Can anyone identify this (apple?) nubus+pds videocard?

[swami]

Well, I ran some quick benchmarks using Mac OS 8 and Speedometer 4.02. For some reason that I cannot figure out in the limited time I have this weekend I cannot get the internal video to benchmark at 16 bits/pixel and 24 bits/pixel is not an option in the benchmark. Tattletech does not show the installed amount of videoram on both the internal video and expansion card. Internal is at maximum though and the desktop was showing at 24 bits/pixel (millions of colors). The results of the benchmark of the internal video are consistent with the included benchmark file for the Quadra 700. Just some minor differences in the second decimal which can be attributed to System version and rounding, I guess.



So, there you have it. The card is somewhat slower than the internal video. Not something to proudly present as a company when using the 'faster' bus that the new computer included I guess? Even though you would use the card as just an expansion of the usable desktop with a second monito. But you will probably get shredded by the reviewers for launching an 'inferior' card. So RasterOps, which seems to have been in financial trouble at that time probably pulled the card before entering production and this would be a developer version of the card??
Does anyone have the benchmarks of the NuBus variety (the 24Mx)?
Any thoughts on things I have forgotten/missed to do or could have done better for testing? Probably under system 7.1/7.5, but I didn't have a disk that included that version.

 

[Phipli]

The card is somewhat slower than the internal video. Not something to proudly present as a company when using the 'faster' bus that the new computer included I guess?

The built in video on quadras was faster than most expansion cards, plus expansion cards and built in Quadra graphics were good at very different things.

This card would absolutely destroy any 68k Nubus video card at QuickTime video. And probably scrolling through complex image/text documents.

Don't think of built in video as baseline - the built in is a high power truck, the fancy Nubus card is a sports car. They are both good at different things, but the PDS card will move more pixels!

Seriously the Quadra 700 graphics are excellent! Benchmark a nubus card for comparison. You're thinking of modern built in graphics where it is budget - the Quadra 700 was not budget graphics - it was the type of graphics that put card makers out of business.

Also, I tend to use Norton System Info for benchmarking. It easily shows a breakdown of what specific tasks cards are good at. Part of Norton Utilities 3 is probably age appropriate.

Norton Utilities 3.2.1 - Macintosh Garden

#1 download: This is the full installation of The Norton Utilities on Disk Copy 6 NDIF disk images. Includes the NUM Emergency Disk. #2 download: Toast image of the German version 3.2.1 of Norton Utilities that came bundled with any Macintosh bought at one of the Gravis stores.

macintoshgarden.org

 

[Phipli]

I still don't think I've been clear enough.

I have a number of accelerated Nubus cards. I don't throw Supermac Thunder IV style money at it, but I have some nice Radius accelerated cards, emachines, interware etc.

None of my cards are faster than Q700 internal video.

 

[ArmorAlley]

The thought came to mind of the HPV card in the PM x100 series.
I wonder of this what the first expression of the notion of a graphics cards from Apple that sat in the PDS slot and may very well have taken off had the internal video not been so damned good. Then Apple would have eventually said no and RasterOps developed it themselves and gone no further with it.

 

[swami]

Norton Utilities 3.0 gave the following results:

 

[Phipli]

Norton Utilities 3.0 gave the following results:View attachment 51705

In one of the menus there is an option called something like "Show more details". If you select that, an extra option appears to give a detailed breakdown comparison for each sub part of the tests.

 

[swami]

Found it! You have to enable the 'show more options' in the benchmark selector and then the button for displaying this breakdown in separate items becomes visible. Overall the numbers are lower. Some items are relatively more slower than others and one is much higher: CBits L/A. Not a clue what it means nor how that 'spike' would be possible...
Can we conclude anything from this?

 

[Phipli]

Can we conclude anything from this?

It's pretty fast

If you're able, it might be worth comparing the results with a good Nubus card. A Radius PrecisionColor or a SuperMac Spectrum, Thunder or PDQ.

CBits L/A. Not a clue what it means nor how that 'spike' would be possible...

Not sure if this helps much they're all QuickDraw functions I think. CopyBits sounds like it is a sort of blitting operation? I'm going to lean on a @Crutch here

 

[Crutch]

I don’t know anything about this benchmarking tool but I can guess.

CopyBits is indeed the standard QuickDraw bit blitting operation. My guess is that “aligned” references whether the bitmap it’s copying is long-word-aligned (the fastest case, because then one can just repeat a single processor instruction like MOVE.L (a0)+, (a1)+ to blit each row in 32-bit chunks with no edge cases). In addition, a “large” bit map has wide rows, in which case further optimizations are possible like replacing all those MOVE.Ls with a MOVEM, maybe -- also in this case very little time is spent proportionally on any of the side processing needed to set up and clean up the CopyBits.

So if I’m right, “CopyBits (large, aligned)” is, among these graphics routines, probably the purest test of your rig’s pure byte-moving speed with very little special processing or graphics-specific fanciness.

 

[swami]

Well, it's up for sale.

https://68kmla.org/bb/index.php?threads/fs-ultrarare-quadra-700-rasterops-24mxq-videocard-collectors-item.43419/

I posted it only om 68kmla. I believe this card needs to go to a fellow enthousiast.