Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!sbcs!root
From: root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (SBCS System Staff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: (B) 68040 vs. gfx coprocessor
Message-ID: <4742@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 90 21:28:02 GMT
Sender: root@sbcs.sunysb.edu
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lines: 30

(possible repost)

In article <677@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu> dbl@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (David Lawson) writes:
>     If we want to talk about pipe dreams but stay in the realm of possibility,
>how about the motorola DSP to handle sound (and other various and sundry stuff)
>and add the TI 34020 to do the windowing, gfx, etc, and top these new players
>off with an '030/040 running in the mid to low double digits (25-50 MHz).
>The beauty of this (and the real complement to the system software designers)
>is by replacing a library here and there this could work with CURRENT
>applications that do not grab the hardware.  
>    Replace graphics.library, audio.device, etc etc, and enjoy the speed
>increases.  This should be doable if a wee tad expensive.  Maybe even
>put these guys on a board for the 2000 owners (me in particular).
>    Anybody know if this possible?  COuld the hardware be put on boards and
>slipped into the video slot/cpu slot?

	Yes, this is possible.  Yes, people have thought of these things
	before.  The real question is whether a market that seems to whine
	about any peripheral that costs more than $299 would pay back the
	effort required to develop a machine with the capabilities you've stated.
	A machine loaded with a 34020, 56001 (or 96002), 50 mHz 68030, and
	surrounding architecture to run such chips at full speed would almost
	certainly carry a US $12K+ end user price tag.  Would *you* be willing
	to put up that kind of money?  

>Dave Lawson


					Rick Spanbauer
					State U of NY/Stony Brook