wille@frith.egr.msu.edu (02/27/90)
I urgently need some recommendations from any of you smart people out there regarding the use of an Amiga 2500/30 as a research workstation. I'm beginning a major research project at Michigan State University, and I need to make a decision soon. We have VIP's touring our lab quite frequently and this would be a great oportunity to demonstrate the capabilities of the Amiga. Here's the scenario. I want to control and monitor a mechanical process using an AT compatible motion controller board and data acquisition board. I figure that with an AT bridgeboard this should be no problem. I wish to overlay the data obtained from the data acquisition board in the form of text over a video image of the experimental process and record all this on video tape. After the experiment is completed, I want to replay the video tape, grab frames from it, and do image analysis (possibly including 3-D reconstruction from optically sectioned images). The image processing will involve, among other things, dividing one image by another in floating point. Speed is a critical factor since I will be processing LOTS of images, and I would like to finish before the year 2000. I have also been looking into other machines such as a 386 or SPARCstation. Since speed is important, I would like to know how fast the A2500/30 is compared with other machines that I might be able to use. Please send any recommendations regarding this project, including alternatives I have not thought of. (I forgot to mention, it I use the SPARCstation I would have to get an IBM w/ AT compatible bus to plug the peripherals into it and try to have the SPARC and IBM talk to each other). Thanks so much for your help. Jeff Wille (wille@frith.egr.msu.edu) << Will Amiga make it possible? >> Let me know!
stevem@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (Steve McClure) (02/27/90)
In article <6623@cps3xx.UUCP> wille@frith.egr.msu.edu () writes: > [ text deleted ] >Here's the scenario. I want to control and monitor a mechanical process >using an AT compatible motion controller board and data acquisition board. Why bother with the AT boards here. Won't something like the ACDA board do the same trick for about the same price?? >Speed is a critical factor since I will be processing LOTS of images, and >I would like to finish before the year 2000. I guess LOTS is a critical term here, however a 2500/30 should be at least as fast as a 386/25. > [ inquiry for comparison between 25Mhz '030, 386, and Sparc deleted ] I can't give you any concrete numbers here, however the '030 and 386 should be comperable. Steve ----- Steve.McClure@Columbia.NCR.COM The above are my opinions, which NCR doesn't really care about anyway! CAUSER's Amiga BBS! | 803-796-3127 | 8pm-8am 8n1 | 300/1200/2400
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (03/01/90)
In article <2017@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM> stevem@sauron.UUCP (Steve McClure) writes: >I can't give you any concrete numbers here, however the '030 and 386 should >be comperable. The '030' is, of course, a faster chip than an equivalently clocked '386. The '486' is, of course, faster yet. >Steve.McClure@Columbia.NCR.COM David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu "Think you can, think you can't -- either way it's true." Henry Ford
valentin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea) (03/01/90)
In article <2017@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM> stevem@sauron.UUCP (Steve McClure) writes: > >I can't give you any concrete numbers here, however the '030 and 386 should >be comperable. The 68020 and 80386 are comparable. Actually, the 80386 wins out slightly, by perhaps 10 to 20 percent. The 68030 is twice as fast as the 68020, so obviously it beats the 80386 hands down. The 80486 is in a totally different category. At 15 Mips, it certainly would beat the 68030 down, except for the fact that it is not ready for shipment yet. We have all seen manufacturers actually shipping them out, however that mere fact does not make it ready for shipment. Motorola is likely to come out with a bug free 20 Mips 68040 before Intel irons out its last bugs. So where does that leave your 68000 Amiga? Well, it has about the same horse power as an IBM AT running at the a slower clock speed. It does not have the memory management features of the 80286, but then it has other architectural advantages to compensate. Valentin -- The Goddess of democracy? "The tyrants Name: Valentin Pepelea may distroy a statue, but they cannot Phone: (215) 431-9327 kill a god." UseNet: cbmvax!valentin@uunet.uu.net - Ancient Chinese Proverb Claimer: I not Commodore spokesman be
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/01/90)
In article <9900@cbmvax.commodore.com> valentin@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea) writes: >In article <2017@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM> stevem@sauron.UUCP (Steve McClure) writes: >>I can't give you any concrete numbers here, however the '030 and 386 should >>be comperable. >The 80486 is in a totally different category. At 15 Mips, it certainly would >beat the 68030 down, except for the fact that it is not ready for shipment >yet. Interestingly enough, the 80486 does win. But probably not by as much as Intel would have the world believe. Personal Workstation magazine (nee MIPS) did benchmarks recently on HP's 50MHz '030 system. At integer benchmarks, they beat out every 25MHz '486 yet tested. The '486 always wins at floating point over the 40MHz '882. So you can, if you like, say that a '486 is roughly twice as fast as a 68030. Another thing that's interesting, though, is the effect of these very big on-chip caches, for both the 80486 and the 68040. You'll find lots of performance difference between 68030 systems running at the same clock speed; it's relatively difficult to build a 68030 system that keeps up with the 68030 at any given clock speed (I mentioned HP because they seem to build the best ones, albeit at workstation prices). You'll see much less difference between different vendors of '486 and '040 systems. >Motorola is likely to come out with a bug free 20 Mips 68040 before Intel >irons out its last bugs. That's debatable; the '486 does have a significant time-frame lead on the '040. I'd be really surprised to see the 68040 hit today's 80486 volumes with any bugs, though. Motorola has been traditionally very good with this. Even back in the '030 days, when I had some very fresh 25MHz parts with no markings on them, with a note saying "room temperature only", we didn't run into any bugs. >Valentin -- 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
jac@muslix.llnl.gov (James Crotinger) (03/02/90)
In article <22494@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David C. Navas) writes: > >The '030' is, of course, a faster chip than an equivalently clocked '386. >The '486' is, of course, faster yet. > >David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu This seems to be a widespread myth among Motorola product users. MIPS magazine (now Personal Workstations) has tested a wide variety of '386 machines and a few '030 machines, and the '386 machines always come out slightly on top (and in computing power/$ they come out way on top (of course MIPS has never tested an A2500/30)). However, if Motorola's info is accurate, the '040 is faster than an equivalently clocked '486. Jim
hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey) (03/02/90)
In article <9903@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > In article <9900@cbmvax.commodore.com> valentin@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Valentin Pepelea) writes: > Interestingly enough, the 80486 does win. But probably not by as much as > Intel would have the world believe. Personal Workstation magazine (nee MIPS) > did benchmarks recently on HP's 50MHz '030 system. At integer benchmarks, > they beat out every 25MHz '486 yet tested. The '486 always wins at floating > point over the 40MHz '882. So you can, if you like, say that a '486 is > roughly twice as fast as a 68030. > > >Valentin > I thought I should post some info from Inforworld, January 22, 1990: (Note: I am not disagreeing or agreeing with anyone. It's all FYI.) The performances below are at 25 MHz MC68040 Sun Sparc i80486 ------- --------- ------ 20 mips 18 mips 15 mips 3.5 mflops 1.2 mflops 1 mflops $795 $1,735 $950 # Chips one >five one mark -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- hubey@pilot.njin.net | hubey@apollo.montclair.edu | ...!rutgers!njin!hubey -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (03/02/90)
In article <50518@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> jac@muslix.llnl.gov.UUCP (James Crotinger) writes: >In article <22494@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David C. Navas) writes: >>The '030' is, of course, a faster chip than an equivalently clocked '386. >>The '486' is, of course, faster yet. >>David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu > > This seems to be a widespread myth among Motorola product users. >MIPS magazine (now Personal Workstations) has tested a wide variety of >'386 machines and a few '030 machines, and the '386 machines always >come out slightly on top (and in computing power/$ they come out way >on top (of course MIPS has never tested an A2500/30)). Okay, I will :) > > However, if Motorola's info is accurate, the '040 is faster than an >equivalently clocked '486. If Motorola's info is accurate, the 68030 beats the 80386 [as far as I know] From May 1989 Sentry: Amiga2000 with A3001 -- Dhrystones/sec = 7273 [25Mhz] Compaq 386 -- Dhrystones/sec = 5705 [20MHz] Correcting for speed difference, that's 7173 The June 1988 of BYTE says they tested 386 machines anywhere from 1724--9436 Dhrystones/sec. Obviously this is compiler sensitive testing! And if you are interested in more Apples/Oranges testing: Turbo-Amiga [68020 @ 14.32MHz] runs the Sieve on a 40000byte array in 2.32 seconds. The Amiga does it in 11.5 seconds The IBM AT in 99.71 seconds!!! [Their 32K limit problems...] Even More!:: Turbo-Amiga at 14MHz beats up on Macs: Slowest quote of Turbo-Amiga on Sieve: 14.7 [compiled Lattice, long ints] Mac SE/prodigy @ 16MHz 14.8 Mac II @ 15.67MHz 16.7 [all in seconds, folks...] Disclaimer: I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing: all I know is that some people were asking for numbers. This is by no means a conclusive end to the on-going argument of Intel/Motorola debate. David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu "Think you can, think you can't -- either way it's true." Henry Ford
boss@sunspot.noao.edu (Steve Keil) (03/03/90)
Just a brief note on using an Amiga as a workstation. We have an Amiga
2000 with a Hurricane board running a 68030/68882 with 4MB of 32bit
memory that we are using as both a workstation attached via ethernet to
a Sun 4/280 and as a video workstation. The amiga is often used as a
4010 emulator to capture plots that are later incorporated into
viewgraphs for scientific and "sales" presentations/publications.
Hardcopy is made via a Xerox 4020 printer or a Tektonics 4693D printer
or often by just photographing the amiga screen (Zenith flat screen).
The system contains a Flicker Fixer to drive the flat screen. The other
major use of the amiga is to produce video tapes of data that have
usually been processed on the Sun. The Sun disks are mounted on the
amiga via ethernet and are read directly by C-programs written for the
amiga. Typically, a time sequence of 2-d images of a solar flare or
some solar velocity field is loaded into the 32 bit memory directly
from the sun disk. Byte arrays (8bits) on the Sun are displayed by
taking either the highest 4 or 5 bits and stuffing them into fast
memory on the amiga. Hunks of fast memory are then blittered to chip
memory sequentially to show the movie. A Vidtech genlock is used to
write the movie to video tape or optical disk. These tapes have been
used at presentation as several American Astronomical Society meetings
and, if color tables are chosen carefully can be of very high quality.
Headers describing the movie sequences have been produced using the
Director, Dpaint+slideshow, Deluxe Video and Video Titler programs.
I have also used the system to produce nice color viewgraphs for
presenting our work at program reviews. Work that used to take many
days and interations through the photolab now takes just a few hours on
the amiga. Finally, the system has a 80MB GVP hard disk that is used
primarily for program storage since data can be kept on the Sun hard disks.
We have been very satisfied with the amiga system. Costs were:
Amiga 2000 computer - $1581
Ronin Hurricane 68030/68882 - $4627
GVP Impace HC/80R - $1378
Zentih Flat Screen - $700
VidTech Scanlock Model VSL-1-N $995
External Power for VidTech - $55
Commodor 3.5 floppy - $148
Ameristar Ethernet Card - $809
Micro Way Flicker Fixer - $596
---------------------------------------------
Total - $10889
Note that almost everything was purchased through a local dealer (New
Horizons Computers in Alamogordo, New Mexico, so you could probably do
better on prices. However, they did an excellent job setting up the
system and service has been good. In addition, we purchased close to
$1500 worth of manuals and software. I am willing to make the C-code
used for movie display available to anyone who is interested.
Hope this information is of use to anyone thinking about a workstation.
Note that we have not yet taken advantage of having the 68882 present in
the system..... but I have plans :-).GORRIEDE@UREGINA1.BITNET (Dennis Robert Gorrie) (03/05/90)
> This seems to be a widespread myth among Motorola product users. >MIPS magazine (now Personal Workstations) has tested a wide variety of >'386 machines and a few '030 machines, and the '386 machines always >come out slightly on top (and in computing power/$ they come out way >on top (of course MIPS has never tested an A2500/30)). > > However, if Motorola's info is accurate, the '040 is faster than an >equivalently clocked '486. > > Jim > James Crotinger comp.sys.amiga@ 3/01/90*Recommendations needed about MIPS = Meaningless Information from Pushy Salesmen Seriously though, I was under the impression that MIPS is realy only meant to be used to bench processors of single family. There is no direct correlation between the number of instructions executed and the work done. And, the instructions are not constant from processor to processor. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Dennis Gorrie 'Chain-Saw Tag... | |GORRIEDE AT UREGINA1.BITNET Try It, You'll Like It!'| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/05/90)
In article <50518@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> jac@muslix.llnl.gov.UUCP (James Crotinger) writes: >In article <22494@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David C. Navas) writes: >>The '030' is, of course, a faster chip than an equivalently clocked '386. >>The '486' is, of course, faster yet. >>David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu > This seems to be a widespread myth among Motorola product users. >MIPS magazine (now Personal Workstations) has tested a wide variety of >'386 machines and a few '030 machines, and the '386 machines always >come out slightly on top (and in computing power/$ they come out way >on top (of course MIPS has never tested an A2500/30)). Hmm, I read the same magazine, and seem to hear something different. You sure you aren't reading through blue-tinted glasses? I'm not going to suggest one compare a Mac against the latest 33MHz '386 machine with scads of external cache. But comparing some of the better '030 machines (HPs, Apollos, and the occasional Sony), the '030 machines have always come out on top running similar software. It's a close test, and if you run one of these '386 program launchers on a '386 with Dhrystone or some other cache-sized benchmark, you get a bit better performance than an '030 machine under UNIX. Or, for that matter, a '386 machine under UNIX. But for the AIM benchmarks, UNIX vs. UNIX, etc. the '040 machines come out ahead. In fact, a recent issue has a 50MHz HP '030 machines outperforming all tested '486 machines on equivalent integer benchmarks. The '486 did win on the floating point, but I wouldn't have expected any '030 to have much of a chance. > However, if Motorola's info is accurate, the '040 is faster than an >equivalently clocked '486. It's always dependent on the system design. Only, with these newer chips, the system design matters less, since you've got more % of performance based only on chip design, thanks to on-chip floating point and large on-chip caches. One thing in the favor of '386 machines is that competition has forced manufacturers to build better '386 machines at lower prices than similar '030 machines. The HP and Apollo machines carry Workstation prices. Even the NeXT and Mac IIci aren't cheap, and of those two, they're both quite moderate designs -- you can get '386 machines at 33MHz with external cache for the $8-$10k or so you'll pay for either of these '030 boxes. You will generally have to spend a few hundered extra to put a math chip in your '386 (nearly every '020 or '030 system comes with one). > Jim -- 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
jac@muslix.llnl.gov (James Crotinger) (03/06/90)
In article <9003041700.AA10475@jade.berkeley.edu> GORRIEDE@UREGINA1.BITNET (Dennis Robert Gorrie) writes: >MIPS = Meaningless Information from Pushy Salesmen > >Seriously though, I was under the impression that MIPS is realy only meant >to be used to bench processors of single family. There is no direct >correlation between the number of instructions executed and the work done. >And, the instructions are not constant from processor to processor. > MIPS = a computer magazine now know as Personal Workstation. They have done a wide range of benchmarks on a variety of machines. This include a set of multitasking benchmarks calle the AIM Suite which attempts to measure performance of real-life applications of various types under various loads. For instance, typical dhrystone-2 performance for 20-25 MHz '386 machines under Xenix seems to be 5000-9000 and for the AIM benchmarks in Software-Development/Engineering-Scientific they seem to be in the 300-400/200-300 range. Sun's 3/80 only did 4461 dhrystones and only scored 646/609 on the avg. AIM scores. (The Sparcstation 1 did 20,000 and 185/120 and the Sun 386i did 8265 and 452/240). I think the only '030 machine that has even been competitive with the hordes of '386 machines is the HP-370 (and now the 375). The 370 has a 33 MHz '030 and did 13,391 dhrystones and 158/126 on the AIM averages. This edges out the Everex Step 386/33 which did 12,275 and 213/169 (under Xenix; it did 17,105 dhrystones under DOS). So, it's not clear that the '030 is inherently slower. But it does seem that the '030 systems on the market right now tend to be slower than the majority of the '386 machines. >+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >|Dennis Gorrie 'Chain-Saw Tag... | >|GORRIEDE AT UREGINA1.BITNET Try It, You'll Like It!'| >+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Jim
jac@muslix.llnl.gov (James Crotinger) (03/06/90)
Well, I'm certainly not wearing blue colored glasses. I'd use a Mac first (shudder 8-). Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I thought I recalled that only the HP 370 performed at a level comparable with the same clockspeed '386 machines. Personally, I'll keep my SparcStation, thank you 8-). Jim
acliu@skat.usc.edu (Alex C. Liu) (03/06/90)
[ Gobs of Info on Machine Speeds ] You guys are really starting to sound like kids comparing who has the best set of toys... (Sorry, Just couldn't resist...) ______________________________________________________________________ Alex C. Liu | INTERNET: acliu%skat@usc.edu Voice: (213) 749-2730 | BITNET: acliu%skat@gamera Q-Link: Alejandro | UUCP: ...!usc!edu
bscott@pikes.Colorado.EDU (Ben M Scott) (03/06/90)
In article <23263@usc.edu> acliu@skat.usc.edu (Alex C. Liu) writes: >[ Gobs of Info on Machine Speeds ] > >You guys are really starting to sound like kids comparing who has the >best set of toys... That's exactly what we are; do you think we actually get any WORK done on these fun gadgets? Actually there is a point to this message: I just wanted to tell the 50% of those who have sent me mail (the ones that haven't gotten replies) that I'm sorry but I DID try.... I can't seem to get the hang of mail routing, and let me tell you those bounced messages get old after a while. Anyway, since a major portion of them were concerning my comments on PALboot, asking me to send it to them, AND since it'll only take three lines, I'm going to post it here. PALboot is a program that allows Amigas with the Super Agnus and 1.3 ROM to run in PAL mode, even on a normal NTSC 1084. This gives a 25% boost in resolution with virtually no extra system overhead. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ begin 644 PALboot M```#\P`````````!```````````````(```#Z0````@L>``$3J[_:D?Y`-_Q0 7HG(@+'@``DOY``-!($YP3M5.<0```_((? `` end size 68 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ . <<<<Infinite K>>>> -- _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | Someday, I'm going to make up a clever .sig file like everyone else has... | |_____________________________________________________________________________|