VOGONS


First post, by epborden

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
DerBaum wrote on 2024-01-18, 23:03:

Both seem to be Revision B?
They are just 3 weeks apart in production ( 49th week of 99 / 2nd week of 2000)

I see, I did not know how to interpret those as dates. That's one detail explained for me.

Attachments

  • IMG_2196.jpeg
    Filename
    IMG_2196.jpeg
    File size
    1.55 MiB
    Views
    216 views
    File license
    Public domain
  • IMG_2195.jpeg
    Filename
    IMG_2195.jpeg
    File size
    1.89 MiB
    Views
    217 views
    File license
    Public domain
Last edited by epborden on 2024-01-18, 23:30. Edited 2 times in total.

Reply 2 of 3, by epborden

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I also have a revision A lying around that unfortunately did not picture. Besides the dates, what about the line below them? I suppose all of these cards technically are the same card. Might be a simple post we can close here. Thanks, DerBaum.

Reply 3 of 3, by 386SX

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

For these decoders my experience was that later PCB design/revisions may really be better for image quality considering these cards probably had a limited analog overlay logic that was removed in the later MPEG4 decoder. Anyway a great card for the times it was needed with a very good driver/sw compared to alternative unknown decoders that were even difficult to run depending on the config, even if when they ran they could have had better image quality and/or lower CPU usage. The choice of the VGA analog overlay option was needed to make these compatible with more configs even with a big cost in desktop image quality.