<This may be a bit late for the original writer, but this text
 wouldn't have helped him anyway...>

lyonstb <lyo### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>yes I understand that it is single threaded but don't you think that number
>crunchin code (like povray) would run faster on a computer that was built for
>utra fast number crunching??? or has povray been so influenced by the intel
>world that the code/algorithm has a "speed limit"?

You have to see the difference between number crunching and number
crunching. While povray is very computing intensive it is not built
along the lines of most number crunching code out there. Many high-end
computers, such as Cray T90 and SV1, derive their main computing
power from their vector units. If the code is not adapted for vector
units, tough luck, because then your computing grinds to a halt.

Other posters have claimed "bad compiler", which in part is true. Sadly
enough it's awfully hard to make the compiler do the vectoring for you,
just like it's hard to create parallellized machine code from standard
sequential source code. Vectorized code is even harder to derive
automatically. As povray is sequential, the original poster is out
of luck.

Raytracing as such, however, may possibly[1] be vectorized. That would
of course require a (more or less) ground up redesign in order to
maximize vectorization.[2]

/Anders
[1] I can't say I'm sure, but I can't see any reason why not.
[2] In most vector machines, speed difference between vectorized and
    non-vectorized code is somwhere in the 10^2-10^3 range, iirc.
-- 
Right after Armageddon, using your temperature calibration instruments
may come in a little low on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Food, shelter
and ISO 9000 compliance may come first...
    -- Hart Scientific unofficial y2k page

Post a reply to this message