Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!GUBBINS@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA
From: GUBBINS@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA (Gern)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Z-100 blows away IBM-AT
Message-ID: <10729@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 16-May-85 09:31:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.10729
Posted: Thu May 16 09:31:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 17-May-85 03:26:27 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 25

I wondered about that myself, but both BASICS are the same tweeked
version of GW-BASIC.   I still put it that if the IBM-AT is not allowed
to use its 80287 (I don't know if it is a standard feature) or if the
$200 8087 is put into the Z-100 - bringing them at software/hardware
parity, that the stock Z-100 (5MHz) will run any program at the same
speed (if not faster) than the IBM-AT.  Also, a turboed Z-100 (with a
Gernware or SDS 7.37MHz, a CDR 7.5MHz, or the Zenith newly released
8MHz Z-100 (or upgrade to an older Z-100)) will completely blow an IBM-AT
away in speed, at half the cost with 640x512 pixels in 8 (colors - 36
if you tweek).   I don't think an IBM-AT can beat that.

Doing a little checking last night, yielded that the stock IBM-AT at 6MHz
uses a memory wait state (so IBM can use cheap 5 MHz memory), so now
how fast is the machine?  Reports indicate that 1 Memory wait state 
slows down throughput about 20-30% depending on the application.

The Z-100s don't have problems with their Winnies either...   (-:

I know I am taking vicious stabs at IBM, that one benchmark doesn't
prove much, but I was surprised myself, as I thought that the AT WOULD
be a lot faster than a Z-100.  It is faster than a 4.77MHz IBM-PC.

Cheers,
Gern
-------