Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!aim1!jlr1801
From: jlr1801@aim1.tamu.edu (Jeff Rife)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: ATI VGA Wonder+ Tests
Message-ID: <13136@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 7 Mar 91 07:00:10 GMT
References: <1991Mar5.035327.6809@cs.mcgill.ca>
Sender: usenet@helios.TAMU.EDU
Organization: City of College Station, Texas
Lines: 87

In article <1991Mar5.035327.6809@cs.mcgill.ca> becap@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON) writes:
>Hi fellow netters;
>
>It seems that I've got a bit of bad news for those interested in the
>new ATI VGA Wonder+ Card.  When I read the ATI ads that stated the
>Wonder+ was "faster than VRAM and up to 350% faster than other VGA
>systems" I was intrigued.  As an avid Windows user, when I heard that
>I could upgrade my current board to the Wonder+, I was even more
>interested.  Luckily I was able to convince a local vendor to let me
>take home the Wonder+ and try it out.  The results I got were not
>encouraging.  I did some benchmark test on both card under identical
>circumstances both in Windows and in DOS, and some of the results are
>
>Machine: Gateway 2000 '386  20 MHz
>
>DOS Mode Performance (PC Mag. Benchmark ver 5.6)
>
>                                       Wonder    Wonder+
>VIDEO PERFORMANCE TESTS:
>  Direct Screen Access                  2.74      2.47
>  Teletype Without Scrolling            0.83      0.82
>  Teletype With Scrolling               1.93      2.47
>                                        ----      ----
>                                        5.5       5.76
[windows benchmarks omitted]
>
>- Brian Capson   becap@cs.mcgill.ca
>  McGill University School of Computer Science
>  Montreal, Quebec

O.K., my $.02 says the Wonder+ is better, here's why:

1) 1024x768 non-interlaced support (some later versions of the Wonder also
   have this feature.

2) 70 Hz refresh in all video modes for no flicker.

3) 16-bit video memory and BIOS operation, even with a monochrome card
   installed.  (I could *never* get my Wonder to do this)

4) Much smaller card for less power consumption, heat, etc.  Lower chip count
   has actually lowered the large-quantity price, and the extra 256K is just
   two chips, and < $30 most places.

5) It is (up to) 350% faster than OTHER cards, not their own.  After all, they
   are trying to make money.

Now, here's my benchmark puzzle, with the first two tests conducted outside of
Windows, and the second two in DOS boxes.  Why is the direct to screen better
in the Window'ed DOS attempt?  But notice that QEMM pulls BIOS-type
performance down, and Windows pulls it down farther.

Test Machine: QEMM installed
Computed CPU: 80386SX  16.0 Mhz

  Direct Screen Access                  4.01
  Teletype Without Scrolling            0.99
  Teletype With Scrolling               3.13
------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Machine: Without QEMM
Computed CPU: 80386SX  16.0 Mhz

  Direct Screen Access                  4.01
  Teletype Without Scrolling            0.55
  Teletype With Scrolling               2.63
------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Machine: Exclusive DOS
Computed CPU: 80386SX  16.0 Mhz

  Direct Screen Access                  4.23
  Teletype Without Scrolling            1.92
  Teletype With Scrolling               4.01
------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Machine: Window DOS
Computed CPU: 80386SX  16.0 Mhz

  Direct Screen Access                  2.20
  Teletype Without Scrolling           12.46
  Teletype With Scrolling              10.16

Everything here, even the benchmarks, is IMHO.

--
Jeff Rife   P.O. Box 3836   |   "Because he was human; because he had goodness;
College Station, TX 77844   |    because he was moral they called him insane.
(409) 823-2710              |    Delusions of grandeur; visons of splendor;
jlr1801@aim1.tamu.edu       |    A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."