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
/
000189_owner-lightwave-l _Thu Jan 19 15:30:50 1995.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1995-02-04
|
1KB
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave-l>
Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
id OAA26341; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 14:03:55 -0800
Received: from mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu by netcom6.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
id LAA04523; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 11:17:55 -0800
Received: by mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu (Smail3.1.28.1 #20)
id m0rV2C8-000DM3C; Thu, 19 Jan 95 13:06 CST
Received: by oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu
id 0HYJ301H Thu, 19 Jan 95 12:47:02
From: alan.chan@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu
Message-ID: <9501191247.0HYJ301@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 12:47:02
Subject: RE: REAL SPECS ON REN
To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
Sender: owner-lightwave-l@netcom.com
Precedence: bulk
> 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 only problem is the scene doesn't put raytracing and really FPU-intensive
operations to the test. Also, render engines are so fast these days that it
takes more time for ScreamerNet to shunt the RGB data back than it does to
actually render.
AC