Message-ID:	<c=US%a=_%p=Hassler_Communic%l=DAISY-970612132431Z-180@daisy.hcst.com>
From:	Bryan Murphy <bryan DOT murphy AT hcst DOT com>
To:	"'djgpp AT delorie DOT com'" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Weird Results Tesitng Allegro's Performance
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:24:31 -0400
MIME-Version:	1.0

>----------
>::Bryan Murphy writes:
>::>and most Importantly: Creative Labs 3D Blaster
>::>
>::>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):
>::
>::That is indeed very strange. What video resolution were these tests
>::running in? Because if the VGA was 320x200 while the VESA was 640x480,
>::those results are actually pretty close to an exact inverse of what I'd
>::expect :-)
>::
>
>No they look about right.
>
>The 3d blaster (I have one and its cool) is one of the slowest VGA
>cards on the planet. Vga and all mode-x speeds are rotten.
>
>It is, however, a _very_ quick Vesa 2.0 card. Up there with matrox and
>Tseng ET6000.  

Yeah, the VGA was standard 320x200, the rest was 640x480.  
What I don't understand is why the Linear Frame Buffer is slower
than the Banked Mode!  What's up with that?  You don't need to
change the banks when using the LFB, so it technically should
be quicker.  Weird...
>
>Bryan Murphy (aka Dalroth)
>Web Developer
>HCST, Inc. : http://www.hcst.com/
>Home Page: http://www.hcst.com/~bryan/
>
>

- Raw text -