home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: rupret.apana.org.au!not-for-mail
- From: jamesm@turtle.apana.org.au (James McArthur)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
- Subject: Re: NewTek SHIPS Lightwave 4.0/Amiga!
- Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
- Date: 27 Jan 1996 13:28:58 +0930
- Organization: Turtle Systems - The Internet System Of The Northern Territory
- Message-ID: <4ec7u2$5dk@turtle.apana.org.au>
- References: <4cg8g0$9bh@nntp.interaccess.com> <oj64tto6una.fsf@hpsrk.fc.hp.com> <4e24ov$ok3@cloner3.netcom.com> <3105e045.6937369@News> <310648ED.948@topcity.mn.org> <31072393.35098254@News> <31081EE4.5D96@ix.netcom.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: turtle.apana.org.au
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
-
- bryan white (bwhite3@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
- : Jeff Barr wrote:
- : >
- : > On Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:57:49 -0600, "Michael M. Rye"
- : > <1726@topcity.mn.org> wrote:
- : >
- : > >Jeff Barr wrote:
- : > >> What does it have to do with anything? My single processor, bargain
- : > >> basement P100 will render 10x faster than an A4000/040, for less
- : > >> money, and includes TRUE 24 bit output and a CD ROM as well (not to
- : > >> mention gobs more storage space). NOBODY serious about 3D renders on
- : > >> an Amiga anymore
- : >
- : > >Of course your P100 is going to render faster, your comparing it to a
- : > >friggen '040 for gods sake!! Typical PeeCee user comparing apples
- : > >and oranges again!
- : >
- : > Get a life, then a clue. What's being compared is rendering times. Who
- : > the hell cares WHAT processor it's being rendered on (which was the
- : > original point that you were too blind in your amigaized tunnel vision
- : > to see). The point is that there are a LOT of solutions out there for
- : > serious rendering, but the Amiga simply doesn't figure into them, yet.
- : > Maybe when the PPC Amigas come out that will change.
-
- What being compared is reality; an Amiga rendering something is a waste of
- time, since a cheap, kludged up system like a PC can do it much faster.
-
- : > >Now an '060 (at 50MHz) on the other hand beats a P90 for rendering time.
- : > >I would imagine that a 66 MHz '060 would beat your P100. Anyone
- : > >verify that????
- : >
- : > And where are you getting these whimisical stats from, dreamland? A
- : > p100 renders the standard lightwave texture demo (and here I correct
- : > My statement of 10x) 8.6 times faster than an A4000/040. A Cyberstorm
- : > '060 equipped A4000 renders the same scene 3.1 times faster than the
- : > A4000/040 (Video Toaster user, July 1995). So you're telling me that a
- : > P90, running just 10 Mhz slower than a P100, renders 2/3 slower? I
- : > somehow don't think so. And the P100 is STILL almost 3x faster than
- : > the '060 based A4000 (not to mention about 3x cheaper). FYI, the
- : > Raptor 3 (with one 266 Mhz alpha 21164, dunno what they've got in them
- : > now, might indeed be dual processored) renders 45x faster than the
- : > stock A4000 (two processors, or faster ones, would put it in the 80x
- : > faster realm of the original speculation).
- : >
- : > Flat on my back in the middle of the Information Superhighway
-
- : not being a renderer at all, but I beleive it was the "Amiga Computing"
- : mag that did a Lightwave rendering test and found the 50Mhz 060 as fast
- : or faster than a P90.
-
- : I wasn't there so I don't verify that it happened :-)
- : Tha magazine is at home so I can't confirm my rememberence. <g>
-
- I think I remeber glancing through that mag at the newsagent, and seeing
- something like that.
-
- But anyone spending money on an A4000/060 to do just rendering must have
- money to waste! (They could at least give the doh to me :-> )
-
- : bryan
-