d88-psm@sm.luth.se (Peter Sj|str|m) (05/14/91)
>its advantage? On the 40Mhz Mac IIfx, the 10MHz NuBus is suppose to >be a bottleneck. By the way, I though that the IIfx was only around >an 8 mip machine. How is Commmodore getting 7.6 out of a 25MHz 030? 7.6? Wow! I've almost bragged over my 5 MIPS. (ie. it's true!) As I understand the A3000 with AMaxII even runs Mac-programs faster than the Mac IIfx because of 1) the blitter (or whatever displaythingy there's doing the job) and 2) only the 68030 and the cache is 40 MHz in the Mac. The rest of the computer (memory etc.) runs on 20 MHz. I'm not familiar with how much the NuBus does. /Peter ---===***===--- Peter Sjostrom INTERNET: d88-psm@sm.luth.se PHONE: +46 920 67653 Aurorum 4:13 UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!sunic.se!sigma.sm.luth.se!d88-psm S-951 65 Lulea Everytime a change is made, the world seems to fall Sweden apart ... like when my world fell apart - Alf ---===***===---
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/14/91)
In article <9105132009.AAtau12911@tau.sm.luth.se> d88-psm@sm.luth.se (Peter Sj|str|m) writes:
7.6? Wow! I've almost bragged over my 5 MIPS. (ie. it's true!)
As I understand the A3000 with AMaxII even runs Mac-programs faster
than the Mac IIfx because of 1) the blitter (or whatever displaythingy there's
doing the job) and 2) only the 68030 and the cache is 40 MHz in the Mac. The
rest of the computer (memory etc.) runs on 20 MHz. I'm not familiar with
how much the NuBus does.
Too bad there was some guy in comp.sys.mac a while back who wanted to
know how a Mac IIfx compared to the Amiga 3000. The Mac people told
the IIfx was better(surprise). Can anyone verify this guy's post?
Also, will AMax run System 7.0?
-Mikesschaem@starnet.uucp (Stephan Schaem) (05/14/91)
I would say for amax on the A3000 that using the 68030 instead would be faster.The blitter go around 3 time slower than the 25mhz 68030, and I dont know if amaxII is using the blitter in paralelle... Also AMAXII should be able to do 1280 (To 1536) by whatever resolution vertically without any slowdown (1/4 of the bus is WAISTED in 640x400..., to bad the 68030 can use that bandwidth...) Stephan.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/16/91)
In article <v72Hx&k3@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <9105132009.AAtau12911@tau.sm.luth.se> d88-psm@sm.luth.se (Peter Sj|str|m) writes: > 7.6? Wow! I've almost bragged over my 5 MIPS. (ie. it's true!) You can probably get a real wide range of MIPS figures for the A3000 (or any other computer), simply by varying the "I" variable. > As I understand the A3000 with AMaxII even runs Mac-programs faster > than the Mac IIfx because of 1) the blitter (or whatever displaythingy there's > doing the job) and 2) only the 68030 and the cache is 40 MHz in the Mac. The > rest of the computer (memory etc.) runs on 20 MHz. I'm not familiar with > how much the NuBus does. NuBus on the Mac is only involved in graphics. You might see a faster display on an A3000 under AMaxII versus a Mac IIfx in some cases. I imagine any differences there is purely due to the bus bandwith; the A3000's bandwidth to video, when not overloaded (since AMaxII is only running black and white, it can't overload the A3000's display in any mode) is around 7 MB/s. I have heard the effective bandwith of earlier Mac IIs on NuBus is more like 5 MB/s, though I think the IIfx might be more efficient. In any case, I don't imagine any direct comparisons are all that common, since IIfx users tend to run 8-24 bit color displays. With 8-24 times the number of pixels to push around on the Mac, you can expect the Amiga display to be faster. IIfx peripherals are on a 20MHz bus, but that's not a big concern, since most peripheral things tend to generate wait states anyway. The IIfx cache supposedly keeps up with the 40MHz 68030. No DRAM keeps up with a 40MHz 68030, so the bus it's on probably makes little difference. The IIfx does apparently have a decent memory architecture, with special write latching DRAM modules. So I would expect CPU intensive stuff to go faster on a IIfx than an A3000. Never ran the race myself, though. Pricing being what it is, it's not a direct comparison, either. Unless price is no object, and you just want to race the top-of-the-line Amiga against the top-of-the-line Mac. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.