| Title: | open3d |
| Notice: | Kits on notes 3 and 4; Documents note 223 |
| Moderator: | WRKSYS::COULTER |
| Created: | Wed Dec 09 1992 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1306 |
| Total number of notes: | 5260 |
I'm running the Windows NT 3D FlowerBox screen saver on an AlphaStation 500/266 under NT 4.0 with PowerStorm 4D60T graphics (V42-1997-04-03-V42C 3-APR-1997 driver). It's very slow as compared to an AlphaStation 200 4/166 with ZLXp-E1 graphics. Is there something that might be forcing it to use software rendering? Richard
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1304.1 | WRKSYS::CHALTAS | Intelligence is no bad thing | Tue Jun 03 1997 12:34 | 5 | |
Yep -- in general the OpenGL screen savers are written to do software
rendering, then blit to the screen. The ZLXp-E1 is a faster blitter
(and only 8 pixels deep) than the PS 4D60T (which is 128 pixels deep!)
George
| |||||
| 1304.2 | Alpha slower than Intel | RDGENG::READINGS_R | Richard Readings | Wed Jun 04 1997 14:53 | 11 |
> Yep -- in general the OpenGL screen savers are written to do software > rendering, then blit to the screen. The ZLXp-E1 is a faster blitter > (and only 8 pixels deep) than the PS 4D60T (which is 128 pixels deep!) It's a real dog on 4D40T on Alpha (500/266), but much faster on Intel (PWS 200i). ~40% CPU on Alpha, 100% on Intel. Obviously not CPU bound on Alpha, same graphics card on both platforms. What's likely to be the bottleneck on Alpha? What forces the OpenGL screen savers to do software rendering? Richard | |||||