc).
POV-Ray versions previous to 3.7 do not benefit from a Cray at all.
You get better speed by buying an old PC for $50.
Now, POV-Ray 3.7 is a completely different story.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The speed of Crays don't come from CPU speed, but from havint a *lot*
> of them (as well as fast memory buses, etc).
>
> POV-Ray versions previous to 3.7 do not benefit from a Cray at all.
> You get better speed by buying an old PC for $50.
>
> Now, POV-Ray 3.7 is a completely different story.
According to Wikipedia, the Cray-1 does an average of about 136 MFLOPS,
but can peak up to 250 MFLOPS if the code is structured right.
I think in general most "supercomputers" only achieve peak performance
for very specific kinds of workload. Just grabbing the POV-Ray source
code and throwing it at a C compiler is *highly* unlikely to just happen
to produce the right kind of workload.
(As you say, both Cray-1 and Cray-2 work because they're very parallel -
they're vector-processing machines. POV-Ray isn't structured that way.
It could be, but it isn't at present.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:29:08 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> .OK, WHERE the HELL do you buy something that has 128 CPUs in it?? O_O
> This information surely has a most direct relevance to all who worship
> POV-Ray...!
http://tinyurl.com/67xzsp
Couldn't resist - but I do wonder if HPC clusters of Linux would work
with 3.7 from a parallel processing standpoint. Similar concept to what
Cray does/did.
Would be pretty cool if it did.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
>> Clarification: you will NOT find a C64 in there.
>
> Really? Nobody has modded their C64 to run this yet?
No, but there is one person who at least *tried* to run it on Windows 3.1
(using Win32s).
Workunits nowadays are long enough that a C64 would *never* make it in time
for the deadline. RAM usage will probably be a problem too. (I don't have
any real numbers handy, and the project is currently down so I can't try it
myself to see how long it takes).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Really? Nobody has modded their C64 to run this yet?
>
> No, but there is one person who at least *tried* to run it on Windows 3.1
> (using Win32s).
>
> Workunits nowadays are long enough that a C64 would *never* make it in time
> for the deadline. RAM usage will probably be a problem too.
Yeah, I know. But you'd be surprised what some crazy nutters try to mod
their C64s to do... ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> ...OK, WHERE the HELL do you buy something that has 128 CPUs in it?? O_O
> This information surely has a most direct relevance to all who worship
> POV-Ray...!
>
http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/4000/
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
