S3 Virge vs. Voodoo3 actual 2D speed and quality

[Motormouth]

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?

[Motormouth]

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.

[Motormouth]

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

[Motormouth]

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.

[Motormouth]

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