artcat

About

Username
artcat
Joined
Visits
0
Last Active
-
Roles
member
Badges
0
Posts
19

Reactions

0Like0Informative

Comments

  • Quote: There is apparently a new version of Cinema 4d (version 8.2) coming out soon, (details on maxon website) so it could include G5 optimisations, No, R8.2 absolutely does NOT include G5 optimization. Maxon (as I said upthread) was waiting o…
    in G-5's 1.6 arrived at my office today Comment by artcat August 2003
  • Quote: If the DP 2ghz G5 isn't top of the Cinebench benchmarks we will then know it isn't the fastest desktop, I sincerely hope that it is. With some luck in timing, Maxon will have their G5-optimized Cinebench available when the dual 2 G5s begi…
    in G-5's 1.6 arrived at my office today Comment by artcat August 2003
  • Here's a rant for you... Maxon makes it easy in Cinebench to present the results in a table format for easy system comparison. How? There's a "--> To Clipboard" button in the test interface for pasting your results, and it gives a chart that l…
    in G-5's 1.6 arrived at my office today Comment by artcat August 2003
  • Quote: but this last statement is well.. in the words of the great Keanu... Woh! Remember Apple's "Beyond the rumor sites. Way beyond." hype? (Was it the new iMac? Can't remember.) I just hope this is more than Apple's historical hype.
    in eWeek article on Smeagol and Q37 Comment by artcat June 2003
  • Quote: OT: A better translation for "heavy" might be "profound" rather than serious profound is good too, but serious is also correct. depends on context.
    in eWeek article on Smeagol and Q37 Comment by artcat June 2003
  • Is there supposed to be some sort of actual meaning buried in there somewhere, oh obfuscating oracle? I note in your mmmmlink that the last dates listed for mixing and recording the song are August. Too obscure? Mere coincidence? Smoke? 60s heav…
    in eWeek article on Smeagol and Q37 Comment by artcat June 2003
  • Quote: Unfortunately you have made a bad assumption -- the 1.85 number will change between different processors and different memory architectures. The 970 and Apple's chipset & memory system could result in a higher or lower multiplier. I …
    in MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks Comment by artcat May 2003
  • Quote: If they use Cinebench I will be *very* curious about the OpenGL score. Want to see how much improvement can the new cpu and motherboard (new bus) can provide you can say that again! I am so sick to death of seeing Intel and Athlon C4D sc…
    in MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks Comment by artcat May 2003
  • Quote: imashination (Matthew) is actually a programmer in MAXON UK. He knows what he's talking yeah, I think he just went out on his own (away from Maxon). Too bad MB didn't use CineBench, then, eh?
    in MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks Comment by artcat May 2003
  • OTOH, I just saw a posting in another forum by a person in-the-know, that these short renders can really skew the results, so, who knows? not me
    in MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks Comment by artcat May 2003
  • Quote: Or maybe those people accidentally swapped the Cinema and Bryce benchmarks maybe so 'cause something is wrong. I know for certain that 1.85 or a bit less is the magic number for predicting render times/bench scores using Cinema/CineBenc…
    in MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks Comment by artcat May 2003
  • just one other comment: shouldn't a single 1.8 970 be ~25% (or a bit more) faster than a single 1.4 970? I'm not a programmer or a math whiz by any means, but this seems right. So a single 1.8 ought to bench at 21 sec or so, so a dual 1.8 ought to…
    in MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks Comment by artcat May 2003
  • Quote: based on what logic? Something like this: Cinema gets ~1.85x improvement with dual processors (according to CineBench). So 29 sec. for single 1.4 970 would translate to ~15.6 seconds for a dual 1.4. A dual 1.8 970 should score better …
    in MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks Comment by artcat May 2003
  • Quote: I don't care the Bryce benchmark, but I DO care about Cinema The Cinema benches don't look right either. The dual 1.8 970 should have a render time of 10-13 seconds, not 18 (based on the single 1.4 970 score of 29). Something's wrong he…
    in MacBidouille posts PPC 970 benchmarks Comment by artcat May 2003
  • in G4 'tweaks' and 'revs' ... when and how? Comment by artcat February 2002
  • [quote]You can build a dual-Athlon MP 1900+ (1.6GHz) for considerably less than $2200 depending on how you equip it. Maybe less than $1200 if it's just a dedicated render box. You're right, but I was pricing higher end stuff, starting with the ca…
    in Are you waiting for the G5? Comment by artcat February 2002
  • A dual 1gig mac renders C4D at around 1/2 the speed of a Dual Athlon 1.6 ghz. Mac price: $2999. Athlon price: $2200. more or less (prices seem to be dropping every day on Athlons) Speed does make a diffence. The only reason I hesitate is Win…
    in Are you waiting for the G5? Comment by artcat February 2002
  • FYI, from Postforum this morning, someone with a dual athlon system clocked 37+ CB for dual raytracing. The results below for G4 dual 800 were posted a while back. Note the raytracing score is 17.12 If Apple has G5s and related faster hardware, t…
    in G5 Surprise Release on Januay 22 Comment by artcat January 2002
  • The dual Athlons run rings around Mac G4s when it comes to Cinema 4DXL. Rendering, and, just as important, screen redraw time when you're modeling. Dig around at postforum.com (cinema 4dxl forum) for the past year, and you'll see. I'm a loyal mac u…
    in G5 Surprise Release on Januay 22 Comment by artcat January 2002