Actually, this reminds me of an issue I had with Boxx a few years ago.
We got these new machines and the cards were only running at standard
AGP speed....not AGP 8x which was the fastest back then. Boxx gave us
new AGP 8x drivers and that fixed it.
Kris
Halfdan Ingvarsson wrote:
I'd be picking up the phone
to the Boxx reseller this very second...
Run wglinfo.exe in a command
prompt and check the top of the result. Mine, for example, says:
OpenGL vendor string: NVIDIA Corporation
OpenGL renderer string: Quadro FX 3500/PCI/SSE2
OpenGL version string: 2.0.3
If your "renderer string"
says "GDI Generic", then the nVidia driver isn't working properly and
it's falling back on software render (which would be fairly fast on a
3GHz machine but not the same as hardware accelerated).
- ½
wow
umm.. gulp... i just did a test
default sphere
radius 2
20x20 resolution
my laptop plays it back about 3x faster than the boxx... in wireframe,
and shaded
keep going half... what are you thinking?
Halfdan Ingvarsson wrote:
Does this happen with other sort
of 3d playback? 256 x 256 mesh sphere, for example?
What happens if there are no 3d
views open (ie. only the explorer for example)?
- ½
nope.. wireframe.. OGL shade.. doesn't matter....
literally.. open XSI ... create particles from sphere...
play...
thats my test
also...of the 5 machines here.. its the same on ALL of them...
i would say this is an nvidia question... but.. i think they'll throw
it back to Soft...
Bradley Gabe wrote:
And everything else is the same too? OS, disk speed, swap space? I'm
grasping at straws here, but that seems really odd.
What about just displaying particles in wireframe? Maybe we can isolate
whether it's number crunching CPU difference or graphics card
acceleration.
actually..
i am talking get a default particle simulation (yes.. both caching - or
not caching - locally)..
for instance... creat particles from sphere..
don't touch a thing..
it is faster on my machine (significantly) than on the boxx machine
(all 4 windows AND just one window
all else is equal
Bradley Gabe wrote:
Strange situations like these merit
strange questions:
What about caching? Are you caching locally on you notebook and doing
network caches on the workstation? Or is the notebook also on the
network?
boxx has 2 procs.. ( Intel Xeon 3ghz)
my laptop is 5 years old.. so i think that answers the dual core
question..(just in case: P4 1.7ghz i gig ram)
Simon Pickard wrote:
> Is the Box(x) dual, or more cpu, and the laptop single core?
> Just wondering if there's some thrashing between cores going on with
> the Box(x).
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
>
>
>
> On 30/04/07, Todd Alan Peleg <todd(at)theholdingcell.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a great one..
>>
>> see if anyone can verify this happening for them.. (and that excludes
>> you, Eric)
>>
>> the box(x) i am on at work has an nvidia quadro fx 3000 in it with 256
>> MB of RAM
>>
>> my laptop is 5 years old and has an nvidia geforce4 440 (to go) in it
>> with 32mb of ram.
>>
>> particle simulations (on ANY simulation) are about 3 times faster on my
>> laptop..
>>
>> anyone got an answer for that one????
>>
>> just to preface:
>> my laptop is nowhere near the box(x) i am working on at the office..
>> so.. its not hardware related to anything other than video card.. and
>> YES.. i have tried the most current driver, the oldest driver, AND the
>> softimage recommended driver..
>>
>> which by the way.. none of which are on my laptop.
>>
>> todd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
>> body:
>> unsubscribe xsi
>>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
> body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
|
