Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!psuvax1!news From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Computer Architecture question -- Daye Haynie Message-ID: <-odHirc1@cs.psu.edu> Date: 11 May 91 10:44:09 GMT References: <1991May10.211958.25387@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <48815@ut-emx.uucp> Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Distribution: comp Organization: Penn State Computer Science Lines: 24 In-Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 11 May 91 06:25:34 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu In article <48815@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >The math coprocessor is built into the 68040. Moto. claims that for >most things it is 5-10 times faster than the 68882. Well, the 040 is missing the trancendental functions that the 882 had. These, of course, could be emulated with traps. The reason that I said most things... I've heard that it was anywhere from 2X to 10X faster than the 882. I'd tend to believe more of the lower speeds under normal use. Maybe if you used the "one function that was super-optimised over the 882" you'd get 10X the speed. I'd be willing to bet that under normal use you get a 3 to 4 times speedup. That is, of course, when using the I and D caches. The topology demo runs almost 3 times faster on the 040 NeXT. The Mandelbrot demo is probably more than 3 times faster(don't have an 030 NeXT anymore to find out). -Mike