Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!Chuck.Phillips From: Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: General question about relative speeds of A2000 and A3000. Message-ID: Date: 10 Jul 90 07:59:04 GMT References: <1077@orange9.qtp.ufl.edu> Sender: uucp@ncr-mpd.FtCollins Distribution: na Organization: NCR Microelectronics, Ft. Collins, CO Lines: 25 In-reply-to: sutherla@qtp.ufl.edu's message of 9 Jul 90 19:29:36 GMT >>>>> On 9 Jul 90 19:29:36 GMT, sutherla@qtp.ufl.edu (Scott Sutherland) Scott> said: So, IN TOTAL, with the processor being 7 times faster and the Scott> math chip being 10-50 times faster, RAY TRACING programs should run Scott> between 70 and 350 times faster on an A3000 than on an A2000, Scott> ASSUMING THAT THE CPU AND MATH PROCESSOR SPEED INCREASES OVER THE Scott> 2000 ARE MULTIPLICATIVE. Even if they are not, then a 10-50 times Scott> increase (should be on the higher end, say 25-50 times) in speed of Scott> ray tracing programs should be realized. And the use of 32-bit FAST Scott> RAM should make it even faster. Uh, try the math again. IN THEORY, integer calculations and jumps should run about 7 times faster (a bit more if you consider the cache, a bit less if you consider wait states). IN THEORY, floating point should be 10-50 times faster. OK, so far. If you mix floating point and integer operations the resulting increase should be somewhere _in between_ the integer and the floating point speedups, IN THEORY. IN FACT, I/O is a great equalizer. Writes to the disk, printing, acessing the custom chips, etc. will proportionaly consume a larger fraction of the time required to accomplish a task. Hope this helps, -- Chuck Phillips MS440 NCR Microelectronics Chuck.Phillips%FtCollins.NCR.com Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckp