Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!es1 From: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) Subject: Re: AMIGA Message-ID: <1991May5.090207.6997@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News) Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu Reply-To: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) Organization: Columbia University References: <1991Jan11.225935.26086@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 5 May 1991 09:02:07 GMT In article andrey@beyond.caltech.edu (Andre Yew) writes: >melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > >>In article <1991Jan11.225935.26086@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >>Yeah, the 56001 is only a 10mip DSP, give me something better! CD >>quality sound isn't enough. > > And the 96001 is only a 13.33 MIPS chip. You can get CD quality sound >from almost anything -- it's not a function of the processor chip you're >using, especially since it's not doing any sampling. An IBM-clone could do >16-bit, 44.1 kHz sampling. > As I understand it the 56001 is an integer chip and the 96001 is a floating-point chip. That is the primary difference. Ray-tracing is certainly helped by the 96001, but digitized sound certainly wouldn't be.a >>-Mike > Andre > >-- >Andre Yew andrey@through.cs.caltech.edu (131.215.131.169) -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"