 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:05:24 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/9/2009 10:29 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2009 7:59 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>>> Then I changed it so it played itself.
>>>
>>> And it realized the futility of war :)
>>>
>>>
>> Oh, good one :) Wargames ...
>>
>>
> Yeah, that was a fun movie. Haven't seen it in ages, though. I wonder
> how well it's aged?
Interesting question....
Would you like to play a game? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Muhuhuhuhuh!! Check out the attachment. LOOK AT ALL THOSE CORES!!! 8^D
>
> That's nothing :)
>
> Check out this shot from an article titled, appropriately enough, "A
> (http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/datacenter/?cat=31).
o_O
Where the hell do you buy something like that?! And what do you use it for??
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Interesting question....
>
> Would you like to play a game? ;-)
>
Hmm. How about the Thermonuclear War simulation? That looks fun. Strange
that its on a government computer, though. Oh well. What's the worst
that could happen?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2009 2:15 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Where the hell do you buy something like that?! And what do you use it
> for??
You use it for POV-Ray, of course! :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> On 3/11/2009 2:15 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> Where the hell do you buy something like that?! And what do you use it
>> for??
>
> You use it for POV-Ray, of course! :)
>
Oooh... I'd LURVE to see that thing run 3.7 :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:03:01 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>
>> Interesting question....
>>
>> Would you like to play a game? ;-)
>>
>>
> Hmm. How about the Thermonuclear War simulation? That looks fun. Strange
> that its on a government computer, though. Oh well. What's the worst
> that could happen?
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Would you like to play a game? ;-)
Game Over. You lost 35 minutes ago. Please do not try again.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:50:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Would you like to play a game? ;-)
>
> Game Over. You lost 35 minutes ago. Please do not try again.
e4
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2009 7:19 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> On 3/11/2009 2:15 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Where the hell do you buy something like that?! And what do you use it
>>> for??
>>
>> You use it for POV-Ray, of course! :)
>>
>
> Oooh... I'd LURVE to see that thing run 3.7 :D
>
I'd have to wonder what kind of overhead you'd incur, though.
In order to make it worthwhile, you would need something that was
compute intensive, but light on the memory subsystem. This might be a
problem with threads writing their results to the main viewport. The
scene file itself, of course, could be held in read-only shared memory.
I wonder, in the 3.7 source, does each thread have it's own framebuffer
that gets reported back all at once, or do they report each pixel to the
master framebuffer as they get processed? From the way the tiles get
displayed, I would assume the former.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oooh... I'd LURVE to see that thing run 3.7 :D
>
> I'd have to wonder what kind of overhead you'd incur, though.
>
> In order to make it worthwhile, you would need something that was
> compute intensive, but light on the memory subsystem. This might be a
> problem with threads writing their results to the main viewport. The
> scene file itself, of course, could be held in read-only shared memory.
>
> I wonder, in the 3.7 source, does each thread have it's own framebuffer
> that gets reported back all at once, or do they report each pixel to the
> master framebuffer as they get processed? From the way the tiles get
> displayed, I would assume the former.
I'm not 100% sure, but I *think* that Cray isn't even shared-memory. As
in, it behaves like several seperate servers in the same box, and you'd
need some kind of network protocol to communicate between the various
units. So running POV-Ray on it would be like running POV-Ray on a
cluster of networked PCs. You'd need the PVM mod or something.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
