home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Amiga Plus 1995 #5 & #6
/
Amiga Plus CD - 1995 - No. 5 and 6.iso
/
pd
/
grafik
/
lightwave
/
lightwave-jan95
/
000187_owner-lightwave-l _Thu Jan 19 13:59:53 1995.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1995-02-04
|
2KB
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave-l>
Received: by mail3.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
id KAA13581; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 10:46:30 -0800
Received: from daffy.aatech.com by mail3.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
id KAA13342; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 10:44:43 -0800
Received: by daffy.aatech.com id aa01156; 19 Jan 95 13:44 EST
From: Kenneth Jennings <kenneth@daffy.aatech.com>
X-Mailer: SCO System V Mail (version 3.2)
To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Real specs...
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 13:39:48 EST
Message-ID: <9501191339.aa00741@daffy.aatech.com>
Sender: owner-lightwave-l@netcom.com
Precedence: bulk
Gary Fenton <garygfx@cix.compulink.co.uk>
wrote about Re: Real specs on rendering:
>>OK, So I've heard all the "my system is better than your system"
>>arguments. Is there an independent testing facility that can actually
>>prove any of these claims? Is there some sort of FAQ or info file
>>that us
>Some companies use the "textures" example that comes with Lightwave as
>a benchmark for quoting LW rendering speeds. I think this is a good
>method because it's a practical one (not just a n MIPS quote) and it's
>a universal example among LW users. eg:
>Amiga 4000/040 = 3:42m
>Cyberstorm 040 = 1:32m
>Cyberstorm 060 = 0:54m
The problem with this is that it takes so little time
to render. When you get to Aplhas, Pentiums, and MIPs,
you don't see an *extremely* dramatic increase in
speed, since the setup time for the scene is basically
the same on all platforms.
What we need is a rendering test that has more polygons
and surface maps as a benchmark. Additionally, there
should be a scene to benchmark ray-tracing which uses
reflection, refraction, and shadows.
Kenneth Jennings -- kenneth@daffy.aatech.com