Message-ID:	<c=US%a=_%p=Hassler_Communic%l=DAISY-970612132633Z-181@daisy.hcst.com>
From:	Bryan Murphy <bryan DOT murphy AT hcst DOT com>
To:	"'baldo AT chasque DOT apc DOT org'" <baldo AT chasque DOT apc DOT org>
Cc:	"'djgpp AT delorie DOT com'" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Weird Results Tesitng Allegro's Performance
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:26:33 -0400
MIME-Version:	1.0

>----------
>>Cyrix 686 P150+ Chip
>>16meg 70ns Ram (not EDO)
>>82430HX Chipset
>>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):
>	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!
>
Oh, no no no, don't get me wrong.  I'm not dissing Allegro at
all by posting those results.  I'm dissing Creative Labs! :)  
Allegro functions perfectly.  I'm just trying to figure out why the
Linear Frame Buffer is slower than Banked Mode, and why
640x480 Banked does not display properly, while 640x480
Vesa 1.0 does.  
>
>Bryan Murphy (aka Dalroth)
>Web Developer
>HCST, Inc. : http://www.hcst.com/
>Home Page: http://www.hcst.com/~bryan/
>

- Raw text -