another Blade Runner test

snowblind

unread,

Jul 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/1/98

to

Okay Frame 100 of blade.lws rendered in 141 sec in my PII 233 with 256 mb ram.
FYI

Aron

unread,

Jul 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/1/98

to

>Frame 100 of blade.lws rendered in 141 sec in my PII 233 with 256 mb ram.

On my 128 MB Ram dual PII266, it was 120s on single thread and 94s on two
threads. The scene was all set to original installation settings.

snowblind

unread,

Jul 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/1/98

to

well, I gave the segment memory about 64MB to render. Was I supposed to do
this? Does is slow everything down or speed it up?

In article <6ne5i9$l27$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>, "Aron"

Aron

unread,

Jul 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/1/98

to

>well, I gave the segment memory about 64MB to render. Was I supposed to do
>this? Does is slow everything down or speed it up?

Anything over 10 megs on that scene wont make a difference really as that
much memory is enough to bring the render segments down to 1 segment(check
the Camera panel near the memory allocation)

Sandro Borg

unread,

Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98

to

i just rendered the same frame on my humble P133 with 48 mb ram, it took
to render.
i'm looking at getting a PII 300-400 soon, can anybody give us an idea of
improved rendering performance on those machines.
thanks in advance,
s-b...@dircon.co.uk

snowblind wrote in message ...
>Okay Frame 100 of blade.lws rendered in 141 sec in my PII 233 with 256 mb
ram.
>FYI

Sandro Borg

unread,

Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98

to

duh, i left out the rendering time.
it took 8 minutes to render.

Sandro Borg wrote in message ...

jekel

unread,

Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98

to

This scene file actually has been out in two different configurations. One
was a render at 640x480 with low anitaliasing/field rendering and motion
blur and letterboxed. The other was identical but was at 320x240 res.
instead. Which one are you people benchmarking with? the 640 or the 320
resolution?

Jim

Sandro Borg <s-b...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
<359c2...@newsread1.dircon.co.uk>...

Steve Hoefer

unread,

Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98

to

I'm wondering why you're benchmarking with this scene rather than something
from the BENCHMARK folder? That's why they're there, and there's a big
searchable archive of results from these at
http://pluto.njcc.com/~chrisb/Benchmark/

steve
steve(at)balo(dot)com

jekel wrote in message <01bda6fc$4fca4f70$054884a9@ppro200>...

jekel

unread,

Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98

to

Please do not assume that everyone has the same settings for this scene! I
know for a fact that there are TWO different factory settings that have
been released by NewTek.

Please post the exact camera resolution and rendering settings so that we
can be sure that we are all on the same page.

Thanks

snowblind <snow...@home.com> wrote in article
<Wnim1.125558$Kx3.25...@news.rdc1.sdca.home.com>...

izzy...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 17, 2015, 3:01:21 PM11/17/15

to

On Wednesday, 1 July 1998 02:00:00 UTC-5, snowblind wrote:
> Okay Frame 100 of blade.lws rendered in 141 sec in my PII 233 with 256 mb ram.
> FYI

just out of curiosity, i rendered frame 100 from blade.lws in 7 seconds on an i7 16gig system. its neat to see how far things have progressed since the "good old days"

Izzy

unread,

Mar 2, 2023, 11:34:27 AM3/2/23

to

wow i forgot i even did this .. but here we are in 2023, rendered frame 100 from blade.lws in 6 seconds I9 9900k with 32gigs ram. ill post again in another 10 years

Tesselator

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 8:23:10 AM9/20/23

to

So, ONLY 20 times faster in 25 years? Man, that sucks! 0 :-)
Were you rendering the same frame size though? I think back then the size was 512x480 or something like that.