Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!alchemy!judge Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: What to buy??(numbercruncher) From: judge@alchemy.ithaca.ny.us (rory toma) Message-ID: References: <106@kas.helios.mn.org> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 09:22:49 EDT Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y. rhealey@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey) writes: > In article <4ocHh98?@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) wri > >In article <63@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: > >>>>> "Even the IIfx isn't as fast as a 3000/25." > > That's bull. The IIfx will blow the 3000 away. It has two dedicated I/O > > chips (SCSI DMA too, which can be used with Unix), and a killer graphics > > coprocessed board (the 8-24GC) (which was released with the IIfx). I doub > > you've done any kind of serious benchmarks. > > > Huh? The speeds that count are to memory and disk. The 3000 has > high speed 32 bit paths to both. The SCSI controller is > seperate from the other main busses so other I/O should take > place at the same time. Better yet, BOTH OS's can take advantage > of the speed. From what I've heard, the SCSI controller and > SCSI bus on the 3000 can easily handle the highest performance SCSI > peripherals available today and still have spare bandwidth. > > If a graphics board can't currently be used with System 7.0 than > it doesn't count, any more than me tring to use the nonexistant > A2410 board as an excuse to say other video boards are pathetic. > When the 2410 IS finally released, it's TI chipset should > provide a VERY impressive video subsystem! > > -Rob I've also read in MacWeek, that the biggest complaint about the FX was the bottleneck at the I/O and disk, particularly the disk. Theyuse 10 MHz 6510's, I believe. It further stated that people were buying II ci's because of this... rory