Picasso96 or Cybergraphx?

[stefcep2]

Mauro73 wrote:

keropi wrote:... you might call it a personall taste, but for me cgx4 is way better.

Ok, so it's most of all a personal taste matter, isn't it?

Anyway, I'll try CGX4 too, just to have a better idea of what are the posibilities  :-)

I have the card you have and I've been through this before.  
Its not just personal taste.

The Phase 5 cards ie CV64 and CV64/3d are better supported by the CGX software: its faster to draw, pointer aspect ratio and movement is EXACTLY like a native screen(P96 isn't), click-and-drag icons actually is as smooth as a native screen unlike the flickery redraws you get with P96 , CGX has support for the roxxler chip (which allows really fast 3d rotation, movement and magnification of wireframe objects in Cinema4D windows).  You can also overclock using the tooltypes in the monitor icon to speed the card up even further.


I don't know why but I think there is some anti-CGX bias that seems to crop up when this issue is raised: maybe its the whole "lets support the free/shareware alternative and denigrate anything commercial". Get the latest version of CGX4, its worth the money.

[stefcep2]

amigadave wrote:
It looks like more than a couple of the posters in this thread have done some testing with CGX4 and P96 to support their claims of better performance on a particular graphics card or another.

If someone will point me to where I can download some testing software that will give results that prove which graphics software is faster than the other, I will do some testing on different cards that I own and post the results.  If a few others here do the same, we can compile a list of graphics cards and the test results under both CGX4 and P96.

The graphics cards that I own and can test are:

CyberVision 8mb
PicassoIV
PicassoII
GVP Spectrum
RetinaZ3

I recently tried to get CGX4 installed on my A3000T w/RetinaZ3 but could not get a display, so switched to P96 and it worked the first try.

To make the results consistent, I suggest that we all test on OS3.9 and use the same monitor and settings each time.

I know that each of us will be using a different monitor, so perhaps for testing purposes we should just use the low end, generic VGA settings to get a fair comparison across all cards and both graphics software systems.

Is anyone else interested in doing this comparison testing?

If you are going to benchmark then you really need the latest version of each software, but CGX 4 is commercial and you have to use the latest version that you download but need the original CD.  

It seems that CGX is better in terms of speed and stability when using Phase5 hardware and perhaps not when using other hardware, according to the posts here anyway.  Back in the day I did benchmark my CV64 on a A4000 68060 against a Picasso IV under p96 published by somebody else with A4000 68060 and I found my set-up won (from memory) about 75% of the tests.

The thing that you can't benchmark is the subjective feel, and this is influenced by things such as how good the sprite pointer emulation is, how icon/window dragging is.  And having used P96 on both a real Amiga with CV64 and under Winuae (which convincingly emulates the not-quite-right pointer movement, icon dragging flicker under P96 of a real amiga running P96) I can say that CGX4 feels better on my machine.