Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: IBM vs AMIGA cost
Message-ID: <10035@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 7 Mar 90 18:04:24 GMT
References: <5527@ur-cc.UUCP> <4251@vaxwaller.UUCP>
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 33

In article <4251@vaxwaller.UUCP> richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes:
>In article <5527@ur-cc.UUCP>, jea@merlin.cvs.rochester.edu (Joanne Albano) writes:
>> Several folk here claim that an equivalently loaded IBM-clone
>> system with 40 meg HD, 3 Megs ram, '386 and VGA graphics with
>> monitor costs $600-800 less than than the A2500/30 at $3600
>> (ed discount price). Is this true?        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>I new IBM system cost breakdown: [...]
>$3900.00 + Tax
>This has been a great system. I think this is about the going costs for
>an IBM system.  The computing power is about 5 times faster than an AMIGA
>not including the co-processor.  This system runs at about 5600 drystones.

Huh?  What are you smoking?  The comparison, as shown above, was against
an A2500/30, you know, the 25MHz 68030 machine.  It does about 6500 Dhrystones
(2.1) with the old Lattice compiler; I don't know the latest figure.  The
A2500/30's math is also faster, though if you use a '387 and not a '287,
you can at least be in the same neighborhood as the 2500/30's 68882, which
claims to run between 1/3 and 1/2 MFLOPS, depending on what you're doing 
with it.

>The advantage of the AMIGA system is in its NTSC video and internal sound
>capabilities, but this system has the processing power.

That IBM system is faster than a plain A2000, sure.  It's also considerably
more expensive.

>Rich Commins   (415)939-2400				          \  /\

-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
                    Too much of everything is just enough