Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!ukma!psuvax1!news
From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amiga OS *IS* state of the art, but the NeXT is better
Message-ID: <ucaG$3fg1@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 4 Apr 91 00:36:21 GMT
References: <.$2G0ysf1@cs.psu.edu>
	<1991Apr3.045757.24803@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <zs6G8pxf1@cs.psu.edu>
	<1991Apr3.075121.18084@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <y39Gf6-f1@cs.psu.edu>
	<20329@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Lines: 17
In-Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com's message of 3 Apr 91 18:24:25 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu


In article <20329@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:

   >On another thread, how much raw CPU does it take a computer to make up
   >for the advantage the Amiga has with its blitter?  Does the blitter
   >effectively run at 14MHz?  Someone told me that it was only 3MHz.

   Someone was confused.  The Amiga chip bus runs 280ns cycles, effectively
   the same speed as a 14.3MHz 68000.  Except for the fact that Agnus' bit image
   manipulator ("blitter") does barrel shifting, line draw, and modulos in 
   hardware.  So it does image manipulation much faster than a 14MHz 68000.

The confused person was a local Amiga zealot.  I tried telling him
that the Amiga's graphics chip ran at 14MHz, but he refused to believe
me.  He kept insisting that it was only 3MHz.

-Mike