Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekig5!wayneck From: wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: A new Amiga... Message-ID: <5390@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> Date: 16 Jan 90 03:07:51 GMT References: <4144@wehi.dn.mu.oz> <1051@sdrc.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. Lines: 33 In article <1051@sdrc.UUCP>, evgabb@sdrc.UUCP (Rob Gabbard) writes: > With the Amiga's custom graphics chips the CPU is freed up to do other things > while in the PC/Mac world the CPU is all too often bogged down processing the > graphics operations. That is why the 68000-based Amiga 1000 can still outperform > a '486 VGA box on similiar graphics operations. I'm sure there are graphics > co-processor boards that take alot of this burden off the Intel/Mac but compare > the $$$$ to an Amiga. Two things: 1. $$$$ to Amiga to pc clone and the Amiga loses on hardware costs, which is the first thing most people see. 2. The amount of help the Amiga co-processor chips give can be very limited. They don't help while doing things like drawing a circle or changing the color of a pixel. Many things are done by the 68000 in the Amiga also. This is why I contend that the major bottleneck in the Amiga is the chip RAM bandwidth. Note that a cheap pc clone and VGA com- bination can also have a horrible bottleneck. I've seen over 20 wait states per VGA access. Now there are better things coming on the Amiga so I'll change my tune when I see them. However on the pc end it is not too hard to get a 340x0 based card that allows one to do real co-processing when it comes to graphics. It even has a C compiler for it. (Maybe someday Commodore will release Rich Miner's 34010 based board!) Anyway you could program the 34010 (given enough RAM) to say rotate the current screen image by 1 degree. This could happen with a sinlge command from the processor. Now that is co-processing! Wayne Knapp