 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-2-2014 5:01, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> Bob Hughes [anyone else remember him?]
Yes, and that reminded me of a scene file posted by him in 2003 ;-)
I revisited and posted an update in p.t.scene-files.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-2-2014 1:20, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> The two S.E. Day SSLT texture derivations take little time to render [on the
> order of 1-2 hours], but the one on the far right took over 11 days on the
> machine listed at the end, with the programs running below that.
>
Pheeww...! The far right is by far the best but a bit impractical in
terms of render time :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"[GDS|Entropy]" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> ... more RAM than I'll ever need.
That's what I used to think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "[GDS|Entropy]" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> ... more RAM than I'll ever need.
>
> That's what I used to think.
>
>
There was a time when 1 Mb was though to be more than you, or anyone,
would EVER POSSIBLY need... and a 1 Gb disk drive was an "Only in your
wildest dreams" thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann
Subject: Re: Ice/Slush/Snow texture samples, 3 of N
Date: 7 Feb 2014 23:52:36
Message: <52f5b814$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi(gh)!
On 05.02.2014 01:20, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> All I know is my next machine will have a second x5660 and another 24gb in this:
> http://www.evga.com/articles/00537/
Oh yes... it was just last summer that I found out that even 16 GiB RAM
are not enough to render even one of these 3600 x 3600 measuring points
ASTER Earth DEMs from the Japanese Space Agency as a curved mesh2... up
to now, I have to content myself with a reduced resolution of 2600 x
2600! I surely would need at least 24 GiB to render only one tile... and
about 128 GiB to correctly render an animation of a full-tilt overland
journey across Afghanistan (you know, Khyberspace!) - from the highest
mountains and passes, one can look at least two tiles far!
And, of course, the CPU should be an AMD K10 hexadeka-core running at 5
GHz (currently a K10 hexa-core at 3.853 GHz)...
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 08/02/2014 05:56, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann nous fit lire :
> Hi(gh)!
>
> On 05.02.2014 01:20, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>
>> All I know is my next machine will have a second x5660 and another
>> 24gb in this:
>> http://www.evga.com/articles/00537/
Nice. Better buy both xeon at the same time (or be prepared to have to
replace the old one with a fresh one when adding the second:
availability of identical & compatible xeon is not warranted).
btw, xeon are not cheap (but pretty nice) when compared to i3/i5/i7.
> And, of course, the CPU should be an AMD K10 hexadeka-core running at 5
> GHz (currently a K10 hexa-core at 3.853 GHz)...
But K10 is not compatible with xeon-socket, and it's old technology
(Bulldozer / Piledriver continue the serie)
some opteron 6200 (8 modules, 16 "cores")... but they top at 3.6GHz in
turbo mode... full load is less than 3 GHz.
while dreaming... Abu-Dhabi opteron 16 cores (2x4 modules) are
quad-processor ok. (Interlagos too)
Just need a naughty motherboard with 4 sockets... and a damn budget for
the cooling and the power supply (at 140W per cpu, you can sell on ebay
your old heater!)
--
Only have 24GB ram, and 6HT/12 cores... It's small, but it was affordable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> On 5-2-2014 1:20, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> > The two S.E. Day SSLT texture derivations take little time to render [on the
> > order of 1-2 hours], but the one on the far right took over 11 days on the
> > machine listed at the end, with the programs running below that.
> >
>
> Pheeww...! The far right is by far the best but a bit impractical in
> terms of render time :-)
>
> Thomas
Back in my day, processors only had 1 core, and it took months to render
anything decent. And we liked it! In fact, I still have an old Pentium 4 that's
been rendering an awesome image for the past 12 years (since 2002). It's
currently at 93%. It'll finish this year or next...
For the record, we also walked uphill both ways to school knee-deep in snow all
year round.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Le 08/02/2014 05:56, Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann nous fit lire :
> > Hi(gh)!
> >
> > On 05.02.2014 01:20, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> >
> >> All I know is my next machine will have a second x5660 and another
> >> 24gb in this:
> >> http://www.evga.com/articles/00537/
>
> Nice. Better buy both xeon at the same time (or be prepared to have to
> replace the old one with a fresh one when adding the second:
> availability of identical & compatible xeon is not warranted).
> btw, xeon are not cheap (but pretty nice) when compared to i3/i5/i7.
>
> > And, of course, the CPU should be an AMD K10 hexadeka-core running at 5
> > GHz (currently a K10 hexa-core at 3.853 GHz)...
>
> But K10 is not compatible with xeon-socket, and it's old technology
> (Bulldozer / Piledriver continue the serie)
> some opteron 6200 (8 modules, 16 "cores")... but they top at 3.6GHz in
> turbo mode... full load is less than 3 GHz.
>
> while dreaming... Abu-Dhabi opteron 16 cores (2x4 modules) are
> quad-processor ok. (Interlagos too)
> Just need a naughty motherboard with 4 sockets... and a damn budget for
> the cooling and the power supply (at 140W per cpu, you can sell on ebay
> your old heater!)
>
> --
> Only have 24GB ram, and 6HT/12 cores... It's small, but it was affordable.
Unfortunately, the performance of current AMD processors don't compare well to
Intel's. Povray performance on 8-module Interlagos is worse than a 6-core Sandy
Bridge, i7 3930K.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/02/2014 6:34 PM, jhu wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>
>> Pheeww...! The far right is by far the best but a bit impractical in
>> terms of render time :-)
>>
>> Thomas
>
> Back in my day, processors only had 1 core, and it took months to render
> anything decent. And we liked it! In fact, I still have an old Pentium 4 that's
> been rendering an awesome image for the past 12 years (since 2002). It's
> currently at 93%. It'll finish this year or next...
>
> For the record, we also walked uphill both ways to school knee-deep in snow all
> year round.
>
>
:-D
Tell that to the kids of today and do they believe you?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/02/14 18:34, jhu wrote:
>
> Back in my day, processors only had 1 core, and it took months to render
> anything decent. And we liked it! In fact, I still have an old Pentium 4 that's
> been rendering an awesome image for the past 12 years (since 2002). It's
> currently at 93%. It'll finish this year or next...
>
> For the record, we also walked uphill both ways to school knee-deep in snow all
> year round.
>
>
You were lucky! In my day ..... :-D
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
