Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!apple!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!davewt From: davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Blitter vs. 040 (was: Computer Architecture question Message-ID: <1991May16.043705.6698@NCoast.ORG> Date: 16 May 91 04:37:05 GMT References: <1991May15.125954.1993@NCoast.ORG> <1991May15.213917.11992@ugle.unit.no> Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) Lines: 71 In article <1991May15.213917.11992@ugle.unit.no> daglem@idt.unit.no (Dag Lem) writes: >OK, you're right, on the A500 the blitter is a real winner. But what is the >screen resolution you usually use on the 500? What's the number of colors? >Have you ever seen an A3000 running Workbench in interlaced hires, >16 colors? Give it a try! zzzzzzzzzz..... Ahhh, so you are comparing a 4-color system (the nExt) to a 16-color system, and are suprised that it takes longer to redraw the 16 color screen. I will pit my 25 Mhz 3000 against a 25 Mhz nExt in a REALISTIC window redrawing contest anyday, using a 4 color display, which just happens to be what I use all the time. Besides, the SIZE of the display has nothing (or at least, SHOULD NOT have anything to do with how long it takes to redraw, when you aren't talking about windows covering the entire display. What I am talking about is things like running a couple of clocks on the display, maybe an "Xeyes" kind of thing, and a few XTerm-type windows. All of these are available on both machines. See which of the two start to slow down more significantly more quickly. >Personally, I really do like the blitter consept, but the blitter hasn't got >enough horsepower! Depends on what you want it to do. A 50 Hp engine might just barely push a Yugo, but wouldn't work for a Motor Coach. But I sure wouldn't mind having a 50hp generator on the motor coach to drive my electric system so the main engine wasn't loaded down or required. >Having worked a *lot* with the blitter on an A500, I realize I can get the >drawing done faster with the 68030. My guess (yes, just a guess - enlightenment So do it. You aren't EVER forced to use the Blitter. You use things like the Blitter and Copper when they are apropriate. You don't make excuses to use them, just because they are there. >Anyway, this can't be the intention of the blitter? To do next to nothing? >Wow it's got line drawing, polygon filling etc., but it's not doing its job >fast enough! Sure it is. Even a stock A500 refreshes it's screen faster than almost ANY other system you can buy, including Sun's, Intel-based Unix boxes, PC-Clones running Windows, and certainly the nExt. >You state that the NeXT is slow on display updating. Just wait till you try >the above mentioned Workbench setup. Try moving windows around. Try listing some >lengthy directories in a Shell window. I have. Try doing it on a nExt and then do the same on the 3000. "Listing things in a shell window" reflects more on the disk drive and CPU than the display. What were you using? An A500 running from floppies and a file lister that reads the whole directory and sorts it before listing? In terms of actually LOADING data from the disk, I still have not yet found any other computer that does it faster. MS-DOS "tricks" you into thinking it is faster, because it keeps all the critical info in one certain spot on the disk, which is basically primitive. The Amiga method is more flexible, but can be slower depending on what you are trying to do. But actually LOADING the data, once you have found it, the Amiga's floppies are still among the best. Ever try using the floppies under Unix on a PC-based machine? Yuch. > >Gawd I really wish they'd speed up that Boring old Lazy Incapable Tiny Two cent >poor Excuse for a Real graphics coprocessor. Yeah, that would be great. They should just go ahead and add that TI 34010, forcing the base price machine up by at least $300, and making every graphic-related piece of software there is cease to function. THAT will sure sell more Amigas. > "The 68030+Blitter is still better than just a 68030". >Sure, but the blitter isn't doing its intended job fast enough, get it? Yes it is. Perhaps you are asking too much of it. >If you can't even use the blitter to shuffle windows around (ought >to be an ideal job for the blitter) because it's too goddamned slow, you use the >68030 instead (CPUBlit). Now how shall we put the blitter to use? Of course you can. If *you* choose to waste your CPU time "shuffling" windows around, instead of running the tasks INSIDE the windows, that's your choice. But one of the BEST things about the Amiga is that it doesn't steal any CPU time from user programs that isn't required. If you really want to gain maybe 1 sec faster redraws (on a screen with maybe 25-30 windows or more, at that) at the cost of basically 25% or more of your CPU power, go right ahead. Just don't stick the rest of us with it. Dave