ng@cfd.di.nrc.ca (Kai Ng) (04/18/91)
We have tried out the xengine on our RS6000 model 530 running 3003. The system is configured with 64meg of main memory and a 24-bit, 3D and Z-buffer graphics subsystem. The outcome, which ranges from 41 to 49, is extremely disappointing. We also have a Silicon Graphics 4D/25G and a SUN 3/60. Both perform about twice as good as the IBM. However somebody has claimed that on a 550, the xengine runs at 333. Has anybody tried it on their RS6000 ? I suspect it could due to something not configured right in our system. Any opinion welcome. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kai S. Ng Informatics, National Research Council Canada INTERNET ng@cfd.di.nrc.ca M-60 Montreal Road, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0R6 BITNET kain@nrcvm01.bitnet VOICE (613) 993-0240 FAX (613) 954-2561
andreess@mrlaxf.mrl.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr17.190136.17974@nrcnet0.nrc.ca> ng@cfd.di.nrc.ca writes: >We have tried out the xengine on our RS6000 model 530 running 3003. >The system is configured with 64meg of main memory and a 24-bit, 3D >and Z-buffer graphics subsystem. > >The outcome, which ranges from 41 to 49, is extremely disappointing. >We also have a Silicon Graphics 4D/25G and a SUN 3/60. Both perform >about twice as good as the IBM. > >However somebody has claimed that on a 550, the xengine runs at 333. >Has anybody tried it on their RS6000 ? In my experience, straight X runs considerably faster on IBM's NON-3D graphics subsystems. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but qualitatively, it's true. Marc -- Marc Andreessen___________University of Illinois Materials Research Laboratory Internet: andreessen@uimrl7.mrl.uiuc.edu____________Bitnet: andreessen@uiucmrl
fsfrick@bones.lerc.nasa.gov (David Fricker) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr17.190136.17974@nrcnet0.nrc.ca> ng@cfd.di.nrc.ca writes: >We have tried out the xengine on our RS6000 model 530 running 3003. >The system is configured with 64meg of main memory and a 24-bit, 3D >and Z-buffer graphics subsystem. > >The outcome, which ranges from 41 to 49, is extremely disappointing. >We also have a Silicon Graphics 4D/25G and a SUN 3/60. Both perform >about twice as good as the IBM. > >However somebody has claimed that on a 550, the xengine runs at 333. >Has anybody tried it on their RS6000 ? > >I suspect it could due to something not configured right in our system. >Any opinion welcome. > In a related vein, we've done some 'benchmarking' using local programs on an RS6000 model 530 & various SGI Irises. The relative performance figures are _very_ strange. On one CFD program doing a 2D grid, an SGI Personal Iris (4D/25) outperforms my RS6000 model 530, while a 3D grid run has my model 530 outperforming a 4D/340VGX Iris! (The 340 means the iris has 4 processors.) Both programs were written by the same person & solve roughly the same problem--vortex sheet rollup--but one program solves it in 2D while the other solves it in 3D. Any ideas as to why these relative performance figures are so strange? david fricker -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Fricker | phone: 216-433-5960 NASA Lewis Research Center | M.S. 5-11 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 | email: fsfrick@bones.lerc.nasa.gov
jeffs@soul.esd.sgi.com (Jeff Smith) (04/19/91)
In <1991Apr17.190136.17974@nrcnet0.nrc.ca> ng@cfd.di.nrc.ca (Kai Ng) writes: >We have tried out the xengine on our RS6000 model 530 running 3003. >The system is configured with 64meg of main memory and a 24-bit, 3D >and Z-buffer graphics subsystem. >The outcome, which ranges from 41 to 49, is extremely disappointing. >We also have a Silicon Graphics 4D/25G and a SUN 3/60. Both perform >about twice as good as the IBM. >However somebody has claimed that on a 550, the xengine runs at 333. >Has anybody tried it on their RS6000 ? My bet is the 550 has the 2d card which has much better X performance, and the 550 cpu *definitely* does crank. BTW, my 4D/25G averages 177rpm running alpha IRIX 4.0 (which will ship later this year). jeffs@sgi.com
jeffs@soul.esd.sgi.com (Jeff Smith) (04/19/91)
In <1991Apr17.202630.28470@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> fsfrick@bones.lerc.nasa.gov (David Fricker) writes: >In a related vein, we've done some 'benchmarking' using local programs >on an RS6000 model 530 & various SGI Irises. The relative performance >figures are _very_ strange. On one CFD program doing a 2D grid, an >SGI Personal Iris (4D/25) outperforms my RS6000 model 530, while a >3D grid run has my model 530 outperforming a 4D/340VGX Iris! (The 340 >means the iris has 4 processors.) Both programs were written by the >same person & solve roughly the same problem--vortex sheet rollup--but >one program solves it in 2D while the other solves it in 3D. >Any ideas as to why these relative performance figures are so strange? The 3d model probably is very floating point intensive, which is where the RS/6000's really shine. Does the application on the 4D/340VGX take advantage of having multiple CPUS? If not, it will have a tough time keeping up to the 530. jeffs@sgi.com