Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA5668 ; Fri, 01 Jan 93 01:52:19 EST Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:9435 comp.os.linux:20726 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:841 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!olivea!apple!netcomsv!netcom.com!hasty From: hasty@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit Subject: Re: ET4000/W32 and VESA VL-Bus Message-ID: <1992Dec28.223727.3569@netcom.com> Date: 28 Dec 92 22:37:27 GMT References: <1hloneINNfnn@cbl.umd.edu> <1992Dec28.103211.12677@diomedes.robots.ox.ac.uk> <1992Dec28.190316.22747@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Lines: 70 In article <1992Dec28.190316.22747@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Thomas Roell) writes: >>The 801 is indeed DRAM based (60ns DRAM), For the 911 and 801 boards both >>for 71Hz refresh at 1024x768 on a 13MHz ISA bus I get: Setting the tone again, normally I wouldn't respond to your posting but Jon is out in vacation so allow me to expand on behalf of Jon Tombs: Both Jon and I ran xbench using the Actix GraphicEngine32 (801) and we both got 64k xstones. However, I ran xbench at 1024x768 45MHz interlace. Jon's cpu is a 486/33Mhz 256k cache mine was a 486/33Mhz 64k cache. He runs Linux and I run 386bsd. In the course of working on XS3 we usually match each others xbench results. What we are trying to compare here is the effect of running a DRAM based card at lets say 71MHz vs. 45 MHz interlace which you have stated in your previous posting that running at a high dot clock rate the performace of a DRAM based will be significant worse. Last but not least, Jon ran out of time before he had a chance to complete the test round. > >Sorry, but this way of comparing things is quite rediculuts, if not >even dumb (sorry folks , but I lack a better word of stating that somebody is >not the brightest mind if he/she does things like that ;-)). > >The issue here is that you have to compare two things that appeared at the >market at about the same time. For example 86C911 vs. WD90C31 >would make sence (ca 55k xstones vs. 45k xstones). Also 86C801/86C805 >vs. mach32 (Ultra Pro) gives some sence: 100k vs. 64k. Or if you want Can you be kind to post your Utra Pro benchmark results? Also, is 64k xstones is that what your are getting? Because I am getting 83k xstones with my 801 on my new 486/50Mhz VLB. >to stay in the domain S3, 801 vs 928. But what you do is comparing a >chip that's ONE year old, and which in fact was one of the very first >so called Windows accelerators. The 801/805/928 are simply the next >generation, and hence much faster than the last generation. Other uneaqual >comparisons wouldn't help you in comparing DRAM vs. VRAM at all. > >You are right if you compare the price/performance ratio of the 911 and >a 801 based board today. But the 928 bases boards are just around the corner According to a couple of vga manufacturers they expect the 928 to start rolling out in less than 4 weeks. >and will not cost much more than 801 based boards. That's the scenario where >my comments apply. Then we have the same chips design as base and can compare >a VRAM and a DRAM implementation with the same graphics engine ... > According to ACTIX's Director of Marketing the S3 928 is going to list for about $350. The ACTIX GraphicEngine32 is listing for $199. It will be interesting to find out from different manufacturers what are they planning to sell the 928 for :-) Amancio -- Amancio Hasty | Home: (415) 495-3046 | ftp-site depository of all my work: e-mail hasty@netcom.com | sunvis.rtpnc.epa.gov:/pub/386bsd/incoming