I agree that HDA does well in SysBench DIVE measurements. I have run SNAP measurements for a long time, and unless the graphics card is 15 years old, they are never far from Panorama. For some systems, there are performance issues with SNAP, but the Arca Noae version seems to solve them. I've gotten used to all the goodies that come with Panorama, so I don't give SNAP much attention.
Forgive me if I'm being naive or dense, I'm not an OS/2 expert at all. From what I've picked up so far in this thread is:
- On "modern" graphics, SNAP and Panorama are about equal in performance
- DIVE seems to always been faster than PM
- In SM/FF/TB, Panorama with shadow buffers enabled disables DIVE
- Disabling shadow buffers in Panorama lowers PM performance, I believe?
So if Panorama has a tradeoff of either slower SM/FF/TB by preventing the use of DIVE or slower everything else in the disabling of the shadow buffer and SNAP *doesn't* have this issue as far as I can tell, then how in Panorama superior to SNAP on modern cards?