 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi, I have a quick question. As someone mentioned a little while ago,
even if you set POVray's render priority to Highest, it still gives some
resources to other programs. Is there any way to give POVray a higher
render priority than "highest"? Possibly with a patch?
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:57:16 -0500, Kyle <joe### [at] geocities com> wrote:
>Hi, I have a quick question. As someone mentioned a little while ago,
>even if you set POVray's render priority to Highest, it still gives some
>resources to other programs. Is there any way to give POVray a higher
>render priority than "highest"? Possibly with a patch?
If you're running NT, you can use the Task Manager to set the
process priority higher - all the way up to "Realtime" if you're
crazy (that will make POV take priority over critical system
stuff, however.)
I don't know if there is a way to change process priority on
Win9x, though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
>
> Hi, I have a quick question. As someone mentioned a little while ago,
> even if you set POVray's render priority to Highest, it still gives some
> resources to other programs. Is there any way to give POVray a higher
> render priority than "highest"? Possibly with a patch?
> Kyle
If you want the absolute highest priority start pov,
pop up the task manager window, and close everything
including windows explorer. When you finish running
pov you will have to reboot but that's the only way
I know of to give it total control. I don't know
how much of a performance boost you can expect but
I wouldn't think it would be very much. If you have
a scene that looks like it's going to run for several
hours it might be worth the effort. If you are thinking
that you will get your ten minute render time down to
5 minutes just forget about it. Ain't going to happen.
Raytracing is a time consuming process and impatients
will get you no where. Of course if you can stand to wait
a short while intel just release an announcement that
their pentium III chip will be on the market soon.
That will really help your rendering times.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Kyle wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I have a quick question. As someone mentioned a little while ago,
> > even if you set POVray's render priority to Highest, it still gives some
> > resources to other programs. Is there any way to give POVray a higher
> > render priority than "highest"? Possibly with a patch?
> > Kyle
>
> If you want the absolute highest priority start pov,
> pop up the task manager window, and close everything
> including windows explorer. When you finish running
> pov you will have to reboot but that's the only way
> I know of to give it total control. I don't know
> how much of a performance boost you can expect but
> I wouldn't think it would be very much. If you have
> a scene that looks like it's going to run for several
> hours it might be worth the effort. If you are thinking
> that you will get your ten minute render time down to
> 5 minutes just forget about it. Ain't going to happen.
> Raytracing is a time consuming process and impatients
> will get you no where. Of course if you can stand to wait
> a short while intel just release an announcement that
> their pentium III chip will be on the market soon.
> That will really help your rendering times.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Hmm...I'll try that. On my old 486 I have to squeeze out every ounce of
speed I can :-)
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As far as I know, there are only two main improvements in the PIII chip
(somewhat higher frequency aside). It has the KNI (also called MMX II),
which is of no use to POV. And it has a larger on-chip L1 cache. I'm not
sure about the effect of this; but I do know that my Celeron, which has 4X
less L2 cache than a PII, is still as fast at POV as a PII at the same MHz.
So I'd guess the effect will not be too great (in POV)
And Intel had the "great" idea of this identification code in PIII... Big
Brother Inside.
Anyway, I'd wait for AMD's K7. It has somereally impressive stats and is
probably much better value for your money (a lot of money in both cases)
Margus
Ken wrote in message <36B76076.759B0EB1@pacbell.net>...
/.../
>will get you no where. Of course if you can stand to wait
>a short while intel just release an announcement that
>their pentium III chip will be on the market soon.
>That will really help your rendering times.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How much time until that K7 comes out? I think I'll buy that.
Kyle
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> As far as I know, there are only two main improvements in the PIII chip
> (somewhat higher frequency aside). It has the KNI (also called MMX II),
> which is of no use to POV. And it has a larger on-chip L1 cache. I'm not
> sure about the effect of this; but I do know that my Celeron, which has 4X
> less L2 cache than a PII, is still as fast at POV as a PII at the same MHz.
> So I'd guess the effect will not be too great (in POV)
> And Intel had the "great" idea of this identification code in PIII... Big
> Brother Inside.
> Anyway, I'd wait for AMD's K7. It has somereally impressive stats and is
> probably much better value for your money (a lot of money in both cases)
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> As far as I know, there are only two main improvements in the PIII chip
> (somewhat higher frequency aside). It has the KNI (also called MMX II),
> which is of no use to POV. And it has a larger on-chip L1 cache. I'm not
> sure about the effect of this; but I do know that my Celeron, which has 4X
> less L2 cache than a PII, is still as fast at POV as a PII at the same MHz.
> So I'd guess the effect will not be too great (in POV)
> And Intel had the "great" idea of this identification code in PIII... Big
> Brother Inside.
> Anyway, I'd wait for AMD's K7. It has somereally impressive stats and is
> probably much better value for your money (a lot of money in both cases)
>
> Margus
I looked at their press release web page and could not find
any real performance or operating data available. Do you know
what the top end will be on these - 400mhz more ? and if they
will operate at faster buss speed than their predecessors.
They had about 8 different pages to visit and not one had
any information except that yes they have devoloped it and
yes they plan to sell them.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Got to http://www.tomshardware.com he has info on the K7, they will be a
slotted chip, starting at 500mhz I believe, and YES they will have a
faster bus speed... something like 166-200mhz. Also they will have
(reportedly) much improved FPUs. However, the K7 is awhile down the
road (2H 99 at earliest) especially since the K6-3's were supposed to be
out the gate in early January and have yet to hit OEM's
Steve
Ken wrote:
>
> Margus Ramst wrote:
> >
> > As far as I know, there are only two main improvements in the PIII chip
> > (somewhat higher frequency aside). It has the KNI (also called MMX II),
> > which is of no use to POV. And it has a larger on-chip L1 cache. I'm not
> > sure about the effect of this; but I do know that my Celeron, which has 4X
> > less L2 cache than a PII, is still as fast at POV as a PII at the same MHz.
> > So I'd guess the effect will not be too great (in POV)
> > And Intel had the "great" idea of this identification code in PIII... Big
> > Brother Inside.
> > Anyway, I'd wait for AMD's K7. It has somereally impressive stats and is
> > probably much better value for your money (a lot of money in both cases)
> >
> > Margus
>
> I looked at their press release web page and could not find
> any real performance or operating data available. Do you know
> what the top end will be on these - 400mhz more ? and if they
> will operate at faster buss speed than their predecessors.
> They had about 8 different pages to visit and not one had
> any information except that yes they have devoloped it and
> yes they plan to sell them.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think they start from 500MHz and use a 120MHz bus (at least later on).
Don't quote me on this, though.
And I rarely read Intel's press releases (or AMD's, for that matter).
They'll just say it's the best thing that has happened since sliced bread
etc. etc.
If you want a bit more objective info, check out some processor news pages;
they also have tech info. They had info about Katmai (PIII) already in
November.
Margus
Ken wrote in message <36B7652F.99646E5B@pacbell.net>...
>I looked at their press release web page and could not find
>any real performance or operating data available. Do you know
>what the top end will be on these - 400mhz more ? and if they
>will operate at faster buss speed than their predecessors.
>They had about 8 different pages to visit and not one had
>any information except that yes they have devoloped it and
>yes they plan to sell them.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The best way to get MOST priority is to run POV as shell.
To do so, you can either change your system.ini line and find the line :
shell=<drive>:\<windir>\explorer.exe to
shell=<drive>:\<povdir>\bin\pvengine.exe
This isn't very comfortable, and will cause you to have to boot to dos,
edit, reboot and run POV..
Not a favourite to do.
I recommend using a program for it, the one I prefer is only 11k, and
then choose what shell to boot.
I use it for my different setup's (POV/Exploder/Reveal/Evwm/Litestep)
Here is a link to it :
Shell select :
http://floach.pimpin.net/shellman/shellsel.zip
Floach's Shell manager page :
http://floach.pimpin.net/utils-shellmanagers.shtml
Floach's page (Win system news, shell's mainly)
http://floach.pimpin.net/
//Spider
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've read every bit of information I could find about this chip over the
last couple of months. Here's the deal:
Starting at 500MHz clock
and 200 MHz bus (this will probably include support for some of the new
RAM types like RDRAM)
Slot A(A for alpha, as in DEC (now compaq) alpha, the folks who created
some of the technology for this chip) this means new motherboards and
chipsets, probably initially supplied only by AMD.
EV6 bus architecture (again from the dec alpha, this is fast stuff)
Released sometime between May and August 1999, priced to be competitive
with whatever intel has out at the time but early benchmarks show it
outperforming the PIII.
Support for multiple processors (intel has had this for a while in their
chips and chipsets but this is trhe first time an intel competitor has
this).
That's about all I know.
Ken wrote:
>
> Margus Ramst wrote:
> >
> > As far as I know, there are only two main improvements in the PIII chip
> > (somewhat higher frequency aside). It has the KNI (also called MMX II),
> > which is of no use to POV. And it has a larger on-chip L1 cache. I'm not
> > sure about the effect of this; but I do know that my Celeron, which has 4X
> > less L2 cache than a PII, is still as fast at POV as a PII at the same MHz.
> > So I'd guess the effect will not be too great (in POV)
> > And Intel had the "great" idea of this identification code in PIII... Big
> > Brother Inside.
> > Anyway, I'd wait for AMD's K7. It has somereally impressive stats and is
> > probably much better value for your money (a lot of money in both cases)
> >
> > Margus
>
> I looked at their press release web page and could not find
> any real performance or operating data available. Do you know
> what the top end will be on these - 400mhz more ? and if they
> will operate at faster buss speed than their predecessors.
> They had about 8 different pages to visit and not one had
> any information except that yes they have devoloped it and
> yes they plan to sell them.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet
--
Chris Maryan
mailto:cma### [at] geocitiescom
***
Will work for cash.
***
Email me if you are interested in donating
to the Chris Maryan needs money fund.
We will also accept donations to the Chris
needs a Pentium II or SGI workstation
fund and the Chris needs a car fund.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not a good idea. I set the priority to realtime once...what a
nightmare!
The worst part is that it didn't really render much faster.
I'm perfectly happy with the performance I get out of POV. I just think
about what rendering was like with the 486/50, shudder, and then move
on.
-Mike
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:57:16 -0500, Kyle <joe### [at] geocitiescom> wrote:
> >Hi, I have a quick question. As someone mentioned a little while ago,
> >even if you set POVray's render priority to Highest, it still gives some
> >resources to other programs. Is there any way to give POVray a higher
> >render priority than "highest"? Possibly with a patch?
>
> If you're running NT, you can use the Task Manager to set the
> process priority higher - all the way up to "Realtime" if you're
> crazy (that will make POV take priority over critical system
> stuff, however.)
>
> I don't know if there is a way to change process priority on
> Win9x, though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here's a good page about the K7:
http://www.chiptech.com/jc/AMD/K7_Preview.shtml
Margus
Chris Maryan wrote in message <36B7BB4F.FBA69F0D@geocities.com>...
>I've read every bit of information I could find about this chip over the
>last couple of months. Here's the deal:
>Starting at 500MHz clock
>and 200 MHz bus (this will probably include support for some of the new
>RAM types like RDRAM)
>Slot A(A for alpha, as in DEC (now compaq) alpha, the folks who created
>some of the technology for this chip) this means new motherboards and
>chipsets, probably initially supplied only by AMD.
>EV6 bus architecture (again from the dec alpha, this is fast stuff)
>Released sometime between May and August 1999, priced to be competitive
>with whatever intel has out at the time but early benchmarks show it
>outperforming the PIII.
>Support for multiple processors (intel has had this for a while in their
>chips and chipsets but this is trhe first time an intel competitor has
>this).
>
>That's about all I know.
>
>
>Ken wrote:
>>
>> Margus Ramst wrote:
>> >
>> > As far as I know, there are only two main improvements in the PIII chip
>> > (somewhat higher frequency aside). It has the KNI (also called MMX II),
>> > which is of no use to POV. And it has a larger on-chip L1 cache. I'm
not
>> > sure about the effect of this; but I do know that my Celeron, which has
4X
>> > less L2 cache than a PII, is still as fast at POV as a PII at the same
MHz.
>> > So I'd guess the effect will not be too great (in POV)
>> > And Intel had the "great" idea of this identification code in PIII...
Big
>> > Brother Inside.
>> > Anyway, I'd wait for AMD's K7. It has somereally impressive stats and
is
>> > probably much better value for your money (a lot of money in both
cases)
>> >
>> > Margus
>>
>> I looked at their press release web page and could not find
>> any real performance or operating data available. Do you know
>> what the top end will be on these - 400mhz more ? and if they
>> will operate at faster buss speed than their predecessors.
>> They had about 8 different pages to visit and not one had
>> any information except that yes they have devoloped it and
>> yes they plan to sell them.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Tyler
>>
>> tyl### [at] pacbellnet
>
>--
>Chris Maryan
>mailto:cma### [at] geocitiescom
>***
>Will work for cash.
>***
>Email me if you are interested in donating
>to the Chris Maryan needs money fund.
>We will also accept donations to the Chris
>needs a Pentium II or SGI workstation
>fund and the Chris needs a car fund.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Add more points here..
If you use shellselect, to make pov your shell, you can double-click the
bkg. to get the windows taskmanager. Therefrom you can start programs,
and shut them down. and shut windows down..
Who needs any other shell than POV ??
//Spider
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> And Intel had the "great" idea of this identification code in PIII... Big
> Brother Inside.
I don't know what people want (or people don't know, for
that matter). At first everyone shouts "make a unique ID
into every processor so that faked and overclocked CPUs
would be history." Now that they've done it, everyone
is concernde about privacy. People, this CPUID can
be switched off with no chance to get it back on without
restarting your computer.
Markus
--
"Denkst Du vielleicht über den nächsten Satz nach, den Du sagen willst?
Ich nicht eine Sekunde!!!" H. Heinol in Val Thorens
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 12:09:15 +0100, Markus Becker
<bec### [at] zessuni-siegende> wrote:
>Margus Ramst wrote:
>>
>> And Intel had the "great" idea of this identification code in PIII... Big
>> Brother Inside.
>
>I don't know what people want (or people don't know, for
>that matter). At first everyone shouts "make a unique ID
>into every processor so that faked and overclocked CPUs
>would be history." Now that they've done it, everyone
>is concernde about privacy. People, this CPUID can
>be switched off with no chance to get it back on without
>restarting your computer.
The concern is that some software manufacturers and e-commerce
sites will require you to have a CPUID to use their software
or site (though what that does to people with AMD processors or
P-IIs I don't know) and that someone who uses such software or
sites regularly will be forced to leave the ID on whether they
want to or not.
And I didn't hear too many people complaining about overclocked
CPUs. It seems Intel would be the one hurt the most by that,
except in the cases where a CPU is overclocked at the factory.
That case is easy enough to solve by going back to stamping the
intended clock frequency on the case, as they did with 486en.
No, Intel claims they won't use the ID for those purposes anyway.
Their claim is that it makes E-commerce more secure. How,
exactly? By tying a particular customer to a particular computer.
So if I don't have Internet access myself but get it through the
local public library, I'm screwed. Guess this is Intel's way of
selling more processors that people don't really need.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote in message <36b99e5e.0@news.povray.org>...
>The concern is that some software manufacturers and e-commerce
>sites will require you to have a CPUID to use their software
>or site (though what that does to people with AMD processors or
>P-IIs I don't know) and that someone who uses such software or
>sites regularly will be forced to leave the ID on whether they
>want to or not.
>
It is somewhat doubtful if many companies choose to do so at all, both
because they'd lose the customers using AMD-s, Cyrixes, Macs etc. All those
together constitute quite a large part of the market and I have not heard
that they're planning to incorporate CPUID. Also, the huge unpopularity of
the feature may prompt such companies to distance themselves from CPUID.
>And I didn't hear too many people complaining about overclocked
>CPUs. It seems Intel would be the one hurt the most by that,
>except in the cases where a CPU is overclocked at the factory.
>That case is easy enough to solve by going back to stamping the
>intended clock frequency on the case, as they did with 486en.
>
...You mean stamp sth. like "i486-66MHz" on the chip? This was overcome by
"chiselling" off a thin layer together with the stamp and applying a new
stamp. The only difference was a slightly shinyer surface.
Intel is also said to be considering "bus locking" (i.e. the chip will
operate only on a specified motherboard frequency). This would essentially
rule out overclocking - even at home and for your own use. That would really
SUCK, since I consider it to be my inalienable right to overclock
(burn/shoot/electrocute/shower/whatever) my personal computer. Even
multiplier locking pisses me off. But Intel profits yet some more...
BTW, to Markus, I know pretty well what I want and this ID code was never on
my wishlist. And I've never said the opposite. Who's this "everybody" you're
referring to? Certainly nobody I know.
Aaahhhh, sorry about the rambling. Needed to vent here.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm sure Intel won't, but others will. There was a recent case of a
gaming company that put a 'virus' in their software that read the
registery of people who tried to access the site with an unauthorized
password. It then sent all this info to the company.
Some folks thought it's their right to help stop piracy. The problem
was that most of the people were ligit customers...they screwed up when
issuing passwords!
Don't think for a second that there isn't unscrupulous businesses out
there that will do anything for a buck or take advantage of customers if
they are doing poorly financially. Look at how so much software drops
programs into your registery that starup with your computer whether you
want it to or not.
IMO it could open doors to hackers and other low lifes to pry into our
lives in ways no one has thought of yet.
Which brings me back to something of a personal issue. So often we get
into OS or platform wars that are completely irrelevent. In cases like
this I feel it's justified, but few people take issue with it. When MS
bundles a browser with it's OS, people get their panties in a bunch.
But when they leave backdoors in the browser that allow applets to read
from your harddrive, no one gives it a second though.
My point...Intel is where it is because they have made superior CPU.
Nothing wring with that, but as far as this CPU ID goes, they can roll
it up tight and cram it. :)
-Mike
> No, Intel claims they won't use the ID for those purposes anyway.
> Their claim is that it makes E-commerce more secure. How,
> exactly? By tying a particular customer to a particular computer.
> So if I don't have Internet access myself but get it through the
> local public library, I'm screwed. Guess this is Intel's way of
> selling more processors that people don't really need.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
