Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!venera.isi.edu!rod
From: rod@venera.isi.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga World review about A3000
Summary: Let the inevitable comparisons begin...
Message-ID: <13271@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 4 May 90 15:29:17 GMT
References: <18226@snow-white.udel.EDU> <11287@cbmvax.commodore.com> <24218@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Reply-To: rod@venera.isi.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California
Lines: 23


A friend of mine is thinking of buying a machine, and the 386 or 386SX
clones look very appealing in price/performance. Of course, then you've
got to acquire some Unixism or OS/2 or one of the kludges that let you
task switch under MS-DOS.

Now that the 3000 has been announced, how does it compare performance-wise
to some of these things? I know, it's always apples and oranges, but
do we have anything resembling Dhrystones (or even just a MIPS figure)
for the 3000? For that matter, what about the 2000? The '030 accelerator
boards all claim to be 7-11 times the performance of a stock 2000, so
I would guess the 16 MHz 3000 is on the low end of that, and the 25 MHz
at the high end (plus or minus a little bit, depending on how much real
improvement the accelerators at 28 and 33 are getting, and what improvements
better integration brings the 3000).

I'm lost enough on this topic that I'm not even sure how a stock 2000
compares to, say, a 286 AT (or, presumably, 386SX). Anybody got any numbers?

Of course, we all know that with low-overhead multitasking, the ECS, etc.
that the Amiga makes better use of its native horsepower.

			--Rod