Fastest NUBUS-Graphics Card?

[dr.zeissler]

Can you tell me what the fastest NUBUS-Graphics-Card for a Q700 is?

I was told that the Onboard-Video is faster then a NUBUS Card, because

the NUBUS is slow, so the Graphics-Card is also slow. Is that right?

Thx

Doc

 

[John_A]

I suppose its the Radius Thunder IV GX. I had one in a IIfx, made a big difference compared to the Apple nubus card. If its faster than the Q700 graphics, I dont know. But it works with ppc, so that indicates it should be decent.

 

[ArmorAlley]

A Radius Thunder IV GX 1600 will set you many hundreds of dollars/euros /etc. assuming you can find one for sale. There are cards that are fast enough for 50 dollars/etc. Most cards with. 24 in their name - ones that support 24-bit colour at 1024x768 and boast QuickDraw acceleration should do. The Radius LeMans GT is not at all bad.

 

[dr.zeissler]

I have a Rasterops PrismGT as NUBUS card.

 

[ArmorAlley]

I have a RasterOps Paintboard Pro and it works well too in my IIcx. The Prism GT seems to be the sort of spec (1). There will be few cards that give you better performance than it, methinks. It's NuBus, btw (2.).

1: http://lowendmac.com/video/ropsprismgt.html

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuBus

 

[John_A]

ArmorAlley: Have the prices went up that much? Crazy.. I bought two of those cards (1360 not 1600) for 40$ each 3 or 4 years ago.

 

[dr.zeissler]

https://68kmla.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15366-wanting-to-massively-upgrade-performa-600/?p=153963

"...Almost no Nubus video card is as fast as the built-in video of a late-series Quadra, so Nubus video cards were actually intended for the most part for such slower 68030 machines. Therefore, a good Nubus video card really will genuinely accelerate a Performa 600 — unlike something like a Quadra 650, in which Nubus video is more or less pointless. This is not least because the built-in video of the Performa 600 really was basic, even by 1992 standards. You will then want a Nubus ethernet card, methinks. The third Nubus slot is the more difficult one. Add a second video card for a dual monitor setup, which we would all have drooled over in 1993, which is when I bought mine, remaindered and discounted, or a Storm DSP card for working with images (again, they were really meant for 68030-era machines and make the most dramatic difference in them rather than in 040 hardware), or get really outrageous and stick in a Radius Rocket or a PC card with a 286 processor — then you have two computers in one..."

 

[commodorejohn]

How does QuickDraw acceleration factor in? I can't imagine that Apple with their "do everything in software" philosophy implemented that on the Quadras' built-in video, did they?

 

[ArmorAlley]

The quoted member may well be correct, but he was talking about the likes of the Quadra 840AV and 660AV, which had their own DSP chips and dedicated VRAM for video-input., video-output and display. You have a Quadra 700. It was the first Quadra and a most impressive beast when it was launched. It was significantly faster and cheaper than the IIfx which it replaced (more or less - the Q900 that came with it was faster).

The main problem for me with the Q700 is that the video cannibalises the central system's CPU and RAM, that is, it uses CPU cycles and system RAM to generate the display. The Q700 has a full 25MHz 68040 processor and runs software from 1991-2 well, but less well when the system has to generate the display as well. You have a good NuBus graphics card - use it. It would have cost a quarter the price of the Q700 when it was new ($1500 for a new high-end graphics card in 1994 was not unheard of) and it leaves more system resources for the application in question. The NuBus bus isn't especially fast, but for 1991 apps it's not bad.

 

[dr.zeissler]

I have tested the NUBUS-Card against the onboard graphics-card. the onboard seems faster

 

[ArmorAlley]

HI John_A,

 You are indeed a lucky fellow. I was looking for a NuBus card 4 years ago that would display at least 256 colours at 1600x1200 because I wanted to play Civ I on my IIfx and not have to scroll around.

 The RasterOps Horizon/30 never, ever came up in auction. Whenever a Thunder IV GX came up, I gave up after $105. One user on this site ended up paying over $250 for a full Thunder IV GX 1600. I missed out on VillageTronic MacPicasso 360 by being on holidays.

 In the end, a kind seller sold me a Thunder GT (a Thunder IV GX 1100 without the DSP card) for $75. It allowed me to run 1600x1200 on my IIfx.

 Keep a hold on those two cards (or, alternatively, sell me one for $50...) for the sale of one may help to pay for the recapping of several boards.

 

[ArmorAlley]

Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Have you tried an app like Speedometer (1)?

This will give you concrete answers. And if you can prove me wrong, I will be happy to have learned something new.

(1) http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/newer-technology-disk

 

[dr.zeissler]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/94839221@N05/sets/72157669057135525/

Is that proof enough ?

 

[TheWhiteFalcon]

The main problem for me with the Q700 is that the video cannibalises the central system's CPU and RAM, that is, it uses CPU cycles and system RAM to generate the display.

That's actually incorrect. The 700 has separate VRAM modules. Perhaps you were thinking of the IIci?

 

[ArmorAlley]

I stand corrected. It seems that I was maligning the Quadra 700 by mixing it up with the IIci.

My apologies to all for my misinformation and strident tone.

 

[TheWhiteFalcon]

I mean, it may still be more efficient to use a separate card for all I know, the benefits just won't be as big.

 

[Unknown_K]

The Q700 has up to 2MB VRAM but no 24 bit video modes (which the 950 and 840av can do) just 8 bit. Also the Q800 is stuck at 16 bit video.

Anyway people used high end video cards because of higher color depth, DSP add on boards, quickdraw acceleration, and higher resolutions available.

While Quadra video isn't hobbled by going through a Nubus slot so moving simple data is as fast as its going to get between processor and video chip, you are still stuck with slower and limited video processing chips then what is found on cards that came later ($$$$$$ Late 68K and PPC Nubus era). This means if you are doing graphics manipulation like in Photohop of Desktop Publishing where you are constantly scrolling and moving data around in VRAM then a fast Nubus card is the way to go. Also Nubus cards used faster VRAM then found on a Quadra. Now if you have DSPs on the same video card and plug ins for Photoshop installed you can do jpeg conversions and graphics tricks much faster then relying on the 68K CPU.

 

[dr.zeissler]

Thx, I am a retro-gamer. I think I'll stick to the onboard-video then.

 

[John_A]

I think its a wise choice. After maxing out my IIfx, (Radius Thunder, scsi jackhammer, audiomedia soundcard and lots of ram) the main satisfaction turned out to be the sourcing of the components, assembling of the system and the research to make everything work.

Performance.. Well, it went from darn slow to slow. ????

Best upgrade was the ram increase, as usual.