 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The old Athlon XP 2400 with half a gig of RAM up and died a couple weeks ago.
It was due to happen; I built the system in 2003. Got an HP quad core Athlon
system.
Single-core rendering is almost twice as fast, and with all four cores rendering
is 7.6 times as fast.
So I make the frames larger (512x288 vs. 320x240), and up the AA levels as well.
Life is good.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/07/2011 6:11 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> The old Athlon XP 2400 with half a gig of RAM up and died a couple weeks ago.
> It was due to happen; I built the system in 2003. Got an HP quad core Athlon
> system.
>
> Single-core rendering is almost twice as fast, and with all four cores rendering
> is 7.6 times as fast.
>
> So I make the frames larger (512x288 vs. 320x240), and up the AA levels as well.
>
> Life is good.
>
So Rusty comes back in turbo?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/07/2011 06:11 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> The old Athlon XP 2400 with half a gig of RAM up and died a couple weeks ago.
> It was due to happen; I built the system in 2003.
This does not bode well for my aging Athlon 2X 4200+ socket-939 built in
2005... o_O
> Got an HP quad core Athlon system.
>
> Single-core rendering is almost twice as fast, and with all four cores rendering
> is 7.6 times as fast.
>
> So I make the frames larger (512x288 vs. 320x240), and up the AA levels as well.
>
> Life is good.
For any increase in compute power, a comparable increase in rendering
settings will nullify any speed improvement. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> So I make the frames larger (512x288 vs. 320x240), and up the AA levels as well.
It's the old adage: Computers get faster, rendering times don't. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> The old Athlon XP 2400 with half a gig of RAM up and died a couple weeks ago.
> It was due to happen; I built the system in 2003. Got an HP quad core Athlon
> system.
>
> Single-core rendering is almost twice as fast, and with all four cores rendering
> is 7.6 times as fast.
>
> So I make the frames larger (512x288 vs. 320x240), and up the AA levels as well.
>
> Life is good.
>
> Regards,
> John
You were making Rusty videos on something that old???
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/07/2011 08:17 PM, Warp wrote:
> It's the old adage: Computers get faster, rendering times don't. ;)
None can deny the Truth. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > The old Athlon XP 2400 with half a gig of RAM up and died a couple weeks ago.
> > It was due to happen; I built the system in 2003. Got an HP quad core Athlon
> > system.
> >
> > Single-core rendering is almost twice as fast, and with all four cores rendering
> > is 7.6 times as fast.
> >
> > So I make the frames larger (512x288 vs. 320x240), and up the AA levels as well.
> >
> > Life is good.
>
> You were making Rusty videos on something that old???
Yes, although the last Rusty vid was made in 2007, when the machine was only
four years old.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
