Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!psuvax1!news
From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Blitter vs. 040 (was: Computer Architecture question
Message-ID: <vbcH!4p@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 10 May 91 15:03:10 GMT
References: <y_4G=zw&1@cs.psu.edu> <3310.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz>
	<1991May9.070349.15151@neon.Stanford.EDU>
	<3496.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Lines: 17
In-Reply-To: jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz's message of Sat, 10 May 1991 06:50:24 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu


In article <3496.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes:


       Speedwise, it's going to be better to have part of a system on one
       fast chip and another on another faster chip, than it is to just
       have the faster chip. Like the 68030 + Blitter is better than just
       a 68030, even though the 68030 can outperfrom the Blitter in most
       (all?) cases.

Hmmm.  So, how well can the NeXT perform animation?  The 68040 is
definitely faster than 2 68030s.  In an 040 A3000 does the blitter
become a bottleneck.  Meaning could things be done faster if the CPU
was used instead?  The blitter must offer some functionality that a
"normal" CPU doesn't.

-Mike