252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) (10/11/90)
A friend of mine recently was bragging that an A3000/25/50 running the AMAX-II mac plus emulator was leaving various Mac II's in the dust. They were running Speedometer 2.5 and came up with following results: KWhets/sec: 882.4 (using FPU) 39.4 (not using FPU) Dhrys/sec: 2871 FPU, 2717 not Sieve: 3.70 sec FPU, 3.83 sec Savage err: 7.988e-10, 2.297e-11 Savage time: 8.52 sec FPU, 71.43 sec Savage iterations: 25000 FPU, 5000 CPU test: 6.40 (no FPU) Math: 95.27 FPU, 5.24 Performance: 5.42 (no FPU) Of course he was comparing it to relatively slow Mac II's like the cx. Would someone with a IIFX screamer post some results so I can show my haughty amiga friend up? If someone has a souped up mac that would be faster than an fx, post 'em. Hmm, why not make this the world's fastest 680x0 machine contest? _____________________________________________________________________________ * Mike Gleason 252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu * "Don't you f*ckin' look at me!" -- D. Hopper cosc006@unlcdc2.unl.edu
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (10/11/90)
In article <1990Oct10.222343.8737@hoss.unl.edu> 252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) writes: >A friend of mine recently was bragging that an A3000/25/50 running the >AMAX-II mac plus emulator was leaving various Mac II's in the dust. >They were running Speedometer 2.5 and came up with following results: > >KWhets/sec: 882.4 (using FPU) 39.4 (not using FPU) >Dhrys/sec: 2871 FPU, 2717 not >Sieve: 3.70 sec FPU, 3.83 sec >Savage err: 7.988e-10, 2.297e-11 >Savage time: 8.52 sec FPU, 71.43 sec >Savage iterations: 25000 FPU, 5000 > >CPU test: 6.40 (no FPU) >Math: 95.27 FPU, 5.24 >Performance: 5.42 (no FPU) I'd be curious to see how various Macs performed. > >Of course he was comparing it to relatively slow Mac II's like the cx. >Would someone with a IIFX screamer post some results so I can show my >haughty amiga friend up? If someone has a souped up mac that would be You might end up looking a little silly when you realize that you could have THREE complete A3000/50/25mhz machines (with COLOR monitors) for the price of one IIfx color system. >faster than an fx, post 'em. Hmm, why not make this the world's >fastest 680x0 machine contest? I'm sure the winner wouldn't be a Mac or an Amiga. Probably, one of the screamer workstations would win. >_____________________________________________________________________________ > * Mike Gleason 252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu > * "Don't you f*ckin' look at me!" -- D. Hopper cosc006@unlcdc2.unl.edu ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ OK, I won't! :-) Cheers, Chris ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan! (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | ------------------------------+---------------------------
kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) (10/11/90)
In article <1990Oct10.222343.8737@hoss.unl.edu> 252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) writes: > Hmm, why not make this the world's >fastest 680x0 machine contest? I refer you to article 47427@mcdchg.mcd.mot.com in the comp.newprod group, dated today: The MYRIAS SPS-3, using 32 68040's, running at 50Mhz. -- _ Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq kdq@demott.com DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266 VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last 96.37% of all statistics are made up.
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) (10/11/90)
In article <1990Oct11.002137.11988@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: >In article <1990Oct10.222343.8737@hoss.unl.edu> 252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) writes: >>A friend of mine recently was bragging that an A3000/25/50 running the >>AMAX-II mac plus emulator was leaving various Mac II's in the dust. >>They were running Speedometer 2.5 and came up with following results: >> >>KWhets/sec: 882.4 (using FPU) 39.4 (not using FPU) >>Dhrys/sec: 2871 FPU, 2717 not >>Sieve: 3.70 sec FPU, 3.83 sec >>Savage err: 7.988e-10, 2.297e-11 >>Savage time: 8.52 sec FPU, 71.43 sec >>Savage iterations: 25000 FPU, 5000 >> >>CPU test: 6.40 (no FPU) >>Math: 95.27 FPU, 5.24 >>Performance: 5.42 (no FPU) > >I'd be curious to see how various Macs performed. Ok, here's my results, running on an original II (using Speedometer 2.5): w/FPU w/o FPU ------- ------- KWhets/sec: 517.241 50.804 Dhryst/sec: 2979.146 2979.146 Sieve: 7.867 7.883 Savage time: 11.833 47.817 Savage iter: 25000 5000 CPU test: 3.66 3.66 Math: 97.04 6.63 Performance: ----- 4.04 I was surprised to find out that my plain old macII with it's 16MHz '020 beat out the A3000's 25MHz '030 w/ AMAX in most all of these benchmarks. Of course, the CPU test put the mac into the dirt, but what do you expect considering that we're comparing a '020 to a '030 running at nearly twice the clock speed? >>Of course he was comparing it to relatively slow Mac II's like the cx. You consider the cx to be relatively slow? Gee, maybe it's time for that upgrade... >>Would someone with a IIFX screamer post some results so I can show my >>haughty amiga friend up? If someone has a souped up mac that would be Amiga owners do tend to be a little haughty, don't they (what other group of computer owners would put a damn check sign in almost every .sig)? But then again, they have their reasons...which you can learn about by reading comp.sys.amiga, so I won't belobor them here... -- Don DeVoe "Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders ddev@epsl.umd.edu what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of" -TMBG
jkain@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jeff Kain) (10/11/90)
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >Amiga owners do tend to be a little haughty, don't they (what other group >of computer owners would put a damn check sign in almost every .sig)? But >then again, they have their reasons...which you can learn about by reading >comp.sys.amiga, so I won't belobor them here... they's jist jealous........... "We create a leader by locating one in the crowd who is standing up. [...] We designate this victim as a 'stand-up guy' by the simple expedient of sitting down around him." -Arturo Binewski
carsup@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Fisher Library support) (10/11/90)
In article <1990Oct10.222343.8737@hoss.unl.edu> 252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) writes: >A friend of mine recently was bragging that an A3000/25/50 running the >AMAX-II mac plus emulator was leaving various Mac II's in the dust. >They were running Speedometer 2.5 and came up with following results: > >KWhets/sec: 882.4 (using FPU) 39.4 (not using FPU) >Dhrys/sec: 2871 FPU, 2717 not >Sieve: 3.70 sec FPU, 3.83 sec >Savage err: 7.988e-10, 2.297e-11 >Savage time: 8.52 sec FPU, 71.43 sec >Savage iterations: 25000 FPU, 5000 > >CPU test: 6.40 (no FPU) >Math: 95.27 FPU, 5.24 >Performance: 5.42 (no FPU) > >Of course he was comparing it to relatively slow Mac II's like the cx. >Would someone with a IIFX screamer post some results so I can show my >haughty amiga friend up? If someone has a souped up mac that would be >faster than an fx, post 'em. Hmm, why not make this the world's >fastest 680x0 machine contest? Since when have we Mac users been denegraded into comparing MHz, MIPs and megaflops. What happened to the Macintosh advantage? Surely given that a machine such as powerful as the Amiga 3000 described wouldn't change you from a Mac to Amiga user... :) On the other hand, I'm dying to find out too, so please do us all a favour. Afterall, how can you push the Mac's advantages when you don't know the competition's? No matter what tho', nothing's going to change my liking for the Mac, nothing that is, unless it's black... Regards, Norton Chia Micro Support (carsup@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU)
matt@pacvax.UUCP (Matt Kingman) (10/12/90)
Here's results for a IIfx running Speedometer 2.0 (*no FPU support*). KWhets/sec: 202.020 Dhrys/sec: 9966.777 Sieve: 0.350 sec for 10 times Savage err: 2.2974e-11 Savage time: 12.050 Savage iterations: 5000 CPU test: 12.20 Math: 26.87 Disk: 5.00 Performance: 13.68 I would say that it definitely blows the Amiga away. --- Matt Kingman - Macintosh Software Engineer Pacer Software Inc. - Westboro, MA 01581 Disclaimer: I speak only for myself.....
ccastcr@prism.gatech.EDU (Russo, Chris A.) (10/12/90)
It's really sad that the Amiga 1000 blows all of the Macs away in
one important area. >>Animation speed<<
It breaks my heart to see my friend's $1500 system move windows around,
run games, and perform the 100 thousand other tasks needed to run a graphical
interface - about a billion times faster than my $5000 box.
I don't know if I can speak for the 8*24GC board -inexpensive tho it is-
but from what I heard, it still isn't good enough.
--
Russo, Chris A.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!ccastcr
Internet: ccastcr@prism.gatech.edugaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (10/12/90)
In article <15036@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccastcr@prism.gatech.EDU (Russo, Chris A.) writes: > > It's really sad that the Amiga 1000 blows all of the Macs away in >one important area. >>Animation speed<< > It breaks my heart to see my friend's $1500 system move windows around, >run games, and perform the 100 thousand other tasks needed to run a graphical >interface - about a billion times faster than my $5000 box. Warning. I've gotten sick of reading these posts about how fast a 68030 Amiga emulates a 68000 B/W Mac. The following post is a tad flamey. Followup to alt.flame, please. Let's not litter comp.sys.mac -or- comp.sys.amiga with a useless computer war. [My terminal is eating ctrl chars - can't insert a pause. Sorry.] I'm one of the first to admit it - the Amiga is a graphics monster. It's had an independent graphics processor since day one. And a blitter chip for moving big windows. It was built around the idea of multitasking. Rather than having multitasking added on. BUT: The OS, -out-of-the-box-, is awful. Lots of customizations that can make it sweet, but these take knowledge. Not for the casual user. My fiance has had an Amiga for almost a year, and I amazed her when I brought up a CLI - all she had seen was Workbench. Workbench 2.0 is -still- beta, months after it's official announcment. (Before you start System 7.0 bashing, remember, it hasn't been -offically- announced) The -vast- majority of software for the Amiga is games. And the pirate community runs rampant on the Amiga, making serious development houses even less likely to development -good- software for the Amiga. Application consistency, beyond the idea of a menu bar, is almost unheard of. Cut and paste? Scrapbook? INITs? Control Panel? HA! I owned a Mac Plus for a year. Sold it after being seduced by NewTek Demo Reel #1, and bought an Amiga. I had lots of games, and great video/animation. But nothing that even vaguely stacked up to my old Mac in the way of Word Processing, or Draw programs. If it was on the screen, great. If I wanted it on paper - Ha! Sure, an Amiga 3000 running Amax kicks a IIcx or even a IIci. It's a bloody 68030 chip in the 3000, providing Mac Plus abilities. Color? Sound? Virtual monitors? Appletalk? 32-bit color? Show me an Amiga 3000 doing the same work the 68030 Macs do. Then we'll compare. I've used both. I'll take my Mac. Thank you. Flames to dev/null. -=- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jim Gaynor - The Ohio State Univ. - IRCC - Facilities Mgmt. - OCES <whew!> | | Email [gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu], [gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu] | |_ "Don't tell me truth hurts, little girl; because it hurts like hell..." _|
Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) (10/12/90)
In article <1990Oct10.222343.8737@hoss.unl.edu> 252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) writes: >A friend of mine recently was bragging that an A3000/25/50 running the >AMAX-II mac plus emulator was leaving various Mac II's in the dust. Kindly ask this friend of yours to benchmark some color-quickdraw apps, will you? This setup is STILL equivalent to a mac + with an accelerator -- as far as Mac functionality is concerned... Pat -- +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Patrick Hayes | EMail : Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr | | BULL CEDIAG | or hayes@bull.fr | | 68, Route de Versailles | or ...!mcvax!inria!bullfr!hayes | | F-78430 Louveciennes FRANCE | Tel : (33 1) 39 02 49 55 | +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (10/12/90)
In article <117@pacvax.UUCP> matt@pacvax.UUCP (Matt Kingman) writes: >Here's results for a IIfx running Speedometer 2.0 (*no FPU support*). > >KWhets/sec: 202.020 >Dhrys/sec: 9966.777 >Sieve: 0.350 sec for 10 times >Savage err: 2.2974e-11 >Savage time: 12.050 >Savage iterations: 5000 > >CPU test: 12.20 >Math: 26.87 >Disk: 5.00 >Performance: 13.68 > >I would say that it definitely blows the Amiga away. I would feel more comfortable if the SAME benchmarking program was used in this "test." That said, the FX does indeed perform faster than an Amiga emulating a Mac. You also have to consider a few things: 1. The Amiga is emulating a Mac+ 2. The amiga is only clocked at 25mhz (roughly half of the 40mhz FX speed) 3. The FX costs 3 times as much as this Amiga. If the fx was running at 3 or more times the speed of the Amiga setup, I might be impressed. All the FX shows is that if you throw enough money at a problem, you can get slightly increased performance. BTW, I use a Mac IIcx on a regular basis and I love it. I just think that Apple products are too damned expensive for the utility they provide. >--- >Matt Kingman - Macintosh Software Engineer >Pacer Software Inc. - Westboro, MA 01581 >Disclaimer: I speak only for myself..... Cordially, Chris Mauritz - not a Macintosh Software Engineer ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan! (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | ------------------------------+---------------------------
252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu (Mike Gleason) (10/13/90)
Here are the benchmarks I have received thru the mail for a IIfx. To give
you an idea how heinously fast the beast is, I'll put the results of my
humdrum Mac+ next to it:
IIfx: Mac+:
KWhets/sec: 202.0 (1500.0 with FPU) 5.8
Dhrys/sec: 11111.1 768.0
CPU Test: 12.2 0.85
Math Test: 26.8 (with FPU, off scale!) 0.78
Performance: 13.7 0.80
Sigh...
_____________________________________________________________________________
* Mike Gleason 252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu
* "Don't you f*ckin' look at me!" -- D. Hopper cosc006@unlcdc2.unl.eduseanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (10/14/90)
In-Reply-To: message from 252u3129@fergvax.unl.edu If you're looking for the fastest 680x0 machine, you're looking for one of three: HP/Apolo '040 box, NeXTStation, *or* an Amiga 3000 equipped with a Progressive Peripherals & Software 68040 accelerator, with real-time data compression/decompression to storage media (HD, floppy, etc.). The accelerator is $1299, or $999 w/o compression/decompression chip. Otherwise, you can look at an HP 50MHz '030, or Amiga 2x00 equipped with a GVP 50MHz '030 card. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom Help keep the | computer graphics, RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation, Voice: (512) 994-1602 under \X/ | simulation, accident- | scene re-creation, and ...better life through creative computing... | recreation...(whew!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (10/14/90)
In-Reply-To: message from jkain@silver.ucs.indiana.edu Amigans may tend to be haughty with MacFolk. It's been said that the only computer users that can be more stuck-up than Mac owners were Amiga owners. But let me ask this: How do MacFolk act when confronted with IBM-cloners? Or perhaps Win3 evangelists? Anyway, checks are alot easier to do in ASCII than apples :') Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom Help keep the | computer graphics, RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation, Voice: (512) 994-1602 under \X/ | simulation, accident- | scene re-creation, and ...better life through creative computing... | recreation...(whew!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (10/16/90)
In-Reply-To: message from matt@pacvax.UUCP Certain benchmarks you quoted would most deffinatly blow away a stock Amiga 3000, or A2500/30...you're comparing a 40MHz '030 to a 25MHz '030. A GVP or Supra equipped A2x00 would leave the ][fx in the dust, as would a ][, ][cx, or ][x with a Daystar Digital accelerator. Where the 25MHz machines still blow any Mac away, regardless of clockspeed, is in areas dealing with system performance across the buss, particularly when dealing with memory. The ][fx has DMA for SCSI, but you'll have to wait to take advantage of that. This is also why 33MHz (and some 25MHz) i386 systems still wax a ][fx. Processor speed doesn't guarantee breathtaking performance across the board. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom Help keep the | computer graphics, RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation, Voice: (512) 994-1602 under \X/ | simulation, accident- | scene re-creation, and ...better life through creative computing... | recreation...(whew!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (10/16/90)
In-Reply-To: message from gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu Sure, AmigaDOS 2.0 is in Beta right now...but it's more stable than any other version of the system software I've used (1.2-2.0). And believe me, it's look and feel, and ease of use equals or bests the Mac. ANY CLI function may now be accomplished from WorkBench. I spend about 50% of my time inside the 2.0 SHELL, but I'm quickly getting used to using just WorkBench. Most of the software games??? Where did you get such an inacurate idea? If you look at ANY of the Amiga product guides, you'll plainly be able to see that even educational software exceeds the amount of games. By 1989 figures, the Amiga had only 17% of the entertainment market. IBM had 56%. Graphics a Video applications are also heavy on the Amiga. 32bit color...fine, check out Progressive Peripherals & Software's VideoBlender using the TMS34020 megachip. And if you want to see blinding performance at manipulating 24bit deep bitmaps, you need to look at ASDG's the Art Department. While the system software doesn't support 24bit color, it will. Commodore is presently at work on an RTG.lib. Any application that wants to take advantage of the several 24bit systems either available or near available can do so through ARexx. Remember, 32bit QuickDraw has only been available on the Mac since '89! Before that, Mac software had to support individual boards. Through ARexx and multitasking with The Art Department, ANY application can control ANY display device and ANY graphic input device. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom Help keep the | computer graphics, RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation, Voice: (512) 994-1602 under \X/ | simulation, accident- | scene re-creation, and ...better life through creative computing... | recreation...(whew!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) (10/17/90)
In a previous article, jkain@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jeff Kain) says: >ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: > >>Amiga owners do tend to be a little haughty, don't they (what other group >>of computer owners would put a damn check sign in almost every .sig)? But >>then again, they have their reasons...which you can learn about by reading >>comp.sys.amiga, so I won't belobor them here... > >they's jist jealous........... > Nope, not jealous, just a little frustrated that alot of people can't see past the hype of the IBM and Apple marketeers and realize what a capable, advanced, and INTERESTING PC the Amiga really is. >"We create a leader by locating one in the crowd who is standing up. [...] We >designate this victim as a 'stand-up guy' by the simple expedient of >sitting down around him." > -Arturo Binewski > -- /// Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu | /// /\ Integrated Library Systems | \\\ /// /--\MIGA Case Western Reserve University | \\\/// The future is here now!
pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) (10/17/90)
In a previous article, ccastcr@prism.gatech.EDU (Russo, Chris A.) says: > > It's really sad that the Amiga 1000 blows all of the Macs away in >one important area. >>Animation speed<< > It breaks my heart to see my friend's $1500 system move windows around, >run games, and perform the 100 thousand other tasks needed to run a graphical >interface - about a billion times faster than my $5000 box. > I don't know if I can speak for the 8*24GC board -inexpensive tho it is- >but from what I heard, it still isn't good enough. > No flames please - I like the Mac (I use one at work), but as an Amiga user animation is one area the Mac really needs improvement in. The Atlanta Olympic Committee (or whatever they call themselves) used Macs at first to try to do their multimedia sales pitch for the Olympics but found them to be very poor for the type of animation they desired. They switched to Amiga computers and created a supurb show which played a big part in getting the summer olympics to Atlanta. I believe that the new officers at Commodore have the capability of guiding the Amiga to dominate Multimedia in the future similar to the way the Mac dominates DTP now. >-- >Russo, Chris A. >Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 >uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!ccastcr >Internet: ccastcr@prism.gatech.edu > -- /// Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu | /// /\ Integrated Library Systems | \\\ /// /--\MIGA Case Western Reserve University | \\\/// The future is here now!
Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) (10/18/90)
In article <5046@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >Certain benchmarks you quoted would most deffinatly blow away a stock Amiga >3000, or A2500/30...you're comparing a 40MHz '030 to a 25MHz '030. Which is exactlty the point he was making. A stock fx DOES blow away a 3000, not the inverse as others have asserted. > A GVP or >Supra equipped A2x00 would leave the ][fx in the dust, as would a ][, ][cx, or >][x with a Daystar Digital accelerator. Which is outside the scope of the original posting, for one thing, and has little meaning especially between machines which do not run the same software. Comparing benchmarks means little, it's Application speed that counts. Benchmarks using typical applications and workloads have shown the fx to be a much better balanced machine than an accellerated IIx, and the improvements elsewhere than in the CPU clock speed give the fx a better rating in all the evaluations I've seen so far. >Where the 25MHz machines still blow any Mac away, regardless of clockspeed, is >in areas dealing with system performance across the buss, particularly when >dealing with memory. The ][fx has DMA for SCSI, but you'll have to wait to >take advantage of that. Ahem, I'm already using that DMA, using software that has been selling for months. It's called A/UX 2.0. Please don't make incorrect global generalizations. A/UX may be a bit over the head of the majority of mac users, but it DOES exist. In addition, I remember a few articles form someone at apple which gave numbers, and showed that for non-preemtive multi-tasking, DMA is actually SLOWER than using the CPU to move memory. Has anyone archived these articles? Pat -- +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Patrick Hayes | EMail : Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr | | BULL CEDIAG | or hayes@bull.fr | | 68, Route de Versailles | or ...!mcvax!inria!bullfr!hayes | | F-78430 Louveciennes FRANCE | Tel : (33 1) 39 02 49 55 | +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (10/19/90)
In-Reply-To: message from pab@po.CWRU.Edu Although I understand your non-opposition stance in your message on the Atlanta Olympic project...I think you left out one important thing, a quote: "We tried to do it on the Mac and this project brought the Mac to its knees" -Mike Sinclair Senior Research Engineer Georgia Tech Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom Help keep the | computer graphics, RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation, Voice: (512) 994-1602 under \X/ | simulation, accident- | scene re-creation, and ...better life through creative computing... | recreation...(whew!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (10/21/90)
In-Reply-To: message from Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr I'll try to make this short... You're right in stating that esoteric benchmarks between computers running different OSs isn't that good. Different compilers, etc. Application feel is one where you can compare, and an A3000-25 deffinately "feels" faster at handling things. Yes the nonstandard and out of date A/UX works with the ][fx's DMA, such as this combination is. And if DMA slows down a non-preemptive multitasking system, who cares? I've always had pre-emptive multitasking, so this shortcoming of the current and future MacOS means little to me. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom Help keep the | computer graphics, RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation, Voice: (512) 994-1602 under \X/ | simulation, accident- | scene re-creation, and ...better life through creative computing... | recreation...(whew!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (10/21/90)
In article <PATRICK.HAYES.90Oct18150335@troy.cediag.bull.fr> Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) writes: >In article <5046@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >> A GVP or >>Supra equipped A2x00 would leave the ][fx in the dust, as would a ][, ][cx, or >>][x with a Daystar Digital accelerator. >Which is outside the scope of the original posting, for one thing, and has >little meaning especially between machines which do not run the same software. >Comparing benchmarks means little, it's Application speed that counts. >Benchmarks using typical applications and workloads have shown the fx to be a >much better balanced machine than an accellerated IIx, and the improvements >elsewhere than in the CPU clock speed give the fx a better rating in all the >evaluations I've seen so far. It isn't really irrelevant as it has its comparisons on the Amiga as well. An accelerated A2000 would be slower than an equivalently accelerated A3000 simply because the architecture is not as modern. The A3000 is equipped with a full 25MHz 32 bit bus so it has all the same power in terms of architecture as the IIfx. It has special chips to control DMA transfers, making it fast. Another thing to consider is that the 68040 will change the way we think about accelerators! The A3000 has an advantage over the IIfx there because the A3000 is 25MHz, same as the 040, and the CPU direct slot has 200 pins which will make it more than easy to build a 68040 board. Cheap, in other words. The other advantage over the Mac that the Amiga has in that area is that we don't have Apple pricing the board! 8) Just so people know, although I very much like my Amiga, the Mac has the better software in most fields except some multimedia and games, and maybe one or two other exceptions. I also think the new low-prices will help, although Apple may not be expecting the lower profit margins they'll find. -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu GorbachevAwards++; free (SovietUnion); IndependentRepublics += 15;
cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) (10/22/90)
In article <4956@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from jkain@silver.ucs.indiana.edu > > >Amigans may tend to be haughty with MacFolk. It's been said that the only >computer users that can be more stuck-up than Mac owners were Amiga owners. > Well now, haughty works! Not so long ago that the only thing going for the Mac in the face of mighty IBM was a haughty know-it-all smirk and a sharp machine in the back room. Now Amiga follows suit with the next generation ;'}
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (10/23/90)
In-Reply-To: message from es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu Something I'd also like to add to what you posted, regarding the buss of the A3000. Zorro ]I[, unlike NuBus (which is the same from the Mac ][ to the ][fx) is an asynchronous design, meaning the 68030 doesn't have to sync up with the speed of the buss to talk to it. On a stock A3000, this isn't a huge hassle because both the CPU and buss are at 25MHz. By contrast, the ][fx is running at 40Mhz, but NuBus is at 10MHz. What this amounts to is that the ][fx becomes a 10Mhz Mac anytime it wants to talk to the NuBus, and a 20MHz Mac anytime it wants to talk to the I/O buss. Another point to make is that Zorro]I[ has access to memory on the A3000's mother board at full system speed, or 20MB/sec in standard mode, or somewhere between 30-40MB/sec in Multiple File Transfer mode. Although NuBus has a block-transfer mode of 37.5MB/sec, this isn't supported beyond the NuBus. Even on the Mac ][fx, access from a peripheral card on the NuBus (ie: videocard) when talking to main-memory slows to 4-5MB/sec. I'm sure you Mac guys are getting a real kick out of this...so I guess I'll end it here. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom Help keep the | computer graphics, RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation, Voice: (512) 994-1602 under \X/ | simulation, accident- | scene re-creation, and ...better life through creative computing... | recreation...(whew!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) (10/24/90)
In article <5176@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >I'll try to make this short... Me too... >Yes the nonstandard and out of date A/UX works with the ][fx's DMA, such as ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ Ah, and who defines this standard? You? Until SVR4 and/or OSF/1 are being delivered on the majority of platforms, or at least a wide range, the only "industry" standard present is the SVID (based on SysVR3) + BSD networking. A/UX 2.0 is SVID conformant (I'm almost positive -- correct me if I'm mistaken), and has one of the best integrations of BSD networking I've ever seen on a sysV based platform. I can't recall exactly what A/UX's status is in regard to POSIX, but given that it is SVID based, POSIX compliance is almost assuredly present also. Are there any other standards you might want to cite (preferrably by name)? You have once again misrepresented your conjecture as fact, PLEASE cease to do so in the future. >this combination is. And if DMA slows down a non-preemptive multitasking >system, who cares? I've always had pre-emptive multitasking, so this >shortcoming of the current and future MacOS means little to me. When I need preemtive multitasking, I boot A/UX, I then profit from the DMA on the fx. When I prefer reactivity, I use the MacOS, and profit from the speed advantage that not passing via DMA proffers. >You're right in stating that esoteric benchmarks between computers running >different OSs isn't that good. Different compilers, etc. Application feel is >one where you can compare, and an A3000-25 deffinately "feels" faster at >handling things. Ah, so now you're down to comparing "feeling" instead of the the original (and debunked) claims of clear superiority of the amiga. I will happily state that in my opinion, a stock Mac IIfx definately "feels" faster than a top of the line amiga. You have now stated your opinion, and I have stated mine. You can now stop posting provocative and unfounded articles in csmm, and I shall refrain from doing so in the amiga groups. To each his own you know... Well, I tried to keep it short... Pat -- +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Patrick Hayes | EMail : Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr | | BULL CEDIAG | or hayes@bull.fr | | 68, Route de Versailles | or ...!mcvax!inria!bullfr!hayes | | F-78430 Louveciennes FRANCE | Tel : (33 1) 39 02 49 55 | +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) (10/24/90)
In article <1990Oct21.033559.31136@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > The A3000 has an advantage over the IIfx there because >the A3000 is 25MHz, same as the 040, and the CPU direct slot has >200 pins which will make it more than easy to build a 68040 >board. You are of course aware of the existance of the Processor Direct Slot in the FX? Pat -- +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Patrick Hayes | EMail : Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr | | BULL CEDIAG | or hayes@bull.fr | | 68, Route de Versailles | or ...!mcvax!inria!bullfr!hayes | | F-78430 Louveciennes FRANCE | Tel : (33 1) 39 02 49 55 | +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (10/25/90)
In article <PATRICK.HAYES.90Oct24124133@troy.cediag.bull.fr> Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) writes: >In article <1990Oct21.033559.31136@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > >> The A3000 has an advantage over the IIfx there because >>the A3000 is 25MHz, same as the 040, and the CPU direct slot has >>200 pins which will make it more than easy to build a 68040 >>board. >You are of course aware of the existance of the Processor Direct Slot in the >FX? > Yes, there is one in the FX as well, but the 040 chip has 200 pins. The FX direct slot has something like 144, I forget the exact number. This means some kind of hardware interface will have to be created to handle it, likely an expensive card. >Pat >-- > >+-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ >| Patrick Hayes | EMail : Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr | >| BULL CEDIAG | or hayes@bull.fr | >| 68, Route de Versailles | or ...!mcvax!inria!bullfr!hayes | >| F-78430 Louveciennes FRANCE | Tel : (33 1) 39 02 49 55 | >+-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu GorbachevAwards++; free (SovietUnion); IndependentRepublics += 15;
ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) (10/25/90)
Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) writes: [deleted claims of this and that] >debunked) claims of clear superiority of the amiga. I will happily state that >in my opinion, a stock Mac IIfx definately "feels" faster than a top of the >line amiga. You have now stated your opinion, and I have stated mine. You can >now stop posting provocative and unfounded articles in csmm, and I shall >refrain from doing so in the amiga groups. To each his own you know... >Well, I tried to keep it short... >Pat WOW! Sounds GREAT! How much does this IIFX cost? I want one. All serious: GET OUTTA TOWN! The performance on an A3000 is SENSATIONAL. Why not have enough money left over for say, food? '040 CPU, and a YUGO? After "test driving" the machine, I am getting the A3000. If your opinion is "IIFX feels faster" then fine, but it is DAMN CLOSE either way. Just LOOK at the price/performance and I can still run MAC software as well as incredible graphics packages for the Amiga. To each his own... D.D. -- ---------------------------------//------------------------------------- Doug Dyer Clemson University // "Splunge!" - MP ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu \\ // -----------------------------\X/----------------------------------------
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (10/27/90)
In article <11157@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) writes: >Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) writes: > >[deleted claims of this and that] > >>debunked) claims of clear superiority of the amiga. I will happily state that >>in my opinion, a stock Mac IIfx definately "feels" faster than a top of the >>line amiga. You have now stated your opinion, and I have stated mine. You can >>now stop posting provocative and unfounded articles in csmm, and I shall >>refrain from doing so in the amiga groups. To each his own you know... > >>Well, I tried to keep it short... > >>Pat > > WOW! Sounds GREAT! How much does this IIFX cost? I want one. >All serious: GET OUTTA TOWN! The performance on an A3000 is SENSATIONAL. >Why not have enough money left over for say, food? '040 CPU, and a YUGO? >After "test driving" the machine, I am getting the A3000. If your opinion >is "IIFX feels faster" then fine, but it is DAMN CLOSE either way. Just >LOOK at the price/performance and I can still run MAC software as well as >incredible graphics packages for the Amiga. > >To each his own... I think we are comparing two separate things here. You have to distinguish between responsiveness of the operating system and speed of the programs running under it. The Amiga has ALWAYS had the faster operating system, in large part because of the blitter and to a lesser extent because of the multitasking. As to application's speed, the IIfx WILL be faster. The Amiga is a very good machine but the reality is that a 40MHz 030 is faster than a 25MHz 030. However, you are paying for that speed very dearly on a Mac, they are very expensive. You can also buy a 50MHz 030 board for the A2000. Also, the great equalizer will be released hopefully in a month, the 68040. It will initially only ship at 25MHz and will presumably ship for the Amiga and Mac. BTW, if this means anything or if you care to believe in benchmarks, the A3000 under Dhrystones 2 ranks about 7500-8200/sec. > > >D.D. > >-- >---------------------------------//------------------------------------- >Doug Dyer Clemson University // "Splunge!" - MP >ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu \\ // >-----------------------------\X/---------------------------------------- -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu GorbachevAwards++; free (SovietUnion); IndependentRepublics += 15;
Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Patrick Hayes) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct25.145831.27887@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > Yes, there is one in the FX as well, but the 040 chip has >200 pins. The FX direct slot has something like 144, I forget the >exact number. This means some kind of hardware interface will >have to be created to handle it, likely an expensive card. Or given the existance of Dove's inexpensive 030 accelerators for Mac II's which have a number of constraints in common with adapting a 040 for the fx, maybe not expensive at all... Pat -- +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Patrick Hayes | EMail : Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr | | BULL CEDIAG | or hayes@bull.fr | | 68, Route de Versailles | or ...!mcvax!inria!bullfr!hayes | | F-78430 Louveciennes FRANCE | Tel : (33 1) 39 02 49 55 | +-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (11/03/90)
In-Reply-To: message from Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr Just wanted to clear something up... While the CPU-Slot on the A3000 does have 200 pins, the MC68040 does not. The '040 comes in a 179-pin package, which is still above the ][fx's 144-pin PDS, but it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt. Don't take my word for it though, I'm no hardware techie... And while the most people just think of the CPU-Slot as an '040 slot waiting to be filled, they forget that it can also be used by a high-speed static-RAM cache card, and has addressing for up to 128MB of RAM. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom Help keep the | computer graphics, RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation, Voice: (512) 992-2810 under \X/ | simulation, accident- | scene re-creation, and "Does anyone remember laughter?" Robert Plant| recreation...(whew!) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
woody@nntp-server.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (11/03/90)
In article <5420@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr > > >Just wanted to clear something up... Boy am I glad that after making an ass of myself on the net some reasonable Amiga/Mac/NeXT/... discussions still exist. (I posted my original message only after being called an ass privately by a number of people for liking my Macintosh; little did they know I could make an ass of myself *without* my Macintosh!) Remember, now, kiddies, no religious wars. No name calling. And I promise not to post any more four-letter-words to the net if you promise never to quote my four-letter-words over and over and over... -- William Edward Woody | Disclamer: USNAIL P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115 | EMAIL woody@tybalt.caltech.edu | The useful stuff in this message ICBM 34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W | was only line noise.