swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (02/06/91)
In article <7420@crash.cts.com> danb20@pro-graphics.cts.com (Dan Bachmann, SubOp) writes: > I can say that Imagine is worth while. It is great for 3d ray-trace >animation creation if you have about 5MB you should be fine. > As for Amiga resolutions, the A3000 only has an ECS mode that is >better, but only shows 4 colors, so you probably won't want it for graphics. Want what, the 3000, or the ECS? ;^) >One thing good about the A3000 is the interlaced display is rock solid on an >SVGA/VGA monitor, but you can get a flicker fixxer for the A2x00 if you want >that. I'd say go for an A2500 or A2500/030 if you also want some speed. On what basis? You don't make a whole lot of sense, Dan. The 3000 has 3 major improvements over the 2500 in terms of graphics: 1) Enhanced graphics modes, which simply give you more display options than you can have with a 2500. 2) Built-in deinterlacer, which is an expensive ($350) add on for the 2500. The deinterlaced video is not only for VGA monitors; it works great on the standard multisync monitor that ships with the 3000 package deal. 3) Doubled memory bandwidth from the processor to the chip (display, etc.) memory. The 3000 has a 32-bit data bus from the 68030 to the chip memory. The 2500 only has 16. In addition, the 3000 is currently the only machine that Commodore is shipping with the 2.0 version of the OS. This is such a major enhancement that it is almost enough by itself to make you want the 3000 over the 2500. Eventually it will be available on the 2500 et al, but if you are going to buy a new machine, why should you wait another 6 mos or longer to have the new OS on your new machine? The only reason I can see to purchase a 2500 rather than a 3000 is if you are planning to purchase a Toaster for it. The Toaster is not currently supported for the 3000. Otherwise I think you will enjoy the 3000 much more. Another reason is that the upper limit of hard disk speed on the 3000 built-in SCSI controller is twice as fast as the upper limit on the 2500 (which is still very fast with a 2091). The 3000 has a 32-bit path to memory as opposed to the 16-bit path on the 2500. Another reason is that *all* memory in the 3000 is 32-bit memory, as far as the processor is concerned. So you get more efficient utilization of resources. In the 2500 only the coprocessor memory is 32-bit memory. All this is not to cut down the 2500. But the 3000 is superior in many ways (which it should be, since it is the latest and greatest from Commodore). -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com