Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: Motormouth on May 21, 2012, 04:47:21 AM
-
What is actually the better performing chip in 2D mode?
The S3 virge (like in a cybervision 64/3d) or Voodoo 3 (in PCI busboards)
If my memory serves correctly S3 had the best 2D acceleration in the business.
I know that the Voodoo 3 has faster 3d performance and more addressable memory, however it had 2D acceleration issues.
That said the 3d performance of these chips for most amiga users is inconsequential.
Would a cybervision 64/3d be faster than a PCI Voodoo 3 in 2d mode?
-
The Voodoo 3 is significantly faster than the Virge in 2D. It also allows for much larger screens at a much better refresh rate. It's no contest really. The Voodoo 3 is enough newer that it is considerably more advanced and faster.
-
Is there anyone developing a new GFX card for z2-z3 Amigas?
It would be very nice to have.
(for example Radeon M9 based)
For example individual computers seem to have the knowhow to build a card with scandoubler included.
(my CV64-3D + scandoubler is pretty pathetic in every aspect and PCI busboard would just add complexity to the soup)
Also for unexpanded HW users it would be handy to use the extra RAM as system memory.
And with something like SM502 (or what ever it exactly is) one could also have 16bit audio from the same 2D card, even though M9 might enable simpler board + 3D.
-
I
And with something like SM502 (or what ever it exactly is) one could also have 16bit audio from the same 2D card, even though M9 might enable simpler board + 3D.
I do understand need of Zorro users for better cards, but even SM502 is Acube product its between Virge and Voodo in 2D and no 3D at all
http://hdrlab.org.nz/benchmark/gfxbench2d/OS/AmigaOS?start=620
http://www.acube-systems.biz/index.php?page=hardware&pid=4
-
So the best available card is still the Radeon 9200 PCI?
-
The Virge was the lowest of the low-end budget cards with hardware 3D back in the day, and it's performance reflects that. Any Voodoo will run rings around it.
I would love to see someone develop a new Zorro-based graphics card for Amigas with a modern graphics chipset. Of course developing the hardware is only half the problem, then there's getting legacy software to work with it, writing Warp 3D drivers and Picasso 96 (or Cyber GraphX) 2D drivers. I don't think it will ever happen.
-
(my CV64-3D + scandoubler is pretty pathetic in every aspect and PCI busboard would just add complexity to the soup)
A PCI-Zorro bridge would be mandatory since most gfx chips are designed for that interface. Best Zorro card (PicassoIV) uses one. Others use VesaLocalBus-Zorro bridges (easier to make them talk, but vlb is quite dead). A PCI busboard is quite a good idea. If you use Ratte's monitor switcher you probably won't miss a "native" rtg card much.
-
The Virge was the lowest of the low-end budget cards with hardware 3D back in the day, and it's performance reflects that. Any Voodoo will run rings around it.
I would love to see someone develop a new Zorro-based graphics card for Amigas with a modern graphics chipset. Of course developing the hardware is only half the problem, then there's getting legacy software to work with it, writing Warp 3D drivers and Picasso 96 (or Cyber GraphX) 2D drivers. I don't think it will ever happen.
The 3d performance of the Virge was very poor, however S3 was renowed for its excellent 2d acceleration.
So what is the actual 2-d acceleration like vs newer chips like the Voodoo 3 or Radeon 9250?
As for the ability to do fast screen refresh. This is primary controlled by the RAMDAC, once video cards could update a 1600x1200 image in non interlace, it was pretty much fast enough. Again this is not necessary a direct function of 2-d acceleration.
A PCI-Zorro bridge would be mandatory since most gfx chips are designed for that interface. Best Zorro card (PicassoIV) uses one. Others use VesaLocalBus-Zorro bridges (easier to make them talk, but vlb is quite dead). A PCI busboard is quite a good idea. If you use Ratte's monitor switcher you probably won't miss a "native" rtg card much.
Why do you think the Picasso IV "better" than the Cybervision?
I do agree the Picasso IV probably has the best set of "features" including add on of any Zorro video card.
The Picasso IV is a Cirrus based video card, Is it's 2d acceleration faster than that of the the S3 verge in the Cybervision ?? does it have any 3d capabilities, How does it compare to voodoo 3 or radeon 9250?
Yes you are correct, Both the Picasso IV (Cirrus Logic GD5446) and Cybervision 64/3d (S3 virge) are PCI bus chips and I believe both already have card PCI bridges in them.
Has anyone actually benchmarked the difference video card and there performance on the 2-d amiga environment? AIBB perhaps?
What is the actual fastest 2-d video card for the amiga? This may or may not have anything to do with 3d performance or other features.
As for a modern high end 3-d video card, they often lack or have reduced 2-d acceleration vs their 1990s counterparts. They depend on the CPU to do most of this work, which modern CPUs have no problems doing.
Here is an article on tomshardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/2d-windows-gdi,2539.html
These modern video cards may actually perform worse on a computer like the amiga with a sub 100 mhz processors.
-
Why do you think the Picasso IV "better" than the Cybervision?
-Slightly faster chip for 2D
-Faster edo ram
-Faster bus (CV3d is slower than both Picasso4 & CV64)
-24bit Flickerfixer (unlike 15bit cv3d scandoubler)
-Paloma&Concierto plug-ins
The Picasso IV is a Cirrus based video card, Is it's 2d acceleration faster than that of the the S3 verge in the Cybervision ?? does it have any 3d capabilities, How does it compare to voodoo 3 or radeon 9250?
Cirrus chip is slower than both Voodoo3&Radeon9250 and lacks 3d acceleration.
Yes you are correct, Both the Picasso IV (Cirrus Logic GD5446) and Cybervision 64/3d (S3 virge) are PCI bus chips and I believe both already have card PCI bridges in them.
IIRC CV3D used a vesa local bus version of the Virge chip but I may remember wrong. CV64 used a vesa local bus chip, that's for sure. What is noticeable is the slower zorroIII bus of CV3d against Picasso4&CV64
Has anyone actually benchmarked the difference video card and there performance on the 2-d amiga environment? AIBB perhaps?
There are old benchmarks in some webpages but you'll have to ask google :-)
What is the actual fastest 2-d video card for the amiga? This may or may not have anything to do with 3d performance or other features.
PicassoIV has fastest blitter and a quite fast bus (faster than cv3d, like most zorroIII cards). CV64 has faster bus. That's if we don't include PCI graphic cards.
As for a modern high end 3-d video card, they often lack or have reduced 2-d acceleration vs their 1990s counterparts. They depend on the CPU to do most of this work, which modern CPUs have no problems doing.
'90s gfx cards didn't have much 2d acceleration on Amiga. Blitter was limited compared to original Amiga one and didn't allow applying masks with different operations. Lines may be partially accelerated (but depend on software implementation). A few cards supported overlay. That's all AFAIK. On PC it depends on drivers too, and with Vista/Win7 3d acceleration is more important nowadays.
Anyway, you won't be able to connect a gfx card with weak 2d core to your classic in many years. AFAIK Radeons used today on OS4/MOS include full 2d core.
-
The 3d performance of the Virge was very poor, however S3 was renowed for its excellent 2d acceleration.
So what is the actual 2-d acceleration like vs newer chips like the Voodoo 3 or Radeon 9250?
It's poor. A Voodoo 3-5 and Radeons are close but a Virge and Cirrus Logic GD5446 are much slower.
Compare the Picasso 4 to the Voodoo 3 here:
http://www.amigaspeed.de.vu/
I have an overclocked CV64/3D and a Mediator with Voodoo 3 and Voodoo 4. The Voodoo 3+ is significantly faster at almost everything. The only time the CV64/3D comes close is an operation that is limited by gfx bus speed and CPU speed.
As for the ability to do fast screen refresh. This is primary controlled by the RAMDAC, once video cards could update a 1600x1200 image in non interlace, it was pretty much fast enough. Again this is not necessary a direct function of 2-d acceleration.
Screen modes near their bandwidth limits do not perform well. The GPU is spending it's time refreshing the screen and the gfx memory is saturated leaving less to do operations on the screen. The Virge in my Cybervision 64/3D does overclock nicely and offers satisfactory performance at 800x600x16 which is a huge upgrade over ECS. Bump that up to 24/32 bit or the resolution much and it's not so great anymore. The Voodoo 3 has no noticeable slow down in 2D until I get to 1280x1024x32 or 1600x1200x16.
Why do you think the Picasso IV "better" than the Cybervision?
The P4 used faster memory and had a little faster gfx bus (original CV64 had the fastest gfx bus). If P5 had upgraded to a Virge DX or later (rumor has they did in some later CV64/3D cards) and clocked it up a little, they would have been competing with the P4. The P4 has some nice features but the 3D in the Virge is better than nothing too. It's actually more worthwhile on a slow CPU like the Amiga despite it's bad reputation on PC's with much faster CPUs back in the day.
-
Your speed tests are nice, but I would Like to see more practical results, something simply Like Quake timedemo results.
-
How does the permedia 2 fit into all this ?
I would think the bus is faster the PCI cards ?
-
How does the permedia 2 fit into all this ?
I would think the bus is faster the PCI cards ?
CybervisionPPC are PCI cards with weird shape and socket :-)
CybervisionPPC\BlizzardVisionPPC\GRex have faster bus than Mediator/Prometheus/Zorro cards
-
IIRC CV3D used a vesa local bus version of the Virge chip but I may remember wrong. CV64 used a vesa local bus chip, that's for sure. What is noticeable is the slower zorroIII bus of CV3d against Picasso4&CV64
According to amiga hardware database
the cybervision 64 uses a vesa local bus chip
http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/cybervision64
and the cybervision 64/3d uses a PCI bus chip
http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/cybervision643d
Thanks for all the input everyone. This really gives me a better idea what and were to put my RTG cards. I have a prometheus with a voodoo 3, a picasso II+, and I got very lucky and found a cybergraphics 64/3d without the scandoubler.
Funny thing is I always wanted a Picasso IV.............
One more question.
With OS 3.9 and cybervision64/3d is it better to use picasso96 v2.1b or cybergraphix v4
-
With OS 3.9 and cybervision64/3d is it better to use picasso96 v2.1b or cybergraphix v4
I use P96 on my CV64/3D with AmigaOS 3.9 and it is flawless. I hear that CyberGFX 4 works very well also except for ZII mode where P96 seams to be faster. Otherwise, they are about equal speed. Generally people recommend CyberGFX 4 for P5 gfx boards. I think the CyberGFX 4 support for the original Cybervision 64 may be better although I have used P96 with good results on that board also. There is a P96 v2.1c with some updated drivers and libraries that I use:
http://lilliput.amiga-projects.net/Picasso96.htm
-
One more question.
With OS 3.9 and cybervision64/3d is it better to use picasso96 v2.1b or cybergraphix v4
On my A4000 CGX 4 was more difficult to set up and install (I remember getting a black screen on initial installation and had to muck about with it, you have to install the latest rev6 updater), but once installed it felt more Amiga-like: the pointer moved more smoothly, icons didn't flicker when dragged like they did in P96. Speed wise CGX felt a bit snappier than P96. With a CV64, IMO its no contest: CGX provide the best overall experience, and the Roxxler support ( i THINK it was due to the Roxxler) meant that I could rotate, zoom, move wire frame model in Cinema4D in real time, which never worked for me with P96.
-
Permedia 2 (Bvision) also has high performance,but it only works here on my setup.
Only one 3D PPC game showed true performance @1024x768 with little or no difference when changing screenmode from 800x600 to 1024x768.
Hopefully the next upgrade will fix this where all remaining 3D PPC games will show better performance using @1024x768. Until the next fix is in place all PPC 3D games works @800x600 as standard.
Permedia 2 250Mhz Ramdac,memory 116Mhz (standard) 130Mhz (BETA).
-
On my A4000 CGX 4 was more difficult to set up and install (I remember getting a black screen on initial installation and had to muck about with it, you have to install the latest rev6 updater), but once installed it felt more Amiga-like: the pointer moved more smoothly, icons didn't flicker when dragged like they did in P96. Speed wise CGX felt a bit snappier than P96. With a CV64, IMO its no contest: CGX provide the best overall experience, and the Roxxler support ( i THINK it was due to the Roxxler) meant that I could rotate, zoom, move wire frame model in Cinema4D in real time, which never worked for me with P96.
Thanks , will try CGX on the CV643d.
-
I use P96 on my CV64/3D with AmigaOS 3.9 and it is flawless. I hear that CyberGFX 4 works very well also except for ZII mode where P96 seams to be faster. Otherwise, they are about equal speed. Generally people recommend CyberGFX 4 for P5 gfx boards. I think the CyberGFX 4 support for the original Cybervision 64 may be better although I have used P96 with good results on that board also. There is a P96 v2.1c with some updated drivers and libraries that I use:
http://lilliput.amiga-projects.net/Picasso96.htm
@Matthey
I has an older version of P96 on the a3000 (for a picasso II) and the CV64/3D was very slowwwwww
I tired both CyberGraphx V4.6 and P96 v2.1c both worked very well both were much quicker.
Thanks :)