Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.apps:1439 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:7833
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun.qualcomm.com!rdippold
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: QEMM, Orchid Pro II BIOS, and trouble.
Message-ID: <1991Mar25.220552.16561@qualcomm.com>
Date: 25 Mar 91 22:05:52 GMT
References: <1991Mar19.205736.17884@amd.com> <1991Mar21.200718.23601@qualcomm.com> <1991Mar22.181213.11232@amd.com>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 26

In article <1991Mar22.181213.11232@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>rdippold@gdansk.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>
>>In article <1991Mar19.205736.17884@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>>smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes:
>>>>with my Orchid VGA card), I then can get an unbelievable 31,000+ CPS
>>>>rating on my video card (tested with QaPlus diagnostics).
>>>
>>>Gosh, you must be a fast reader.
>>>What's the point of all this?
>
>>It means that in actual graphics modes that graphics will go much faster than
>>they would on a machine with an average VGA card.  Less waiting around for
>>graphs, etc. to draw.
>
>Not at all. There is little to no relationship between graphics mode
>speed and text mode speed.
>
>How long would it take to write a 640x480x256 screen at 31,000 bytes/second?
>I think I figured about 10 seconds. 20 seconds at 15,000 bytes/second.

I'm not saying that the two speeds are the same, but that the text speed of a
card is usually a good indication of the graphics speed of the card.  They give
you some idea of how fast you can move data to the card, how many video wait
states you have to put up with, etc.  If he gets a blazingly fast text speed,
it's a good indication that the graphics speed will also be superior.