"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3f428fd1$1@news.povray.org...
> In article <3f41d51d@news.povray.org> , "Hughes, B."
<omn### [at] charternet>
> wrote:
>
> > Below is the web address to an article from two months ago
> >
> > http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1409&page=3
>
> Is this on Linux or Windows?

I'm awaiting word from the reviewer for more info but they seem oriented
only to Windows. For example, the Winstone benchmark used and mention of Win
2000, WinME, XP.

> > Here's another web page showing off the P-R 3.5 benchmark.
> >
> > http://www.linuxhardware.org/features/03/02/19/1544249.shtml
>
> This site claims turning off SSE2 yields better performance on a P4.
Unless
> I missed something in that article, this is simply wrong.

Hmmm, I wonder if it could be that they only tried those complies from that
particular binaries download page. Seeing as there is only that one
P4-optimised one there, others are Pentium and P3.

> Honestly, I don't think any of the benchmarks using POV-Ray on these two
> pages where conducted well...

I had been looking around at popular (via google.com) web pages for such
information and I can agree with you about the questionable validity or
quality of them. As can be seen at the two well-known POV-Ray benchmarking
places (haveland.com, tabsnet.com) the variances and unseen methods used do
not always help, decidedly, show which processors (and compiled versions)
are best. It still seems a realm few people delve into extremely deeply.

If I take the generality into account though (and that's all I was looking
for), I must conclude AMD has lost a little ground in the race recently, yet
still could be preferrable over an Intel CPU in the future. Only time will
tell. Uh, no pun intended there... but it works here.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message