Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Sw vs. Hw BitBlit.
Message-ID: <4410@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 2 Aug 88 21:36:42 GMT
References: <399@ma.diab.se> <1313@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <61783@sun.uucp> <1315@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <1988Aug1.061714.25907@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 14

In article <1988Aug1.061714.25907@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>To quote someone whose name I can't recall :-), "another debater's
>trick"!  This time, comparing tomorrow's system with yesterday's.
>A 25 MHz AMD 29000 (note, not 2900) and a suitably cooperative memory
>subsystem should be able to do a *software* BitBlt that would make
>an Amiga look equally awful.  If you want to compare the latest hot
>BitBlt chip, compare it against the latest hot CPU.

	Sure, and let me make a 1.2u CMOS version of the amiga blitter and
it'll do the same thing to the 29000.  The Amiga blitter is in 3u NMos or
HMos or some such, 4+ year old tech, running at 7 Mhz with a 16bit bus.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup