Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!hindmost
From: hindmost@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Brian R. Murphy)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Video RAMs
Message-ID: <1024@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17-Aug-86 03:14:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-tril.1024
Posted: Sun Aug 17 03:14:18 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Aug-86 10:05:28 EDT
References: <829@edison.UUCP> <950@hoptoad.uucp> <1891@videovax.UUCP> <1626@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: hindmost@trillian.UUCP (Brian R. Murphy)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 19

In article <1626@well.UUCP> rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes:
>Perhaps the best tradeoff is to use V-RAM in combination with a high-powered
>blitter and shift-register chip, as is done on the new TI 340. The results
>make even an Amiga look slow. <rogue>

Wouldn't generic dual-ported RAM allow fast and flexible access by
both the processor and the VDC (or other I/O chips)?  I think this is
cheaper than V-RAM, though I may be wrong.  Using this in the Amiga
would be a really big win, since you could put the Blitter and other
chips on a separate bus (well, maybe not the blitter; you wouldn't
want refresh to slow it down).  Then, with probably little change in
the chips themselves, you could step up the processor to ~14.414Mhz, get
rid of interlacing, and end up with less conflict between the
processor and other chips.  Is this possible?  (I'm not really into
hardware, so I don't know).

Brian Murphy
hindmost@athena.mit.edu
...ihnp4!eddie!athena!hindmost