Note there is also a difference in darkness on colors too which is mind boggling.???? All the same everything.Can anyone explain??

What is difference in V-card/software? The 3G seems to have rendered in greater detail.

Ohh...never thought of that.3ghz is a Radeon 9600 Pro All in Wonder. The other 1.8Ghz is GeForce MX-4 64meg . That explains I guess thank you.

Intersting that different cards have such differences. What if you rendered to disk and there by avoided the v-card quirks? Or maybe it doesn't. I wonder what happens if you use network rendering. Sorry, just thinking out loud.

Each card has different software(ATI & Nvidia) along with newer versions of windows drivers, directX, colormanagement, etc. There's bound to be some difference (notable in those reports) for software to hardware handlers. amethyss: are both of those screen captures processed in the same image editor, on one machine?

Each image was captured using PSP8 on thier respective machines.Then I sent one image to this PC and made the double image you see. I'd like to be able to network the two but have yet to research how.

The video card won't make any difference at all. Bryce rendering doesn't make use of video card hardware or software acceleration (except for when the work window is set in OpenGL or Direct3D, which isn't the same as rendering a file). Video cards are for rendering to your monitor in real time - the processed information doesn't go back into the computer or back to Bryce - it goes to the monitor (many times per second) and is gone. The last sentence of the first post says that certain attributes were set identically. This may be a clue, because it possibly implies that the scenes were created separately on the two machines / Bryce installations. If this was the same Bryce file, it should be obvious that all the settings were identical and the mention of them would seem redundant. If this is the case - that the scenes were created separately but supposedly identically - then that would explain the difference. For true comparisons of computer performance the same Bryce file should be used on all machines being compared. Any slight variation (changing one setting by just 0.01) will result in some changes to the results in the render report. The differences in the reports in question are quite marked, so it is likely there is a fairly important different setting somewhere, in the Render Options menu, perhaps. If the rendered image was brought across without any intervening post processing, then it should look identical to the other. It doesn't, and all else being equal, that difference in appearance points to a difference in Bryce settings. The most obvious candidate is 'Gamma Correction' under the 'Post Processing' header in Render Options.

Hmm, I'm wondering if it's not the scene itself? The other thing is that perhaps your cache sizes (L1 and L2) are affecting it. Honestly, I've changed out Nvidia and ATI vid cards with NO change in render time, at all. Bryce doesn't send any instructions to the GPU, only through it's wiring on the way out to your monitor, so that's probably NOT the factor. Did you use the exact same scene? Just curious, was it the same scene file? Just wanted to rule that one out...

Also, considering the Pentium's inability to deal with Floating-Point Ops, I wonder what the same scene's render report would have looked like on an Athlon or a (choke) G5?

Actually it was the default image when you open Bryce.So I cannot say it was the same file.I will send the br to one machine so I will use the same file and theb settings will be the same.

Aye, I made a personal benchmark scen a while back, it contains only a few objects but one is glass-style transparent, one is blend-style transparent, one is a volumetric, and one is reflective, also a regular procedural ground and a silly sky. The only reason it's important is that I've been using it on every rig I can find to come up with some equation where Rt(Render time) = 1/60th of a second, or real-time rendering. Granted it's a simple scene, but eventually I'll be able to interpolate what kind of processor speed we would need to render something in real-time. I'll post the database someday...

Attached Link: http://www.gauchito.com/bryce/render_times/

thread 14 - amethyss : Screen capture is the reason. Diferent monitor settings? gamma, RBG settings. Just a thought . Mike Wish I Had a really FAST machine. current render has moved ~150 lines since this morning (14 hrs) :[

shadowdragonlord ...what's with the " Athlon or a (choke) G5? " Before buying this new one I had my choice to get a G5,but after talking with the person who does all my tech and PC building,he said forget it.That all aI would do is spend unessecary money buying new software,and it really would'nt make much dif about things I use it for. Save the fact that around here most commercial graphic artists use it.But they also buy Photoshop full out and Illustrator 10 too. (Seen those prices?)

Looks great, Madmax! But, like all statistics, they can be manipulated any way you want. What does your beach chair consist of? Pure raytracing? Optics? Anything that would require the processor to do any extra math? Also, remember that Bryce is not designed for dual-threading. Perhaps you should use a new Athlon processor for your benchmark, the only one shown is outdated. But, we all know that the Pentiums were slower... But I have a hard time believing a single G5 could produce faster results than a dual 2.1Ghz Athlon setup... Also, you haven't shown the RAM amounts, NOR the FSB speeds, nor a dozen other factors... Hard drive speeds? Etc...

Not my benchmark, but from the page: The Dual Athlon 2600+ (2.1GHz) system had 1GB of DDR memory and ran Windows XP. The Dual 2.4GHz Xeon system had 2GB of PC2100 DDR (cas 2) memory and ran Windows XP Professional. (Hyper-threading was enabled.) The 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 system had 2GB of 400MHz PC3200 DDR memory and ran Windows XP Professional. (Hyper-threading was enabled.) The Apple Power Mac G5 models were borrowed for testing from anonymous sources. They were running Mac OS X (10.2.7). The Dual 2GHz G5 had 2GB of PC3200 DDR. The 1.6GHz G5 had 1.5GB of PC2700 DDR. The 1.8GHz G5 had 2GB of PC3200 DDR. All machines had radeon 9800 pro retail 128MB cards. As for bus speeds, I am unaware for the PCs The G5 1.6Ghz single has to have an 800mhz FSB The G5 1.8Ghz has a 900mhz FSB The G5 2.0 dual has twin 1Ghz FSBs. For hard drives, I also do not know about the PCs. The 1.6Ghz G5 most likey had an 80Gig SATA 7200 RPM The 1.8 and dual 2.0 G5s most likely had 160 GIG SATA 7200 RPM drives. Remember that the Mac is more optimized, and may acheive more power with a slower cycle. Also consider that the G5 processors are 64-bit, as opposed to the athlon in thius test which is a 32-but processor. Even though bryce is not 64-bit aware, the cpu bandwisdth is greatly increased. Apple did label the G5, when it was released, as "the fastest supercomputer in the world." It seems that these claims are not entirely without evidence. I can't validate the accuracy of the tests, but I can say that the guy in charge of the barefeats.com testing site is not out there to give false info. The G5s do not beat the PCs on all tests. And as far as games, the PC systems are usually at least 30-60fps faster than a comparable mac with the same graphics card. You don;t have to believe it, or trust the guy. I happen to trust him, but that's just my opinion. It is his job.

here's a speed page from tha apple site: http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/ may be valid, may not be.

It's all good, Madmax, I wasn't second guessing you at all! I've only seen a few of these devices, my main experience is with a Powerbook G4. I found it to be obnoxious and although mostly it's the OS, the machine itself still couldn't perform like what I'm used to with simple web pages... I'm certain I'd feel the same about AMD-based laptops, as well! Also, LCD screens do not do our artwork justice... I would suggest dropping off a render time over on the other thread, let's see what your rigs can do! (I have the worst time on the sight, with the worst computer, so I already WON the SLOWEST contest!)