Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!maui.qualcomm.com!rdippold
From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Graphics cards, 768x1024x256
Message-ID: <1991Feb18.215727.17859@qualcomm.com>
Date: 18 Feb 91 21:57:27 GMT
References: <1991Feb17.161516.9589@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <3523@d75.UUCP>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 18

In article <3523@d75.UUCP> woan@peyote.cactus.org writes:
>In article <1991Feb17.161516.9589@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
>>A friend got, a couple of days ago, a new 33 MHz 486 PC with an Orchid
>>Prodesigner Plus card with a meg of memory. He set it up to run Windows in the
>>...
>It is not a bad card, but you must understand that these Super VGA
>cards are just dumb frame buffers, so the observed performance, is
>largely due to a faster CPU/bus driving the card and perhaps a better
>written Windows driver. For really good performance at such high
>resolutions, you should be looking at those with hardware assist (i.e.
>TI340?0 graphics coprocessors); they have come down in price and are
 
Actually, you won't see a huge increase in performance using just any old
TI34010 graphics board, because of the way Windows handles graphics.  I
believe it was PC Magazine that noted that they were only about 20% faster
than a good SVGA board.

If you're doing real graphics work, however, the TI boards shred!