Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6049 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
Home
Features
News
Forums
Classifieds
Links
Downloads
Extras
OS4 Zone
IRC Network
AmigaWorld Radio
Newsfeed
Top Members
Amiga Dealers
Information
About Us
FAQs
Advertise
Polls
Terms of Service
Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
25 crawler(s) on-line.
 30 guest(s) on-line.
 2 member(s) on-line.


 billt,  BigD

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 billt:  2 mins ago
 BigD:  3 mins ago
 michalsc:  9 mins ago
 vox:  11 mins ago
 kolla:  12 mins ago
 OlafS25:  21 mins ago
 MEGA_RJ_MICAL:  24 mins ago
 zipper:  28 mins ago
 ArtRom:  46 mins ago
 rzookol:  1 hr 19 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Classic Amiga Software
      /  CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Register To Post

PosterThread
tekmage 
CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 10-Nov-2022 20:43:53
#1 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Mar-2005
Posts: 436
From: San Francisco

Hi All,

I see P96 is getting updates, and I would use it for any new builds, but for older systems with CyberGFX, is it worth replacing it with P96?

Curious about folks' thoughts on the two systems.

Thanks!
Bill "tekmage" Borsari

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
PixelHi 
Re: CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 11-Nov-2022 0:00:33
#2 ]
Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2022
Posts: 37
From: Unknown

@tekmage

I got P96 since it can be used with Radeon 9200 on Mediator AND BVision. Both cards work great. I'm using Radeon to get nice DVI output for Workbench on my classic Amiga and BVision for everything else.

You can't go wrong with P96 for those few $$, and it just works. I'm using is under OS3.2.1.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pixie 
Re: CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 11-Nov-2022 2:09:58
#3 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Mar-2003
Posts: 2821
From: Figueira da Foz - Portugal

@PixelHi

I once had a bvision, what are the benefits of p96 over CyberGraphX?

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Wol 
Re: CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 12-Nov-2022 17:49:10
#4 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 8-Mar-2003
Posts: 986
From: UK.......Sol 3.

@tekmage

Hi,
I use an A4000 with CSPPC 233/50 Mhz 128 Mb CVisonPPC OS3.9 +bbags,

I have tried P96 various versions but all painfully slow,
CGFX is relly fast and resposive with smooth scrolling and instant menus.

I also tried OS4 with P96 ; it was totally unusable , could not scroll a web page,
also locked the screen for 2 secconds while drawing large menus.

Wol.

_________________
It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.~Albert Einstein

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 12-Nov-2022 18:23:08
#5 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12392
From: Norway

@Wol

he... did you install the 680x0 version on top the native PPC version?
thats not a good idea....

AmigaOS4.1 uses P96 drivers, even now when the Picasso96.library is obsolete.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Nov-2022 at 06:25 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
PixelHi 
Re: CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 14-Nov-2022 1:57:39
#6 ]
Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2022
Posts: 37
From: Unknown

@pixie

Can't tell I don't have CyberGraphX :(

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
bennymee 
Re: CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 14-Nov-2022 7:05:46
#7 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 19-Aug-2003
Posts: 690
From: Netherlands

@tekmage

I would say yes.

In the early days CyberGFX was the best, better then Picasso96 - more compatible.
But now Picasso96 get the updates it is the better choice.

I always like the fact that CyberGFX had screens you could pull down, Piccasso96 did not have that, but nowadays even that is implemented.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 14-Nov-2022 11:28:21
#8 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 3509
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

It rather depends. I've had the unusual privilege of being able to use the CGX v4 Permedia drivers, early 68K p96 driver (under 3.9 and 4.0) and the OS4 p96 drivers on my BVPPC.

Generally, it's fair to say that the CGX driver seems to get more out of that card. It supports higher pixel clocks, greater depth at greater resolution. Drawing operations seem to be a little faster than the p96 68K driver. However, the native version in 4.1, while subject to the same constraints on the maximum limits, doesn't seem to have any noticeable slowdown. The obvious counterpoint to that statement however is that the default OS4 UI applies a lot more eye candy over a basic 3.x theme, where simple solid colour block fills were the dominant drawing operations. So a basic 3.9 UI is going to perform better than the 4.1 one out of the box. If you tone it down a bit, that's quickly addressed.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
jPV 
Re: CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 15-Nov-2022 6:56:11
#9 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 11-Apr-2005
Posts: 772
From: .fi

I don't know the situation today (so a bit useless reply), but 20 years ago I would have chosen CyberGraphX v4 without doubt. CGX was generally faster on my setup (CV64/3D, I made a script to swap between CGX and P96 to make comparisons) and it had nice bonus features like SuperGels that added transparency effects to OS functions.

I was a bit disappointed when I moved to Mediator/Voodoo3 and had to change to P96 for good. Even though it was much faster in raw throughput, it still lacked some elegancy and even had some small drawing bugs on screen. Nobody would probably notice them if you don't compare it on the same installation, but as I knew about them, it always annoyed me a bit :)

But as said, I don't know how much Picasso96 has progressed since, and in which areas. I haven't updated my Mediator machine in ages either, so it still has an older P96 installation on it. But I probably would like to try to stay with CGX still if I'd have an option ;)

_________________
- The wiki based MorphOS Library - Your starting point for MorphOS
- Software made by jPV^RNO

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
_analogkid_ 
Re: CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 15-Nov-2022 20:05:31
#10 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 22-Jun-2005
Posts: 178
From: Here and there

@Wol

You should try recent P96 versions. The Permedia2 driver has achieved vast updates and should run fine now.

Last edited by _analogkid_ on 15-Nov-2022 at 08:06 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
utri007 
Re: CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 8-Dec-2022 17:30:52
#11 ]
Super Member
Joined: 12-Aug-2003
Posts: 1056
From: United States of Europe

Picasso 96 also supports new GFX cards, like Retina ZII and Viona.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
klx300r 
Re: CyberGFX vs Picasso96 in 2022
Posted on 10-Dec-2022 7:02:08
#12 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 4-Mar-2008
Posts: 3796
From: Toronto, Canada

@Wol

must be something wrong with your setup as my A4000 with P96 works great with OS3.2.1 the latest iBrowse for browsing all my favourite Amiga sites and especially Aminet👍

_________________
____________________________
c64-2sids, A1000, A1200T-060@50(finally working!),A4000-CSMKIII
! My Master Miggies- Amiga 1000 & AmigaOne X1000 !
mancave-ramblings
X1000 I BELIEVE

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle