jjfeiler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (John Jay Feiler) (12/12/90)
The display speed on the '030 NeXT is sluggish. The display speed on the '040 NeXT is very zippy... quite fast and clean. How does it look on a color NeXTstation? The '040 is moving 16 planes instead of 2, is there much of a slowdown? Does anyone who's seen one of these puppies have an opinion? Thanks John Feiler
reid@ss6.uucp (Dr Richard J. Reid) (12/12/90)
In article <1990Dec12.065909.18062@nntp-server.caltech.edu> jjfeiler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (John Jay Feiler) writes: >The display speed on the '030 NeXT is sluggish. The display speed on >the '040 NeXT is very zippy... quite fast and clean. How does it look >on a color NeXTstation? The '040 is moving 16 planes instead of 2, >is there much of a slowdown? Does anyone who's seen one of these >puppies have an opinion? > > Thanks > John Feiler Does anyone have a "hard" number for 2-D vectors/sec for any of these machines? Some information about the test used would be helpful also. Thanks, Dick
dwallach@soda.Berkeley.EDU (Dan Wallach) (12/13/90)
Well, I don't have solid numbers, but I did see one for a while. Assuming OpaqueMove-windows of NeXTstep 2.0 are some random example of graphics speed, they were quite snappy, but not quite as nice as the B&W machines. Hard to guess, but I'd estimate 7-10 refreshes/sec for a typical terminal window, which is pretty impressive. This Apollo 4500 I'm on has 8 bitplanes and a 33MHz 68030 and can do maybe 2 refreshes/sec when you turn on OpaqueMove. Don't know what, but they sure did SOMETHING right... Dan