Received: from io.org by netcom11.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id KAA14635; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:52:26 -0700
Received: from ajp-pc.net5c.io.org (ajp-pc.net5c.io.org [199.166.192.211]) by io.org (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id NAA05056 for <lightwave-l@netcom.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 1995 13:52:53 -0400
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 13:52:53 -0400
Message-Id: <199504271752.NAA05056@io.org>
X-Sender: ajp@io.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
From: ajp@io.org (Anthony James Paterson)
Subject: Re: Windows 95 preformance vs. NT
Sender: owner-lightwave-l@netcom.com
Precedence: bulk
Hi Ken.
> Windows 95 preformance vs. NT
>Has anybody been able to benchmark LightWave's preformance using Windows 95
>vs. NT yet? I was just wondering if there was much of a difference in
>rendering speeds between the two.
I'm running Lightwave 4.0 on a Pentium 90 system w/32 megs ram that dual boots
between Windows 95 beta m8 (the one that Microsoft is shipping under their
preview program) and Windows NT 3.5. I've done some rendering tests using a few
scenes from Robocop that exhibit a variety of Lightwave techniques including
reflection maps, trasnparencies, image maps, etc. In my tests so far,
Lightwave 4.0 still renders 30-50% faster under NT than under Win95. In
fact, LW doesn't render
any faster under Win95 than regular DOS/Windows w/Win32! I have a feeling
it has something to do with the 16-bit legacy code in Win95 and the way it
handles paging memory.
I'm sure others are as disappointed in Windows 95s results as I am, as I like
the new interface and its compatibility with older software and games. I'll
probably keep both OS' on my system, so that I render speedily when I need to,
and can still drop out for a quick Doom2 session when necessary!