home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!taco!tmcreek
- From: tmcreek@eos.ncsu.edu (Tobin M. Creek)
- Subject: Re: Diamond Stealth vs. Speedstar 24X
- Message-ID: <1992Nov5.133433.10631@ncsu.edu>
- Originator: tmcreek@c00100-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
- Lines: 48
- Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
- Reply-To: tmcreek@eos.ncsu.edu (Tobin M. Creek)
- Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
- References: <1992Nov5.010618.1582@infonode.ingr.com> <1d9v25INN1uu@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Nov5.063332.11838@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:34:33 GMT
-
-
- In article <1992Nov5.063332.11838@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, kotsines@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (KOTSINES THOMAS ANT) writes:
- >>|> I am preparing for a 486DX-33 purchase soon and had been planning to
- >>|> purchase a Diamond Stealth card. One of the few vendors I'm
- >>|> considering said that their standard card is now the Diamond Speedstar
- >>|> 24X which, according to the sales person, is better than the Stealth
- >>|> and is supposedly phasing out the Stealth. However, I thought I had
- >>|> read/heard somewhere that the 24X was in fact a lower-end card with
- >>|> less performance than the Stealth. If you can help me set the record
- >>|> straight on this, please e-mail me or post a follow-up.
- >
- >>But the reason its not so good (and being phased out as you say) is because it has no end
- >>of problems with applications other than windows.
- >>
- >>640x480 in 16.7 million colors
- >>800x600 in 32k colors and
- >>1024x768 in 256 colors.
- >>
- >>Its not billed as being as fast in windows as the stealth but I'd have a hard time beleiving
- >>that its unreasonably slow. Its performance in DOS and in other apps is (from what I've heard)
- >>as good or better than the stealth.
- >>
- >>Not that the 24x is glitch free, but my understanding is that the card out-performs the stealth
- >>in almost every area. Plus its cheaper.
- >>
- >
- >I have a Stealth and haven't experienced any problems either in windows or in
- >any other application, and I do run many a variety of applications including
- >autocad, auto3d. In addition, I can use 1280x1024 resolution for many of
- >my apps, which is always nice. Considering that most people will be using
- >their card at the highest resolution possible most of the time (or at least
- >the second highest), I would say a Stealth would be a much better choice if
- >for only the speed. I would die with 640x480 resolution even if it did
- >have 16.7 million colors!
- >
-
- I looked at the Stealth, and S3's attitude about OS/2 didn't impress me. As
- best I can tell, it is being marketed as a Windows tool, almost exclusively.
- I am hard pressed to find a place that mentions any of the other drivers that
- come with the Stealth. Even with several million copies out there, S3 says
- they won't write for OS/2. WD will. Where will my money go?
-
- I am happy with my 24x. VGA modes (no drivers) are about 2x as fast as they
- used to be, and I reinstalled Windows just to see the drivers run. Plus, it
- was cheaper by a non-trivial margin. If you run a lot of standard VGA apps
- (games, programs with no Stealth drivers) then get a Speedstar. I think that
- it is just a little better rounded as an SVGA card. If you work in Windows
- a lot, give the Stealth a look. It certainly is faster there.
-