burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.222837.634@gw.wmich.edu>, 656lee@gw.wmich.edu writes: |> I am considering of getting a computer but I just couldn't make up my |> mind as to which computer to buy. |> I am considering either a 386-33 and an AMIGA 3000. |> I have actually asked around for opinions about these 2 machines. |> The answers I got are: |> |> - The AMIGA 3000 uses a 68030 running at 25 MHZ. |> |> - it uses a 32 bit bus, not only between the CPU and RAM but also with |> the video RAM, disk and other peripherals. This make it a much faster |> system compared to the 386. |> The 386 only has a 32 bit bus between the processor and RAM. Bus |> with other peripherals is only 16 bit. Does this mean that the AMIGA is |> going to be much faster? yes, you're kinda correct here...depends on the type of machine you want... 386 class machines (and 486 class machines) come in 3 basic flavors...what you're saying is only true for *one* flavor i.e: ISA Bus - standard 'AT' bus is only 16 bits wide (this is the one you're describing - CPU <-> RAM bus is 32-bits, peripheral bus is 16-bit. EISA Bus - "Enhanced" version of the ISA bus - 32 bit peripheral bus. It can handle *both* ISA (16 bit) cards *and* EISA (32 bit) cards. Features "bus mastering" so that peripherals can work independently of CPU. MC Bus - MicroChannel Bus - 32 bit peripheral bus. Fulfills the same tasks as the EISA bus, *except* it is not compatible with the ISA bus. This is the bus used in the PS/2 series of IBM-PC's. (typical IBM attitude of "we're IBM, we'll do what we want and everybody will *have* to follow suit just because we're IBM"). In DOS applications, the difference in speed between the bus architecture is not significant. Running UNIX, the differences are more apparent. Bus mastering and 32-bit bandwidth become *very* important because UNIX is a 32-bit multi-tasking O/S. "Does this mean that the AMIGA is going to be much faster? " thats a tough question to answer simply beacuse in the PC world you have *so* many options that can affect how "fast" a particular machine is...basically you can tailor a PC in both hardware and software for a particular application. A "vanilla" 386 machine might be slower where a "tailored" 386 machine would probably be faster. |> |> - The 3000 has a special graphics, disk and ram controller chip which takes |> of a lot of strain from the PROCESSOR. As with the 386, the processor |> has to take care of refreshing the video, disk access and all other |> io. Again, does this imply that the 386 is slower than the 3000. |> - It comes with a math co-processor(68882) and it is said to be faster |> than INTEL 387 or FASMATH 387. The 386 does not come with a math co-pro. |> - with the power up program going on right now, it cost about $2100. |> The 386 IBM compatible cost almost the same, maybe few hundred buck more. Again...you're kinda correct...the standard vanilla ISA 386 machine is like you describe. BUT, you *can* get graphics boards & disk controllers that have their own processors onboard to take the strain off the cpu. With EISA & MC busses, this is becoming more of the standard. If you're interested in math intensive applications, try looking at the 80486 based machines Comparing an AMIGA to a PC is hard to do...its like asking "which is better, apples or sex?" Both have good points and bad points, it depends on what you're looking for...sex doesn't help you much if you're hungry, and apples aren't much good for procreation (I know, the garden of eden...:-) I would suggest the following... 1) Decide: a) what features you *need* (fast graphics? multi-tasking? fast disk access? fast number crunching?, etc...) b) what features would be *nice* (same list as above) c) what applications you want to run (database, spreadsheet, program development, text editiing, etc) 2) Sit down with an AMIGA, and a PC and try the desired applications on both. It really doesn't matter which is faster, it matters which will run the desired applications "fast enough" (very subjective opinion here). 3) make a list of all your applications, and for each application give the AMIGA and the PC a rating of 0 to 5 (0 => application won't run on this machine, 5 => application runs fast and is easy to use on this machine) 4) add up the ratings for all the application for each machine, the machine with the highest cumulative score is the one you should buy... 5) Now go out and buy the one you wanted in the first place...:-) Personally I would tend to go with a 486 based machine (with an EISA bus if possible), but then again, I've never really used an AMIGA to any great extent... John +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | John Burton | | G & A Technical Software | | jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov | | jcburt@cs.wm.edu | | | | Disclaimer: Hey, what can I say...These are *my* views, not those | | of anyone else, be they employer, school, or government| +--------------------------------------------------------------------+