Matrox Millennium or Diamond Stealth
Bernie Lee
the Diamond Stealth 2 MB VRAM? The Stealth is slightly cheaper here but
price difference between the two isn't a matter.
I've almost reached a decision and it's the Matrox. I'll be using it
mostly for games. Thanks.
BL96.
-----------------------------------------------------
Email: bl...@otto.bf.rmit.edu.au
Enternet Email: cn...@enternet.com.au
All Good Things: http://otto.bf.rmit.edu.au/~blee/agt.html
Mark Smith
buy. It is the fastest and the most widely supported card in the
industry. I have had a diamond in every computer I've worked with in
the past 6 years. I currently have the 3400 PCI 4mb VRAM card and it
kicks serious butt in windows and dos games. If you are looking at a
2mb card then make sure to get the 3240 model which is upgradable to
4mb later (the 3200 is fixed at 2mb) You will most likely upgrade to
4mb and I can tell you it is well worth the cost - in fact I would
recommend the 4mb card to start with if you can afford the extra cost
(about $525 mailorder) All Diamond cards support the MPEG
daughterboard if you want to upgrade to that later on - right now
there is not enough software support to warrant the extra $200 for
this add-on though.
MATROX is what Gateway tried so put on all the machines I order for my
company and I make sure to have them remove the card and I purchase
Diamond cards and put them in myself. YOU WON'T BE SORRY!!!
mik...@netaxs.com
In article <DqDI8...@iquest.net>, t...@skyenet.net (Mark Smith) wrote:
>The Diamond Stealth 64 PCI 3240 or 3400 is the best damn card you can
>buy. It is the fastest and the most widely supported card in the
>industry. I have had a diamond in every computer I've worked with in
>the past 6 years. I currently have the 3400 PCI 4mb VRAM card and it
>kicks serious butt in windows and dos games. If you are looking at a
>2mb card then make sure to get the 3240 model which is upgradable to
>4mb later (the 3200 is fixed at 2mb) You will most likely upgrade to
>4mb and I can tell you it is well worth the cost - in fact I would
>recommend the 4mb card to start with if you can afford the extra cost
>(about $525 mailorder) All Diamond cards support the MPEG
>daughterboard if you want to upgrade to that later on - right now
>there is not enough software support to warrant the extra $200 for
>this add-on though.
this is the biggest bull I ever heard :) And I can talk because I own a
Diamond Stealth 64 :)
The MGA Millenium has FASTER grahics speed (The Diamond has slightly faster
App speed) better Video support, as well as decent 3d hardware excelleration.
The drivers are less buggy too. Andone other thing, Matrox isnt the company
being suied for lying about its benchmark speeds :)
Nick Vlku
NO WAY! The MATROX MGA MILLENIUM is the FASTEST DOS card on the
market. The Gateway was an OEM card and not the card you buy in the
store... The MGA MILLENIUM is the greatest.. i recommend you get it.
Much faster than the DIAMOND in dos mode and just as fast in WINDOWS.
Even supports 3D Acceleration. The 3D may not be the best but the DOS
performance is. If you think DIAMOND is better for games you are
sadly mistaken.
Nick Vlku (ni...@neteagle.com)
t...@skyenet.net (Mark Smith) wrote:
>The Diamond Stealth 64 PCI 3240 or 3400 is the best damn card you can
>buy. It is the fastest and the most widely supported card in the
>industry. I have had a diamond in every computer I've worked with in
>the past 6 years. I currently have the 3400 PCI 4mb VRAM card and it
>kicks serious butt in windows and dos games. If you are looking at a
>2mb card then make sure to get the 3240 model which is upgradable to
>4mb later (the 3200 is fixed at 2mb) You will most likely upgrade to
>4mb and I can tell you it is well worth the cost - in fact I would
>recommend the 4mb card to start with if you can afford the extra cost
>(about $525 mailorder) All Diamond cards support the MPEG
>daughterboard if you want to upgrade to that later on - right now
>there is not enough software support to warrant the extra $200 for
>this add-on though.
>MATROX is what Gateway tried so put on all the machines I order for my
Kevin Seniuk
On Wed, 24 Apr 1996 15:38:37 GMT, t...@skyenet.net (Mark Smith) wrote:
>The Diamond Stealth 64 PCI 3240 or 3400 is the best damn card you can
>buy. It is the fastest and the most widely supported card in the
>industry. I have had a diamond in every computer I've worked with in
>the past 6 years. I currently have the 3400 PCI 4mb VRAM card and it
>kicks serious butt in windows and dos games. If you are looking at a
>2mb card then make sure to get the 3240 model which is upgradable to
>4mb later (the 3200 is fixed at 2mb) You will most likely upgrade to
>4mb and I can tell you it is well worth the cost - in fact I would
>recommend the 4mb card to start with if you can afford the extra cost
>(about $525 mailorder) All Diamond cards support the MPEG
>daughterboard if you want to upgrade to that later on - right now
>there is not enough software support to warrant the extra $200 for
>this add-on though.
>
>MATROX is what Gateway tried so put on all the machines I order for my
>company and I make sure to have them remove the card and I purchase
>Diamond cards and put them in myself. YOU WON'T BE SORRY!!!
>
I own a Diamond Stealth 64 Graphics 2200 and it is definitely the
LAST Diamond card I am going to buy. Diamond has the worst driver
support in the industry. The version 2 Win 95 drivers for my card were
only released a month ago. Go to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video and
you will see horror story after horror story from ex-Diamond owners.
In my opinion if you buy Diamond, YOU WILL BE SORRY!!!
Kevin S Seniuk <sen...@gatewest.net>
Winnipeg, MB, Canada
'93 EXT 580Z
Gary Quiring
On 22 Apr 1996 15:30:37 GMT, bl...@bf.rmit.edu.au (Bernie Lee) wrote:
>Would anyone care to tell me which is a better buy? The MGA 2 MB WRAM or
>the Diamond Stealth 2 MB VRAM? The Stealth is slightly cheaper here but
>price difference between the two isn't a matter.
>
>I've almost reached a decision and it's the Matrox. I'll be using it
>mostly for games. Thanks.
I own both the Matrox and Diamond Stealth. If games is your main
interest, the Diamond is a better choice. The Matrox has way too many
VESA bugs. I just upgraded my bios from 1.9 to 2.0 hoping it would
fix some of the problems - not one thing was fixed for me.
The Matrox does not work correctly with WC IV (Movies), Terminator
Future Shock (strange coloration changes) or Descent (800x600 mode is
scrambled).
The Diamond works well with all the games but it's Win95 drivers are
not very good. Matrox is faster, but if does not work what good is
it?
Gary
Smoke Crack and Worship Satan
In article <3182ccaf...@news.netlabs.net>, gqui...@netlabs.net (Gary
Quiring) wrote:
>
> On 22 Apr 1996 15:30:37 GMT, bl...@bf.rmit.edu.au (Bernie Lee) wrote:
>
> >Would anyone care to tell me which is a better buy? The MGA 2 MB WRAM or
> >the Diamond Stealth 2 MB VRAM? The Stealth is slightly cheaper here but
> >price difference between the two isn't a matter.
> >
> >I've almost reached a decision and it's the Matrox. I'll be using it
> >mostly for games. Thanks.
>
> I own both the Matrox and Diamond Stealth. If games is your main
> interest, the Diamond is a better choice. The Matrox has way too many
> VESA bugs. I just upgraded my bios from 1.9 to 2.0 hoping it would
> fix some of the problems - not one thing was fixed for me.
>
> The Matrox does not work correctly with WC IV (Movies), Terminator
> Future Shock (strange coloration changes) or Descent (800x600 mode is
> scrambled).
>
I have a Matrox OEM 2mb WRAM.
1. Played T:FS all the way through, never saw any problems.
2. 800x600 mode is NOT PLAYABLE in Descent without a P5-200 or higher, and even
then it looks like crap IMO because the 3D models are not detailed enough. I
don't think this is a big deal.
3. Don't have WC 4, that may be true.
I have seen very few incompatibilities with this card and I play a shitload
of games.
> The Diamond works well with all the games but it's Win95 drivers are
> not very good. Matrox is faster, but if does not work what good is
> it?
The Matrox works FINE. My girlfriend's computer has a Diamond Stealth 64 VRAM
3240 and I'd like to emphasize how *terrible* the Win95 drivers are for the
Stealth-- they are really, really poor. I can't even play MechWarrior 2 for
Win95 on her machine. And that's with the 3/26 drivers! Diamond drivers
suck raw eggs.
Matrox, OTOH, has kick-ass Win95 drivers that are the fastest on the market
so far.
Smoke Crack and Worship Satan
In article <3182d838...@news.gatewest.net>, sen...@gatewest.net (Kevin
Yes, this is true. Diamond's hardware is solid, but their drivers are just
shit right now for Windows 95. Everyone else (ATI, Matrox) has very good
Win95 drivers from my experience. And for the record, I own at least one
of each card and I have installed and tested all the drivers personally.
Most people who post to threads like this don't know WTF they are
talking about and/or haven't tried the other cards.
Bobby Krimen
In article <4lv40q$n...@nntp.crl.com>,
>> The Matrox does not work correctly with WC IV (Movies), Terminator
>> Future Shock (strange coloration changes) or Descent (800x600 mode is
>> scrambled).
>>
>
>I have a Matrox OEM 2mb WRAM.
>
>1. Played T:FS all the way through, never saw any problems.
>
>2. 800x600 mode is NOT PLAYABLE in Descent without a P5-200 or higher, and even
>then it looks like crap IMO because the 3D models are not detailed enough. I
>don't think this is a big deal.
>
>3. Don't have WC 4, that may be true.
I can vouch for WC 4...I have a Matrox 2 Meg OEM as well and it ran fine
all the way through..
%%REALNAME%%
The Matrox Millenium is a bitchin' card and it works with WC IV, EF2000,
Earth Siege 2, Mech Warrior 2, Ghost Bear Legend, Top Gun- just to name
of few of the games played the past several months. Windows 95 runs with
16 millon colors at 800x600 with no performance loss with 2 megs of
WRAM and DOS blazes. MPEG sucks but it's really only Softpeg. However,
you can get an MPEG upgrade for another $200 or so. Creative Labs is
supposed to have a new video card coming out that is supposed to kick
ass, have 3D capabilities and cost around $260 or so. It might be worth-
while to wait a month or two and see how this new card performs.
Good luck,
Lone Wolf
Gary Quiring
>NO WAY! The MATROX MGA MILLENIUM is the FASTEST DOS card on the
>market. The Gateway was an OEM card and not the card you buy in the
>store... The MGA MILLENIUM is the greatest.. i recommend you get it.
>Much faster than the DIAMOND in dos mode and just as fast in WINDOWS.
>Even supports 3D Acceleration. The 3D may not be the best but the DOS
>performance is. If you think DIAMOND is better for games you are
>sadly mistaken.
MATROX is faster, but is very buggy with allot of DOS games. I own
both cards and although the Diamond has a lousy WIN95 driver, it is
much more compatible with DOS games. I'm getting tired of MATROX with
their VESA bugs, upgraded my bios to 2.0 last week, and as usual
nothing was fixed.
Alan Dion
In <318366bf...@news.netlabs.net> gqui...@netlabs.net (Gary
64 2001 Graphics 2MB DRAM with a Matrox Millenium 4MB WRAM card. DOS
games run perfectly...every one. I never got a VESA error. I haven't
found a game yet which presents any problem and I run the most
demanding software. I'd like to know what games you have a problem
with.
Alan
Phil
Speaking as a high end user of heavily graphic dependant systems:
If you talk to the Matrox people they will tell you the Matrox does NOT
support anything below a VESA 2.x compliant program. I have experienced
NO problems with any windows program, however older NON 2.x or just non
compliant programs barf quite nicely.
Solution:
1. Don't use any program that doesn't support VESA 2.x
2. Crab to the idiot software makers who deviate from the standard
There's nothing a little research *can't* fix.
Marco Yu Chai Lee
In article <4lv4bs$n...@nntp.crl.com>, nom...@nomail.com says...
>Yes, this is true. Diamond's hardware is solid, but their drivers are just
>shit right now for Windows 95. Everyone else (ATI, Matrox) has very good
>Win95 drivers from my experience. And for the record, I own at least one
>of each card and I have installed and tested all the drivers personally.
>Most people who post to threads like this don't know WTF they are
>talking about and/or haven't tried the other cards.
and it's also rumor that the diamond's go95 util for win95 will destroy your
monitor after prolong use of it.(read it somewhere on the newsgroup, can't
remember what exactly happen to that guy.) And my monitor went defected after
just 1 month of usage. But i am not sure if it's the video card or just the
monitor... i owned ati mach64 and diamond stealth64 myself. i must say that
even ati has better win95 drivers than diamond. a friend of mine owns the
matrox and it has nice win95 drivers and so on, but he does encouter problem
with some game in dos with his matrox card.
Kenneth Petersen
Is there a solid faq, test or bench on this matter?
Martin Korndoerfer
Gary,
> The Matrox does not work correctly with WC IV
> (Movies), Terminator
> Future Shoc
The Matrox Millenium works perfectly with WC IV, using BIOS V1.9 and
2.0. Your problem must be somewhere else.
Your Terminator problem sounds like a palette snoop problem. If you have
that option in your main BIOS - turn it off.
Anyway, it's true that the VESA support of the Millenium is not 100%
bugfree. That 800x600 bug (not only in Descent but in many other games,
too, eg ProPinball) is annoying. But no game I know does REQUIRE
800x600, so it's not much of a disadvantage. There are several other
incompatibilites I found while using VBE 2 functions in my own programs.
But these functions are rarely, if ever, used in games.
On the other hand, the Millenium is the ONLY card that has VESA 2.0
implemented in its BIOS (that was UNIVBE usually does), at least as far
as I know. Duke3D Benches clearly showed that the Millenium is the
fastest card when using VESA modes (>= 640x480).
Most, if not all other cards require UNIVBE to be loaded to use the
advanced VBE 2.0 features.
UniVBE 5.1a does not support the Millenium, but 5.2 which should be out
every day now, will support it. When it's used, the VESA implementation
of the Millenium doesn't matter anyway.
CU, Martin
Gary Quiring
>> I own both the Matrox and Diamond Stealth. If games is your main
>> interest, the Diamond is a better choice. The Matrox has way too many
>> VESA bugs. I just upgraded my bios from 1.9 to 2.0 hoping it would
>> fix some of the problems - not one thing was fixed for me.
>>
>> The Matrox does not work correctly with WC IV (Movies), Terminator
>> Future Shock (strange coloration changes) or Descent (800x600 mode is
>> scrambled).
>>
>
>I have a Matrox OEM 2mb WRAM.
>
>1. Played T:FS all the way through, never saw any problems.
The problem is minor but is there. Play the game with something other
than Matrox, then with Matrox. There are some minor color problems.
>2. 800x600 mode is NOT PLAYABLE in Descent without a P5-200 or higher, and even
>then it looks like crap IMO because the 3D models are not detailed enough. I
>don't think this is a big deal.
It has nothing to do with the speed of your computer. Decent 2 does
not play at all in 800x600. This is a know problem with the Matrox.
>3. Don't have WC 4, that may be true.
>
>I have seen very few incompatibilities with this card and I play a shitload
>of games.
>
>> The Diamond works well with all the games but it's Win95 drivers are
>> not very good. Matrox is faster, but if does not work what good is
>> it?
>
>The Matrox works FINE. My girlfriend's computer has a Diamond Stealth 64 VRAM
>3240 and I'd like to emphasize how *terrible* the Win95 drivers are for the
>Stealth-- they are really, really poor. I can't even play MechWarrior 2 for
>Win95 on her machine. And that's with the 3/26 drivers! Diamond drivers
>suck raw eggs.
No argument there, Win 95 drivers for Diamond stink. Bug if your a
gamer, Diamond is more compatible. I have both, Matrox has yet to
straighten out their VESA bugs.
Mike Whitacre
Gary Quiring wrote:
> >> The Matrox does not work correctly with WC IV (Movies),
Wrong! WCIV movies and game work fine with the matrox.
Mike
john tso
Alan Dion (alan...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <318366bf...@news.netlabs.net> gqui...@netlabs.net (Gary
: Quiring) writes:
: >
: >>NO WAY! The MATROX MGA MILLENIUM is the FASTEST DOS card on the
: >>market. The Gateway was an OEM card and not the card you buy in the
: >>store... The MGA MILLENIUM is the greatest.. i recommend you get it.
: >>Much faster than the DIAMOND in dos mode and just as fast in WINDOWS.
: >>Even supports 3D Acceleration. The 3D may not be the best but the
: DOS
: >>performance is. If you think DIAMOND is better for games you are
: >>sadly mistaken.
: >MATROX is faster, but is very buggy with allot of DOS games. I own
: >both cards and although the Diamond has a lousy WIN95 driver, it is
: >much more compatible with DOS games. I'm getting tired of MATROX with
: >their VESA bugs, upgraded my bios to 2.0 last week, and as usual
: >nothing was fixed.
: >
: I'm not sure what the problem is. I replaced an OEM Diamond Stealth
: 64 2001 Graphics 2MB DRAM with a Matrox Millenium 4MB WRAM card. DOS
: games run perfectly...every one. I never got a VESA error. I haven't
: found a game yet which presents any problem and I run the most
: demanding software. I'd like to know what games you have a problem
: with.
: Alan
fighter duel! the installation program will not support the Matrox vesa
bios and incorrectly identifies a card. My Matrox is a retail version
and has 4 megs of ram, but the installation says it is an Oak
technologies card with only 512 k of ram.
john tso
Gary Quiring (gqui...@netlabs.net) wrote:
: On 22 Apr 1996 15:30:37 GMT, bl...@bf.rmit.edu.au (Bernie Lee) wrote:
: >Would anyone care to tell me which is a better buy? The MGA 2 MB WRAM or
: >the Diamond Stealth 2 MB VRAM? The Stealth is slightly cheaper here but
: >price difference between the two isn't a matter.
: >
: >I've almost reached a decision and it's the Matrox. I'll be using it
: >mostly for games. Thanks.
: I own both the Matrox and Diamond Stealth. If games is your main
: interest, the Diamond is a better choice. The Matrox has way too many
: VESA bugs. I just upgraded my bios from 1.9 to 2.0 hoping it would
: fix some of the problems - not one thing was fixed for me.
: The Matrox does not work correctly with WC IV (Movies), Terminator
: Future Shock (strange coloration changes) or Descent (800x600 mode is
: scrambled).
: The Diamond works well with all the games but it's Win95 drivers are
: not very good. Matrox is faster, but if does not work what good is
: it?
: Gary
:
I own a Matrox Millenium and only decided on purchasing it after some
serious research into the cards available at the time. Although the
Stealth 3D cards were out at the time, they were not as highly rated as
the Natrox card. I also talked to the salespeople who sold me the
system, ( who also happen to be old friends of mine) and they recommended
the Matrox over the Diamond as well..
As for Vesa support, I admit that it's not the greatest, and that i have
problems configuring it for some games, but not many. WC4 and Descent 2
reallly fly on high res modes and i haven't had any major problems with
it. I would definitely recommend it to anyone looking to buy a new video
card...
PS. When i bought mine, i had to wait an extra 3 weeks for my system,
because the cards were so popular that they were really hard to find.
Gary Quiring
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 12:11:42 -0500, Mike Whitacre
<whit...@onramp.net> wrote:
>Gary Quiring wrote:
>
>> >> The Matrox does not work correctly with WC IV (Movies),
>
>Wrong! WCIV movies and game work fine with the matrox.
>
It may work for you but I know two other people besides myself that
have the EXACT same problem. Also follow the group flight-sim,
there's plenty of unhappy Matrox owners.
Gary Quiring
>Speaking as a high end user of heavily graphic dependant systems:
>
>If you talk to the Matrox people they will tell you the Matrox does NOT
>support anything below a VESA 2.x compliant program. I have experienced
>NO problems with any windows program, however older NON 2.x or just non
>compliant programs barf quite nicely.
>
>Solution:
>
>1. Don't use any program that doesn't support VESA 2.x
>
>2. Crab to the idiot software makers who deviate from the standard
>
>There's nothing a little research *can't* fix.
I have never seen a game box indicate what VESA level it was developed
for. It's a crap shot, buy the game and hope for the best. It's just
amazing that a game like Descent II won't work in the 800x600 mode
with Matrox.
Michael Whitacre
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 12:11:42 -0500, Mike Whitacre
> <whit...@onramp.net> wrote:
> >> >> The Matrox does not work correctly with WC IV (Movies),
> >
> >Wrong! WCIV movies and game work fine with the matrox.
Gary Quiring wrote:
> It may work for you but I know two other people besides myself that
> have the EXACT same problem. Also follow the group flight-sim,
> there's plenty of unhappy Matrox owners.
There maybe some unhappy matrox people, but there are plenty of happy
ones. I for one. As far as flight sims, ef2000 for example runs fine on
my millenium, at high detail and with the virtual cockpit on, I have no
problems at all.
If your having problems with the matox mill.. try looking at the rest of
your systems components.
Mike
Kin Chu
In article <4lv40q$n...@nntp.crl.com>,
Smoke Crack and Worship Satan <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
>In article <3182ccaf...@news.netlabs.net>, gqui...@netlabs.net (Gary
>>
>> On 22 Apr 1996 15:30:37 GMT, bl...@bf.rmit.edu.au (Bernie Lee) wrote:
>>
>> >Would anyone care to tell me which is a better buy? The MGA 2 MB WRAM or
>> >the Diamond Stealth 2 MB VRAM? The Stealth is slightly cheaper here but
>> >price difference between the two isn't a matter.
>> >
>> >I've almost reached a decision and it's the Matrox. I'll be using it
>> >mostly for games. Thanks.
>>
>> I own both the Matrox and Diamond Stealth. If games is your main
>> interest, the Diamond is a better choice. The Matrox has way too many
>> VESA bugs. I just upgraded my bios from 1.9 to 2.0 hoping it would
>> fix some of the problems - not one thing was fixed for me.
>>
>> Future Shock (strange coloration changes) or Descent (800x600 mode is
>> scrambled).
>>
>
>
>1. Played T:FS all the way through, never saw any problems.
>
>then it looks like crap IMO because the 3D models are not detailed enough. I
>don't think this is a big deal.
>
>
>I have seen very few incompatibilities with this card and I play a shitload
>of games.
>
>> not very good. Matrox is faster, but if does not work what good is
>> it?
>
>The Matrox works FINE. My girlfriend's computer has a Diamond Stealth 64 VRAM
>3240 and I'd like to emphasize how *terrible* the Win95 drivers are for the
>Stealth-- they are really, really poor. I can't even play MechWarrior 2 for
>Win95 on her machine. And that's with the 3/26 drivers! Diamond drivers
>suck raw eggs.
>
>Matrox, OTOH, has kick-ass Win95 drivers that are the fastest on the market
>so far.
Diamond's GT241 Win95 driver for Diamond Stealth Video 3xx0 Vram is really
sucks. Consider that before you buy Diamond's product!!!
I have Matrox too, and it does has a lot of problems running SVGA games in
Dos!!
My suggestion is to wait for new cards base on S3virge accelerator.
LookingG
Sorry, but the Hercules Stingray 64 Video Pro is the fastest DOS card on
the planet. We've tested it and it consistently beats the Millenium.
Dave Glue
On 9 May 1996 01:01:03 GMT, nom...@nomail.com (Smoke Crack and Worship
Satan) wrote:
>> Sorry, but the Hercules Stingray 64 Video Pro is the fastest DOS card on
>> the planet. We've tested it and it consistently beats the Millenium.
>
>Very true; but most users don't spend 100% of their time in DOS playing
>games. That's why the Millenium's combination of very good DOS
>performance and close-to-fastest-if-not-fastest Win95 performance
>is compelling.
_rant mode on- warning!_
And most people do _what_ in Win95 that demands 24-bit colour at
1600*1200 to absolutely blaze? Is your productivity really hampered
in Win95 with a Stingray? Hardly, dialog boxes and menu's still fly
open. I really don't think people THINK about hardware purchases that
much, I see so many people hyping the Millennium, and I see so many
bug reports. It has the best Wintach/Winbench numbers. So what? HOW
much better? How much of a difference does it make if your pull-down
menu drops down in .1 seconds instead of .2?
Even for large graphics apps, scrolling and window speed is not your
problem, processor time is for things like Photoshop and Fractal
Design Painter performing complex filters. The fact is, virtually all
low-end accelerators can run Win95 very well, even in "full drag" mode
with 16-bit colour. Benchmarks, schmenkmarks. I can tell a 5fps
difference in a DOS game- I can't tell that much of a difference
(percentage wise) with two graphics cards. The Millennium is twice as
much as other cards while seemingly offering great benchmark numbers-
how this translates into the real world, I don't know- most benchmarks
don't.
The point is, people should really look at what the do with their
machines. A 1 meg dram-based PCI video accelerator with a
Tseng/Ark/S3 chip will still be very fast in Windows for the vast
majority of tasks people need to use it for, and very fast in DOS as
well.
Smoke Crack and Worship Satan
In article <4ms4pq$g...@steel.interlog.com>, dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue)
wrote:
> From: dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue)
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
> Subject: Re: Matrox Millennium or Diamond Stealth
> Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 09:57:22 GMT
> Organization: InterLog Internet Services
>
> On 9 May 1996 01:01:03 GMT, nom...@nomail.com (Smoke Crack and Worship
> Satan) wrote:
>
>
> >> Sorry, but the Hercules Stingray 64 Video Pro is the fastest DOS card on
> >> the planet. We've tested it and it consistently beats the Millenium.
> >
> >Very true; but most users don't spend 100% of their time in DOS playing
> >games. That's why the Millenium's combination of very good DOS
> >performance and close-to-fastest-if-not-fastest Win95 performance
> >is compelling.
>
> _rant mode on- warning!_
>
>
> And most people do _what_ in Win95 that demands 24-bit colour at
> 1600*1200 to absolutely blaze? Is your productivity really hampered
> in Win95 with a Stingray? Hardly, dialog boxes and menu's still fly
> open.
Dude. You are talking to the guy who likes 45+fps in Duke3D. Win95
video speed may not matter to everyone, but then DOS game speed
may not matter to everyone either. What exactly is your point?
Here is my take on this.
Premise #1:
256 color mode is inadequate for today's apps. If you don't
believe that, fire up (your favorite browser) and start
surfing the net in 256 color mode. Enjoying those awesome
palette transitions? Now try it in 16-bit color mode. Ahhhh.
Much better.
Premise #2:
800x600 or 1024x768 is the realistic minimum for most users
who give a crap about their computer and use a GUI.
If you accept premise #1 and #2, you are running your
video card at 800x600 at 16 bit color or higher. At these
video modes, VIDEO CARD SPEED COMES INTO PLAY. Sure, a cheesy
trident PCI video card is fine at 640x480x8bpp, but it's
a totally different story at 800x600x16bpp!
So don't throw around silly numbers like 1600x1200x24bpp.
Video card speed comes into play at the resolutions most
users who give a crap about using their computer will use;
namely, 800x600x16bpp or higher. I personally run
1024x768x16bpp, and the Matrox could be faster than it is
right now if I had my druthers. It's very good, but it's
not instantaneous-- that's what it *should* be. You
should *never* be able to see any "partially painted"
windows.
And yeah, I might be able to get that at 640x480x8bpp.
But who wants to *use* a computer at that resolution?