Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!shelby!neon!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: MAC Co-Processors
Message-ID: <1990Sep19.230715.15188@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 19 Sep 90 23:07:15 GMT
References: <142737@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1104@beguine.UUCP>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 13

In article <142737@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM
(Steve Hix) writes:
[...]
> On the other hand, you *could* look at a 68881/68882 as a SANE
> coprocessor...they do pretty much the same job.

Sort of - but SANE even with a 68881/6882 is about 20 times slower than
code run
directly on the coprocessor. Apple maintains some of their routines are more
accurate than the IEEE standard, and this justifies the slowness.

Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu