Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!matthew
From: matthew@castle.ed.ac.uk (M White)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Rendering performance
Message-ID: <10095@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 7 May 91 09:32:09 GMT
References: <1991May3.190648.13574@ucunix.san.uc.edu> <1991May3.224900.12807@dsd.es.com> <1991May6.114747.12681@canon.co.uk>
Organization: Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre
Lines: 15

In article <1991May6.114747.12681@canon.co.uk> laukee@canon.co.uk writes:
[...]
>But how useful is this? If you do some benchmarking on typical interactive
>manipulation of smallish (1k-2k) 3-D models you get around 35-60k
>polygons / second on a VGX. [Don't quote me, this is from memory.]

If you are thinking of the demonstration I saw, you are correct in your
35k-60k polygons/sec for a VGX.  However, you forgot to mention the 60
frames/second figure which is also displayed during that demo.  When
double-buffering, the frame sync rate will be a bottleneck for small
models. 

-- 
Matthew White - Visualisation Support - Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre
"All right, hands up if you think it was a Russian water tentacle." - Abyss