21-Oct-2021 07:31 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 7 items in your selection
[News] Mediator + Voodoo 3 test resultsANN.lu
Posted on 04-Dec-2000 12:15 GMT by Teemu I. Yliselš7 comments
View flat
View list

Amigart have posted some test results for the Mediator with a Voodoo 3 card here.

Mediator + Voodoo 3 test results : Comment 1 of 7ANN.lu
Posted by torsten on 03-Dec-2000 23:00 GMT
This is perhaps a dumb question, but how do I read this test?
Where exactly can I see how much faster the Mediator+V3 is, compared to the BVPPC?
Mediator + Voodoo 3 test results : Comment 2 of 7ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 03-Dec-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (torsten):
The first two columns show you the BlizzardPPC test results. The rest of the columns show the Mediator + Voodoo3 results (using a variety of different accelerator cards). On each row, a certain test is preformed.. in the first row this is RectFill(). The higher the number, the better it preformed. The BlizzPPC 040/25 only managed a result of "2479". This is the lowest number in the row, so obviously, the BlizzPPC with an 040/25 is the slowest configuration for preforming the "RectFill()" command.
Hope this helps.
Mediator + Voodoo 3 test results : Comment 3 of 7ANN.lu
Posted by Mark Bowman on 03-Dec-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (torsten):
Hmm..
It doesn't suggest much real world tests such as Frames per second on a game like quakeII, Heretic etc is probably a better indication for me personally as that is what a lot of people would like to do. Artificial benchmarks like the one above really show nothing much of intrest.
Mediator + Voodoo 3 test results : Comment 4 of 7ANN.lu
Posted by Nathaniel Downes on 04-Dec-2000 23:00 GMT
One small comment:
Anyone else notice that the 68k card Appolo 060 kicked the BlizzardPPC's posterior?
Mediator + Voodoo 3 test results : Comment 5 of 7ANN.lu
Posted by Harry "Piru" Sintonen on 04-Dec-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Nathaniel Downes):
Yes, and this was excepted result.
The Apollo cards have a floating bus, ie. the cards do not follow the spec
100%, where p5/dce cards implement the bus stuff properly. The result is
that Apollo cards are faster with Mediator.
(This is how I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong.)
Anyway the PPC chip is not used by the test at all, since the CGFX is m68k
with normal system. Also the P96Speed program is m68k and not PPC. Now if
someone would port P96Speed to Morphos and run the test with PPC native CGFX,
those results could be rather interesting.
I will also run the P96Speed on my system (240MHz 603p + 060@50, pm2@97MHz)
just to be sure those results are somewhat correct... :-) Results later.
Mediator + Voodoo 3 test results : Comment 6 of 7ANN.lu
Posted by torsten on 04-Dec-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Anonymous):
Thanx. I was just confused about the names of accelerator cards in the list.
Mediator + Voodoo 3 test results : Comment 7 of 7ANN.lu
Posted by Helmut Fuchs on 05-Dec-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Harry "Piru" Sintonen):
> Anyway the PPC chip is not used by the test at all, since the CGFX is m68k
> with normal system. Also the P96Speed program is m68k and not PPC. Now if
> someone would port P96Speed to Morphos and run the test with PPC native
> CGFX, those results could be rather interesting.
I doubt that there would be much difference. Additionally it would'nt say much about the quality of the PCI-Bus connection via the mediator nor about the quality of the GFX-Card and its drivers. Which was IMHO the intention of the test.
The interesting point of this test ist IMHO not the overall performance of the systems but the relative performance against each other.
What makes my a little bit sceptic about this test is, that it was run by ELBOX itself, as you can read at Czech Amiga news or http://www.amiga.pl/press/elbox-20001202.html
Anonymous, there are 7 items in your selection
Back to Top