Received: from nova by mail.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
id RAA21918; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:20:36 -0800
From: JeffH@cup.portal.com
Received: from hobo.online.portal.com (hobo.online.portal.com [156.151.5.5]) by nova (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA15064 for <lightwave-l@netcom.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:20:47 -0800
Received: (pccop@localhost) by hobo.online.portal.com (8.6.7/8.6.5) id RAA27328 for lightwave-l@netcom.com; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:20:47 -0800
To: lightwave-l@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Real specs...
Lines: 29
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 17:20:46 PST
Message-ID: <9501201720.3.27218@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
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
>
I think your test would serve you better if you turned low antialiasing ON.
On my Stock A4000, it takes around 13:56. On my Raptor II, that same scene
takes 1:39.
I believe that scene loads with Antialiasing OFF!!
It was always my understanding that the texture example benchmarks where
rendered with low antiailiasing ON. Big difference!!