Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: dannyp1 on October 10, 2008, 03:36:56 PM
-
I was wondering which of these 2 graphics cards was considered the best and why that was so. In the Big Book Of Amiga Hardware it says not to confuse the 2 cards because they are completely different. If they are completely different, which one is better and why? Thanks,
Dan
-
Cybervision64 is faster, it has also got an automatic passthrough for a scandoubler. CV64 is only for Z3 bus.
CyberVision64 3D is slower, it has an optional scandoubler wich is hard to track down. The card wont automatic switch between CGFX and native GFX without the scandoubler. The scandoubler is not 24-bit so it wont show complete spectrum of AGA colors. Picture quality is said to be worse with CV643D and scandoubler module than CV64. CV643d is for Z3 and Z2 bus. But still, its a nice GFX board.
CyberVision64 3D has built in 3D functions, but I can only think of Tornado 3D and Descent that uses the Virgie functions (anymore programs?).
-
The CV64 is the better; build in monitor switcher, zorro 3 only and is faster than the CV64/3D.
The CV64/3D is still a great card, but the 3D capabilities are limited despite it's name.
-
there are warp3d drivers from the CV64/3D, so it can take miniGL powered games like Heretic2 Wipeout2097, various QuakeGL ports etc, but all it is good for is bilinear filtering the same low res screens that you were playing with pure software rendering. no real speed increase bar a few fps/percent. but quake does look pretty :-D
infact more heavyweight games like heretic2 and quake2 might benefit more from just software rendering to its chunky buffers than using the actual 3d hardware, as you'll run out of texture memory real quick.
i think the CV64/3D is limited to a max of 3MB texture memory, and 1MB framebuffer if you have multimedia mem enabled. take half a meg off for zorro2 use.
anyway, as previously stated the CV64 is fast as its pure Zorro3 with a roxxler to help shuffle memory. but does NOT have a scan doubler. it has a monitor passthrough/switcher. if you scan double the input into the monitor passtrough/switcher thing then thats down to you. but you will need extra scandoubling hardware if you need it.
the CV64/3D, if you don't get the scan doubler with it, might aswell not have one as these are hard to get hold of otherwise. its still one of the fastest zorro2/3 grahpics cards you can get, and will make AGA look like its going backwards with regard to day-to-day operations.
i wouldn't turn my nose up at either one ;-)
-
dannyp1 wrote:
I was wondering which of these 2 graphics cards was considered the best and why that was so. In the Big Book Of Amiga Hardware it says not to confuse the 2 cards because they are completely different. If they are completely different, which one is better and why? Thanks,
Dan
I use the Cybervision 64 in my Amiga 3000. The card rocks! It's a bit of a pain to setup at first (use the latest cgx v4 drivers) though...
In my setup, I'm passing the A3000 31khz video into the cyber, and have pass through setup, so I can see 15khz video on my LCD!
BTW: If you live in PAL land, set the A3000 video to NTSC if using a LCD monitor, otherwise the lcd wont sync and display the video picture.
-
The scandoubler is not 24-bit so it wont show complete spectrum of AGA colors.
??? Really? Maybe there are two models of scandoublers. I had a CV64/3D with scandoubler in my A4000 for ages, and it displayed the full AGA palette properly... (color wheels show proper smooth changes, etc.)
Picture quality is said to be worse with CV643D and scandoubler module than CV64.
Possible here. The output is a little weak. It's VERY CRITICAL to keep as short a video cable as possible, and make sure it is properly shielded. Otherwise you'll get some nasty ghosting and distortions that take away a lot from the picture quality.
Overall, I agree. If you're getting the CV64-3D, you need to make sure it has the Scan Doubler. If so, it's a good card. The original CV64 may be a touch better, but I was VERY happy with my CV64-3D.
-
I have a CV643D in an A3000. This card seems ideally suited for an A3000 with its built-in flicker fixer. I use an external monitor switch to lead both outputs to a monitor. It's display is very sharp & clear and speed is snappy using a 1024x768 Workbench with P96. Although I can't compare it to a CV64, I do own a PIV in an A2500. The PIV is a little faster but display quality is comparable. The CV643D is also an order of magnitude faster than cards like the GVP Spectrum which I used in the A3000 prior to purchasing the CV643D.
-
I picked up a CV64/3D + scandoubler earlier this year, and agree the image quality is great. Games and demos look fantastic through the scandoubler ("Revelations" demo is STUNNING on a Trinitron), black text on a white background is also surprisingly sharp. (Actually, in some side-by-side comparisons the other day, it held its own against my new Indivision.) It does not deinterlace, though.
Can't check for 24-bit output, as I'm running mine in an A2K. ;-)
-
The Cybervision 64 is the best for the 3000 series as it has a built in monitor switcher. The 3D is best for the 2000 and 4000 series as you can use the scan doubler for a single monitor solution... The Picasso IV is also great but harder to find and more expensive. I own all three cards ;)
-
If you are talking for OS4 classic the order is:
Voodoo 3 -> CV PPC -> Picasso 4 -> CV 3D
Voodoo 3 is fastest and has 16MB video memory which OS4 really loves.
-
TjLaZer wrote:
I own all three cards ;)
The question being, how many of each? :-P
-
/
-
sandpiper wrote:
I have a CV643D in an A3000. This card seems ideally suited for an A3000 with its built-in flicker fixer. I use an external monitor switch to lead both outputs to a monitor. It's display is very sharp & clear and speed is snappy using a 1024x768 Workbench with P96. Although I can't compare it to a CV64, I do own a PIV in an A2500. The PIV is a little faster but display quality is comparable. The CV643D is also an order of magnitude faster than cards like the GVP Spectrum which I used in the A3000 prior to purchasing the CV643D.
Could you tell me what make and model your monitor switch is? I'm interested in getting a good one, but the ones I've tried have given awful picture quality.
-
I have a CV643D in an A3000. This card seems ideally suited for an A3000 with its built-in flicker fixer. I use an external monitor switch to lead both outputs to a monitor.
Keep in mind that the Zorro III interface of the CV64/3D has some timing issues when really fast Zorro III busmasters (like the DENEB) are driving the bus.
This can lead to bus errors and broken data transfers.
A workaround is already present in the DENEB, so this is not a real problem, but one thing to keep in mind.
Anyhow, I personally prefer the Picasso IV - while the CV64 (/3D) are nice cards too, but not so flexible as the PIV.
Michael
-
< both cards compared > (http://www.a1k.org/forum/showthread.php?p=184314) :-)
-
@Caius
Could you tell me what make and model your monitor switch is? I'm interested in getting a good one, but the ones I've tried have given awful picture quality.
It's an Aten VS-291. It is a manual switch but switching is done electronically. Picture quality is excellent. Make sure that you buy good patch cables - SVGA as a minimum rather than VGA.
-
@mboehmer_e3b
Keep in mind that the Zorro III interface of the CV64/3D has some timing issues when really fast Zorro III busmasters (like the DENEB) are driving the bus. This can lead to bus errors and broken data transfers. A workaround is already present in the DENEB, so this is not a real problem, but one thing to keep in mind.
I have a Deneb too. I initially had problems with the DMA driver (corrupted data transfers to usb devices) but these problems were solved with your latest Deneb firmware update that has this workaround. thanks.