Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!pandora.pa.dec.com!joel
From: joel@pandora.pa.dec.com (Joel McCormack)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: to graphics processor or not to graphics processor
Keywords: graphics processor
Message-ID: <1339@bacchus.dec.com>
Date: 15 Apr 89 00:20:27 GMT
References: <2565@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <28930@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@decwrl.dec.com
Distribution: usa
Lines: 13

I hope that no one at DEC has claimed that the DECStation 3100 wouldn't be faster with a special graphics engine.  Having done the code for the color frame buffer, I'll be the first to admit that extra hardware could help.

The main advantages of the frame buffer are:

1. You get performance that is quite good (actually downright amazing considering that it's all going through an X server).  Further, this performance will improve automatically as you use faster CPU chips and memory.

2. It costs nothing other than the RAMs.

3. It is a lot more flexible than commiting to a hardware accelerator.  I've improved performance in serveral areas, and all it takes to get it into your hands is another release of Ultrix.

4. It is faster to get a frame buffer up and running than designing a new chip would have been.

- Joel McCormack (decwrl!joel, joel@decwrl.dec.com)