Jenna Olson wrote:
>I would think that POV Ray would always benefit from better floating point
>performance, but I could be mistaken. I'd be willing to rerun any and all
>tests with any other variations if asked. :)
>
>Again this is an unscientific test done by me for my own amusement ("So what
>can I do with this G5 thing?")

I've been anxiously waiting for someone to try those, thanks!

I'm surprised the IBM compiler didn't help more; I had high hopes for
it with POV-Ray after seeing a presentation. Like you, I thought POV-Ray
used a lot of double-precision floating point, so the G5 should be a
perfect match. Maybe there's some special switch that will make a big
difference. Do you know what "-qalign=natural" does?

I see at http://www.haveland.com/index.htm?povbench/index.php
that a 2 GHz G5 ran the benchmark in 27:27 so it looks like the
standard compile (CodeWarrier) is much faster than gcc. (Since POV-Ray
doesn't take advantage of multiple processors, I'd think your 1.8
would bench very close to the 2.)

Christopher James Huff wrote:
>me looks at his poor, beaten up old G3...350MHz and 384MB RAM, half the
>original handles, and a case warped badly enough the door barely opens
>and is even more difficult to get closed again. I'm hoping to stick a G4
>processor in it this Christmas, along with a little more RAM.

I was feeling sorry for you until I checked your website and found
you cheat :-) and render on a 2400+ Athlon! Nice solution; I had
been looking at an Athlon machine to replace my Mac before they
announced the G5's. I'll probably still get a G5, but I'd hoped for
better POV-Ray performance.

The benchmark page shows a 2400+ running an XP optimized version
at around the same time as a 2GHz G5. Have you tried the benchmark
on your machine?

-Mark

Post a reply to this message