Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm From: mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics Subject: Re: ColorBurst NTSC @ LA VideoExpo Message-ID: Date: 28 May 91 19:24:38 GMT References: <91145.032250ACPS1072@Ryerson.CA> Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 44 In-Reply-To: moonhawk@bluemoon.uucp's message of 26 May 91 18:41:34 GMT In article moonhawk@bluemoon.uucp (David Culberson) writes: > drives). The SUNs also house a RISC chip, compared to the CISC processor > (680x0) in the Amiga. I read that the 68040 is faster than the Sun's processor, I've seen the '040 quoted at anywhere between 12 and 20 MIPS. The previous generation of Sun chips were quoted at 14 MIPS. The current generation is quoted at 25 MIPS(*). Ergo, the '040 isn't faster than Sun's processor, at least based on the numbers I've seen. and that a GVP 3050 board is faster than an '040 What clock speed '040? And running what application? And in the what system? There's no way a GVP 3050 will be faster than a (hypothetical) 50MHz '040 on a daughterboard on the 3050 card. It's unlikely that the 3050 is faster than a 25MHz or faster 040 in the same situation. On the other hand, the 3050 should blow the doors off an '040 card (any speed) in a 2000 CPU slot with no 32 bit memory. so a 3050 equipped Amiga is faster than a Sun. Well, it's certainly faster than the last one I used (a 3/50). Then again, so is my Amiga 3000. Of course, on the right applications, my Amiga 3000 is faster than the 3050. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if any of the above was faster than a SparcStation 2. I didn't read this in AmigaWhirled. I'll agree with that - while they may publish fluff, they usually get their fact straight.