Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!grr
From: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: DS5000 PXG graphic performance and X support
Message-ID: <13071@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 6 Jul 90 07:24:44 GMT
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 25

Any of you DECstation experts out there want to talk a little about about
whether the UWS 4.0 X servers will support / make effective use of the added
accelerator hardware on the PXG display controller?

I'm trying to migrate a PC layout application where the users are accustomed to
using a relatively low resolution display, but with hardware zoom and pan, over
to a bit-mapped workstation environment.  They like the speed of the DS3100 on
the compute bound phases, but hate the graphics.  I feel that there's some
graphics performance point, at which their objections turn to mere grumbling.

From the graphics performance white paper, it appears the DS5100 PX would be
2-4 times as fast at redraw, but the PXG is only $2k more and I'd pay it
gladly if it would help speed things up a bit more or provide additional
backing memory or other notable improvement.

Most of the PXG and PXG turbo discussion centers on PHIGS performance, but
I'd really like to know if X can use the added hardware or just ignores it...

On a slightly different note, what form do the 8->24 bitplane and Z-buffer
upgrades take?  Is it some new module, or just adding some video simms?

-- 
George Robbins - now working for,     uucp:   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing:   domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com
Commodore, Engineering Department     phone:  215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)