Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!unsvax!jimi!howlin.cs.unlv.edu!maniac
From: maniac@howlin.cs.unlv.edu (Eric J. Schwertfeger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: 68010 Questions...
Message-ID: <1726@jimi.cs.unlv.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 90 01:51:07 GMT
References: <12077@vdsvax.crd.ge.com> <40109@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <12667@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> <801@auto-trol.UUCP> <700@sagpd1.UUCP> <10604@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Sender: news@jimi.cs.unlv.edu
Reply-To: maniac@howlin.cs.unlv.edu (Eric J. Schwertfeger)
Organization: UNLV Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
Lines: 11

> Just a quicky on the "is a 68010 any better" question.  There is supposed to
> be some improvement on tight loops.  Would the data transfer loop for a 
> non-DMA disk driver be likely to fit in the cache? 

I have the PaloMAX drive project, which is non-DMA based, and I got an
increase 
as reported by diskperf from 150K/sec up to 250K/sec!  that alone made
the 68010
worth the price.

Eric Schwertfeger, maniac@jimi.CS.UNLV.EDU