VOGONS


286-12 doesn't bottleneck fast VGA

Topic actions

Reply 20 of 21, by DEAT

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
keenmaster486 wrote on 2025-03-31, 20:28:

Well, I'm talking "bottleneck" in terms of "upgrading won't gain you any performance", which is the effect of the advice people tend to give about 286 video cards - "don't bother with the fast ones, the 286 isn't worth it!" - but what I'm finding is you can gain significant performance benefits anyway, even though it's a 286.

keenmaster486 wrote on 2025-04-01, 21:44:

that you shouldn't knock putting a faster VGA card in your 286 just because "it's a 286, it's already pushing pixels as fast as it can" or something like that.

All I'm reading here is a clear case of regurgitating (and responding to) old biases towards 286s that people still believe is gospel for some reason.

My favourite one is that Windows is slow on a 286 - which is weird, because I find Windows 3.0a to be relatively fast and responsive on a Turbo XT.

win16.page | Twitch

Reply 21 of 21, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

My favourite one is that Windows is slow on a 286 - which is weird, because I find Windows 3.0a to be relatively fast and responsive on a Turbo XT.

It's just a theory, but I think it had to do with how existing PC/XTs had been upgraded.
The simplest/cheapest upgrade was a motherboard swap. IBM 5160 style motherboard out, new no-name 80286 board in.
That would also explain horrible performance reports of the time.
If 8-Bit cards were kept, if old MFM/RLL fixed-disk drives remained set at bad interleave factor..
Then the 286 was essentially being turned into an 8086/V30 machine.
The RAM was being stuck at 1MB at best, too, of course.

Edit: What also comes to mind: RAM speed, waistates and 8-Bit bus speed.
It could have been that Turbo XTs had fast RAM, zero waistates and a higher clocked bus speed - which affected ordinary 8-Bit cards.

On an AT motherboard, the situation might have been different.
System had used waitstates and 8-Bit slots locked at 4,77 MHz for compatibility reasons.
Thus, it was slower than a native 8-Bit platform, such as an Turbo XT at 8 or ~10 MHz.

Also, Turbo XT owners maybe had changed interleave factor of their HDD.
Especially if the system was freshly assembled or if no HDD was in the system before the upgrade.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//