By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.56.78.50) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 06:03 am:

Ok, got the dual 800 yesterday. Here's the benchmarks for LW 6.5b under OS X.

DOF : 43 sec
Raytrace: 244 sec
Textures: 17 sec
ZBuffer: 16 sec

The Mac has 1152MB RAM, 60GB HD, and the GeForce 3.

I guess this puts the best possible Mac configuration about on par with a 1.5GHZP4 or a 1.2GHZ Athlon, according to the benchmarks over at www.blanos.com. Not top of the heap, but still respectable. I've got the LW 7.0 demo coming this week, so when I get that I'll retest and see if render times are any better, plus I'll do some OS 9 comparisons....

Ciao!

By ~@~ (Phong) (66.81.42.213) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 07:18 am:

Thanks Ted, for showing me yours. For comparison, allow me to show you mine (smile).

g4dp500/1.5 gig/radeon32, under OS X 6.5b (this morning), using the above scenes, 'as is':

DOF: 41.7 seconds
Raytrace: 314.3 seconds
Textures: 16.9 seconds
ZBuffer: 16.4 seconds

You did get a nice 'bump' in Raytrace and (fwiw) I am not doing this to be a 'wise ...'.

My intentions are to point out there may still be, 'perhaps', some remaining inadequate apple core programming that relates to firmware and the DP (j?).

Screen shots can be provided of the "Render Status" for each scene.

I do have a favor to ask, if you don't mind, what Boot ROM version appears in the Profiler on your machine?

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.56.78.50) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 08:19 am:

Phong,

Boot room is 4.24f1...

I figured there wouldn't be much of a discrepancy between the dual500/533 and the dual800's, at least under OS X 10.0.4. 10.0.4 is not optimized in the least bit, and to make matters worse, LW 6.5b was probably compiled under very inefficient beta tools (Codewarrior for OS X).

As Mattc says "OK, in a week or so, a special "LightWave 7 OS X TuneUp" will be posted. After running the tuneup, LW 7 will render faster on OS X than on 9 (this is on 10.0.4). 10.1 will make things even better by speeding up the interface and GL. "


How about some OS 9 numbers. I'll have mine up a little later...

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.56.78.50) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 08:21 am:

Sorry - BOOT ROM. It's still very early...
:-)

By riki cox (Suture) (203.109.250.99) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 08:30 am:

Ok How do you test Benchmarks?

By Ken Macleod (Ken) (24.189.175.100) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 08:41 am:

What are the camera properties supposed to be set at?

640x480???
Antialiasing???

What about in Render options???

Ray Trace Shadows???
Ray Trace Reflection???
Ray Trace Refraction???
Extra Ray Trace Optimization???

Thanks,
Ken

By ~@~ (Phong) (66.81.43.14) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 09:09 am:

[riki] Ok How do you test Benchmarks?

OS X -> LightWave 6.5b (nothing else running)
Load Scene -> OS-9.1 -> NewTek -> Content -> Scenes -> Benchmark -> scene of choice

[Ken] What are the camera properties supposed to be set at?

Each scene will set the Camera Properties. The only thing different is, I have Segment Memory Limit set to 50 MB.

[Ken] What about in Render options???

Each scene will set the Render Options. I have changed the following:

"Show Rendering in Progress" unchecked
"Render Display" (none)
Multithreading 4 Threads

By Chris Blanos (Chrisb) (199.224.2.199) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 09:24 am:

Just load the benchmark scene off the CD (or from the content directory) and hit render. The exact settings vary according to the scene, but the raytrace scene defaults to: 640x480, low AA with adaptive sampling, ray trace shadows/reflection/refraction on, extra ray trace optimization on.

Take a look at: http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/directions.html

Give me a shout if you have any other questions.

- Chris

By ~@~ (Phong) (66.81.35.97) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 09:59 am:

Thanks Ted, the Boot Rom here is the 'infamous' 4.18f5.

Here are the OS 9.1 results, starting with memory allocations/etc. Under layout I have 1000000 K as "Preferred Size" and 950000 K as "Minimum Size". I do not use the Hub. Under Camera Properties I have Segment Memory Limit set to 300 MB. Everything else is set up as above in my OS X post

DOF: 25.1 seconds
Raytrace: 250.5 seconds
Textures: 12.9 seconds
ZBuffer: 16.8 seconds

By Ken Macleod (Ken) (24.189.175.100) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 11:06 am:

Thought this may be of interest.
Benchmarks on a

Dell 8100 single processor
1024 ram
Win2K


DOF : 11.5 sec
Raytrace: 253.8 sec
Textures: 6.7 sec
ZBuffer: 9.8 sec

Ken

By bongo (Iandavis) (24.108.209.151) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 12:15 pm:

Oh my god!

I had expected WAY better results from the G4/dual800! I mean it managed to perform about the same numbers as my Athlon1.2, which costs literally 30% as much money. It just amazes me how slow LW is on the mac relative to all the other Mac software.

Ted I'm assuming you are using that Mac for premier, AE, director or somesuch thing... I mean I hope you are.

I remember how I felt when I found out that my G4/400 was getting rendering times about the same as a $500 celeron600. Ripped off, that's how I felt.

ian

By Ken Macleod (Ken) (24.189.175.100) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 12:29 pm:

Oh boy Ian,
Here we go.
Ken

By Ken Macleod (Ken) (24.189.175.100) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 12:40 pm:

Ted, are those figures using 2 threads??

By Will Salley (Willmac) (24.88.85.87) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 12:46 pm:

I think I have discovered something here.

I had (2) x 128MB SDRAMS and (2) x 256MB SDRAMS installed. I kept having problems with OSX at shutdown (UNIX error codes). It was suggested that I check the RAM. I did this by pulling each chip at a time and running a few days to see if the problems occured. Sure enough, it stopped when I pulled one of the 128 chips - so now I'm down to 640MB of installed memory - I went back to OS9.1 to see if LW behaved any better and found some problems gone (crash on launch, black menus) but most still there (lockup on renders, error w/ knife tools, etc.)...

BUT check out the benchmark differences.
(OS 9.1-6.5b-Dual 533 w/nvidia 2)

768MB installed:

DOF. . . . . . 28 seconds
Raytrace . . . 312 seconds
Textures . . . 14 seconds
Z buffer . . . 16 seconds

640MB installed:

DOF. . . . . . 20 seconds
Raytrace . . . 240 seconds (278 w/o Extra RT opt)
Textures . . . 9 seconds
Z buffer . . . 16 seconds

The RAM I pulled is PC133 2-2-2, all the other chips are 3-2-2; this may explain the disparity between otherwise similar systems.

LW still refuses to render in 9.1 so I am going to benchmark in OSX soon.

By Wes Chilton (Weschilton) (165.247.60.219) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 01:14 pm:

Well, I have to say that I too was expecting better from the Dual 800 G4. Its not quite on par with my single 1.2GHz Athlon. Although the ray-tracing numbers are very promising. I'm really looking forward to what LW[7] and OS X.1 can do!

Here's my Athlon results compared with my single G4/500 under OS 9.1 and OS 10.0.4.

Athlon 1.2GHz
DOF.....14
Raytrace...246
Textures...7
Z buffer...10

G4/500
Mac OS 9.1
DOF.....81
Raytrace...519
Textures...34
Z buffer...35

G4/500
Mac OS X
DOF.....148
Raytrace...691
Textures...101
Z buffer...37

By tim anderson (Tim) (66.26.104.252) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 02:15 pm:

got my dual 800 this am, under the gun and no time
to set up. maybe next week? although i am disappointed
by the numbers i am seeing here...especially
the compare to the dual 533(which is much cheaper
than the one here in the box) long sigh....oh well
still faster than my single500.

By tim anderson (Tim) (66.26.104.252) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 04:59 pm:

ok... could not stand any longer.
unpacked this monster DP800/1.25mbram/Gforce3
under9.2.1(ten latermaybe...)
2 threads
dof......40
RT .......221.2
Tex .......14.5
Zbuf........13.6
waaay faster than what i have been working on.
Layout and modeler very crisp/snappy.

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.56.78.50) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 05:17 pm:

Ken et all,

All my benchmarks were run with 8 threads. I started running the tests with 1, 2, 4 threads etc., but just settled on the 8 because they were all faster that way.

I didn't think about changing the Memory Allocations. I'm not even sure what they were set at. Maybe I'll go back and check them and rerun if necessary.

Everybody seems a little disappointed with the results, but seem to forget two things.

1st - OS 10.0.4 is SLOOOOW. This we all know. 10.1 is about 4 weeks away, and will seriously speed things up. I know this to be true because I'm using 5G15 on two of my other machines now and the speed increase is dramatic.

2nd - LW 6.5b for OS X was compiled with BETA IDEs from Codewarrior, which is another reason why so many of the initial OS X offerings have been slow. These tools have matured alot over the last 5 months and the revisions of apps will reflect that very very soon. MattC has already stated that LW 7 is much faster than 6.5b under OS X, and will get even faster with both 10.1 in 4 weeks and his speed update which he claims will be out in a week or so. I'm getting my copy of LW 7 Demo this week so we'll see how these claims hold up.

Ian is right though. His 1.3ghz Athlon which can be built for about $700 with enough HD/RAM/Video to run LW very well is about 20% of the cost of my dual800. In the future I may ante up for an Athlon to run a second seat of LW on just for rendering. But as I've stated, I do a lot with video editing and multimedia, and all the other apps available run much better on the dual800 than just about anything Wintel currently available. Plus, with the Superdrive, I've got a big edge with my clients with giving them a professional DVD output, and can do it in record time.

Another pleasant surprise - Classic under OS X on the dual800 is blazing fast. Photoshop shows zero speed hit, and actually performs a little faster under Classic 9.2 than 9.2 native. Plus, with the GF3, all the little video idosyncracies of Classic apps conflicting with OS X apps are gone. It very seemless now the way it should be.

Ciao,
Ted

By bongo (Iandavis) (24.108.209.151) on Saturday, August 18, 2001 - 10:32 pm:

Ted,

Dont get me wrong, I would LOVE to upgrade my G4/400! I run Premier, Director, Photoshop, etc. All of these would be about 8 times faster on a dual800. Photoshop alone would run twice as fast on a dual800 over a P4/1.7!

It's a droolworthy machine and I have much envy..



enjoy your new toy ted, all my best.

I should email you a little app called altivec fractal carbon which does fractal regression to gauge CPU speed. I'd love to see your score.
(let me know)

Ian

By Wes Chilton (Weschilton) (165.247.60.53) on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 12:15 am:

Ted, that info sounds great! Congrats on your new baby! I'm looking forward to seeing what the G4's are running at by the end of the year and early into 2002. That's when I'll probably retire my G4/500.

I'd love to see a dual 1GHz G4 running Mac OS X.2 on my desk!

BTW, how's the speed on the SuperDrive for CD-RW and CD data read speeds?

By riki cox (Suture) (203.109.250.99) on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 03:27 am:

Thanks Phong for the info.

By Phil Krausbauer (Cremegg) (213.122.32.61) on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 07:41 am:

Curious, I was just having a quick browse at Chris Blanos Benchmark Database and a spectactular speed has been posted for the raytrace benchmark under LightWave 6.0 with a G4/800 DP. So it seems that those of us who have purchased a new G4/800 DP have made a good choice but the Macintosh 6.5b rendering doesn't want to let us have the spotlight.

My G4/800 DP has been purchased for use with Mac OS X 10.1. I've just upgraded to LW 6.5 from Inspire and so hopefully I will be recieving my free upgrade to LW 7 shortly (If not I'll be giving NewTek hell as I've just forked out for an outdated upgrade) and then along with the tuneup release in a week or so us G4/800 DP users will hopefully begin to see the kind of performance that we would have had with LW 6.

Fingures crossed guys.

I may do a few comparisons with LW 6 and 6.5 with my G3/500 PowerBook later and when I finally recieve my G4/800 DP in about 26 Days I'll spend a day or two if I have time doing a comprehensive benchmark test with the various OS's and LW versions.

I dont think the Mac is quite as slow as we think when it comes to LW. I think 6.5 has been the curse, lets hope 7 breaks it.

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.56.78.50) on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 08:20 am:

Ian - go ahead and email me the file. I'm all about seeing what this baby can do!

Wes - haven't burned a DVD yet, but I'm just about tickled pink that I can FINALLY burn a CD in Toast under OS X (my old G4 had a SCSI burner that wouldn't function yet under X).

By ~@~ (Phong) (66.81.37.51) on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 08:27 am:

I do not recall an OS X version of LightWave 6 and I do not recall the cache being 512 on the G4???

http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/bprint.cgi?search=name&postedby=Peter%20Meagher

By Phil Krausbauer (Cremegg) (213.122.22.139) on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 09:48 am:

Well spotted phong, I missed the operating system there. I wonder if he entered information incorrectly or if someone is telling porkies.

Just for comparrison before I get my new G4/800 DP or LightWave 7 here are some benchmarks for my PowerBook G3/500.

LightWave 6, Mac OS 9.1
Segment Memory Limit 13Mb, 1 Segment
DOF, 37 seconds
Raytrace, 587 seconds
Textures, 19 seconds
ZBufferSort 40 seconds

LightWave 6.5 (Build 508), Mac OS 9.1
Segment Memory Limit 13Mb, 1 Segment
DOF, 43 seconds
Raytrace (With Optimization), 548.1 seconds
Raytrace (Without Optimization), 638.4 seconds
Textures, 20.5 seconds
ZBufferSort, 34.5 seconds

LightWave 6 seems to be quicker than 6.5 without taking optimization into account. The ZBufferSort result is also puzzling. Well I shall add LightWave 7 results as soon as I get my upgrade.

I'm not sure whether to believe that top notch result now.

http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/bprint.cgi?search=name&postedby=Peter%20Meagher

I'm thinking maybe under OS 9 it might be possible but surely not using LightWave 6.5 with OS X and version 10.0.4 no less. The cache may have been a mistake, I myself have talked myself into believeing systems have different specs. Of course the LightWave version and Operating System bring up alot of questions.

By tim anderson (Tim) (66.26.104.252) on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 10:00 am:

my question would be based on the date of the postings.
where did this guy get his hands on a dual 800 in july?
i ordered one within an hour of their announcement
and just got it yesterday...hmmm.
if i am not mistaken these benchmark scores
have been"doubted" on this forum previously.

By Phil Krausbauer (Cremegg) (213.122.22.139) on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 10:14 am:

Just spotted the date as well.

Lets just think of it as something to aim for shall we Newtek.



With regards to the earlier queries regarding memory speed, is there a program which will give me this information? I know one of my chips is 2-2-2 but I have no idea what the 128Mb chip is that came with my powerbook.

By Wes Chilton (Weschilton) (165.247.60.159) on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 11:01 am:

You have to take Chris's benchmark page with a grain of salt sometimes. He even admits that there are bogus reports posted there once in a while. I bet this is one of those bogus ones.

Those numbers just don't make any sense, and the inconsistencies on the Mac OS, date, and LW version seem to bear this out.

I wouldn't buy it if I were you.

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.56.78.50) on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 01:15 pm:

That original benchmark post from July is bogus. Not only are the numbers not believable, but the data is contradictory.

By Will Salley (Willmac) (24.88.85.87) on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 10:21 pm:

I should clear up the incorrect figure I stated for my L2 cache on Chris' site. It was listed as 512 and should be 1024...Typo, Sorry.

The other figures are correct, however.

http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/bprint.cgi

btw...Phil, I think you would have to open up the Mac and pull the chip to check the type of RAM (I think it's known as Parity Check Speed?, not sure though.)

I know of no utlities that will report this.


Will Salley

By Chris Blanos (Chrisb) (199.224.2.199) on Monday, August 20, 2001 - 12:02 am:

Hey guys...

I just deleted Peter Meagher's dual 800 from the database. I emailed him back in July when he posted - I also wondered how he got his hands on that machine so early. Never did get a response from him. In any case, it's gone.

Will - I just changed your L2 cache from 512 to 1024 in the database:
http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/bprint.cgi?search=name&postedby=Will%20Salley

- Chris

By Hervé Steff (Hervé) (195.46.251.11) on Monday, August 20, 2001 - 12:21 am:

Hey, I have a mono processor mac g4 (450), also can I put more than one thread in render panel ??? I am asking cause somebody puts 4 threads when having just 2 proc.;.. I am confused, please could someone explain ...... I thougt one Proc. = one thread, am I wrong... ?

By Phil Krausbauer (Cremegg) (213.122.168.241) on Monday, August 20, 2001 - 05:06 am:

If anyone else is interested in checking the Parity speed of there memory you can use DIMM first aid. Not only will this check memory for compatibility with apples new firmware but it reports the parity speed and other information.

www.versiontracker.com

My memory was all 2-2-2.

I still haven't bought the RAM for my new G4 and have a question, would It be better to get 2-2-2 memory or would 3-2-2 be acceptable?

Is there really a large difference in performance?

Herve, 1 thread does indeed mean one processor. Setting more than one thread with one processor will not give better results and often crashes the computer. However as I understand it if you have two processors you can set this to anynumber and see which delivers the best results.

Setting it to one thread with a DP effectively turns of one of the processors.

By ~@~ (Phong) (66.81.32.100) on Monday, August 20, 2001 - 07:43 am:

Steff:

I mentioned, several times, using 4 threads on my g4dp500 and here is the 'main' link:

http://www.newtek.com/discus/messages/2/2543.html?994512617

where I state:

I use "Hummer.lws" and "Benchmark" scenes to chart performance for (smile) my personal understanding.

In this thread I used "Hummer.lws" with 9.0.4 and X-beta:

http://www.newtek.com/discus/messages/2/357.html

which produced the following results (for Camera Properties = D1 (NTSC) (720x486):

OS 9.0.4 = Rendering time: 1m 37s (97 seconds)
OS X-beta = Rendering time: 2m 37s (157 seconds)

When I upgraded to OS 9.1 and the March 2001 release of OS X:

OS 9.1 = Rendering time: 1m 36s (96 seconds)
OS X = Rendering time: 2m 49s (169.1 seconds)

[All of the above: 2 Threads with Hub and Modeler running in the background.]

As of this morning (12 May), with every update applied, the "Hub" turned off, and running 4 Threads:

OS 9.1 = Rendering time: 1m 32s (92 seconds)
OS X = Rendering time: 2m 15s (135 seconds)

'Threading' the Dual Processor Mac (under OS X) - my experience:

running 1 Thread increaded the render by 1m 26s
running 2 Threads increased the render by 7s
running 4 Threads gave me the best time (2m 15s)
running 8 Threads increased the render by 4s

This will probably not make sense to anyone, but I looked at threading as a form of bandwidth and applied Nyquist to it (2x sample); i.e., if running 2x processors, thread 4x. Although two different worlds, it worked for me.

By bongo (Iandavis) (24.108.209.151) on Monday, August 20, 2001 - 10:20 am:

Ted,

seeing Phong's OS9 vs. OSX render times makes me wonder what your dual800 would post with LW6.5b and OS9.1. Have you done the benchmarks using OS9.1? If so were they faster then the OSX numbers you have already posted?

cheers

ian

By Daryl Cornutt (Dfc) (165.247.28.30) on Monday, August 20, 2001 - 11:28 am:

Ian..I don't think you can run OS 9.1 on a new quicksilver mac. It comes with OS 9.2.1 and I'm not sure that you could go back to OS 9.1 even if you wanted to.

Would be an interesting test for some brave soul though

By Ted Lee (Tedlee) (66.56.78.50) on Monday, August 20, 2001 - 12:18 pm:

I'll attempt the benchmarks under OS 9.2.1 later tonight. I played with LW 6.5b under 9.2.1 a little this weekend. Much more stable than under 9.1 on my G4/400. for instance, on the G4/400, in Layout under 9.1, anytime I would want to elarge a certain viewport full screen by hitting "0", it would crash. Happy to say it's fixed on the dual800/9.2.1. The application seemed very very fast, but I didn't render anything...

I'll post some times later tonight...

Cheers,
Ted

By Will Salley (Willmac) (24.88.85.87) on Monday, August 20, 2001 - 07:03 pm:

Ted,

Happy to hear some good news...I wonder how or if ScreamerNet runs on 9.2.1.

Chris, Thanks for the correction!

Will

By ~@~ (Phong) (209.209.26.135) on Wednesday, August 22, 2001 - 08:18 am:

Check your new machines, stress cracks are starting to be mentioned on the net and here is a pic of where to start checking:

http://www.ziccardiproductions.com/stressedG4.jpg

By ~@~ (Phong) (66.81.33.153) on Wednesday, August 22, 2001 - 12:22 pm:

Results:

OS 9.2.1_______________OS-X (10.0.4) results w/9.2.1:

DOF______31.0 seconds___40.8 seconds
Raytrace__307.3 seconds__314.3 seconds
Textures___13.9 seconds___16.8 seconds
zBuffer____20.6 seconds___16.4 seconds

Using previous stated preferences + g4dp500/1.5g/radeon32

By Steve Jarratt (Darthmole) (62.252.32.5) on Friday, August 24, 2001 - 04:07 pm:

Don't know if anyone's interested, but while LW runs pretty nippily on the dual 800 G4 (at least twice as fast as my 500MHz G4), I tried After Effects and it absolutely flies! Boot time is minimal and effects render sooo quickly. It just feels like a new program (lots of filters run blazingly quick now, while before they were almost painful to use). I love it!

By Julian Johnson (Julianjohnson) (193.128.225.129) on Wednesday, August 29, 2001 - 07:40 am:

Here's my benchmarks for a DP800 under 9.2.1 using 6.5b in demo mode (dongle being swapped):

DOF: 23.2s
RT: 188.9s (4 threads quickest)
TX: 10.3s
ZB: 13.3s

All settings as per Chris's Lightwave Benchmark page i.e. scenes as they default, segment memory set to 16, RTO left on.

Interestingly, VM-on shaved a couple of seconds off the Raytrace time over VM-off.

For OSX 10.0.4 on the same machine (again in demo mode):

DOF: 36.2s
RT: 236.7s (4 threads quickest)
TX: 14.1s
ZB: 13.0s

(Machine specs: DP800 (7450 vger Rev 2.1), 768Mb RAM 3-2-2 Crucial (3x256 Dimms), Geforce 3).

Julian
The Mac Lightwave Resource Page
http://www.exchangefs.co.uk/lightwave/index.htm

By Rick (Unclebob) (212.32.44.108) on Wednesday, August 29, 2001 - 10:51 am:

My results on DP800 1.5G RAM -
OS 9.2.1
LW 6.5b
Layout has 1.2G allocated

300 Memory segment
4 threads

rest as standard

DOF: 23.4
RT: 192.2
TX: 10.4
ZB: 13.4

Seems to vary quite a bit from machine to machine -

Rick

By Bernard Brown (Bernard) (66.8.164.50) on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 11:06 am:

New DP 800 in hand with 1.5GB, GeForce3, running LW6.0 (can't find a copy of 6.5b to upgrade to...) under 9.2.1. Very pleasing results as follows:

RT 190 secs
DOF 24 secs
ZBUF 16 sces
TXT 8 secs

All results were with 4 threads. 8 threads made no significant difference and 2 threads was slowers.

By ~@~ (Phong) (66.81.22.46) on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 12:01 pm:

The OS-9x version is located:

ftp://ftp.newtek.com/pub/Patches/LightWave_MacOS_9/lw65b/LightWave_3D_6.5b_OS_9.sit

file size/date: 7514027 Jul 16 21:47

The OS-X version is located:

ftp://ftp.newtek.com/pub/Patches/LightWave_MacOS_X/lw65b/LightWave_3D_6.5b_OS_X.sit

By Bahadir Cinar (Bahadir) (24.176.129.209) on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 03:48 pm:

Philip,
Can you let me know how were you able to fork out an update from Inspire to LW 6.5. I also have Inspire and send few e-mails to NT to ask about upgrade options , no response yet.
Thanks for any input.

Bahadir
bahadir@mac.com

By Bernard Brown (Bb13) (66.8.168.151) on Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 08:27 pm:

Just updated to LW7.b and have a significant speed increase. DP800, 1.5GB, OS9.2, 4 threads, 152MB allocated to Layout (Default):

Raytrace 164.4
Textures 8.7
DOF 18.9
Zbuf 13.4

YIKES!!!!

Bernard

By Alexis Morgenstern (Visiv) (65.185.93.105) on Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 10:03 pm:

Hi all,

I just installed the upgrade 7b and just tested mine (G4 533DP):

Mac OS9.2 (800ram allocated):
DOF-26.1
RayTrace-246.6
Textures-22.6
ZBuffer-21.1

Mac OS 10.0.4 (1.5 gigs):
DOF-28.9
RayTrace-197.5
Textures-12.4
ZBuffer-20.1

Lets see what 10.1 does next week!