Larger monitor/ slower graphics... (Cont)

[BBA]

Ok Davidx, I just did the monitor swap out, ran 5 timedemo1.dm2's and 5 crusher.dm2's on each monitor.

The results are all within 1 fps on all 3 monitors, 14" CTX, 17" Digital and 19" Sony, all at 800x600 and all at 60Hz refresh.

The timedemo1.dm2 was ranging from 104.2 105.6 and the crusher.dm2 was ranging from 52.3 to 52.7

The 19" monitor is plug and play and is detected on booting, the others are not and were detected as standard monitors.

All monitors performed the same. If you see a slowdown in performance it's due to using different resolutions or refresh rates with different monitors.

BBA

[This message has been edited by BBA (edited 06-28-99).]

[DavidX]

BBA
You (and many others answering this thread) just have to be right about this. There is no other way.

I just ran some quick tests on an old Pentium 133MHz with an ATI Mach32 and a Voodoo2, using the QuakeI timedemo.demo2 with 640 x 480 x 16 @ 60Hz refresh. The AST 17" is plug&play; the elderly 14" I used is not and I installed it as a Standard Monitor in Windows.

The differences in FPS were minute, all within 1 FPS, and I felt were more likely to be due to the crude form of testing rather than any real difference in the monitors themselves. The 17" ranged between 55 to 55.3 FPS and the 14" between 55.3 to 55.7 .

I no longer have the paperwork relating to my original tests between the AST 17" and the Packard Bell 14" and I cannot even remember precisely which tests I used, but I can only assume that I must have made some mistake when running them. I am normally extremely careful when conducting tests, to the point of being ridiculously pedantic, but something must have slipped by me without me realising. The resolution and color settings were definitely identical but perhaps the refresh rate changed without me noticing. It amazes me that I could have missed something as vitally important as that (particularly since I must have run the tests several times over) but it is the only explanation I can think of.

As I said in my original post, my instincts told me that monitors by themselves should not have any effect on graphics speed and I was extremely surprised when I was apparently contradicted by my own tests. I am now convinced that common sense was right and that those tests must have been flawed in some way.

Many thanks to all those who have contributed to this thread.

DavidX

[This message has been edited by DavidX (edited 06-29-99).]

[Nathan]

Thanks BBA for the results.

I still think that testing doesn't cover everything. And things happen that can't be mesured by testing it, tho I'm sure there are some who will disagree.