Just upgraded to a PIII 800Mhz (256Mb) from a Celeron 400 (192Mb). I ran
skyvase before and after here are my results:
Before:
skyvase.pov
1024x768 AA 0.3
168 s total

After:
skyvase.pov
1024x768 AA 0.3
77 s total

I'm stoked!
Isosurfaces, here I come!

H²
(email is up but webserver is still down)

Post a reply to this message

I guess this means I shouldn't mention the 1.1 Ghz AMD with 256 MB of RAM
and ATA100 30 GB RAID drives I just configured yesterday ;)

Shame it's my Dad's though, I've already done some quick benchmarks on RC5:
4.1 million keys/s.  No doubt I'll be using it for network rendering of a
night time though >:)

Mwuhahaha!

I'd really like to try some MegaPOV stuff some time, since I've got enough
power now to try all the neat features :)

--
Lance.

http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Oh, rot!
I just can't seem to keep up!
;-)

H²

Lance Birch <-> wrote in message news:3a67d118@news.povray.org...
> I guess this means I shouldn't mention the 1.1 Ghz AMD with 256 MB of RAM
> and ATA100 30 GB RAID drives I just configured yesterday ;)
>
> Shame it's my Dad's though, I've already done some quick benchmarks on
RC5:
> 4.1 million keys/s.  No doubt I'll be using it for network rendering of a
> night time though >:)
>
> Mwuhahaha!
>
> I'd really like to try some MegaPOV stuff some time, since I've got enough
> power now to try all the neat features :)
>
> --
> Lance.
>
> http://come.to/the.zone
>
>

Post a reply to this message

That would be 2.18181818 times faster then.  I went from a 500MHz to 800MHz
(both PIII) and had 1.8166666 times change.
I did the skyvase.pov too except per the POV-Ray Benchmark way.
The one constant remains, never fast enough.

Bob H.

"Halbert" <hal### [at] earthcompudrivelcom> wrote in message
news:3a67cd67$1@news.povray.org...
> Just upgraded to a PIII 800Mhz (256Mb) from a Celeron 400 (192Mb). I ran
> skyvase before and after here are my results:
> Before:
> skyvase.pov
> 1024x768 AA 0.3
> 168 s total
>
> After:
> skyvase.pov
> 1024x768 AA 0.3
> 77 s total

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a67d118@news.povray.org>, "Lance Birch" <-> wrote:

> I guess this means I shouldn't mention the 1.1 Ghz AMD with 256 MB of 
> RAM and ATA100 30 GB RAID drives I just configured yesterday ;)
> 
> Shame it's my Dad's though, I've already done some quick benchmarks 
> on RC5: 4.1 million keys/s.  No doubt I'll be using it for network 
> rendering of a night time though >:)
> 
> Mwuhahaha!
> 
> I'd really like to try some MegaPOV stuff some time, since I've got 
> enough power now to try all the neat features :)

Try the proximity pattern...that should cure you. ;-)

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch <-> wrote in message news:3a67d118@news.povray.org...
> I'd really like to try some MegaPOV stuff some time, since I've got enough
> power now to try all the neat features :)
>

// disclamer: code below has been typed from memory, may contain errors and
probably won't look that great

#declare F_Crackle= function {pigment{crackle}}

isosurface {
 function { BaseFunction(x,y,z)-noise3d(x,0,z)*2-noise3d(x*4,0,z*4)*0.5 -
F_Crackle(x,0,z)*1.5 - F_Crackle(x*6,0,z*6)*0.25}
 threshold 0
 method 2
 eval
 contained_by {box {<-20,-15,-20>,<20,7,20>}}
 texture {
  pigment {rgbf <0.85,0.85,1,0.5>}
  finish {specular 0.7 roughness 0.01 reflection_min 0.2 reflection_max 0.5}
 }
 interior {
  fade_distance 5
  fade_power 2
 }
}

// add lighting to taste

Two or three of those types of isosurface in a scene and my machine grinds
to a halt.

Gail
--
********************************************************************
* gsh### [at] monotixcoza              * System.dat not found.         *
* http://www.rucus.ru.ac.za/~gail/ * Reformat hard drive Y)es O)k  *
********************************************************************
* If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0               *
********************************************************************

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> 
> [slow isosurface code]
> 
> Two or three of those types of isosurface in a scene and my machine grinds
> to a halt.
> 

I would add:

global_settings{
   ini_option "+QR"  
   radiosity{     
     count 2000                
     error_bound 0.01   
   }   
} 

so we can get equal rights for memory and CPU :-)

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

"Halbert" <hal### [at] earthcompudrivelcom> wrote in message
news:3a67cd67$1@news.povray.org...
> Just upgraded to a PIII 800Mhz (256Mb) from a Celeron 400 (192Mb). I ran
> skyvase before and after here are my results:
> Before:
> skyvase.pov
> 1024x768 AA 0.3
> 168 s total
>
> After:
> skyvase.pov
> 1024x768 AA 0.3
> 77 s total
>

I never tried rendering skyvase.pov before. Here are my results:

1024x768 AA 0.3
Windows (render priority HIGH)
540 s total

Not so good eh? No point me mentioning the spec of my clockwork,
steam-driven PC....

--
Andy Cocker

---------------------------------------------------------------
listen to my music at:
www.mp3.com/lunarland
---------------------------------------------------------------

'I spilled spot remover on my dog. He's gone now. '
'I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast at any time."
So I ordered french toast during the Renaissance. '

 - Steven Wright.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

Pentium 166? Perhaps 200? It's really not about your speed, it's about your
patience!

H²

Post a reply to this message

"Halbert" <hal### [at] earthcompudrivelcom> wrote in message
news:3a69a03e$1@news.povray.org...
> Pentium 166? Perhaps 200?

Yeah, P200 MMX. I find that it's the design of a scene that takes the time..
tweaking media parameters etc. I don't mind so much waiting for a final
render.

>It's really not about your speed, it's about your
> patience!

And your patience ran out? :-)

--
Andy Cocker

---------------------------------------------------------------
listen to my music at:
www.mp3.com/lunarland
---------------------------------------------------------------

'I spilled spot remover on my dog. He's gone now. '
'I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast at any time."
So I ordered french toast during the Renaissance. '

 - Steven Wright.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

In article <3a699f39@news.povray.org>, "Andy Cocker" 
<big### [at] mariner9fsnetcouk> wrote:

> 1024x768 AA 0.3
> Windows (render priority HIGH)
> 540 s total
> 
> Not so good eh? No point me mentioning the spec of my clockwork,
> steam-driven PC....

Hmm...1024*768, AA method 2 with recursion 2 and threshold 0.3, PowerPC 
G3 350, 128MB RAM, Mac OS 9.0.4, rendering priority "Tyrannical":
Time For Trace:    0 hours  3 minutes   8.0 seconds (188 seconds)

Just a little bit slower than a Celeron 400...what is your processor?

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

skyvase.pov
1024x768 AA 0.3 (Highest render priority)
Time for parse: 1 sec
Time for trace: 48 sec
Total Time: 49 sec

Compaq Presario 7000, 1.2 GHz AMD Athlon, 128 Mb

Sorry, but it's brand new and I just HAD to tell someone who would
understand!

Cris Williams

"Halbert" <hal### [at] earthcompudrivelcom> wrote in message
news:3a67cd67$1@news.povray.org...
> Just upgraded to a PIII 800Mhz (256Mb) from a Celeron 400 (192Mb). I ran
> skyvase before and after here are my results:
> Before:
> skyvase.pov
> 1024x768 AA 0.3
> 168 s total
>
> After:
> skyvase.pov
> 1024x768 AA 0.3
> 77 s total
>
> I'm stoked!
> Isosurfaces, here I come!
>
> H²
> (email is up but webserver is still down)
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Here's mine:

skyvase.pov
1024x768 AA 0.3
Render Priority: Highest
699 s total

Anybody higher? :(

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 6)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

Cris Williams wrote:
> 
> skyvase.pov
> 1024x768 AA 0.3 (Highest render priority)
> Time for parse: 1 sec
> Time for trace: 48 sec
> Total Time: 49 sec
> 
> Compaq Presario 7000, 1.2 GHz AMD Athlon, 128 Mb

That 250 MHz makes a BIG difference. I got 56 sec. on my 950 Athlon.
Got me beat by a whopping 7 whole seconds. Time to upgrade again !

:)

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> Here's mine:
> 
> skyvase.pov
> 1024x768 AA 0.3
> Render Priority: Highest
> 699 s total
> 
> Anybody higher? :(

I've got an old 486 DX2 80 around here somewhere that I am sure can
do worse than that. If that doesn't work I can also put together my
old 386 33 that is sure to take a couple of hours :)

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote in message <3a6a02e9$1@news.povray.org>...
>Here's mine:
>
>skyvase.pov
>1024x768 AA 0.3
>Render Priority: Highest
>699 s total
>
>Anybody higher? :(


I'd try it on my old 486SX33, except that there isn't enough disk space
available for me to install POV-Ray!

--
Mark

Post a reply to this message

The very latest Athlon has DDR memory and a 266 Mhz bus.  I'd like to see
the numbers on this one.
I don't know if it's shipping in any systems yet - I saw it on AMD's site.
Mine has a 200 Mhz bus with SyncDRAM memory.  I forgot to mention that I'm
running Windows ME.

Cris Williams

"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3A6A6286.2B24B0E9@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Cris Williams wrote:
> >
> > skyvase.pov
> > 1024x768 AA 0.3 (Highest render priority)
> > Time for parse: 1 sec
> > Time for trace: 48 sec
> > Total Time: 49 sec
> >
> > Compaq Presario 7000, 1.2 GHz AMD Athlon, 128 Mb
>
> That 250 MHz makes a BIG difference. I got 56 sec. on my 950 Athlon.
> Got me beat by a whopping 7 whole seconds. Time to upgrade again !
>
> :)
>
> --
> Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

"Halbert" <hal### [at] earthcompudrivelcom> wrote in message
news:3a67cd67$1@news.povray.org...
> Just upgraded to a PIII 800Mhz (256Mb) from a Celeron 400 (192Mb). I ran
> skyvase before and after here are my results:
<snip>
> After:
> skyvase.pov
> 1024x768 AA 0.3
> 77 s total

Running POV3.1g on Win2000 with all my usual applications running in the
background (including OE ;) my AMD-TB 800 produced the same render time;

skyvase.pov
1024x768 AA 0.3
77 s total

Not surprising perhaps, given they're both 800MHz...  The only thing that
makes me a little smug is that I only have 128megs RAM.  Can I make a
sweeping statement and say AMD > P3? :)

Post a reply to this message

Given the evidence I would have to say "inconclusive" (because I know the
AMD may actually be superior). But if we were redering something that
required much more memory, I would probably come out on top because of the
memory. When I reran my test on the upgraded system I too had my usual
programs running, had POV set on the standard redering priority and I
haven't upgraded to Windows 2000 yet. (I did have Win2k on the Celeron
system but I had to reinstall my OS after upgrading)
It would be interesting to find out if the AMD does better with POV though.

H²

www.compudrivel.com

Post a reply to this message

"Andy Cocker" <big### [at] mariner9fsnetcouk> wrote in message
news:3a69bdb5@news.povray.org...
> "Halbert" <hal### [at] earthcompudrivelcom> wrote in message
> news:3a69a03e$1@news.povray.org...
> > Pentium 166? Perhaps 200?
>
> Yeah, P200 MMX. I find that it's the design of a scene that takes the
time..
> tweaking media parameters etc. I don't mind so much waiting for a final
> render.

Okay, that's scary. My K6-2 400 (196MB Ram, 512K L2) clocked in at exactly
400 seconds under exactly the same conditions as yours (I'm running Windows
2000, though).

That means that yours is goin' at 7.303 pixels per second per MHZ and mines
goin' at 4.915 pixels per second per MHZ. I knew K6-2s were not as powerful
in FPU power as P2s but I didn't expect to be beaten by a Pentium MMX!

Post a reply to this message

This is an interesting benchmark of pure FPU grunt. Is there any site that
collects these results? If not, I think it'd be a great idea.

Summary of systems (best viewed with a fixed width font :):

| CPU         | RAM | Time | PPSPMHZ* |
|-------------|-----|------|----------|
| Athlon 950  | ??? |   56 |   14.78  |
| Athlon 1200 | 128 |   49 |   13.37  |
| Athlon 800  | 128 |   77 |   12.77  |
| P3 800      | 256 |   77 |   12.77  |
| G3 350      | 128 |  188 |   11.95  |
| Celeron 400 | 192 |  168 |   11.70  |
| P 200 MMX   | ??? |  540 |    7.28  |
| K6-2 400    | 192 |  400 |    4.92  |
| ???         | ??? |  699 |     ???  |
|-------------|-----|------|----------|
* Pixels per second per megahertz

Very interesting results, especially for the Athlons, though quite
explainable. The Athlon 950 is faster in PPSPMHZ (I've got to think of a
better acronym!) because at this speed, the limit would be how fast you can
move stuff too and from RAM. Therefore, the score in PPSPMHZ woudl drop as
you got faster speeds (more PPS but a greater increase in MHZ). The Athlon
800 probably has a lower bus speed.

Another good indicator would be PPSP$ (pixels per second per $).

| CPU         | RAM | Time | Price | PPSP$ |
|-------------|-----|------|-------|-------|
| Celeron 400 | 192 |  168 |   40  | 117.0 |
| Athlon 800  | 128 |   77 |   98  | 104.2 |
| Athlon 950  | ??? |   56 |  153  |  91.8 |
| Athlon 1200 | 128 |   49 |  267  |  60.1 |
| K6-2 400    | 192 |  400 |   33  |  59.6 |
| P3 800      | 256 |   77 |  180  |  56.7 |
| P 200 MMX   | ??? |  540 |  ???  |   ??? |
| G3 350      | 128 |  188 |  ???  |   ??? |
| ???         | ??? |  699 |  ???  |   ??? |
|-------------|-----|------|-------|-------|


Shame on us all! The Celery wins! Of course, this is probably not a good
test as a single Athlon 800 ($163) would be far cheaper than buying 2
Celeron 400's and networking them together. However, a BP6 with two Celeron
400 would be nice (and cheap).

Okay, that's the end of my ramblings. No flame on the rankings please :)

Michael

Post a reply to this message

On 2001-01-26 23:49, Michael Brown <emb### [at] i4freeDELETETHISconz> wrote:
>This is an interesting benchmark of pure FPU grunt. Is there any site that
>collects these results? If not, I think it'd be a great idea.

http://www.haveland.com/povbench/


>Summary of systems (best viewed with a fixed width font :):
>
>| CPU         | RAM | Time | PPSPMHZ* |
>|-------------|-----|------|----------|
>| Athlon 950  | ??? |   56 |   14.78  |
>| Athlon 1200 | 128 |   49 |   13.37  |
>| Athlon 800  | 128 |   77 |   12.77  |
>| P3 800      | 256 |   77 |   12.77  |

I was surprised that the P3 800 is exactly as fast as the Athlon 800 so
I tried it on our P3's:

 | P3 800      |1024 |   94 |   10.46  |
 | P3 600      | 256 |  134 |    9.78  |
 | P3 500      | 256 |  172 |    9.14  |

Quite a bit lower. 

Is your P3 result correct, or did you mistakenly put in the Athlon
results a second time? 

Of course that could also be a compiler issue: All our three boxes are
running Linux. I used the official build on the 800 and 600 and compiled
it myself on the 500.

Also, all three boxes have an ASUS board. 


>PPSPMHZ (I've got to think of a better acronym!)

Since BPB (bang per buck) seems to be a used for the performance/cost
ratio, how about BPC (bang per clock)? :-)

	hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | All Linux applications run on Solaris,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | which is our implementation of Linux.
| |   | hjp### [at] wsracat      | 
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |	-- Scott McNealy, Dec. 2000

Post a reply to this message

First things first:

> I was surprised that the P3 800 is exactly as fast as the Athlon 800 so
> I tried it on our P3's:
These aren't my results - apart from the K6-2 at the bottom :( - merely just
what was reported in this thread

> Since BPB (bang per buck) seems to be a used for the performance/cost
> ratio, how about BPC (bang per clock)? :-)
Definately better!

Then on to the fun part. I crunched the numbers from the site you supplied
and came up with these results (plus more for Sun SPARCs, G3s etc):

Processor           |  Min  | Average | Max   | Notes
--------------------|-------|---------|-------|---------------------------
DEC Alpha 21264     | 32.75 |  50.89  | 60.49 |
AMD Thunderbird     | 22.93 |  30.39  | 36.41 |
AMD Athlon          |  3.55 |  29.45  | 41.39 | Includes some Thunderbirds
AMD Duron           | 26.75 |  28.95  | 35.59 |
Intel Pentium2 Xeon | 20.81 |  23.87  | 26.21 | V. small sample
DEC Alpha           | 17.28 |  23.64  | 44.94 | Unspecified chips
Intel Pentium3      | 17.28 |  23.64  | 44.94 | Coppermine + classic
Intel Celeron       |  4.44 |  22.73  | 37.66 | All celerons
Intel Pentium2      |  9.13 |  22.11  | 44.06 |
AMD K6-3            |  9.20 |  21.49  | 29.13 |
DEC Alpha 21164     |  4.90 |  21.27  | 34.04 |
Intel Pentium Pro   |  7.53 |  20.28  | 34.09 |
Cyrix M2            | 14.40 |  18.58  | 27.31 | V. small sample
AMD K6-2            | 12.52 |  18.28  | 40.64 |
AMD K6              | 10.83 |  17.96  | 29.13 |
Intel Pentium4      |       |  17.02  |       | One only
Intel Pentium       |  5.63 |  16.75  | 27.65 |
Intel Pentium MMX   |  6.68 |  15.86  | 21.63 |
Cyrix 6x86MX        |  8.90 |  14.82  | 24.55 | V. small sample
Cyrix 6x86          |  7.61 |  12.50  | 26.75 |
DEC Alpha 21064     |  4.53 |  12.07  | 17.99 |
AMD K5              |  3.33 |  10.59  | 18.83 |
486DX               |  4.40 |  7.82   | 10.12 |
Cyrix MediaGX       |  5.40 |  5.63   |  5.83 | V. small sample
--------------------|-------|---------|-------|---------------------------

These numbers are in BPC (bang ber clock) and are not really useful except
for comparing the relative FPU grunt of each processor. Even then it's
sometimes not useful as things like memory bandwidth limitations kick in and
push the results down for higher speed processors. What I'm saying is that
these numbers have almost no practical use, and the better one would be the
BPB (bang per buck) rating of each which you can get from the site mentioned
in the last post and which I forgot to include, and can't include because
I've already posted this :)

The only use is to see that the FPU in the Alpha (the chip of my dreams :)
should really be looked at by Intel and AMD! Hehe, imagine that. Skyvase.pov
run on a TBird 1000 at a BPC rating of 50. Hmm, that's be 15.7 seconds.
Oooooohhhh yeeeaah.

Moving right along, this is how I see the results. There are several
unexpected things and several expected things (as there are with most things
:).

Expected:
1) Alpha tops the list by a large margin.
2) TBird/Athon comes second (I'm an AMD fan :)
3) Pentium 4 rates not-so-good with its high clock speed limited by memory
bandwidth.
3) Xeon beats the P2
4) K6-2's lose out to the P2 (nooooooooooooo!)

Unexpected:
1) Celeron beats the P2 (by a small margin, but lumping all the celerons
together, includeing the handicapped ones should drag it down).
2) Xeon doesn't totally cream the P2. With all the cache it should leave the
P2 in the dust!
3) Pentium MMX loses to the plain vanilla pentium. Again, a memory bandwidth
thing again.
4) The MediaGX (MMX equivilent I thought) gets smoked by even a 486!

And maybe some more but I can't be bothered analysing it any more. It's
11:30 at night and I'm falling asleep.

If anyone wants the raw results in XL form (it was a real pain trying to
extract it from the HTML, and during the process I screwed up all except the
speed, time, and processor) just e-mail me after removing the obvious from
the address (or post here if I don't respond within 24 hrs). Also, if you
want the results for antything else I've probably got it (or you can visit
the site :)

Cheers,
Michael

PS: Seeing a 7mhz 68000 take 2:12:14 to render it makes me feel better :)

Post a reply to this message

I have only 48Mb of RAM in my P200MMX.. dunno how much of a detrimental
affect that would have had on the results.

--
Andy Cocker

---------------------------------------------------------------
listen to my music at:
www.mp3.com/lunarland
---------------------------------------------------------------

'I spilled spot remover on my dog. He's gone now. '
'I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast at any time."
So I ordered french toast during the Renaissance. '

 - Steven Wright.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

The kindly Rev. overheard "Michael Brown"
<emb### [at] i4freeDELETETHISconz> saying on 26 Jan 2001: 

>This is an interesting benchmark of pure FPU grunt. Is there any
>site that collects these results? If not, I think it'd be a great
>idea. 
>
>Summary of systems (best viewed with a fixed width font :):
>
>| CPU         | RAM | Time | PPSPMHZ* |
>|-------------|-----|------|----------|
>| Athlon 950  | ??? |   56 |   14.78  |
>| Athlon 1200 | 128 |   49 |   13.37  |
>| Athlon 800  | 128 |   77 |   12.77  |
>| P3 800      | 256 |   77 |   12.77  |
>| G3 350      | 128 |  188 |   11.95  |
>| Celeron 400 | 192 |  168 |   11.70  |
>| P 200 MMX   | ??? |  540 |    7.28  |
>| K6-2 400    | 192 |  400 |    4.92  |
>| ???         | ??? |  699 |     ???  |
>|-------------|-----|------|----------|

Hmmmmm.  Better tweak my motherboard, I think.  10.2613 PPSPMHZ on my 
1.2 GHz Athlon that just arrived. 11.15 with the VC6 engine.

Still, 23 (VC6 engine) or 25 seconds (original engine) on POVBench with 
my antivirus, ZoneAlarm, WebWasher, Winamp Agent, etc., etc., all 
running makes a somewhat nicer environment for raytracing than my 5-
year-old P133 which runs the skyvase POVBench in... hang on, it's still 
running... almost done... zzzzzz... huh?... oh yeah, where was I?...  
458 seconds!

OMG!  It runs the POVBench 18.32 times faster!  Maybe I'll leave that 
mobo alone.

Anybody wondering about the paucity of my output in p.b.i had better 
hang on to their hats.

FYI, the new box has got 512MB SDRAM, two 45GB 7200RPM IBM disks 
configured as RAID0 running through a Promise Ultra ATA100 onto an Asus 
AK74-EC motherboard, stuffed (along with a VisionTek GeForce 2 Ultra 
board, a Soundblaster Live Platinum, a Pioneer DVD-ROM, a TDK CD-ROM 
burner, and a Linksys 10/100 network card) into a SuperMicro SC750a 
case with 4 case fans.  Alas, using an external BitSurfr Pro to 
connect, since the ^*#*$&s at the phone company and the cable company 
haven't got broadband to my neighborhood yet.  Runs Windows ME, which I 
semi-hate.  Bose speakers, Sony Trinitron monitor, Logitech wireless 
keyboard and mouse.

Sorry for all the bragging.  But just once before I die I wanted to 
have the best computer in my neighborhood.  Er, best until April, when 
they start shipping the new Microns.  Fame is fleeting.  But I can live 
with that.

Haven't overclocked the CPU or video card.  Yet.  The next upgrade, 
when memory prices have fallen from their present absurd level (and my 
wallet has recovered from this absurd expenditure), is another 
motherboard and DDR SDRAM.  So my chances of having the best computer 
on my street are sunk if any of my neighbors has way too much money.  
US$350 for 128MB?????

My only excuse for my current exercise in wretched excess is that I 
haven't bought a new PC since November of 1995.

However, I believe I'm about to become a raytracer!

Other renders:

fish13      48
drums      145
ionic5      33
teapot2     82
teapot3     87
teapot4    123
ntreal      68
piece2     226
piece3      36
teapot      13
chess2     613
desk        21
diffract    41
float5      19
lamppost    89
mist        28
mtmand      19
quilt1     100
skyvase     35
sombrero    28
sunsethf    64
swirlbox    29
wg6        110
whiltile   136
woodbox     51

All done 800x600 0.3AA, .bmp output, original povengine.exe, watching 
the render, Opera and Xnews running.
-- 
Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
crispen at hiwaay dot net

If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try
orderin' somebody else's dog around.

Post a reply to this message

Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen wrote in message ...

>US$350 for 128MB?????


Consider this: six years ago, that 128MB would have run you US$12,800.

--
Mark

Post a reply to this message

> I have only 48Mb of RAM in my P200MMX.. dunno how much of a detrimental
> affect that would have had on the results.
Not much, I would say (unless it swapfiles). All these results are done for
640x480, aa 0.3, and a whole lot of other stuff. And a older skyvase.pov.
Check out http://www.haveland.com/povbench/povform.htm for details.

Post a reply to this message

"Michael Brown" <emb### [at] i4freeDELETETHISconz> writes:

> Shame on us all! The Celery wins! Of course, this is probably not a good

My moderately overclocked Duron gets 171 PPSP$ 
Stats: Duron 700@900 MHz, 256 MB, 63 s on skyvase.pov 1024*768.

-- 
ICQ 74734588

Post a reply to this message