Message-Id: <m0yBxkL-000S2xC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
To: "D. Huizenga" <skis AT concentric DOT net>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 11:18:42 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Graphics Libraries -- Which is fastest?
In-reply-to: <35029F72.F88E8B2D@concentric.net>
Precedence: bulk

"D. Huizenga" <skis AT concentric DOT net> wrote:
> 
> I have been using Allegro for graphics programming in the game that
> I am currently working on.  While it does get around 200 FPS (It
> actually updates the video ram faster than the monitor scans the
> screen), I wonder if Allegro is the fastest.  The reason I wonder
> is that I want my game to run well on slow computers as well, such
> as a 486/33, or a 486/66 (DX2).  Does anybody have speed comparisons?

That depends on what you use of Allegro and how much flexibility do you need.

Allegro used just to blit a screen created with your own routines is just as 
faster as any library you can create. These routines are simple and fast.

Now, if you use more things like drawing routines, perhaps  you can get a 
faster library than Allegro, but it won't be as flexible as Allegro. Allegro 
provides great flexibility (a lot of video modes and functionallities) at a 
very good speed.

Of course you can make a faster library to support just some modes.

SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-sot AT usa DOT net - ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013