 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some of you might be interested in this:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1970190,00.asp
They use POV-Ray 3.7 beta 13 in a benchmark with the upcoming Conroe CPU.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoo povrayorg> wrote:
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1970190,00.asp
3.6 minutes to render the standard benchmark? That's quite cool.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
>> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1970190,00.asp
>
> 3.6 minutes to render the standard benchmark? That's quite cool.
The version of the benchmark in the beta has some stuff turned off due to
feature implementation issues in previous betas, not sure of the full list
but it's certainly not as CPU-intensive as the release version.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason wrote:
> Some of you might be interested in this:
>
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1970190,00.asp
>
> They use POV-Ray 3.7 beta 13 in a benchmark with the upcoming Conroe CPU.
Hmm, comparing the render results of two different beta versions -
having in mind the changes between beta 12 and 13 i would not give too
much on the results (and especially not comparing to 3.6 of course)
although the tendency comparing the different processors seems plausible.
What i can't understand at all is the statement: "POV-Ray has proved
sensitive to raw clock frequencies in the past". Given that Pentium-M
and AMD64 tend to render faster than the P4 at much lower clock speeds
this seems quite wrong. What they maybe meant was that POV-Ray renders
are very CPU intensive and issues like HD speed, graphics cards and
memory performance have only a minor or no influence.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 27 May. 2006)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Warp who wrote:
>Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
>> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1970190,00.asp
>
> 3.6 minutes to render the standard benchmark? That's quite cool.
I can't work out whether a multicore CPU counts as "single" or
"parallel" for the purpose of POV benchmarking.
If it's "parallel", then it ranks as the 15th fastest parallel POV
benchmark result, if not then it's the fastest single processor result.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Williams <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote:
> If it's "parallel", then it ranks as the 15th fastest parallel POV
> benchmark result, if not then it's the fastest single processor result.
As Chris says, comparing the benchmark of 3.7beta13 with 3.6 is probably
not valid because of some features having been turned off for now.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> What i can't understand at all is the statement: "POV-Ray has proved
> sensitive to raw clock frequencies in the past". Given that Pentium-M
> and AMD64 tend to render faster than the P4 at much lower clock speeds
> this seems quite wrong.
I think that what they meant was that incresing the clock frequency
of the CPU (iow overclocking it) has very direct consequence on the
rendering speed (which might not be the case with other software which
are more dependent on other hardware).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Warp who wrote:
>Mike Williams <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote:
>> If it's "parallel", then it ranks as the 15th fastest parallel POV
>> benchmark result, if not then it's the fastest single processor result.
>
> As Chris says, comparing the benchmark of 3.7beta13 with 3.6 is probably
>not valid because of some features having been turned off for now.
Would that apply to all the existing benchmark reports that use various
different 3.7 betas?
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> I think that what they meant was that incresing the clock frequency
> of the CPU (iow overclocking it) has very direct consequence on the
> rendering speed (which might not be the case with other software which
> are more dependent on other hardware).
Yes, that's what i meant. They used the statement in a context however
where it does not make sense (unless they were analyzing the difference
between the 2.93 GHz and 3.2 GHz Conroe which i doubt).
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 27 May. 2006)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
