Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!poirier
From: poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: BlackBelt may not be a great solution.
Message-ID: <2500@xyzzy.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jan 90 22:50:21 GMT
References: <5965@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> <5350@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <25ad0290:3739.10comp.sys.amiga;1@tronsbox.UUCP> <5375@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>
Sender: usenet@xyzzy.UUCP
Reply-To: poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (  Poirier local)
Lines: 25

In article <5375@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes:
>My best
>guess is that less than 5% of the screen could be updated from a Anim file
>in high res. per 1/60 of a second.  This is pretty limiting when it comes
>to animation. 
>                                            Wayne Knapp

Well it's okay to guess, I guess.  But surely, someone out there has a nice
big 4-plane hi-res anim that could be *timed*?  I'd like to see a) the size
of the anim file (since frame-to-frame delta sizes are quite variable),
b) the number of frames, and c) the time to cycle through the anim once,
excluding loading time; for both a stock Amiga and an accelerated one
(say which accelerator, obviously).  Also: when doing this test, please
avoid running the nifty neato background utilities (clocks, mouse utils...)
that everyone must have by now; their impact could be significant.

Such information would help a great deal in settling this issue.

One other thing to bear in mind:  Note that 2000s (and 1-meg 500's) which
don't have the Fatter Agnus chip, have "pseudo-fast" RAM which is right there
on the CHIP bus, and thus (I think) sees more DMA contention than true FAST
ram.  I've noticed that my 1000 expanded with a 1/2 Meg Alegra for FAST ram
is *faster* than my friend's stock 2000, presumably for this reason.

	Thanks,
	Charles Poirier