Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tank!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!unido!mpirbn!p554mve
From: p554mve@mpirbn.UUCP (Michael van Elst)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Blit Wanted
Message-ID: <1032@mpirbn.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jun 90 10:41:26 GMT
References: <3074@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <16816@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2888@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: p554mve@mpirbn.UUCP (Michael van Elst)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Radioastronomie, Bonn
Lines: 20

In article <2888@crash.cts.com> jcs@crash.cts.com (John Schultz) writes:
>  Plus, it's much faster.  With 25 mhz 030s (GVP, A3000s), you can beat
>the blitter using the processor for lines and polygon fills (30% and 100%
>faster, respectively).  A3000s are even faster if you use 32 bit writes
>to chip ram. I achieved a 25% improvement on the A3000 over the A2000 w/030.
>I haven't tried comparing 32 bit block copies against the blitter, perhaps
>someone out there has...

Howl, howl. This is a tight point of view ignoring that blitter operation
is _parallel_ to cpu operation.

The blitter can fill screens fast enough. You can't go faster than the
display refresh rate. There's absolutely NO need to do operations with
the CPU that can be done with the blitter.

-- 
Michael van Elst
UUCP:     universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve
Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
                                "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."