Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!gatech!udel!rminnich From: rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Blitter vs. 80386 Keywords: Which is faster? Message-ID: <3696@louie.udel.EDU> Date: 11 Aug 88 16:13:11 GMT References: <1800@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU> Reply-To: rminnich@udel.EDU (Ron Minnich) Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 26 In article <1800@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU> cheung@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU (Wilson Cheung) writes: > This rather impressive speed causes me to wonder which is actually >faster in animations, a 16 Mhz 386 with no wait state 32- bit memory and >a 256K EGA card or the blitter on the Amiga. Ah, remember the days in which >I was proud to own a hot machine called the Amiga. Now a days I am embarrassed You oughta read comp.arch. Then it would be clear that for many types of blit-type operations, the 386 will win big. That's the way it goes... Does the 386 machine have multiple screens? HAM? If you just take a stock amiga and don't do much with it, it won't look like much. Have you tried vScreen yet? Photon Paint? leisure suit larry (oh, just joking). Finally, how much did those 386 boxes cost? Yeah, EGA is real nice, until you want more than one color map. Boy it can get awful fast! >mentioning the Amiga is seems a sure ticket for some substantial joking >ridicule. perhaps from ignorant people, yes. > Well, I'm getting a bit sidetracked. The question I'd like to >post for discussion is whether an Amiga could hold up to a 386 computer >with proper NTSC interfacing and similar animation software. price, price, price. From what i know a same-price amiga will compare just fine. The 386 boxes i have seen, outfitted with what you mentioned, are not cheap (except to universities, maybe). ron -- ron (rminnich@udel.edu)