Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ucbvax!decwrl!sgi!mtoy@xman.SGI.COM
From: mtoy@xman.SGI.COM (Michael Toy -- The S.G.I. XMAN)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: 4Sight, X or NeWS?
Summary: 8 mega pixels / sec -- possible
Message-ID: <20940@sgi.SGI.COM>
Date: 24 Oct 88 07:15:44 GMT
References: <8810202336.AA03068@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <20894@sgi.SGI.COM> <128@mlogic.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@sgi.SGI.COM
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 28

In article <128@mlogic.UUCP>, marcel@mlogic.UUCP (Marcel Samek) writes:

> In article <20894@sgi.SGI.COM> miq@chromavac.SGI.COM (Miq Millman) writes:
> 
> >graphics hardware is incredibly fast, so performace is not hurt.  On the 4D
> >series, pixel performance is about 8 million pixels per second.

> 
> In the context of the discussion, which was about pixel based operations,
> this statement is utter nonsense. ...
> 
> ... application programs can achieve  pixel  performances  of
> significantly  less  than  100,000  pixels  per second (roughly 2 orders of
> magnitude less) when painting pixel data.
> 
> If you wish to read pixels  from  the  frame  buffer,  the  performance  is
> significantly slower than if you wish to write pixels.
> 
> It is disappointing to see Silicon Graphics employees post such deceptive
> garbage to the net.

I believe the published speed for copying pixels to the screen from user memory
on the GTX series machines IS 8 million pixels per second.  So the only
deception in the first posting is the phrase "on the 4D series".  It should have
been "on the multi-processor 4D series".
--
                 From the mixed up files of Mr. Michael C. Toy
Internet: mtoy@SGI.COM              UUCP: {ames,ucbvax,decwrl,sun,parcvax}!mtoy