Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!nosc!crash!pro-graphics.cts.com!pierre
From: pierre@pro-graphics.cts.com (Pierre Altamore)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: 68040
Message-ID: <4372@crash.cts.com>
Date: 12 Sep 90 07:56:04 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Lines: 31

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
 
On 5 Sep 90 14:04:56 GMT, mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes:
 
>Excuse me but why do you have to have 68040 in your machine when most of
>people are quite happy with 68000. Especially if you allready have A3000.
>What to do you with more speed? Compared to price you pay for it (68040
$800).
>Just my $0.02.
 
It's painfully obvious that you've never done any sort of 3d rendering and
animation with your 'adequate' 68000.  Can you imagine waiting 27 hours
for your 68000 to render a SINGLE HAM IMAGE?  I can and did, it's sucks.
Now imagine a 180 frame animation with each image taking 27 hours (no, this
I didn't do).  That'd be 4860 hours or 202.5 days, for a lousy HAM
animation.  Now imagine trying that with 24-bit turned on, AHHH!  At least
with a fast (50MHz GVP) 68030 this can be made somewhat manageable.
Assuming GVP's claimed 22x speedup is accurate the above animation could
be finished in 220 hours or 9 days.  Much more reasonable.  A 25MHz 68040
would reduce this even more, perhaps even halving it.  'Most People' aren't
computer animators, and the Amiga has a large group of non-most people
users.
 
btw - I was the infamously slow Sculpt.
 
 


    UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!pierre      |   Critical Mass Software
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!pierre@nosc.mil   |   P.O. Box 23
Internet: pierre@pro-graphics.cts.com    |   Short Hills, NJ 07078