Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sw vs. Hw BitBlit.
Message-ID: <1988Aug3.153239.8988@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <399@ma.diab.se> <1313@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <61783@sun.uucp> <1315@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> <1988Aug1.061714.25907@utzoo.uucp> <4410@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 15:32:39 GMT

In article <4410@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:
>	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.

My point was that if the opposition can make unfair comparisons (new Intel
hardware against ten-year-old CPU), I can make them too.

I'm not sure I'd bet on 1.2u CMOS beating the 29000, though:  that processor
is *really good* at saturating memory bandwidth.
-- 
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu