Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!samsung!uunet!shelby!neon!torrie From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (The Ghost Who Walks) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: A3000UX - Born to run UNIX SVR4 Message-ID: <1991Feb8.212253.27263@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: 8 Feb 91 21:22:53 GMT References: <8298@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> <1991Feb8.134256.4811@cc.helsinki.fi> <1991Feb08.165551.9428@convex.com> Sender: torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 28 swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >What we are talking about is the efficient utilization of the CPU resource. >The only honest way to appraise this performance parameter is to evaluate >boxes with equal CPU resources, and try to find out which box yields the >best performance within the context of a typical user environment.. The >Amiga wins this test by a significant margin, and this fact will only How do we know this though? I haven't seen anywhere, anytime, anything resembling benchmarks of the A3000UX vis a vis the NeXT or other Unix boxes. The only mention I've seen of A3000UX performance is from the infamous Byte article, which then failed to back that up with ANY solid numbers at all. The article was more along the lines of "In the writer's opinion, the Amiga is faster, but I'm not going to give you any evidence at all as to why I think that". Meanwhile, questions which seem to still be unanswered: How fast does the Amiga run X? (where are the XStones benchmarks?) Does the A3000UX version of X support colour? Is the A3000UX using the blitter chip in X? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Fame, fame, fame... What's it good for? Ab-so-lute-ly nothing