home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.graphics
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!news.netmbx.de!mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE!math.fu-berlin.de!ira.uka.de!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!wotan.compaq.com!twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com!twisto!edm
- From: edm@gocart.twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
- Subject: Re: 256 color faster than 16 color ...why?
- In-Reply-To: tef@acsu.buffalo.edu's message of 26 Jan 93 02: 14:12 GMT
- Message-ID: <EDM.93Jan26092520@gocart.twisto.compaq.com>
- Sender: news@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com (Netnews Account)
- Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
- References: <C1FvJp.Hw9@acsu.buffalo.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:25:20 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- >>>>> On 26 Jan 93 02:14:12 GMT, tef@acsu.buffalo.edu (Tom Frisinger) said:
- TF> Nntp-Posting-Host: lictor.acsu.buffalo.edu
-
- TF> Hello,
- TF> I've done some tests and found out that 256 is indeed much faster
- TF> than 16 color at the same resolution. Why is this? I tested
- TF> 320x200x16 vs. 320x200x256, and 640x480x16 vs. 640x480x256, and
- TF> 800x600x16 vs. 800x600x256. I figure that that covered all the
- TF> memory ranges pretty well. The 256 color out performed the 16 color
- TF> by anywhere from 10%-40%!!! The only possible explantion I can
- TF> think of is that with 256 color they can to fast byte operations on
- TF> memory vs. messing around with 4bits and shifting and all that. Is
- TF> this theory at all on the right track?
- TF> Thanks for the help.
-
- It really depends upon what sort of video card you were using and
- what sort of operations you were using to test it. Is it a PC
- based card? Does it have accelerators built in? For example, does
- it have a BitBlt engine and were you using blts to test the timing?
- Does it use a local bus or EISA/ISA?
- --
- Ed McCreary ,__o
- edm@twisto.compaq.com _-\_<,
- "If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao." (*)/'(*)
-