ISSLTC@NUSVM.BITNET (Lim Thye Chean) (05/15/91)
Hello, Thye Chean here.
I am planning to get an accelerator for my IIGS. And I am seeking your
advices.
How reliable is Zip GS and Transwarp GS? Which one is easier to install?
Have anybody used both of them before?
I know now Zip GS is selling at $149, and how long will the offer last?
Speeding the Zip GS from 7MHz to 9MHz is better or upgrading the 8K
cache to 64K? Or Transwarp GS is faster? And is the 12 MHz Zip GS on
the horizon?
Sorry I have asked so many questions. But I am really keen to know.
***********************************************************************
*** Apple IIGS Forever ***
An Apple IIGS lover from Malaysia. A software engineer from Singapore.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact me at ISSLTC@NUSVM
Lim Thye Chean - Lim is my surname. My name is Thye Chean.
***********************************************************************toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/15/91)
ISSLTC@NUSVM.BITNET (Lim Thye Chean) writes: >How reliable is Zip GS and Transwarp GS? Which one is easier to install? >Have anybody used both of them before? The ZipGS had a shaky start but it is quite reliable now. The Transwarp is a sweaty behemoth and I wouldn't wish it on my enemies. The Zip is usually faster than the transwarp at the same speed. Adding cache and upping the speed generally should go hand in hand for best price/performance (7mhz/8K, 8mhz/16K, 9mhz/32K, 10mhz/64K) -- roughly. The upgrade prices change depending on availability so don't hold me to closely to that. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (05/16/91)
My opinion is Zip GS, it is a bit faster, is just as easy to install, runs coller, and is much easier to upgrade yourself. IMHO, a larger cache is better than more MHzage, but it depends on how you use your system, as a fast IIe 8k is probably adequate. An advantage is that you can do it yourself, 8-16k-32k-64k as money is available. I can think of no reason to by a TWGS over the Zip. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (05/16/91)
>The Zip is usually faster than the transwarp at the same speed. Adding >cache and upping the speed generally should go hand in hand for best >price/performance (7mhz/8K, 8mhz/16K, 9mhz/32K, 10mhz/64K) -- roughly. >The upgrade prices change depending on availability so don't hold me to >closely to that. > >Todd Whitesel >toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu I agree with the first, but not the last. The size of the cache will affect the hit ratio (the probability of any given data being in "fast" memory). Suppose 8k gives a 50% hit ratio, 16k gives 75%, 32k gives 95% and 64k gives 97%. speed cache 7 8 9 10 8k 3.5 4 4.5 5 16k 5.25 6 6.8 7.5 32k 6.7 7.6 8.6 9.5 64k 6.8 7.8 8.7 9.7 The figures give the effective speed of the processor. The figures are not absolutely accurate, just estimates, but for most applications these are close enough. You can see that doubling the 8k cache to 16k gives better performance than increasing the speed. similarly a 64k cache is much better than an 8k cache at any available speed, although the improvement over 32k is negilible. The critical point is cost for the improvement. The Zip chip speed upgrade to 10MHz is around $200 CAN, the cost for 64k of SRAM is $60 CAN. This gives my 8MHz Zip more performance than a 16k 10MHz Zip, but only just, the cost however is much less. I think you will find incremental increases work out cheaper if you buy the memory first and then the speed. If you are planning ahead spend a little extra for faster than required memory to handle the higher speed later on. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) (05/16/91)
In article <730@generic.UUCP> ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: >My opinion is Zip GS, it is a bit faster, is just as easy to install, runs >coller, and is much easier to upgrade yourself. Ok, ok... Sure, it runs cooler, but a bit faster? Come on folks... Until someone produces some HARD evidence that a 7 MHz Zip runs faster than a 7 MHz Transwarp GS, I would really appreciate it if we layed off of the AE bashing. I have my problems with AE too, but this is stupid. Derek (A satisfied TWGS owner) -- + Derek Taubert --> derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu + Author of : GScii+ + + dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu + and the world's most useless + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ desk accessory -> Amaze me + + There are MOUSE technotes? + *******8-) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Ask me about my GS load meter + ^^^^^^^^^^ Marge Simpson +
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (05/16/91)
dat33228@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Derek A. Taubert) writes: >Ok, ok... Sure, it runs cooler, but a bit faster? Come on folks... Until >someone produces some HARD evidence that a 7 MHz Zip runs faster than a 7 MHz >Transwarp GS, I would really appreciate it if we layed off of the AE bashing. The Zip uses latch-on-write for slow bus writes. This means you can write data to the slow bus at a full 1 mhz very easily, as long as you are running entirely in the cache except for the write. I've clocked the transfer rate at 1 mb/s and the performance for longer transfer loops was better than I expected (i.e. you will still get .7 mb/s for loops that I thought would only get .5) This makes stack-romping graphics code (like the scrolling routines in LHG) _scream_. Also, Apple's routine for clearing dialogs and windows to white (the ONLY optimized rectangle primitive in QD it seems) uses a loop that is tight enough to write to the screen at somewhere between .5 and 1 mb/s -- it's really neat to have large dialogs get cleared with a single screen tear. I just wish they'd quit using super-slow genero-loops to draw things like icons and the background picture!! Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (05/17/91)
>someone produces some HARD evidence that a 7 MHz Zip runs faster than a 7 MHz >Transwarp GS, I would really appreciate it if we layed off of the AE bashing. > >I have my problems with AE too, but this is stupid. > >Derek (A satisfied TWGS owner) >-- >+ Derek Taubert --> derek@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu + Author of : GScii+ + I'm sorry, but I don't have access to a Zip chip that slow!! The one I received is clocked at 8MHz with 16k of cache. I have not yet installed the 64k of cache, but this will not slow it down, just the opposite I suspect. The problem is finding a test that would convince everyone one way or the other. None of the published benchmarks have convinced me on other machines, so I don't see it working here. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (05/17/91)
In article <737@generic.UUCP> ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: >[chop chop] The >problem is finding a test that would convince everyone one way or the other. >None of the published benchmarks have convinced me on other machines, so I >don't see it working here. Why wouldn't it convince you here? The same CPU is being used, just different speeds and caches... Seems like standard benchmarks should work.. you're running the EXACT same code on both. -- /unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! unknown@cats.ucsc.edu\ |WANT to help get ULTIMA VI //e or GS written?-mail me. CHEAP CD info-mail me.| \ It's a Late Night World.... Of Love /
gtolar@xcluud.sccsi.com (Glynne Tolar) (05/18/91)
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: > I'm sorry, but I don't have access to a Zip chip that slow!! The one I > received is clocked at 8MHz with 16k of cache. I have not yet installed the > 64k of cache, but this will not slow it down, just the opposite I suspect. Th > problem is finding a test that would convince everyone one way or the other. > None of the published benchmarks have convinced me on other machines, so I > don't see it working here. > > UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg > INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com I have access to both a 7MHz ZipChip (mine is 9) w/8k cache and a TWGS. If somebody will sugest some tests I'll do them and report. We don't care, we don't have to. We're Apple computer. ----------------------- OR ----------------------------- Apple II forever. I just love hearing the company LInE. Pick your favorite. gtolar@xcluud.sccsi.com I didn't write the organization or path. I just use it.
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (05/18/91)
> The same CPU is being used, just different speeds and caches... >Seems like standard benchmarks should work.. you're running the EXACT same >code on both. >-- >/unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! >unknown@cats.ucsc.edu\ It should work, but....... The trouble is isolating the points you want to test. Which is more efficient at dealing with cache misses for instance. Also, do these tests accurately realte to real world applications. It is possible that the points tested have no real effect in the real world. I think some sample benchmarks posted to comp.sources.apple2 would be a good first step. Nothing fancy, jsut simple APW shell utilties that test specific features. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com