Came across this article http://www.ct.heise.de/ct/english/02/26/018/
that tests AMD's 64bit CPU against Athlon XP and Pentium 4. POVRay was
among the other apps in the test. See table at the end for results.

Scott

Post a reply to this message

Scott Moore wrote:
> Came across this article http://www.ct.heise.de/ct/english/02/26/018/
> that tests AMD's 64bit CPU against Athlon XP and Pentium 4. POVRay was
> among the other apps in the test. See table at the end for results.

Hmmm


--
--
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

In article <2naq2vsm7uh5urj230qfohibje9g1dqdts@4ax.com> , Scott Moore 
<noo### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:

> Came across this article http://www.ct.heise.de/ct/english/02/26/018/
> that tests AMD's 64bit CPU against Athlon XP and Pentium 4. POVRay was
> among the other apps in the test. See table at the end for results.

That way one will miss the most important point of the article!!!

They clearly say in the text that the Athlon 64 is a development version
clocked only at 1.2 GHz while AMD will ship with 2 GHz.  So you have to
multiply all (POV-Ray) results by 1.6 and not jump to conclusions based on
raw numbers without knowing the context!

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:39:28 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

>In article <2naq2vsm7uh5urj230qfohibje9g1dqdts@4ax.com> , Scott Moore 
><noo### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>
>> Came across this article http://www.ct.heise.de/ct/english/02/26/018/
>> that tests AMD's 64bit CPU against Athlon XP and Pentium 4. POVRay was
>> among the other apps in the test. See table at the end for results.
>
>That way one will miss the most important point of the article!!!
>
>They clearly say in the text that the Athlon 64 is a development version
>clocked only at 1.2 GHz while AMD will ship with 2 GHz.  So you have to
>multiply all (POV-Ray) results by 1.6 and not jump to conclusions based on
>raw numbers without knowing the context!

Umm ... I assumed people would actually read the article too.

Post a reply to this message

Scott Moore <noo### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Came across this article http://www.ct.heise.de/ct/english/02/26/018/
> that tests AMD's 64bit CPU against Athlon XP and Pentium 4. POVRay was
> among the other apps in the test. See table at the end for results.

  I suppose that they rendered a *different* test scene with POV-Ray 3.5
than they did with POV-Ray 3.1.
  It would have been good if they would have written this. Someone might
get the impression that 3.5 is a lot slower than 3.1.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> They clearly say in the text that the Athlon 64 is a development version
> clocked only at 1.2 GHz while AMD will ship with 2 GHz.  So you have to
> multiply all (POV-Ray) results by 1.6 and not jump to conclusions based on
> raw numbers without knowing the context!

  I'm sure you know that doubling the CPU clock rate does not double the
speed of programs (not even if they are very CPU-intensive), so a factor
of 1.6 may be way too optimistic.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3e2d48fe@news.povray.org...
>
>   I suppose that they rendered a *different* test scene with POV-Ray 3.5
> than they did with POV-Ray 3.1.
>   It would have been good if they would have written this. Someone might
> get the impression that 3.5 is a lot slower than 3.1.
>

From the point of view of the authors, why should they care? ;)

It *does* say that they used the programs' own benchmarks...

Post a reply to this message

In article <3e2d48fe@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>> Came across this article http://www.ct.heise.de/ct/english/02/26/018/
>> that tests AMD's 64bit CPU against Athlon XP and Pentium 4. POVRay was
>> among the other apps in the test. See table at the end for results.
>
>   I suppose that they rendered a *different* test scene with POV-Ray 3.5
> than they did with POV-Ray 3.1.
>   It would have been good if they would have written this. Someone might
> get the impression that 3.5 is a lot slower than 3.1.

Yes, they use chess2.pov for POV-Ray 3.1 and as far as I know they still use
optics.pov for POV-Ray 3.5.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

In article <3e2d4942@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>> They clearly say in the text that the Athlon 64 is a development version
>> clocked only at 1.2 GHz while AMD will ship with 2 GHz.  So you have to
>> multiply all (POV-Ray) results by 1.6 and not jump to conclusions based on
>> raw numbers without knowing the context!
>
>   I'm sure you know that doubling the CPU clock rate does not double the
> speed of programs (not even if they are very CPU-intensive), so a factor
> of 1.6 may be way too optimistic.

Of course, there is already some bias in my estimate; it would be 1.6666 if
there was a linear scale.  However, with the 3.1 test scene chess2.pov they
use most work takes place in the cache and it does indeed scale almost
linearly.

    Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

"Scott Moore" <noo### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:2naq2vsm7uh5urj230qfohibje9g1dqdts@4ax.com...

Looks like this might be worth waiting for. I've got an Athlon 1.2 right now
which is starting to seem a little slow, but I've been thinking about
waiting for this new chip since I heard about it in October.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message