Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: CybergraphX vs P96  (Read 3652 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16882
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • Show all replies
Re: CybergraphX vs P96
« on: November 23, 2004, 01:22:24 PM »
CGX emulation (up to v3 at least) is simply built in. Just run your CGX application - as long as it doesn't explicitly use any CGX v4 stuff (of which simply opening the cybergraphics.library seems to be the main thing) it will be fine.

As for which is better, in all honesty they are largely the same. They both provide RTG, direct to surface rendering for software that needs it, basic blitter accelerated operations etc.

Neither are particulalry great on the hardware acceleration front but they are much faster than native screenmodes for virtually all normal tasks. This is not so much a bad reflection on them, but on the original graphics.library they patch into.
int p; // A
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16882
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • Show all replies
Re: CybergraphX vs P96
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2004, 02:41:09 PM »
Quote

Brian wrote:
I personaly preferr P96 cause it's easy to use. I use it in all my machines with CV3D - Voodoo3 except the A1200T with BVision since it doesn't support that board.


Easy to use? :lol:

I guess it depends on whatever you are used to - my first gfx card was CGX. I find the P96 configuration one big headache.
int p; // A
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16882
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • Show all replies
Re: CybergraphX vs P96
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2004, 11:04:56 PM »
Quote

Brian wrote:
God speed :juggler:


Flaming June was better.

/obscure BT song title references
int p; // A