hassinger@lmrc.uucp (Bob Hassinger) (07/30/90)
In article <13489@cbmvax.commodore.com>, dale@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dale Luck - Amiga) writes: ... > However if your applications depend on COLOR or other capabilities > of X11 that are not universally available on all machines (another one > is speed) then you have the same problem. ... Dale, Since you mentioned the issue of X speed, could you comment on the speed of the Amiga X product on various models and configurations, and compared to alternative X options such as DEC's VT1000 X terminal and the new VT1200 version they are showing at DECworld. Some say the Amiga version is significantly faster and more memory efficient. If so, maybe you can comment on why, and the likely hood of it continuing to be so. Bob Hassinger ...uunet!ccavax!lmrc!hassinger .or. hassinger@lmrc.UUCP
dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) (08/11/90)
In article <7290@lmrc.uucp> hassinger@lmrc.uucp (Bob Hassinger) writes: > >Since you mentioned the issue of X speed, could you comment on the speed of the >Amiga X product on various models and configurations, and compared to >alternative X options such as DEC's VT1000 X terminal and the new VT1200 >version they are showing at DECworld. > >Some say the Amiga version is significantly faster and more memory efficient. >If so, maybe you can comment on why, and the likely hood of it continuing to be >so. > >Bob Hassinger >...uunet!ccavax!lmrc!hassinger .or. hassinger@lmrc.UUCP I don't like to quote some of my own benchmark figures but here are some numbers taken from with a too simple benchmark program made available a long time ago. Xstones Some of the numbers quoted may be out of date, newer software, newer hardware, etc. blit text xstones ------------------------------------------------------- A2000-GVP(30) 18927 37812 21588 A2500/30 17840 34375 18919 IBM PC/RT 15934 10937 15486 A2500 15872 26812 14145 sun 3/60 16577 13437 13343 sun 3/110 14266 11250 11229 sun 3/50 10000 10000 10000 (normalized to this) A2000 11799 11000 6938 All tests were done with the bench program running locally. These results reflect aggresive usage of some of the unique Amiga graphics hardware. Other tests that do not depend as much on the blitter, etc. do show that yes, a 68000 at 7mhz does not have as much steam as some of the faster cpus. Such as window mapping, thick lines, etc. some of which use floating pnt. In general though we do fair pretty well. All the servers benchmarked are running R3 X11. -- Dale Luck GfxBase/Boing, Inc. {uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (08/17/90)
In article <902@boing.UUCP> dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) writes: [buncha figures, ending with] > A2000 11799 11000 6938 This is the AmigaOS version of X, no? Has anyone got good figures on the performance of AMIX X, particularly compared with (say) an AT bus machine running an equivalent clock speed (25 MHz) 386 or 486. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.