XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by Derek Koni » Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:48:31



I've used the Creator3D, Elite3D, and even an Expert3D-Lite, and they
all have one thing in common... Absolutely pathetic and frustrating 2D
graphics performance. (something the PC world hasn't seen since the
creation of the ATI Mach64) Not sure whether its the hardware or the
drivers (thankfully the SunRay graphics is much better, even if its just a
thin client).
Anyways, I recently bought a TechSource Raptor GFX-750 (32-bit PCI
2D-only card /w DVI). Performance-wise, it blows any Sun card I've used
out of the water. 2D performance is actually respectable. However, there
are some weird bugs with it on my Solaris 10 machine that can make it
unusable. (certain GUI operations, after enough repetition, cause
run-away Xsun CPU load) As such, I'm seriously considering returning it
before the 30-day window is up.
As such, I need something that can decently do 1600x1200, and has
decent 2D performance (3D is nice too, of course). As it has DVI, and all
the bells and whistles, has anyone here used the Sun XVR-1000 (the last
great UPA card)? I know its primarily a 3D card, but how does it compare
at basic 2D stuff in X? (for some reason, Sun cards can get ok
performance when using OpenGL or other special APIs, but never seem to
pass muster at basic X11 stuff) As an asside, I know it isn't DVI, but
I'm also curious at how XVR-500 compares.

Thanks.

-Derek < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by dol » Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:57:35

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,




I am using 2xXVR-500 righ now and they perform decent. They should
be about twice as fast as Expert-3D lite.

If you put them in a 33MHz/32 bit slot they will surely perform bad
for advaced 2d.

However I would try the XVR-600 in your shoes.

/wfr
Fredrik


--
Fredrik Lundholm
dol @ ce.chalmers.se

 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by Derek Koni » Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:36:30

> However I would try the XVR-600 in your shoes.
Except for someone who sees eBay as a desirable method of purchasing this
stuff, that's a much more expensive (and unaffordable) option ;)
The XVR-1000 isn't cheap either, but compared to what I already spent on
the GFX-750 (and would get back if I returned it), the difference is
stomachable.

Still sad that a 32-bit/33MHz PCI card from a 3rd party can vastly
outperform any 64-bit PCI or UPA Sun card I've ever used at 2D. (where I
listed my past experiences in the parent)

-Derek
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by Michael La » Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:16:30

HI,


I still don't get if you need a UPA or a PCI card, you have XVR-1200 on
PCI aswell?

XVR-500 is not expensive, you get a number of these for one XVR-1000!

http://www.yqcomputer.com/


/michael
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by Derek Koni » Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:13:59

> I still don't get if you need a UPA or a PCI card, you have XVR-1200 on

Either would work, as my machine does have UPA slots (SB1000). However, a
DVI connector for the display is always preferable. (since it is a
1600x1200 LCD).

The question I'm really trying to answer, can't seem to get a straight
answer on is...

Question: How does the XVR-1000 compare, in terms of basic 2D X performance?
For comparison, all the Sun cards I've used that support this resolution
(Creator3D, Expert3D-Lite) have piss-poor embarassing 2D performance.
(comperably speaking, with relation to PC graphics cards since PCI was
developed)
On the flip side, despite the wierd driver problems I'm having, and despite
*ONLY* being a 32-bit/33MHz PCI card, the TechSource Raptor GFX-750 has
good 2D performance, to the level one would expect to see in any video card
produced in recent years. (and these bugs are really the only reason I'm
considering other options, since TS likely doesn't yet have enough
customers on Solaris 10 to see complaints from anyone but me)

-Derek
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by x » Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:25:06


XVR-1000 is more tuned to 3D and even multisample 3D rendering.
This actually puts a greater burdun on 2D operations since it actually
has to move more bitplanes (for things like window scrolling)
since it "might" be a 3D window. XVR-1000 had up to 108 bits/pixel
if I recall correctly, and that's just single sample mode.

Someone already suggested the XVR-600.
Thats a next generation XVR-500.
The 1200 is a dual head, and a faster clocked, XVR-600 (same chipset).


But what I'd suggest for 2D performance is the lowly XVR-100.
This has DVI (one of the 2 ports).
It's 2D only (3D in software), but that will make it faster for 2D.
If you run it in 8-bit mode (not -fake8 wihich is 8->24 emulated)
it should be even faster yet.
Downside: it only shows the "console" (used at bootup) on the
VGA port. So if something really goes wrong during bootup,
you won't see it unless a second analog monitor is attached.
Some of the lesser used 2D operations are not accelerated
as much as the other cards, but the "normal" ones should be fast.
Plus, it's cheaper.
It will probably work fine at 1600x1200 if you use a short (2-3m)
good quality DVI cable. Use the SUNW_DIG_1280x1024x60 res,
which has a slower clock, and is designed for flatpanels.
I don't think Sun will guarantee this res will work on the XVR-100
since a few test patterns showed a few bad (off color or flashing)
pixels, but I've rarely seen this in "normal" images.
And the other 1.9999 milion are perfect. Good enough for me ,,,

XVR-600 is the lowest card that I believe will officially
support 1600x1200 over DVI.
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by Martin Pau » Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:04:39


Yes, that's really annoying. Therefore I prefer to buy TFTs
with two inputs (esp. NEC, where both inputs accept analog or
digital signals), and connect both the VGA and DVI-D port of
the XVR-100.


My NEC2180UX was automatically detected (using VESA_STD_1600x1200x60).
The image is perfectly stable (and I'm quite picky about that).

As for the OPs question about 2D performance, I can't comment on that.
For my usage (in CDE) it never felt slow.

mp.
--
Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by dol » Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:42:56

In article <42e8d7e7$0$11868$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,



Well in my tests the XVR-500 felt plenty faster than the XVR-100.
Both fore pure desktop work and watching an occational mpg-file.

/wfr
Fredrik


--
Fredrik Lundholm
dol @ ce.chalmers.se
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by Michael La » Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:21:55

HI,



I have replaced the XVR-100 on my Blade-2500(silver) with a XVR-500 for
2D EDA waveform display, and it works much better.

I would say that a XVR-100 is almost the same as a Sunray(SRSS) on the
2x1.6GHz Blade, but the XVR-500 on the console is much better so I use
the console for heavy waveforms but the Sunray for daily use.

/michael
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by Derek Koni » Sat, 30 Jul 2005 04:58:17

> I have replaced the XVR-100 on my Blade-2500(silver) with a XVR-500 for 2D

The big problem I'd have with the XVR-500 is that it appears to have a VGA
connector, and I'm using an LCD at 1600x1200@60Hz. Of course the quality
there depends a lot on the signal quality of the card. The Expert3D-Lite
has horrible signal quality when displaying on the LCD over VGA. However,
the Creator3D has very good signal quality and really didn't leave me
wanting for DVI. (though I will also admit that anti-aliasing /w
sub-pixel hinting works MUCH better over DVI)

Makes me wish I could just "go somewhere, sit in front of machines with
these cards, and do some GUI stuff".

-Derek
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by Michael La » Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:40:50

HI,


That is about 120 MHz which should work fine on a modern display and
adapter without the 13W3 connector, but a 13W3 is superior.

Of course the
How is that verified, or what is the treshhold for beeing "horrible"?
:)


Have you a professional quality VGA cable when testing or a PC quality
VGA cable?


/michael
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by Derek Koni » Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:08:48

> Have you a professional quality VGA cable when testing or a PC quality

I used the same exact cables with the Creator3D and the Expert3D-Lite to
hook them to my LCD. Said cables were shielded with ferrite blocks (not
that unshielded *** commonly sold as "VGA extension cables"). By "poor
signal quality", on the Expert3D-Lite, I'm referring to what looks like
wavy interference (and a generally slightly fuzzier-looking picture
overall). Using even better cables that I had with the Creator3D reduces
said signal issues slightly, but they are still quite noticible. (when you
look close at a large solid-color area, or a large and bright multi-color
picture)

-Derek
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by x » Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:55:01


If this is on the LCD display (in analog mode), make sure you recalibrate
the monitor every time you change a resolution, card, or cable.
There is usually an "auto adjust" feature on the monitor for this.
Check your monitor manual.
This makes sure the monitor samples the analog signal exactly
in the center of every pixel, as it resamples the signal
If it's not calibrated right, it will sample between pixels
and you get horrible noise. It needs to be redone any
time you change anything in the system.


VGA connectors suck at high frequency.
Glorified RS-232 serial connectors.
1600x1200x60 should be marginal (60Hz preferred for LCD's).
1600x1200x72 will likely have poor results.
Make sure to have a good VGA cable.
Many of these are really bad, but it sounds like you thought of that.
13W3 is far superior, almost as good as BNC's.
The analog part of DVI (DVI-A) is quite good, too.


Sounds like people like the XVR-500 for speed.
The XVR-600 is the next rev of the chipset from 3DLabs,
and will give you DVI.
So if you can afford that, you'd get better than XVR-500 speed,
and DVI.

For both XVR-500 and XVR-600, you could try setting the "defdepth 8"
option (in Xservers, or maybe fbconfig). (then re-login)
This will run the window sysem, and most "dumb" apps in
8-bit mode, which is likely faster.
(Smart color apps, like Netscape, will still choose the non-default
24-bit visual, for quality).
 
 
 

XVR-500/1000 performance in 2D

Post by Derek Koni » Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:43:21

> If this is on the LCD display (in analog mode), make sure you recalibrate
Yes, I know. It's not a calibration issue. The Expert3D-Lite simply has
crappy signal quality. (yes, I've seen other Usenet posts mentioning this
too) The Creator3D, with a 13W3->VGA adaptor screwed onto the card, and
the same cable, has a MUCH better picture. Likely even better than I've
seen off a PC with a VGA connector to the same LCD. The C3D has
exceptionally good analog signal quality.

No. It's 2005, and I refuse to behave like 24-bit color was invented
yesterday and I just bought a ZX framebuffer.

-Derek