Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!sdcc6!sdcc13!pa1329
From: pa1329@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa1329)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Blitter disappointment (was: Time to create comp.sys.atari.flames)
Message-ID: <5312@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 89 16:08:37 GMT
References: <1989Nov8.182505.11625@uunet!unhd> <23996@cup.portal.com> <24111@cup.portal.com> <1261@atha.AthabascaU.CA>
Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu
Reply-To: pa1329@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (pa1329)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 15

In article <1261@atha.AthabascaU.CA> rwa@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Ross Alexander) writes:
>For what it's worth:  I have a blitter.  It's $75 down the toilet.
>The speedup it provides is _very_ marginal ( < 25% ), and affects
>only a few operations (essentailly, large blits).  QuikST and the
>TOS 1.4 upgrade are much more cost effective.  When I get home
>tonight I'll try to post some benchmark numbers.
>	Ross





Hmmm,.  I wonder why is the Atari blitter so ineffective.  Its
speed is no where comparable to the Amiga's blitter.   Why is the
difference?