From: hwstock@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov (stockman harlan w)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: ATI Ultra Pro: Good or SUCKS????
Date: 20 Jan 93 15:52:30 GMT
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Livermore, CA

In article <_ah3djk@rpi.edu> gilem@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile) writes:
>Well, I have one too, and although it is fast, it still doesn't compare to 
>a Sun, NeXT, or RS/6000 for scrolling speed, but it is still really fast.
>I certainly could always use more speed, though, and if you are running windows
>all the time, I would suggest getting the fastest video you can!
>

I read this with chagrin; I have an "old" ATI Ultra running under both
MS-Windows and Unix / X11. To see the true performance of this card, you
really have to run it under X11, with Roell's server; it scrolls much
faster than an RS/6000, and posts an 82000 to 85000 Xstone rating--
subjectively, it buries a Next or Sun Sparc+ under X11. When we run
programs on the Suns and RS/6000, and redirect the display to my 486
with the Ultra, the display performace improves significantly over the
native machine. I guess this is as much an advertisement for X11, as an
indictment of MS-Windows.

Now, after that glowing comment, here is the message I was about to
post-- It shows that not all is happy and fun times in ATI-land.
=============CUT HERE FOR ATI WOES===================================


Help!!

The performance of my ATI Ultra+, compared to my older ATI Ultra, is
so bad that there must be something very wrong with the setup. I've
followed ATI's instructions to the letter.

The system with the Ultra+ is running 25 to 30 times slower for text
under MS-Windows. No, that's not a misprint. The quantitative basis
for this comparison is winbench 2.5; it also jives with my subjective
observations using wpwin on both cards.

The cards are in two different machines-- both are Gateway 486/33 ISA,
with identical RAM and drives. The system with the Ultra (mach 8) has
a NEC 3FGx, and the system with the Ultra+ has a Sony 1304 monitor.
The Ultra (mach 8) is using the older ATI mach 8 drivers, and the
Ultra+ is using Mach32 drivers. Oddly enough, on the Ultra+ system I
switched to the generic 8514a drivers and got a 6-fold boost in text
speed.

Both cards are set up for 1024*768. The Ultra+ is set up for 256
colors; the number of colors on the Ultra under Windows is not
explicitly stated, but it seems to be 256 (under Unix/X11, the Ultra
has 256 colors in 1024*768). Both cards have 1 MB RAM. In any
case I've tried reconfiguring the Ultra+ to fewer colors, and had no
improvement in performance-- not to mention the complete disappearence
of scroll bars, due to the buggy drivers.


I had no problems with the Sony 1304 (trinitron) setup; I picked 70 Hz
vertical from the ATI custom configuration menu, which jived with what
was in the Sony manual for 1024*768 non-interlaced. I've also configured
the system for 800*600, with no gain in performance.

The Ultra+ is set to "shared" for VGA/8514a memory, with an aperture at
12MB.

The ATI documentation is extraordinarily unhelpful -- there is no hint
as to whether an "improper" monitor setup will lower performance.

Any reasonable advice would be appreciated. The "old" Ultra was so fast-
I expected a performance boost with the new card -- what a shock!!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware