Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!blkcat!Uucp
From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f421.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Cache card vs. Video card for IIsi
Message-ID: <675640814.1@blkcat.FidoNet>
Date: 30 May 91 20:44:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: blkcat.675640814.1
Sender: Uucp@p0.f40.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org
Lines: 28

lemke@radius.com (Steve Lemke) writes:

> stump@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Robert E Mitchell) writes:
> 
> > My II si is a nice machine, but slows down considerably under 7.0. I would
> > like to speed up performance with either a cache card (new for the si)or a
> > video card (24 bit).  Since it seems to me as if the performance degradation
> > is due to on board video, i would assume a video card would be the answer.
> 
> Maybe and maybe not.  Yes, you pay a slight performance penalty for using on-
> board video, but from what I recall, some things can actually be a little bit
> faster since the processor doesn't have to go out to the bus to do video. I
> would say that the only reason to get a video board instead of using on-board
> video would be if you needed 24-bit video, which, of course, the on-board
> video can't do.

    No way.  My IIci redraws the screen significantly faster using a video card
than using on-board. Plus you don't have the video circuitry competing with the
CPU to access the SIMMs. (This latter effect is so severe that Apple advised
users to put their smaller SIMMs in Bank 1 -- where the video RAM is -- and 
the larger in Bank 2, so that most of the RAM wouldn't be adversely affected.)

    I've had great experience with the RasterOps 264 24-bit card (yes, of course,
you can run it in lesser depths as well). I suggest checking out if their isn't 
a IIsi version thereof.


 * Origin: "Up to a point, Lord Copper" -- Waugh (1:109/421.4218)