Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!canon!laukee
From: laukee@canon.co.uk (David Lau-Kee)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Rendering performance
Message-ID: <1991May8.125546.1722@canon.co.uk>
Date: 8 May 91 12:55:46 GMT
References: <1991Apr29.162712.1905@canon.co.uk> <1991May3.190648.13574@ucunix.san.uc.edu> <1991May3.224900.12807@dsd.es.com> <1991May6.114747.12681@canon.co.uk> <1991May7.190509.23004@fido.wpd.sgi.com>
Reply-To: laukee@canon.co.uk
Organization: Canon Research Europe, Guildford, UK
Lines: 31

robert@texas.asd.sgi.com (Robert Skinner) writes:

>In article <1991May6.114747.12681@canon.co.uk>, laukee@canon.co.uk (David Lau-Kee) writes:
>|> 

... stuff questioning the applicability of certain benchmarks ...

>I won't quote you, but I should point out something about those numbers:

... stuff about frame sync bottlenecks ...

Yes, of course everything you say is true. Is this not the point? 
The discussion started when someone asked about performance for doing
simple flat shading on smallish, polygonal models in software, and was
answered by discussions about how quick the VGX, et al could do "special
effect x, y and z".  I have no argument with that, and I don't disbelieve
the figures.

But it may be worth reiterating that *the usefulness of this is questionable*
if my special, souped up engine does operations O1, O2 and O3 very quickly
under circumstances C1, C2 and C3, if what was asked for does not call
for O1-O3 or if C1-C3 do not hold!
Your [deleted] example of the 1 polygon model limiting rendering to 60
polygons/sec proves the point far more eloquently and persuasively than
anything I could have come up with.

-------------
David Lau-Kee, Canon Research Centre Europe,
17/20 Frederick Sanger Rd, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU25YD, UK.
laukee@canon.co.uk, laukee@canon.uucp, ..!mcsun!ukc!uos-ee!canon!laukee
Tel: +44 (0) 483 574325 Fax: +44 (0) 483 574360