🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <816012584snz@sierra.demon.co.uk>
           Geoff@sierra.demon.co.uk "Geoff Smith" writes:

> Can anyone tell me the difference between the various Diamond Stealth
> video cards?  I've seen a review that reckons the Stealth 64 video 2MB
> card is one of the best for that price range.  Does anyone disagree with
> that?  I've also seem the Stealth 64 2MB (without the word "video")
> advertised for half the price.  There also seem to be other variations.
> Can anyone tell me what the differences are and if it is worth paying
> extra for the better ones?  I don't have any particular uses in mind, but
> I want to make sure I have something decent for future applications, and
> I want to have good graphics capabilities.
> 
> Geoff.
> 
> --
> **Geoff Smith**
> **Geoff@sierra.demon.co.uk**
> **London, England**
> 
There used to be just two variants of the Stealth 64.  The DRAM & VRAM.
DRAM was based on 864 and max memory was 2 meg.
VRAM was based on faster 964 and max memory was 4 meg.
(this is the older cheaper card now).

Then they released newer versions with the work video.  These were
similiar to earlier cards but contained the 868 & 968.  Same memory
as before but faster in windows and hardware support for .AVI (ie
Video for Windows) files thus the 'video' in the title.  NOTE these
cards do not support MPEG files in hardware.

Several months ago Diamond renamed all its range and introduced several
new 64 bit cards. The following is from memory...
The base model (2001) is based on an ARK chip (max 2 meg).
Next model up is based on Trio64 chipset (max 2 meg).
Next model up is based on 868 chipset (max 2 meg).
Top of the range 64 video VRAM is based on 968 (max memory is 4 meg).

I think all the above are available in VLB & PCI

For complete specs and model numbers ring a reputable supplier
or visit the diamond web site (http://www.diamondmm.com).

You mention a 2 meg card, is this the DRAM or VRAM version.
Also there are noted problems with the PCI DRAM version and
comms in windows, don't know if this problem exists in VLB
version.

Final note, there is a review of 64-bit graphic cards in this
months PC magazine, with the Matrox Millennium winning, closely
followed by Stealth 64 video VRAM.  A Trio64 based card (Hercules
Terminator, were do they get these names from ?) clocked in 10%
slower that the Stealth but was considerably cheaper.

If you interested in maximum DOS prefermance, it was achieved by the
cheapest card on review (Hercules Stringray, 140 ukp) which was
15% slower in windows that the Stealth 64.

To round of this posting (you wish) ring a reputable supplier
(eg Graphics Direct) and ask their advice.  There are alot
of cards based around the same 64-bit chipsets (Ark 2000, S3 Trio64, 
868, 968, Cirrus Logic 543x and Mach64) with OEM version being a 
lot cheaper but usually have worse drivers, documentation, support
and most importantly a slower RAMDAC with can limit the refresh
rate at higher resolutions/colour depths.
 
--
Rajesh Varia     raj@c4rv.demon.co.uk