Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!news From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Subject: Re: Blitter vs. 040 (was: Computer Architecture question In-Reply-To: davewt@NCoast.ORG's message of 15 May 91 12: 59:54 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu Organization: Penn State Computer Science References: <1991May15.125954.1993@NCoast.ORG> Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 01:20:51 GMT Lines: 68 In article <1991May15.125954.1993@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: Can you REALLY be this dumb? The point people have been trying to make is that if a 68030+blitter is faster than just a 68030, then a 68040+blitter will be faster than just a 68040. Of course a 68040 will be able to update screens faster than the blitter in many cases, but in doing so it will be stealing time that could have been handling OTHER programs, just to update the display. Gee, this sounds just like the nExt. No wonder you can't understand it. Where will your argument stand with a 3000 with an 040 in it? You are still trying to compare a 68030 machine to a 68040 machine, like you were 3 months ago. Well, where are the 040 boards for the Amiga? NeXT has shipped at least 8,000 68040 boards, and there isn't even one 040 board for the Amiga shipping. -- Just felt like taking a shot. Yes, an 040 + blitter will be better than just an 040. I was trying to get the point acrossed that animation is possible on the NeXT, not as good as the Amiga, but it seems like 20 to 30fps is possible, unless something else has been overlooked. Don't you notice how SLOW the nExt updates it's windows and displays (not what is happening within them, but move a window around and see how long it takes to redraw the display (especially with 5 or 6 windows open)) when compared even to an Amiga 500, a 16-bit machine running at 7Mhz. Are you running an 030 NeXT with 8MB of memory. The problem isn't the CPU, it the paging to and from disk. We have been through this before. Thanks for joining us late! The point is, what if you have SOMETHING ELSE running as WELL AS the ray tracer. Why should EVERY program, EVERYWHERE have to slow down just to make the screen update MAYBE 1/10th of a seccond faster? Dedicated hardware is nice, but it can become a problem if people write directly to it. Microprocessors are improving at an incredible rate. NeXT year people aren't going to be asking if they should buy a 486 instead of an Amiga, it's going to be SPEC 30+ Compaq machine. As I was trying to demonstrate with my 030 + blitter < 040 argument. There are extra cycles to burn, it doesn't matter if you have to context switch, you still win. What is this? The old "oops I'm getting my butt kicked here, lets quick change the subject to something else" trick? We were talking about whether a 68030+blitter is faster than just a 68030, and therefore whether a 68040+blitter is faster than just a 68040. Wrong. Amigoids were screaming that the NeXT is so slow at animation and thought that NeXT users would be lucky to get 5pfs. Then someone pointed out that the blitter is only as fast as a 68030. So, I naturally realized that the 68040 was at least three times faster than an 030, and then proceeded to point out that there is more horsepower in the NeXT than the A3000. You just don't seem to understand that: [ 1 and 2 deleted] 3) Having two CPUs is ALWAYS faster than just 1, as long as you pick the jobs that each does correctly Not necessarily. Can I pick the 1 CPU? I would think that it depends on how the system is designed. 1 fast CPU can definitely beat 1 dedicated CPU and another general purpose CPU. Not to mention the fact that half of your hardware is being wasted when you aren't doing graphics. A ray tracer would definitely win with the 1 fast CPU. -Mike