. I do not have a MAC, so I can't give it a try. The real question is speed. Generate a deep image with fractint running on a current machine in DOS or pseudo-DOS mode, whatever, then run the PAR file with fracton in a comparable (I know, fuzzy comparison) MAC machine. Is it better? I did this with UF and FX a long time ago, and fractint won hands down, which is why I still use it. .
The only metrics I have for speed comparison is using Jim Muth's Fractal Of The Day times. Fracton is multi-threaded but whether it is faster or not depends on the individual par file. My test machine is a 2 year old Mac Pro 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core (8 total cores) and Jim has said his machine is a P4-2000. Jim's FOTD files for the last two days are a perfect example of how the times vary. A_Higher_Reality is a type=formula Fractint time 5 min 47.7 sec Fracton time 11.3 sec UndiscoverdTreasure is a type=mandel which is a hard coded internal formula in Fractint but Fracton only has a type=formula Fractint time 3.62 sec Fracton time 3.9 sec So in general, if the fractal uses a built in formula Fractint is usually faster and using a type=formula Fracton is usually faster if you have a multiprocessor machine. When you said "deep zoom" if you mean that you have to use arbitrary precision arithmetic then Fracton doesn't support that at all. Arbitrary precision math is another thing I would like to add some time in the future. -- Mike Frazier www.fracton.org
participants (2)
-
JackOfTradeZ＠comcast.net -
Mike Frazier