LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by robert ho » Sun, 24 Sep 1995 04:00:00



As a follow-up to my first posting, "A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1," I have
installed LightWave 4.0 full release into the same test machine running
the current release of Windows 95.

Here is a reprint of the original test, with the new test results
following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since there's been a lot of interested in this question lately, I decided
to do a test.  I bought Win95 last night, and installed it on the following
machine (a notebook computer)

          100MHz 486DX4
          8MB RAM

The scene I performed this test on consisted of the following:

          13,024 polygons
               8 objects
               6 surfaces (some procedural)
               7 lights (some with lens flares)

This test was performed with the Intel Pre-release version of LW 4.0 using
Win32s under Windows 3.1 and straight Windows 95 (whatever it uses). The
render was completed on a single frame of the animation (same frame for
each Windows version), no preview, no saving, low AA (threshold 8).

Here are the results:

   Windows 95 with Win32s LW binaries  :  5 min 23 sec (323 seconds)
   Windows 95 with NT LW binaries      :  5 min 16 sec (316 seconds)
   Windows 3.1 with Win32s LW binaries :  3 min 36 sec (216 seconds)

In the second case, I copied the binaries from my Windows NT installation
straight over the binaries on the notebook under Windows 95.  I suspect
that they are one and the same, but I did this for completeness.

I'm stunned at the time difference.  Almost two full minutes with an older
version of Windows using a 32-bit patch (Win32s).  I received the full
release of LW 4.0 yesterday at the same time as I bought Windows 95, so
I will have to test it under these same conditions to see if the results
are going to suck similarly.

Please keep in mind that your milage may vary.  I did this to basically
show the large delta in rendering time, not to see how fast/slow my machine
was compared to others.  I did, however, try to keep things as controlled
as possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I ran the exact same test, all things equal, except the version
of LW (4.0 final, installed as Windows NT).  Here are the results:

    Render Display "Full-Size Window" : 5 min 33 sec (333 seconds)
    Render Display "(none)"           : 5 min 24 sec (324 seconds)

In all test renders -- both in the orignal test and this new one -- absolutely
no disk activity took place during the render (i.e., no disk swapping was
seen).

There you have it, classic Microsoft:  make a pretty interface to hide the
shitty code underneath.

Time to port LightWave to Linux.  =|^)

Render me gone,               |||
Bob                         ^(===)^
-------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------------------------------------
Bob Hood            | Bureaucracy destroys initiative.  There is little that
                    | bureaucrats hate more than innovation, especially
Work: 303-730-1324  | innovation that produces better results than the old
Home: 303-980-8392  | routines.  Improvements always make those at the top


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by Pete Rittwa » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00



>Since there's been a lot of interested in this question lately, I decided
>to do a test.  I bought Win95 last night, and installed it on the following
>machine (a notebook computer)

>          100MHz 486DX4
>          8MB RAM

>The scene I performed this test on consisted of the following:

>          13,024 polygons
>               8 objects
>               6 surfaces (some procedural)
>               7 lights (some with lens flares)

(some stuff clipped)

Quote:>In all test renders -- both in the orignal test and this new one --
absolutely
>no disk activity took place during the render (i.e., no disk swapping was
>seen).

>There you have it, classic Microsoft:  make a pretty interface to hide the
>shitty code underneath.

>Time to port LightWave to Linux.  =|^)

How on earth did you get Windows 95 __WITH 8M RAM__ not to swap out during
this render.  I have a 16M machine and my machine swaps all the time while
rendering.  What do you have, a magic notebook?

Also, I doubt you'll never see Lightwave for Linux, because then they'd have
to include source, right?  Are there ANY commercial apps for Linux?

-----------------------------------------------------
Pete Rittwage


WWW:    www.io.com/~kgk/pete
-----------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by ken schmi » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>>          13,024 polygons
>>               8 objects
>>               6 surfaces (some procedural)
>>               7 lights (some with lens flares)

perhaps we could all render a specific suplied scene under a specific
resolution with specific features enabled and compare from there?

I just rendered texture examples, med res, med AA, square pixel (640*480),
with shadow, reflection, refraction, and adaptive sampling at 8....
with 'show render' on.... on my 12 meg win 95 dx2 80 mhz....
oh... and memory segment size of 44 instead of the default 22.
(yes, it 'touchted' the hard drive a few times in each AA pass... but only
for a fraction of a second each pass)
running nothing else but lightwave,...
it took 18 minutes, 6 seconds....

unless the systems available to any one in particular is exceptionally fast
(raptor,  SGI, etc...).... TEXTURE EXAMPLES should hold up well enough for
time and cross platform tests.

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by Elfwo » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00


OK, let's do this benchmark thing the right way.....

The following times were the result of running the scene files found in
the
Scenes\BENCHMARK directory that was installed by LightWave4.0.

No settings were changed for the tests, the first frame was rendered,
and the rendered image was saved to disk.

In the case of the 'Space\Blade.lws' scene, the buffer size was set to
8.67MB,
Field Rendering was turned off, and Dithered Motion Blur was turned on.

------------------------------------------------------------
System: Micron 133MHz Pentium, 256K cache, 32MB EDO RAM
Tester: Erik Flom - ELF Works 3D Construction Co.
File            Win95   WinNT
Dof.lws         6:27    6:17
Raytrace.lws    51:14   49:58
Textures.lws    2:29    1:45
ZBuffer.lws     6:56    4:40
Blade.lws       21:26   14:01
-------------------------------------------------------------
These results were closer than I was expecting.
Your timings would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Erik Flom - ELF Works 3D Construction Co.

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by Lee Dav » Thu, 28 Sep 1995 04:00:00



>Does any one care to share their knowledge of WinNT's memory management?
>I noticed that when I go into layout and load a scene, I have only about 4.5
>Meg of Free Memory (RAM) + 34 Meg (Page file).  These numbers seem to change
>very little when scenes are loaded and LW does NOT seem to be releasing the
>memory when scenes are cleared.
>Any ideas?

That's what's so good about NT.  It's handling the memory, not
Lightwave (or any other program for that matter).  When NT loads up it
grabs most ot the system's available memory, then allocates it as it
sees fit.  That's why you see little change when you check resoures,
even under widely varying loads.  If you hit-the-wall under NT it will
suggest you close some stuff down.  Beats the heck out of crashing. If
you find this happening with any regularity increase the size of your
swapfile.

Lee Davis

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by Mathew Mow » Thu, 28 Sep 1995 04:00:00



Quote:> . . . .Scenes\BENCHMARK directory that was installed by LightWave4.0.

Since I'm using the Pre-release for the MIPS NT, I don't have the
scenes/directory that Erik mentions.  I did try out the two listed that I do
have.  See the times listed below.

Quote:>In the case of the 'Space\Blade.lws' scene, the buffer size was set to
>8.67MB,
>Field Rendering was turned off, and Dithered Motion Blur was turned on.

Erik, I'm not sure what you mean by "buffer size".  Do you mean memory
segement?  For my rendering, to try and match your settings, I turned off field
rendering and motion blur was already on.

Quote:>------------------------------------------------------------
>System: Micron 133MHz Pentium, 256K cache, 32MB EDO RAM
>Tester: Erik Flom - ELF Works 3D Construction Co.
>File            Win95   WinNT                       Shablamm! R4600 100Mhz WinNT
>Dof.lws         6:27    6:17                                NA
>Raytrace.lws    51:14   49:58                               NA
>Textures.lws    2:29    1:45                                :21
>ZBuffer.lws     6:56    4:40                                NA
>Blade.lws       21:26   14:01                               11:50
>-------------------------------------------------------------

There are several things that may have helped or hindered the rendering speeds
on my system.

1-This is pre-release and I doubt if there was much if any optimization done.

2-There are features missing that may have had some effect.  For example, there
is no "Glow effect", etc.  I don't know if there are other features that are
missing from the scenes that I was able to identify.

Does any one care to share their knowledge of WinNT's memory management?

I noticed that when I go into layout and load a scene, I have only about 4.5
Meg of Free Memory (RAM) + 34 Meg (Page file).  These numbers seem to change
very little when scenes are loaded and LW does NOT seem to be releasing the
memory when scenes are cleared.

Any ideas?

Thanks

Matt

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by Elfwo » Fri, 29 Sep 1995 04:00:00



Quote:Mower) writes:
>Does any one care to share their knowledge of WinNT's memory management?

Yes, but you must first sacrifice a goat under the light of a 17" Monitor.

Yes, I meant to say 'Segment Size', sorry about the confusion.

Thanks for the tests, but I noticed that the release version sped up about
10% from the pre-release version. Also, I'm not sure, but they may have
changed some of the textures in the 'Texture Examples' scene.

Still no release version for the MIPS? Get on the horn and tell those
*ers to get to work!

Thanks,
Erik Flom - ELF Works 3D Construction Co.

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by Karl Sjoste » Sat, 30 Sep 1995 04:00:00


: ------------------------------------------------------------
: System: Micron 133MHz Pentium, 256K cache, 32MB EDO RAM
: Tester: Erik Flom - ELF Works 3D Construction Co.
: File          Win95   WinNT
: Dof.lws               6:27    6:17
: Raytrace.lws  51:14   49:58
: Textures.lws  2:29    1:45
: ZBuffer.lws   6:56    4:40
: Blade.lws     21:26   14:01
: -------------------------------------------------------------
: These results were closer than I was expecting.
: Your timings would be appreciated.

: Thanks,
: Erik Flom - ELF Works 3D Construction Co.
Rendering these scenes on my 133MHz 256kb cache, 16mb edo ram, I found I
got almost exactly the same results in win3.11 as you got in win95.

FILE            win16
dof.lws         6:27
Raytrace.lws    51:44
textures.lws    2:20

PS. I also tried win95 but got slightly worse results with 32s version and
terrible results when trying NT version. (in win95)

pps. neither win16 or win95 used virtual mem during these tests.

Karl sjostedt -2f productions

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by Elfwo » Sat, 30 Sep 1995 04:00:00



Quote:Sjostedt) writes:
>FILE                win16
>dof.lws             6:27
>Raytrace.lws        51:44
>textures.lws        2:20

Interesting.
Now, where are all those people who said it ran faster under WFW?!?

Quote:>PS. I also tried win95 but got slightly worse results with 32s version
and
>terrible results when trying NT version. (in win95)

Now, people have claimed that there is only one executable. I looked on
the disc, and there does seem to be only one executable (794,113 bytes).
In my tests, I _did not_ use the included MS*.DLL files, since they were
older than the ones in my system, and caused conflict with other apps.

Quote:>pps. neither win16 or win95 used virtual mem during these tests.

Yes, I'd be curious to see how long it takes to render the 'Blade'
scene?!?
(I finally got to the point of using VM on my machine, and it cut
rendering speed by one half to one third.)

Thanks,
Erik FLom - ELF Works 3D Construction Co.

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by Daniel Dac » Sun, 01 Oct 1995 04:00:00



Quote:

>OK, let's do this benchmark thing the right way.....

>The following times were the result of running the scene files found in
>the
>Scenes\BENCHMARK directory that was installed by LightWave4.0.

>No settings were changed for the tests, the first frame was rendered,
>and the rendered image was saved to disk.

>In the case of the 'Space\Blade.lws' scene, the buffer size was set to
>8.67MB,
>Field Rendering was turned off, and Dithered Motion Blur was turned on.

>------------------------------------------------------------
>System: Micron 133MHz Pentium, 256K cache, 32MB EDO RAM
>Tester: Erik Flom - ELF Works 3D Construction Co.
>File            Win95   WinNT
>Dof.lws         6:27    6:17
>Raytrace.lws    51:14   49:58
>Textures.lws    2:29    1:45
>ZBuffer.lws     6:56    4:40
>Blade.lws       21:26   14:01
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>These results were closer than I was expecting.
>Your timings would be appreciated.

Ok here we go

______________________________________________________________
System: Clone (home brand) AMD486DX4 100, 256Cache, 28MB RAM
Tester: Daniel Dacey - Peppermint Graphics
File            Win95
Dof.lws         18:47
Raytrace.lws    ??:?? (Still rendering!)
Textures.lws    6:55
ZBuffer.lws     19:12
Blade.lws       27:05
______________________________________________________________

BTW I have also noticed that the final release on LW4 runs much better in
Win 95 if it's installed as Win3.1 rather than Win NT. I did a standard install
using the Win 3.x option for the intial installation and then copied over the
contents dirs with the 32bit filenames. Now I have the benfit of the fastest
renders under Win 95 (Win 3.x with extensions) and can still enjoy long filenames.

Regards
Daniel
___________________
Peppermint Graphics
Newcastle
Australia

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by Randy Pe » Sun, 01 Oct 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>BTW I have also noticed that the final release on LW4 runs much better
in
>Win 95 if it's installed as Win3.1 rather than Win NT. I did a standard
install
>using the Win 3.x option for the intial installation and then copied
over the
>contents dirs with the 32bit filenames. Now I have the benfit of the
fastest
>renders under Win 95 (Win 3.x with extensions) and can still enjoy long

filenames.

I currently am using LW4.0 under Win3.1.  I would like to use Win95 and
the quickest version of LW (32s or NT) which will run under 95.  It
sounds as if you have accomplished this, but I am a little confused as to
exactly what you did.  If you could provide me with some brief, step-by-
step instructions, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks,
Randy

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by BCHEN » Sun, 01 Oct 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>BTW I have also noticed that the final release on LW4 runs much better
in
>Win 95 if it's installed as Win3.1 rather than Win NT.

I have to disagree.  Tests I've done on my machine have LW NT faster than
the Win32s verison in Win95....
 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by Ole Gunnar Dok » Mon, 02 Oct 1995 04:00:00



>BTW I have also noticed that the final release on LW4 runs much better in
>Win 95 if it's installed as Win3.1 rather than Win NT. I did a standard install
>using the Win 3.x option for the intial installation and then copied over the
>contents dirs with the 32bit filenames. Now I have the benfit of the fastest
>renders under Win 95 (Win 3.x with extensions) and can still enjoy long filenames.

I`ve tried both installations running under Windows 95, I found
marginal differences in how fast LW render...but regular screen-
updates seem faster with the win32s-installation?? Is this only my
perception or is it for real?

Another thing that I think is important...how well does it multitask
in the different installations. Anyone got some experience to share on
that?

Regards,

________________________________________

"One is punished most for one`s virtues"

                                      N.
________________________________________

Ole Gunnar Dokka


URL: http://www.oslonett.no/~olegd/

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by Elfwo » Mon, 02 Oct 1995 04:00:00



Quote:(Daniel Dacey) writes:
>BTW I have also noticed that the final release on LW4 runs much better in
>Win 95 if it's installed as Win3.1 rather than Win NT.

First, thanks for the results!  (Kind of sad that a 486DX4 is faster than
my 40MHz 040 Amiga, but that's another story....:^()

Pretty good time on the Blade scene too! (And my system was supposed to be
fast....?!?)

I installed for WinNT when setting it up under Win95.......This doesn't
rule out the chance that I might have installed the Win32s stuff before
that, though.....

Thanks,
Erik Flom - ELF Works 3D Construction Co.

 
 
 

LW 4.0 Final under Win 95 [was: A test: Win 95 vs Win 3.1]

Post by DScott56 » Mon, 02 Oct 1995 04:00:00


Quote:> Tests I've done on my machine have LW NT faster than
>the Win32s verison in Win95....

I'M wondering why almost everyone is STILL talking like there's TWO intel
version s of LW?  There's only ONE.  It's either installed WITH WIN32S or
it's NOT.

Dean