On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:36:47 -0800 (PST), Alex Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > > > ATI Technologies Inc 3D Rage IIC AGP (rev 122), 8 MB vram. > > > > > > PCI id is 1002:4757 or 1002:475a according to > > > > > > http://pciids.sourceforge.net/iii/?s=1&i=1002 > > > > ..so, on the Mesa gear demo, I should get like 1500fps on my > > > > 200MHz box and over 2000 fps once I have accelleration on my > > > > 450MHz box? > > > For comparison, my RagePro achieves about 80 on the gears testing, > > ..which RagePro? A mach64 card? > > Yes. It usually manages 7-15 fps, depending on texture swapping. > > > > not much slower than software rendering on the P3-600 processor > > > itself, while the G200 achieves about 350 in hardware rendering. > > ..and the G200 in flightgear achieves? > > About 10 fps at 1000x700; it uses 16 bit color and depth (an old > card). ..I can live with that. What size vram? 2 MB? > > > > Which one (agp) fits my 450 box the best? > > ..come to think of it, I _could_ leave it in and put in > > another, but pci card. (My only agp-slot box) Comments? > > Don't do that. Most modern chipsets use the full AGP feature set. > The PCI card is intrinsically much slower and in compatibility mode. ..ok, I might try it when I retire the box in a few years. ;-) > > > If you don't mind closed source drivers, spend money on NVidia. > > ..I'm the proponent of airworthy source code, remember? ;-) > > I'm only familiar with the performance of old cards. The Matrox G400 > is 'ok'. ...as in V fps at X x Y x Z bpp? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
