daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/04/90)
In article <18226@snow-white.udel.EDU> 802360644%RUMAC%UPR1.UPR.CUN.EDU@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu (Angel Asencio) writes: >Hi folks: > BTW, in page 20, they talk about RAM memory and in a part they said >and I quote " Total memory -and this is staggering- could be expanded >up to 1.7 gigabytes (that's 1700 megabytes,..." > Could anyone confirm if this is RAM memory? It could be. The deal is, there are several places RAM can go. Other than the 18 megabytes total possible on the motherboard, there's 128 Megs of space reserved for memory expansions on the Coprocessor slot, plus 1.75 Gigabytes of memory space reserved for Zorro III expansion cards, which can of course be memory cards. With current 4 Megabit ZIP DRAMs, you might just be able to squeeze 64 Megs on a Zorro III card, which would let you add 256 Megs of bus memory in the 3000. With the advent of 16 Meg chips, you might just be able to put a Gigabyte out there. You'd have to be both rich and nutty to do this, and without a careful RAM card design you might hear the power supply complain. The bottom line is, there's lots of expansion address space, and you're not going to use it all up in the next few years. I'm waiting for someone to come along with an actual use for more than 18 or so megabytes, though I suppose it'll happen. I can remember back when 32K seemed like lots of memory. > Angel // > \X/ -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "I have been given the freedom to do as I see fit" -REM
joe@cbmvax.commodore.com (Joe O'Hara - Product Assurance) (05/04/90)
In article <11287@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >I can remember back when 32K seemed like lots of memory. > Heck, Dave, being a _real_ old-timer (gray hair and all), I can remember when mainframes came with 4K! Then came 3rd generation, and 64K (ooh! ahh!) The times, they are achangin' -- ========================================================================== Joe O'Hara || Disclaimer: I didn't say that! Commodore Electronics Ltd || Product Assurance || "I never lie when I have sand in my shoes." Systems Evaluation Group || - Geordi LeForge, Star Trek TNG ==========================================================================
gdunlap@csuchico.edu (Gregory L. Dunlap) (05/04/90)
In article <11287@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >memory cards. With current 4 Megabit ZIP DRAMs, you might just be able to >squeeze 64 Megs on a Zorro III card, which would let you add 256 Megs of bus >memory in the 3000. With the advent of 16 Meg chips, you might just be able >to put a Gigabyte out there. You'd have to be both rich and nutty to do this, >and without a careful RAM card design you might hear the power supply complain. Gee, can the Workbench memory meter handle such a high number, or will overflow? How about the Avail command? :-) :-) (BTW, if I WERE rich, I'd go for it - I AM nutty enough :-) ___________________________________________________________________________ | . _________ . _____ . | |.. / ______/\ . . / _ \ |Greg Dunlap, CSUChico ///| | / /\_____\/ . / /\\ \ .|Email: gdunlap@cscihp.csuchico.edu /// | | / / /. .____ . / / /.\ \ |Disclaimer: Who the hell cares? \\\/// | |/ / /. / _/\ / / /. / /\|Obligatory Quote: \XX/ | |\ \/____/ /\_/ ./ /____/ / /| "Intuition, however illogical, is | |.\________/ /.. /__________/ /.| recognized as a command perogative." | | .\_______\/. .\__________\/ .| -- Kirk, "Obsession", stardate 3620.7 | |___________________________________________________________________________|
swann@acsu.Buffalo.EDU (stephen swann) (05/04/90)
In article <11287@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >memory in the 3000. With the advent of 16 Meg chips, you might just be able >to put a Gigabyte out there. You'd have to be both rich and nutty to do this, > ........ > >The bottom line is, there's lots of expansion address space, and you're not >going to use it all up in the next few years. I'm waiting for someone to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >come along with an actual use for more than 18 or so megabytes, though I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, I've got this friend who would really like to be able to do really fast searches/matches on the entire corpus of Greek and Latin literature.... :-) A Gigabyte? Cheesh. I remember when we got a 10 Meg harddisk for my high school's computer, and everybody was making jokes about many generations of students it would take to use up all that memory. Now we can have a gig of ram. I feel like I'm living in a Monty Python skit, where people are saying things like "Your computer only has six hundred and forty Kilo-bytes? My computer has (gotta say this in an English accent) a GIGA-BYTE (smirk here)" Steve -=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=- \ "Speak to me in many voices; make \ Steve Swann \ / them all sound like one... " / v061q3x6@ubvmsa.bitnet / \ - Blue Oyster Cult \ swann@autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu \ -=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-=#=-
rod@venera.isi.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) (05/04/90)
A friend of mine is thinking of buying a machine, and the 386 or 386SX clones look very appealing in price/performance. Of course, then you've got to acquire some Unixism or OS/2 or one of the kludges that let you task switch under MS-DOS. Now that the 3000 has been announced, how does it compare performance-wise to some of these things? I know, it's always apples and oranges, but do we have anything resembling Dhrystones (or even just a MIPS figure) for the 3000? For that matter, what about the 2000? The '030 accelerator boards all claim to be 7-11 times the performance of a stock 2000, so I would guess the 16 MHz 3000 is on the low end of that, and the 25 MHz at the high end (plus or minus a little bit, depending on how much real improvement the accelerators at 28 and 33 are getting, and what improvements better integration brings the 3000). I'm lost enough on this topic that I'm not even sure how a stock 2000 compares to, say, a 286 AT (or, presumably, 386SX). Anybody got any numbers? Of course, we all know that with low-overhead multitasking, the ECS, etc. that the Amiga makes better use of its native horsepower. --Rod
kosma%human-torch@stc.lockheed.com (Monty Kosma) (05/05/90)
>going to use it all up in the next few years. I'm waiting for someone to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >come along with an actual use for more than 18 or so megabytes, though I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, I've got this friend who would really like to be able to do really fast searches/matches on the entire corpus of Greek and Latin literature.... :-) Ever hear of the TLG (Thesauras Linguae Graece) database? Does just that... A Gigabyte? Cheesh. I remember when we got a 10 Meg harddisk for my high school's computer, and everybody was making jokes about many generations of students it would take to use up all that memory. Now we can have a gig of ram. I feel like I'm living in a Monty Python skit, where people are saying things like "Your computer only has six hundred and forty Kilo-bytes? My computer has (gotta say this in an English accent) a GIGA-BYTE (smirk here)" Well my computer (CM2) has GOT a gigabyte of RAM, and 50 gigabytes of hard disk. And no, it's not enough. When you're inverting rank 50,000 matrixes, you need a lot. :-) (problem on the Amiga is that doing any sort of operations on this much data is bound to be kinda slow) monty kosma@alan.decnet.lockheed.com
p554mve@mpirbn.UUCP (Michael van Elst) (05/05/90)
In article <11287@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >The bottom line is, there's lots of expansion address space, and you're not >going to use it all up in the next few years. I'm waiting for someone to >come along with an actual use for more than 18 or so megabytes, though I >suppose it'll happen. I can remember back when 32K seemed like lots of memory. Good ole days. We are using several DECstations equipped with 24Meg. Since the UNIX kernel and X-windows consumes about 4Meg and our applications code will use about 2.5 Meg we can use 17.5 for our data. And we have to swap data in and out of the machine. Aren't we doing image processing ? :-} -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (05/05/90)
Speaking of mongo amounts of RAM in an Amiga, I remember when Thad Floryn said he had several applications he would like to program on his Amiga but it only had 8 meg of RAM and he needed more like 30 meg of RAM to make the application practical. So let's ask Thad if he will be buying an A3000 and if so, when will this PD program be released? Dana etc. :)
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (05/06/90)
In article <13271@venera.isi.edu> rod@venera.isi.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III) writes: >Now that the 3000 has been announced, how does it compare performance-wise >to some of these things? Well, if you're willing to buy a MacIIci, then the Amiga3000 is a candidate. >I know, it's always apples and oranges, but >do we have anything resembling Dhrystones (or even just a MIPS figure) >for the 3000? For that matter, what about the 2000? Well, Mr. Benchmark here :)... I seem to recall somewhere between 1100 and 1600 Dhrys for the stock machine and somewhere around 7000-11000 for the 25/33Mhz 68030 from GVP. I'd expect the numbers to be in that area. Would someone out there *please* do a test for us and let us know? I'd do it myself but the local A3000 has a nasty ole heating problem :( >I'm lost enough on this topic that I'm not even sure how a stock 2000 >compares to, say, a 286 AT (or, presumably, 386SX). Anybody got any numbers? Well, let's quote a few more numbers :) The "slow" Fast to CHIP transfers on an A3000 run about 4 times as fast as into a VGA card. Also, many stock 386's don't come with math chips. The 68882 is a *darn* fast chip. Of course, most OS's you could *afford*/want to run on an IBM are 8-bit OS's, so that's just silly performance-wise. >Of course, we all know that with low-overhead multitasking, the ECS, etc. >that the Amiga makes better use of its native horsepower. I think in this respect that the A3000 HAS more horsepower :) Except maybe color-wise :( :( Oh well, hope your friend doesn't need to do much CAD design :)... > --Rod David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu "Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me