Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!amiga0!mykes From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Blitter vs. 040 (was: Computer Architecture question Message-ID: Date: 11 May 91 23:37:31 GMT References: <3310.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> Organization: Amiga makes it possible Lines: 34 In article melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >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 > The blitter provides parallel computing power. You can decide whether to use the 68040's cycles to render graphics or to do heavy calcuations, whichever the application requires. Another way to describe how this works: The blitter has a shared bus with the CPU. The CPU has 3 buses (at least on an A2500) - CHIP (shared with blitter), ZORRO (slots), and FAST memory bus. While the Blitter blits, the CPU can be accessing either of the other 2 buses to its heart's content. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************