Jump to content

Fastest NUBUS-Graphics Card?


Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by John_A
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by ArmorAlley
Link to post
Share on other sites

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..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by ArmorAlley
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Unknown_K
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

That's the way to do gaming. Nubus video is a different beast entirely. Speed comparisons between the two are an apples/oranges kind of deal.

 

After the first simple frame buffer cards from Apple for the Macintosh II series, NuBus cards became about pushing higher pixel counts into deeper depths, most with QuickDraw acceleration and some with DSP support for Photoshop filters. Running a second (larger/deeper) screen for graphics work was a huge benefit for workflow in the Mac's content creation niche, even after onboard video increased in capability beyond the simple speed advantage afforded by location on the CPU bus.

 

Mac onboard video (68030 or Quadra) was far superior to anything on the PC side, as were the Mac's NuBus based video cards until the several flavors of Local Bus implementations took hold in that world. There was no parity whatsoever until the VLB stopgap rolled out, but that was well into the Quadra era. Things began changing once the speed limited, 16bit shackles come off on the PC side, but for high end graphics, NuBus was king until the dawn of the PCI era.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

Next thing is a Macintosh II that I am awaiting the next days. I will have to put a NUBUS VideoCard in it.

So the topic of the thread is correct. We will see how fast the Macintosh II with a NUBUS Card will be against my LC.

 

For both System6 is they way to go. No Multifinder, no "Schnickschnack" :)

 

Doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...