Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sdrc!evgabb
From: evgabb@sdrc.UUCP (Rob Gabbard)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: A new Amiga...
Summary: Thats what I meant ...
Message-ID: <1064@sdrc.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jan 90 05:23:00 GMT
References: <1204@crash.cts.com>
Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati
Lines: 25

In article <1204@crash.cts.com>, uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes:
> In graphics rendering speed, it would make little difference if one had
> a 486 or 386 and absolutely NO difference if a 387 was added to a 386
> 
> So the speed increase you see on your flight simulator is due to increased
> calculation speeds, NOT due to increased graphics speeds.  In fact in
> all my tests, a stock amiga can easily outperform a 20Mhz 386 while

Thanks for backing me up. This is what I meant orignally but was getting
beat about the head and shoulders w/o some real data. I was not trying to
say that the Amiga alone was faster than a '386 or '486 I was simply
implying that the Amiga was quicker on graphics operation such as
animations, double buffering, bit-blits, etc. If I needed to do some 
number crunching (with a PC) I would probably choose a '486 over the
Amiga but then again I would probably choose a 33 or 50 -Mhz '030 over
a '486.


-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rob Gabbard (uunet!sdrc!evgabb)                 _    /|
Workstation Systems Programmer                  \'o.O'
Structural Dynamics Research Corporation        =(___)=   
                                                   U
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=