Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!peck From: peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Amiga Competitiveness. Message-ID: <''P%DF@rpi.edu> Date: 30 Sep 90 19:09:28 GMT References: <1990Sep27.203058.601@sisd.kodak.com> <1990Sep28.193008.6137@sisd.kodak.com> Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 62 In article <1990Sep28.193008.6137@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: >In article peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >>In article <1990Sep27.203058.601@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes: >>>peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >>>>Here is another opinion on 68000 Amiga's. Why doesn't Commodore start >>>>shipping them with a 14Mhz 68000? [...] >>> (stuff removed) >>> >>>IMHO, it takes at least a 50% speed increase for a machine to "feel faster." >>>Anything less isn't worth it unless you're running programs that take hours >>>or days at a time to run. >>> >> >>Hmmmm, like any of the raytracers for example? Or compiling large programs? > >Yes, for an 8-hour ray tracing, saving one hour would be significant. >Ray tracing, however, depends almost entirely on floating point speed. >A 14MHz 68000 won't do a whole lot for that, but an add-on 68881 might. > Ummm, I thought that without the 68881 all of the floating point work was done by the 68000. Therefore a faster 68000 *would* increase the floating point performance. >Compiling depends on more than raw CPU speed -- it makes intensive use of >memory and I/O. I'd bet that most of that 10-20% evaporates. > Well, a ram disk takes care of the I/O, but the memory does seem like a bottle neck. Shoot. :( >>So let's revise the statement to include only Amiga 2000's, on the basis >>that most of the 500's are bought for games. (I know, not everyone does, but >>the 2000 is supposed to be for "serious" work). Now, since the accelerator >>boards only advantage (aside from the better processor) is the memory, why >>can't we use a faster 16 bit memory board? > >That would certainly work, but it would require a lot more design effort >than simply cranking up the clock rate of the CPU. After going through >all of the trouble to design in a faster CPU and memory subsystem, you >might as well design it around a 32-bit CPU as well. 16 MHz 68020's and 68030's >are pretty cheap right now. > Unfortunately, compatability isn't so cheap. I guess I'll give up for now, or at least wait for someone else to make a comment. (Perhaps from someone who has a 14Mhz 68000, and made some performance tests....) (more stuff) >just that their new product efforts should concentrate on the machine with >the most potential. A 14MHz Amiga would evoke yawns from the PC press, >while a 68040 Amiga might attract some deserved attention. > ....and turn off everone on a budget. Well, I would still WANT one, but I don't want to sell my car just yet :) >Ed Hanway >uunet!sisd!jeh Joe Peck peck@ral.rpi.edu