In article <38ab7a38@news.povray.org> , "Bob Hughes" 
<omn### [at] hotmailcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:

> Oh... I thought 150% was equivalent to 1.5 times.  Hmm.  Any math judges out
> there?  Just kidding!

It is, but double implies 200%, or two times, does it not? :-)  We
definitely need a judge for this kind of problem, math should be conducted
by vote - if the majority says a solution is correct, then it should be!  So
a judge would act as the majority  ;-)


     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 <38ab813c@news.povray.org> , "Thorsten Froehlich" 
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

>> Oh... I thought 150% was equivalent to 1.5 times.  Hmm.  Any math judges out
>> there?  Just kidding!
>
> It is, but double implies 200%, or two times, does it not? :-)  We
> definitely need a judge for this kind of problem, math should be conducted
> by vote - if the majority says a solution is correct, then it should be!  So
> a judge would act as the majority  ;-)

Oh damn, isn't it horrifying?  I have nothing else to do but to write such
nonsense ;-(


       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

Horrifying maybe, but I think most mathematics were derived by popular opinion
anyway.  1,2,3... (oops---- 0,1,2,3...)

Bob

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:38ab817b@news.povray.org...
| In article <38ab813c@news.povray.org> , "Thorsten Froehlich"
| <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
|
| >> Oh... I thought 150% was equivalent to 1.5 times.  Hmm.  Any math judges
out
| >> there?  Just kidding!
| >
| > It is, but double implies 200%, or two times, does it not? :-)  We
| > definitely need a judge for this kind of problem, math should be conducted
| > by vote - if the majority says a solution is correct, then it should be!  So
| > a judge would act as the majority  ;-)
|
| Oh damn, isn't it horrifying?  I have nothing else to do but to write such
| nonsense ;-(
|
|
|        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

"J. Kim" wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>   I am planning on upgrading my Pentium II 233MHz(512K cache) to Celeron
> 433MHz(128K cache).  Motherboard, RAM, and all other hardwares will be
> the same.
> I might not upgrade my motherboard yet. The current motherboard can
> accept upto Pentium II 333MHz(512K cache) or the Celeron 433MHz.
> Would the Celeron 433 give me performance boost of about 80% or more,
> even though the cache size has been reduced, in terms of POV-ray
> raytracing?
> Any comment would be welcome.
>    Thanks in advance,

    Don't unless free and you plan to run linux. nearly 1.5 years ago I got
a PII/333 128M that is so far out of date now, mainly due to finally the
buss speed increasing ... There are lots of reasons ... get to your local
flea market with about $800, tell them to take out everything you have in
your present machine like modem and CD-ROM and floppy drives and ask for a
price. If you know what you are doing, tell them to keep their HDs also.
Upgrade the rest in your own time.

--
Whatever happened to the Kerbs and the Sosovars?

Post a reply to this message

No, no, no, no.
You must understand, there is a huge difference between 128KB cache and no
cache. 128KB is enough for most applications, raytracing included. Large cache
is most important in SMP, and extremely RAM-intensive applications like speech
processing. The bus speed is also far less important than its made out to be, at
least for raytracing.
My Celeron runs POV as fast as an equivalent PII (or as close as no matter).
At 418MHz (overclocked) skyvase.pov takes 1:10 to render.

Margus

Nieminen Juha wrote:
> 
>   I don't think it's worth (unless you can do it for _very_ cheap).
>   It will have more MHz's but less cache. The increase in speed may be
> only fractions. The amount of cache is quite crucial (just try disabling
> the caches in bios and see how the computer slows down; my P-II 350MHz
> runs like a 386 with caches disabled).
>   The speed of the memory bus may also be very important. I think that the
> P-II 233 has a mem bus of 66MHz (while in the P-II 350 it's 100MHz). I don't
> know how fast it's in the celeron.
> 
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
: You must understand, there is a huge difference between 128KB cache and no
: cache. 128KB is enough for most applications, raytracing included. Large cache
: is most important in SMP, and extremely RAM-intensive applications like speech
: processing. The bus speed is also far less important than its made out to be, at
: least for raytracing.

  Raytracing is not memory intensive? What about those 100-Megs povray files?

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Juha wrote:
> 
>   Raytracing is not memory intensive? What about those 100-Megs povray files?
> 

Yes, it will start to shift towards memory intensive. But raw CPU horsepower is
a much more limiting factor. Besides, 100-meg files usually cause a lot of
swapping and CPU->RAM bandwidth becomes pretty meaningless.

Margus

Post a reply to this message

it is actually english and math...

50% of 100Mhz means    50Mhz
a 50% increase of the 100Mhz would mean 150Mhz...

so it is english+math together!

BR/Saadat

Post a reply to this message