Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oakhill.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!hunter
From: hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga reactions
Message-ID: <527@oakhill.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 18:06:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: oakhill.527
Posted: Wed Sep 11 18:06:15 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 03:53:04 EDT
References: <3568@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <368@ssc-bee.UUCP>
Reply-To: hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales)
Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx
Lines: 27

In article <368@ssc-bee.UUCP> eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) writes:
>> gymnasium type reverb sound effects.  The really impressive thing about this
>> demo is the amount of work the 68000 is doing; it's actively doing something
>> only 8% of the time.  That means it's 92% idle!
>> 
>I've heard these numbers before and am a little skeptical of what they really
>mean.  The numbers seem to imply that the Amiga 68000 could do 12.5 times
>as much work without slowing the demo down.  In reality, I suspect the
>bus may be so busy with the graphics that any increase in 68000 processing
>will slow down the graphics.

	Does anyone *know* (not guess) if the Amiga has an 8-bit or a
16-bit processor bus?  I counted 8 RAM chips in the photo of the board
that was in the byte article.  This would be consistent if the board
uses 256k x 1 chips and has 256k bytes on it.  If this is the case, the
Mac will outrun the Amiga during non-graphic operations.  I hope I have
something wrong because I would really like to believe that there will
be a 68k-based machine with hardware graphics that is within my
financial reach.



-- 
Motorola Semiconductor Inc.                Hunter Scales
Austin, Texas           {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!hunter

(I am responsible for me and my dog and no-one else)