melf (03 May, 2007 14:21):Panorama:
PM-graphics marks: 60.471
DIVE-marks: 2073.574
SNAP:
PM-graphics marks: 269.409
DIVE-marks: 2037.804
I have the same load on Warp Vision in both drivers.
Not really unexpected. Even though you didn't mention most interresting "video bus bandwidth", the DIVE performance of your system is excellent. However, for movie watching overlay support would still be desirable to have overlay support. I guess Panorama will not offer this feature...
melf (03 May, 2007 14:21):Panorama:
BitBit S->S copy 207.728
BitBit M->S copy 265.971
SNAP:
BitBit S->S copy 472.180
BitBit M->S copy 376.057
Event though we see the difference, the absolute values suggest that it's quite useable. I guess this is mostly due to the very good overall performance of your system. I wondering, if you get any visible performance degration when scrolling text in a command window...
So just like any other unaccelerated solution, Panorama is better than nothing, but not great eather. In your specific situation, you will most likely prefer it over SNAP, due to the aspect ratio / resolution problems.
BTW, here are benchmarks of a 5 years old system (Athlon XP 2100+) running SNAP on an nForce integrated graphics (GeForce2 compatible):
BitBlt S->S copy : 420.256
BitBlt M->S copy : 236.919
Filled Rectangle : 1726.477
Pattern Fill : 1722.214
Vertical Lines : 44.786
Horizontal Lines : 866.480
Diagonal Lines : 23.601
Text Render : 292.408
------------------------------------
Total : 307.184
Direct Interface to video extensions -
Video bus bandwidth : 493.884
DIVE fun : 1749.602
M->S, DD, 1.00:1 : 1684.800
------------------------------------
Total : 634.315