Author Topic: OS/2 Video Performance  (Read 1648 times)

Neil Waldhauer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 14
  • -Receive: 62
  • Posts: 755
  • Karma: +20/-0
    • View Profile
    • Blonde Guy
Re: OS/2 Video Performance
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2021, 03:47:32 pm »

And on that very point, you started this thread with a specific assumption that SNAP would not be used, and so you arrived at some results that clearly put the 'Intel HDA Graphics' in the lead...but isn't that the VERY definition of BIAS???

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.

But if you do have one of those old graphics cards that support SNAP, I agree that things are pretty rosy. I used to sell only systems with SNAP graphics accelerated support. You can count me as a fan. But with systems that only have SNAP accelerated support, I'm going to assume Arca Noae version of SNAP will be about the same as Panorama.
Expert consulting for ArcaOS, OS/2 and eComStation
http://www.blondeguy.com

jailbird

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: OS/2 Video Performance
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2021, 12:48:48 am »
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?

Dave Yeo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13
  • -Receive: 229
  • Posts: 3216
  • Karma: +62/-0
    • View Profile
Re: OS/2 Video Performance
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2021, 01:26:34 am »
I have installs with both Panorama and SNAP. I can't notice any difference on the speed of SeaMonkey in either install. Scrolling is smooth without too much CPU. This is an old I5 with Intel graphics.
The big problem with SNAP is lack of wide screen support generally though this video bios does support wide screens with SNAP, it is the only one I've come across. Currently running 1920x1200x32.