Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!primerd!ENI!ENS!J.COOK From: J.COOK@ENS.Prime.COM Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware Subject: Re: Slowness of 8*24GC card Message-ID: <642800008@ENS.Prime.COM> Date: 4 Dec 90 13:01:57 GMT References: <3535@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> Lines: 27 Nf-ID: #R:ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP:-353500:ENS:642800008:000:1321 Nf-From: ENS.Prime.COM!J.COOK Nov 28 07:49:00 1990 Kevin Housen at writes about "Slowness of 8*24GC card": >We recently installed an 8*24GC video card on an FX. The spec sheets >imply that the card should speed up some graphics operations by a >factor of 5 to 30. We have found that the card does speed up some >things. However we have also found that the card actually degrades >performance in other cases. I am wondering if anyone else has played >with the card and has had similar experiences. ... Pick up a copy of the latest Macworld - the one with John Scully on the cover in a Samuri outfit. It compares the performance of a number of accelerator graphics boards including the 8*24GC to each other and to an unaccelerated IIfx. One important thing they do is to vary the tests. i.e. don't draw all long lines or fill only large regions - test drawing many small lines or filling many small regions. One of the things they bring out is that sometimes getting the accelerator card to do the operation exceeds just "doing it yourself" (having the 680x0 do it) because of the additional setup involved to hand the operation off to the accelerator card. There may be other possibilities, but you didn't mention your comparison methods and list the operations in detail. Jim Cook "Just my opinions. Prime has its own."