Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/06/12/01:24:18
At 11:49 PM 10/06/1997 -0400, you wrote:
>I threw together a quick test tonight to figure out exactly
>what kind of performance I could expect to get out of allegro
>for my computer. What I have is:
>
>Cyrix 686 P150+ Chip
>16meg 70ns Ram (not EDO)
>82430HX Chipset
>
>and most Importantly: Creative Labs 3D Blaster
>
>Now, not expecting to be wowed at all by my 3D Blaster (which
>I have full intentions on replacing soon, it sucks), I created
>a test program to figure out the max number of blits I could
>make each second. I was shocked by the results. Not at all
>what I expected. Here are the results under Windows 95:
>
>Tested: 640,480 for 20 seconds
>
>VGA Frames = 53.9 - Expected slow, but not this slow
>Vesa 1.0 Frames = 133.6 - Believable
>Vesa Banked Frames = 155.4 - A little faster, expected this
>Linear Frame Buffer = 114.1 - Whoa, did not expect this
>
>Why is the linear frame buffer SLOWER than the banked? Weird,
>so I tried it a few more times (only one shown):
>
>Tested: 640,480 for 20 seconds
>
>VGA Frames = 53.85
>Vesa 1.0 Frames = 143.25
>Vesa Banked Frames = 154.8
>Linear Frame Buffer = 114.5
>
>Yeah, it's definately slower. Very strange. Anybody know what
>can account for this? I suppose it's just crappy design on the
>part of Creative Labs. I do also have the most recent bios on
>the card.
>
What a slow card!!! In a pentium 100mhz, a Trident Gui9440Agi does 237 fps
with the program I have make with Allegro 2.2. Allegro is the fastest
program I found to do video operations. I dont know how work your program
or the caracteristics of your video card, it is strange, also becouse the
pentium 100mhz has a slower PCI clock than your Cyrix 6x86. I have writed
this because I dont want that the people think that Allegro is bad. Bye
everybody!
P.D.: Sorry for my very bad English!
Ivan Baldo: baldo AT chasque DOT apc DOT org
- Raw text -