Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Cybervision vs Voodoo  (Read 3342 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline desantiiTopic starter

  • Amiga Addict!
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2009
  • Posts: 385
    • Show only replies by desantii
Cybervision vs Voodoo
« on: June 09, 2011, 03:04:57 AM »
What is better on a PPC system? A Cybervision card conencted to the PPC or a Voodoo via mediator? Any thoughts
 
thanks
Amiga 1200/030 50mhz, 64mb ram

Amiga 2000, 030 25mhz, 7mb ram, A2320,  SCSI2CD
 
Amiga 3000/030 25mhz, CF SCSI card

Amiga 4000/ 040 33mhz 274mb ram
 

Offline HammerD

Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2011, 03:42:36 AM »
Quote from: desantii;643683
What is better on a PPC system? A Cybervision card conencted to the PPC or a Voodoo via mediator? Any thoughts
 
thanks


for Pure 2D i'd go for the CyberVision PPC.

If you want 3D as well I would go for the Voodoo.  It's not bad at 2D either :)
AmigaOS 4.x Beta Tester - Classic Amiga enthusiast - http://www.hd-zone.com is my Amiga Blog, check it out!
 

Offline desantiiTopic starter

  • Amiga Addict!
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2009
  • Posts: 385
    • Show only replies by desantii
Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2011, 04:29:10 AM »
Actually my mistake, meant a BVison not Cybervision
Amiga 1200/030 50mhz, 64mb ram

Amiga 2000, 030 25mhz, 7mb ram, A2320,  SCSI2CD
 
Amiga 3000/030 25mhz, CF SCSI card

Amiga 4000/ 040 33mhz 274mb ram
 

Offline amigadave

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2004
  • Posts: 3836
    • Show only replies by amigadave
    • http://www.EfficientByDesign.org
Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2011, 04:34:44 AM »
Quote from: desantii;643732
Actually my mistake, meant a BVison not Cybervision

Should be the same answer.  IIRC, they both connect via the same interface to the accelerator card and have the same graphics chip and memory on board, unless there is less on the BlizzardVision than there is on the CyberVision.  Both of my CyberVisions have 8mb of VRAM, but there might have been a 4mb VRAM version.
How are you helping the Amiga community? :)
 

Offline zipper

Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2011, 05:21:17 AM »
In 3D games a Voodoo is roughly twice as fast as a C/BVision PPC.
 

Offline Iggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 5348
    • Show only replies by Iggy
Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2011, 10:35:07 AM »
Quote from: zipper;643755
In 3D games a Voodoo is roughly twice as fast as a C/BVision PPC.

2D operations are also probably faster. Even compared to a more modern card like a Radeon the Voodoo3 has a fairly powerful 2D engine.
"Not making any hard and fast rules means that the moderators can use their good judgment in moderation, and we think the results speak for themselves." - Amiga.org, terms of service

"You, got to stem the evil tide, and keep it on the the inside" - Rogers Waters

"God was never on your side" - Lemmy

Amiga! "Our appeal has become more selective"
 

Offline zipper

Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2011, 11:22:58 AM »
Yes, 16bit and especially 24bit screens are really fast compared to older cards.
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2011, 01:22:54 PM »
Horses for courses. For 3D gaming, the Voodoo is the clear winner. It is both faster and supports more features than the Permedia2.

For 2D, things are a bit more levelled out since the RTG layer tends to use HW acceleration for the most basic operations.

The BVision will win hands down over a mediator1200 attached graphics card for any task where transferring data over the bus is the limiting factor, at least in OS3.x at any rate.
int p; // A
 

Offline Iggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 5348
    • Show only replies by Iggy
Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2011, 03:18:08 AM »
Quote from: Karlos;643792
Horses for courses. For 3D gaming, the Voodoo is the clear winner. It is both faster and supports more features than the Permedia2.

For 2D, things are a bit more levelled out since the RTG layer tends to use HW acceleration for the most basic operations.

The BVision will win hands down over a mediator1200 attached graphics card for any task where transferring data over the bus is the limiting factor, at least in OS3.x at any rate.

That last point has had me puzzled for a couple days Karlos. Yes the Bvision would have a clear advantage in transfer rate over anything tied to an expansion bus.
But I'm still not sure that that alone would be enough to give it an edge in 2D operations.
Are there any benchmarks that could be run to compare both alternatives?

And for 3d operations, I think I'd prefer a Radeon 8500 or 9000 (over a Voodoo3), but the Voodoo3 is probably the better supported card.
"Not making any hard and fast rules means that the moderators can use their good judgment in moderation, and we think the results speak for themselves." - Amiga.org, terms of service

"You, got to stem the evil tide, and keep it on the the inside" - Rogers Waters

"God was never on your side" - Lemmy

Amiga! "Our appeal has become more selective"
 

Offline zipper

Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2011, 10:04:52 AM »
Coarse figures AFAIR BVision about 14 MB/s, CVisionPPC 18 MB/s, PicassoIV on ZorroIII 10 MB/s, CV64 faster than PicassoIV.
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2011, 10:08:11 AM »
Quote from: Iggy;644350
That last point has had me puzzled for a couple days Karlos. Yes the Bvision would have a clear advantage in transfer rate over anything tied to an expansion bus.
But I'm still not sure that that alone would be enough to give it an edge in 2D operations.

That depends on what those 2D operations are. If they involve anything software-rendered, such as video or old 3D games or indeed anything that requires the CPU to calculate pixels and then render them to a BitMap, provided the calculation step is not already the slow part and the bus is utilized properly, the BVision will win.

It even wins in some 3D cases. When I first started (back in OS3.x 68K/WarpOS days) on the Permedia2 driver and streamlined the vertex array handling, for large lists of untextured polygons, the bus speed became a dominant factor and on my 25MHz 040+BVision crucified my 28MHz 040+Voodoo3000 in synthetic tests for W3D_DrawArray()

I might still have the benchmark data somewhere.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 10:47:14 AM by Karlos »
int p; // A
 

Offline zipper

Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2011, 10:45:43 AM »
Driver support has some effect, as my Voodoo 3000 ran rings round Voodoo 4500 on some 2D tests in my Prometheus. The driver was written for Voodoo3 and just happened to work with Voodoo4 and Voodoo5.
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Cybervision vs Voodoo
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2011, 11:36:05 AM »
Quote from: zipper;644393
Coarse figures AFAIR BVision about 14 MB/s, CVisionPPC 18 MB/s, PicassoIV on ZorroIII 10 MB/s, CV64 faster than PicassoIV.


And about 8MB/s for my Mediator1200 + Voodoo3000...
int p; // A