Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> > If the slower machine ran out of RAM and started using the swap, then,that would
> > explain part of the difference.
>
>   If that's the case, the comparison is completely moot. It's not comparing
> CPU processing power side-to-side.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

For what it's worth, assuming no core-communications overhead (never a good idea
with multicore systems, but it makes things easier to figure) the 6min36sec on
the first system is roughly equivalent to 1h12min on the second system.

So yeah, it hit the swap pretty badly there (offhand, I'd guess the amount of
memory needed before it didn't hit swap at ~2.5GB, but that's just a
pulling-numbers-out-of-my-posterior guess, not a hard figure).

Post a reply to this message