home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!ericom!garbod26!etxansk
- From: etxansk@garbo.ericsson.se
- Subject: Re: VESA Local Bus vs. AT/ISA >8MHz
- Message-ID: <etxansk.727699986@garbod26>
- Originator: etxansk@garbod26
- Sender: news@ericsson.se
- Nntp-Posting-Host: garbod26.ericsson.se
- Organization: Ericsson
- References: <etxansk.727111184@garbod26>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:53:06 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- I've noticed that most new 486SX PC clones offer VGA with local bus
- hardware for CPU/VGA-card communication.
-
- If one decides to stick to Windows and gets a good Windows/VESA
- driver with the computer, will a VESA solution generally be much
- faster than a system with an ISA bus operating at a higher speed
- than 8 MHz? (Many clones feature an AT bus speed option in the
- BIOS setup menu.)
-
- Also, if anyone could explain the major differences between
- the two solutions, I would really appreciate it. I've used some
- computers over the years ever since I bought an 8-bit Atari back
- in 1983. In that computer, the CPU and the graphics chips shared
- the same memory with a noticeable CPU slow down during graphics
- DMA. It appears to me that a PC/ISA computer is not slowed down
- during video memory scan, which isn't too surprising since VGA
- cards seem to have their own memory. On the other hand, CPU access
- to VGA video RAM is noticeably slow.
-
- Now that VESA is introduced, what will we end up with? Will we get
- faster (memory mapped) CPU access to video RAM with the slow-down
- caused by a shared bus as a result?
-
- Thanks in advance for any hints on this.
-
- Best regards,
- Anders Skelander
-
-