win3x
« Post Reply »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Feb 22nd, 2018, 10:28pm



Post Message
Name:
Subject:
Message icon: Standard
Add tags:
Add Smileys:
Message:

Characters Remaining:

Security Check:
A combination of letters and numbers. All letters are in upper case.



Disable Smilies: Check this if you'll be adding code (or don't like smilies).
shortcuts (IE and NS6 only): hit alt+s to send, alt+p to preview, or alt+r to reset


Topic Summary
Posted by: watler Posted on: Aug 6th, 2017, 10:23pm
I wrote this program to compare usable windows display throughput.

Both a win16 and a win32s version are included.
http://turkeys4me.byethost4.com/programs/TIMEBLT.zip


Can a windows 3.x computer draw large bitmaps at 60FPS? huh
Posted by: deomsh Posted on: Jan 12th, 2018, 6:12pm
I tested the WIN16-version. I am not sure if the program works for me.

Image is traveling from upper left to lower right en leave colored band behind (no refresh). Exception is the rectangle.

Values: draw=283; copynect=268; bitblt=268; stretchblt=268; brushcopy=26; rects=2. In a second tests values vary max. 10% (except for the last test).

Can you explain a bit what the program is supposed to test?
Posted by: watler Posted on: Jan 12th, 2018, 7:57pm
I wanted to compare the video cards of my computers from the viewpoint of my software.
Since the majority of my programs are written in pascal, I figured that I needed a benchmark made with the same language.

This program compares the basic methods that windows uses to display image data.
Each method is tested for the same period of time and then the number of cycles completed is displayed in the title bar.

The names listed on the menu are the names of functions that windows programs use to display images.

Since a few windows 3.1 display cards were said to support polygon acceleration,
I made the last option "rects" display the given image using rectangles.

You can compare your display card's maximum speed with its maximum bandwidth by using different image sizes.

Polygons appear to be your weak point.
Deomsh, I fear that run time polygonal 3d image rendering is not an option with that setup.

Using standard image functions, you were able to paint that image over two hundred times per second.
What type of hardware did you use to make the test?
What were the *.bmp image dimensions?



I tested a 139x139 image on a few video cards that have windows 3.1 driver support.
(16-bits(64k) high color)
SIS 530 onboard :586,577,577,624,81,6
Intel 82810 onboard:1325,1266,1262,1269,79,3
TNT2 M64 8808:1367,1452,1375,1376,719,9


The generic windows 3.1 drivers will work with many cards. (139x139 image)
VGA (Radeon 9250 AGP :755,756,757,799,112,6)
SVGA256 (Radeon 9250 AGP :2779,2658,2656,2805,85,3)


Posted by: deomsh Posted on: Jan 13th, 2018, 6:39pm
My specs are: Chipset: AMD SB710; Processor: FX-6300; Memory: DDR3/1600; Video: Geforce 7950 GT PCIe; Monitor: Samsung Syncmaster 245B (1920x1200).

Driver=VGA 640x400 16-Bits

Could'nt find another driver, SVGA didn't work for me. Neither the patched version (My monitor is not VESA-compatible if I am right).

I repeated the test with a known file:

Test
BMP: 640x400 16 colors in a window (gives "small" image)
draw 296
copyrect 288
bitblt 289
stretchblt 289
brushcopy 15
rects 2

BMP: 640x400 16 colors in a maximized window (gives full image)
draw 135
copyrect 136
bitblt 149
stretchblt 137
brushcopy 9
rects 2


In the maximized windows the image is not moving.

I noticed your new tests, these are my results with the same size BMP.

BMP: 139x139 16 colors in a window (small image)
draw 799
copyrect 801
bitblt 801
stretchblt 840
brushcopy 79
rects 4

BMP: 139x139 16 colors maximized windows (full image)
draw 695
copyrect 696
bitblt 697
stretchblt 697
brushcopy 85
rects 4
Posted by: watler Posted on: Jan 13th, 2018, 9:42pm
Thanks for sharing your hardware info.
Your computer handles VGA mode very well. cool

I had noticed that some cards do not support Super VGA 800x600 16-color mode.
However, Don't confuse the default windows 3.1 16-color supervga driver
with the newer SVGA 256-color driver.

I was told that the svga256 VESA patch uses fixed VESA numbers.
If you know what VESA modes your card supports and the VESA index numbers that your card uses( http://win3x.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=Pascal&action=display&num=1515449387),
you can compare them with the modes that the VESA patch uses.

If the 640x480 setting does not work, you might try 800x600 or larger.
SVGA256.drv keeps its settings in the system.ini file.

I've not tested a Geforce 7950 GT with win9x.
Does windows 98 break the limits of this program?

Posted by: deomsh Posted on: Jan 14th, 2018, 3:42pm
I did the requested test.

Test Windows 98SE; Driver Nvidia 82.69; 32M colors

BMP: 640x400 16 colors; in a window (image/traces fills up window)
draw 38055
copyrect 45857
bitblt 42609
stretchblt 42772
brushcopy 1592 (second test 1589)
rects 2

BMP: 640x400 16 colors; window maximized (image doesn't fill up window)
draw 39843
copyrect 43596
bitblt 42565
stretchblt 42677
brushcopy 2 (tested twice!)
rects 2


BMP: 139x139 16 colors; in a window (image/traces doesn't fill up window)
draw 38015
copyrect 45653
bitblt 42633
stretchblt 42398
brushcopy 4028
rects 4

BMP: 139x139 16 colors; window maximized (image/traces doesn't fill up window)
draw 37874
copyrect 43491
bitblt 45043
stretchblt 42818
brushcopy 3991 (second test 4011)
rects 4

BMP: 1920x1200 16,7M colors; in a small window (part of image/traces fill up window)
Test=timeall
draw 39848
copyrect 42985
bitblt 42033
stretchblt 42267
brushcopy 176
rects 2 (took a very long time!)

BMP: 1920x1200 16,7M colors; window maximized (image/traces almost fill up window)
Test=time (seperate)
draw 41721
copyrect 41799
bitblt 32337
stretchblt 41208 (lowest=11854 in various tests also after close&reopen TimeBlt)
brushcopy 139 (lowest=4 in various tests also after close&reopen TimeBlt)
rects 4 (took a very long time!)

Except "rect" images seems to move extremely fast. huh
Posted by: watler Posted on: Jan 14th, 2018, 5:34pm
Thank you ,deomsh.
That looks like a real Bus Master. grin

As an image is loaded into a device context, it is translated to the format of the current display driver.
This means that all tests are actually in the bit format of the current display driver and not of the *.bmp format.

Any part of the image not displayed on screen was not handled by the graphics card.


The windows 3.1 VGA driver does not look quite right on a Geforce GT430 and
the AGP Radeon x1600 XGE will not display colors properly when in 256 color mode.
Are all the modes of your 7950GT working properly?


Do the win98 Geforce drivers respond properly to win16 direct hardware access?
http://win3x.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=Pascal&action=display&num=1515449387
Posted by: deomsh Posted on: Jan 21st, 2018, 1:15pm
I tested TIMEBLT on S3 TRIO64v+/Monitor Medion 15.

Windows 3.1
Tests: S3 Trio64v+; Driver VGA
VGA picture: 139x139: (302;288;301;288; 34;4) Window
VGA picture: 139x139: (302;288;301;288; 34;4)

S3 Driver version 1.70.04
640x480 256 colors; picture: 139x139: (769;806;769;806;274;5) Window
640x480 256 colors; picture: 139x139: (698;661;662;662;228;5) Maximized
640x480 32K colors; picture: 139x139: (383;403;382;383;109;4) Window
640x480 32K colors; picture: 139x139: (346;366;346;347;109;4) Maximized
640x480 64K colors; picture: 139x139: (383;383;382;383;115;4) Window
640x480 64K colors; picture: 139x139: (346;366;346;347;109;4) Maximized
800x600 256 colors; picture: 139x139: (807;809;846;808;259;5) Window
800x600 256 colors; picture: 139x139: (660;699;662;661;212;5) Maximized
800x600 32K colors; picture: 139x139: (415;395;395;396;102;4) Window
800x600 32K colors; picture: 139x139: (365;347;346;346;109;4) Maximized
1024x768 256 colors; picture: 139x139: (808;808;846;808;193;5) Window
1024x768 256 colors; picture: 139x139: (660;662;662;662;193;5) Maximized

Other driver-modes are not possible, my card has not enough memory. embarassed
Posted by: watler Posted on: Jan 23rd, 2018, 6:11pm
That should be plenty of memory.
On PCI, larger screen sizes are rather slow.

http://www.bitsavers.org/components/s3/Trio64V+_Integrated_Graphics_Video_Accelerator_Jul95.pdf


Is your 7950GT onboard or a separate PCIE card?
I noticed that my PCIE Geforce 8400gs does random goofy things depending on what motherboard it is on.

On one computer, the 8400gs prevents windows 98 from starting.
On another board, the 8400gs prevents windows 3.1 Enhanced Mode from starting. angry

Did you test the windows 3.1 SVGA256 driver on your 7950GT under protected mode?
Posted by: deomsh Posted on: Jan 24th, 2018, 5:25pm
Thanks a lot for the Trio64+ link. I had heard about this special "Scenic Highway" feature with some special hardware. Must have been really great.

I also found a S3 Virge (325) in my old hardware box, but the Windows 3.1 driver from te S3 legacy drivers don't install. Any ideas?

http://web.archive.org/web/20171028000548/http://www.s3graphics.com/en/drivers/legacy_software_archive.aspx

I have never used cards above Geforce 7xxx, but on my wifes computer (ATI HD 4350) I can start Windows 3.1 only in standard mode.

My Geforce 7950GT 512 MB is a PCIe-card (not onboard) and Windows 3.1/98SE always started, although there have been always some instability too.

In Windows 98SE there is only one -modded- driver (82.69), Shutdown is not fully working, Restart in MS-DOS is not possible and full screen MS-DOS works bad. Only a black screen, although I found out that with two times Alt+Enter the cursor is back again. smiley

In Windows 3.1 I succeeded at last with the SVGA driver you mentioned, but there is some instability too. Only full screen MS-DOS and no possibility to exit normally, gives a fully scrumbled image.

I also did some tests with the 7950GT (monitor: SyncMaster 245B 1920x1200):

Windows 3.1 SVGA 800x600 256 colors 139x139: (2065;2193;2090;2088;57;2)
Windows 3.1 SVGA 800x600 256 colors 640x400: (647;659;659;660;10;2)
Windows 3.1 SVGA 1024x768 256 colors 139x139: (1958;1992;1989;1992;61;2)
Windows 3.1 SVGA 1024x768 256 colors 640x400: (596;603;637;604;9;2) (small window)
Windows 3.1 SVGA 1024x768 256 colors 640x400: (195;195;206;195;6;2) (window maximized)
Windows 3.1 SVGA 1024x768 256 colors 800x600 (=guess): (60;74;67;73;3;2) (window maximized)


Posted by: watler Posted on: Jan 24th, 2018, 6:09pm
S3 sold many versions of the Virge under many names.
I know that the PCI Virge DX,GX and VX all have Windows 3.1 drivers that work.
What brand is the card?
http://www.win31.de/edrivers.htm

The patched svga256 driver does not handle DOS boxes well.
However, it does not actually crash windows. (It just leaves you in the dark)
Did you try pressing the Dispdib button (DIBDRV8) to restore your screen?

Because the VGA driver uses 3 separate RGB color planes its speed is similar to that of a 24-bit color mode driver.
Posted by: deomsh Posted on: Jan 25th, 2018, 5:22pm
The svga256 driver performs well inside Windows 3.1, I ment that MS-DOS is only possible in full screen and that after exit Windows is unusable because of walking images on the screen, like a not good adjusted old television.

Thanks for the link, I was there already to get the driver. Somehow I managed to install the driver, maybe reinstalling Windows 3.1 with Express-install helped?

I tested the card with your programs.

Windows 3.1
Tests: S3 Virge (325); S3 Driver version 1.05.05; Monitor: Medion 15"

Vroject 1: "VESA Version: 1 2; S3 Incorporated. 86C325; ModeList 19067; Video Memory: 4096 Kb"
Vesa modes: 256-263, 265, 266, 269-282, 288

TimeBlt:
640x480 256 colors; picture: 139x139: (842;804;842;803;601;5) Window
640x480 256 colors; picture: 139x139: (732;694;695;772;535;5) Maximized
640x480 32K colors; picture: 139x139: (405;385;385;425;307;4) Window
640x480 32K colors; picture: 139x139: (349;369;349;369;287;4) Maximized
640x480 64K colors; picture: 139x139: (385;386;405;385;323;4) Window
640x480 64K colors; picture: 139x139: (349;349;369;349;288;4) Maximized
640x480 16,7M colors; picture: 139x139: (269;295;269;270;207;4) Window
640x480 16,7M colors; picture: 139x139: (233;259;233;233;198;4) Maximized
800x600 256 colors LF; picture: 139x139: (880;880;841;841;649;5) Window
800x600 256 colors LF; picture: 139x139: (728;694;695;734;530;5) Maximized
800x600 256 colors SF; picture: 139x139: (803;843;842;804;595;5) Window
800x600 256 colors SF; picture: 139x139: (734;733;695;734;530;5) Maximized
800x600 32K colors LF; picture: 139x139: (399;397;446;399;316;4) Window
800x600 32K colors LF; picture: 139x139: (368;369;349;349;285;4) Maximized
800x600 32K colors SF; picture: 139x139: (386;386;405;405;304;4) Window
800x600 32K colors SF; picture: 139x139: (349;370;350;368;270;4) Maximized
800x600 64K colors LF; picture: 139x139: (398;420;419;398;316;4) Window
800x600 64K colors LF; picture: 139x139: (349;349;369;349;299;4) Maximized
800x600 64K colors SF; picture: 139x139: (385;386;405;405;305;4) Window
800x600 64K colors SF; picture: 139x139: (349;350;388;349;270;4) Maximized
800x600 16,7M colors LF; picture: 139x139: (281;282;308;281;183;4) Window
800x600 16,7M colors LF; picture: 139x139: (233;232;246;246;177;4) Maximized
800x600 16,7M colors SF; picture: 139x139: (270;269;295;270;178;4) Window
800x600 16,7M colors SF; picture: 139x139: (246;233;233;246;177;4) Maximized
1024x768 256 colors LF; picture: 139x139: (841;840;919;841;605;5) Window
1024x768 256 colors LF; picture: 139x139: (734;695;733;695;546;5) Maximized
1024x768 256 colors SF; picture: 139x139: (804;803;805;843;583;5) Window
1024x768 256 colors SF; picture: 139x139: (734;695;734;695;549;5) Maximized
1024x768 32K colors LF; picture: 139x139: (399;445;399;398;290;4) Window
1024x768 32K colors LF; picture: 139x139: (349;349;369;349;256;4) Maximized
1024x768 32K colors SF; picture: 139x139: (406;385;386;405;291;4) Window
1024x768 32K colors SF; picture: 139x139: (349;388;349;349;257;4) Maximized
1024x768 64K colors LF; picture: 139x139: (419;398;398;420;304;4) Window
1024x768 64K colors LF; picture: 139x139: (369;349;368;349;2436;4) Maximized
1024x768 64K colors SF; picture: 139x139: (386;405;406;404;278;4) Window
1024x768 64K colors SF; picture: 139x139: (388;349;350;349;256;4) Maximized
1152x864 256 colors LF; picture: 139x139: (880;841;879;841;593;5) Window
1152x864 256 colors LF; picture: 139x139: (734;734;695;695;531;5) Maximized
1152x864 256 colors SF; picture: 139x139: (803;842;804;803;626;5) Window
1152x864 256 colors SF; picture: 139x139: (695;734;734;695;505;5) Maximized

Other modes gives monitor out of range errors (46kHz/87Hz) etc. sad

S3 ViRGE 325 Register Documentation:

http://www.vogonsdrivers.com/getfile.php?fileid=326&menustate=18,1 (the ",1" belongs to the web-address)
Posted by: watler Posted on: Jan 25th, 2018, 6:02pm
Is your Virge a DX,GX or VX?

Windows 3.11 (139x139 image):
PCI S3 Virge DX 4mb(with s3 drivers)
640x480 256 colors
2292,2388,2385,2377,5

640x480 16.7M colors
860,822,818,821,270,5

Since we are testing PCI cards, we may as well compare some newer ones.
PCI Geforce FX5200
VGA: 349,348,386,348,58,6
SVGA256: 616,616,584,583,44,2

PCI Geforce2 MX/MX 400
VGA :514,469,468,475,58,6
SVGA256 :1119,1244,1120,1119,42,2

Posted by: deomsh Posted on: Jan 26th, 2018, 02:39am
None of them, S3 Virge/325 was the first model. See:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_ViRGE

Strange that the FX5200 performs so bad.

I am running out of cards. I have no other PCI-cards, but I can test two or three other PCIe-cards. I do not longer use AGP, but I have six or seven cards lying around. I will see if I can install Windows 3.1 on an AGP-motherboard.
Posted by: watler Posted on: Jan 26th, 2018, 6:37pm
For many PCI computers, floating point math was a difficult task
Look at how slowly floating point 3D rotations work on a 486:http://turkeys4me.byethost4.com/TRI3D3.7z
Perhaps the PCI Geforce FX5200 has a good 3D engine. undecided


Are your old S3 cards compatible with Intel's 3DR?
http://win3x.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=Freeware&action=display&num=1502136717


Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls