Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!vax8530!tt3x
From: tt3x@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: VGA Card Recommendation for Zenith Flat Screen
Message-ID: <3707.260b60fb@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 90 15:58:50 GMT
References: <533@cica.cica.indiana.edu> <1640087@hpspcoi.HP.COM>
Distribution: comp
Lines: 29

In article <1640087@hpspcoi.HP.COM>, dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) writes:
>>  Info World did a comparison test of 20 16-bit VGA cards in their
>>  December 11, 1989 issue and found virtually no significant difference
>>  in the speed of any of the cards.  The only exception was the Video 7
>>  card, due probably to its dual-ported RAM, and this was only faster
>>  for ONE application they tested it on (I forget which one).
> 
> PC Magazine in the April 10, 1990 issue has a comparison test of several
> SuperVGA cards. Their performance data showed a significant (10:1 in
> some cases) performance difference with the Video 7 VRAM coming in
> about the middle of the pack overall.
> 
> Sometimes these comparison tests are testing the computer 
> equivalent of a Ford Escort against a Corvette. It is difficult
> sometimes to determine if a computer product is intended to be a
> computer equivalent of a Escort or a Corvette. Is a 10MHZ 8086
> intended to be in the same performance league as a 10MHZ 80286?
> There are manufacturers who seem to want you to believe that.
> 
> 			   Danny Low
>     "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You"
> 	   Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley
>      HP SPCD   dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com   ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow 

	What were the results of the test and which video card was
the fastest and which was the editor's choice?

Bobby Li
TT3X@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU