🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7290@lmrc.uucp> hassinger@lmrc.uucp (Bob Hassinger) writes:
>
>Since you mentioned the issue of X speed, could you comment on the speed of the
>Amiga X product on various models and configurations, and compared to
>alternative X options such as DEC's VT1000 X terminal and the new VT1200
>version they are showing at DECworld.
>
>Some say the Amiga version is significantly faster and more memory efficient. 
>If so, maybe you can comment on why, and the likely hood of it continuing to be
>so.
>
>Bob Hassinger
>...uunet!ccavax!lmrc!hassinger    .or.   hassinger@lmrc.UUCP

I don't like to quote some of my own benchmark figures but here are 
some numbers taken from with a too simple benchmark program made
available a long time ago. Xstones
Some of the numbers quoted may be out of date, newer software,
newer hardware, etc.
		blit	text	xstones
-------------------------------------------------------
A2000-GVP(30)	18927	37812	21588
A2500/30	17840	34375	18919
IBM PC/RT	15934	10937	15486
A2500		15872	26812	14145
sun 3/60	16577	13437	13343
sun 3/110	14266	11250	11229
sun 3/50	10000	10000	10000 (normalized to this)
A2000		11799	11000	 6938

All tests were done with the bench program running locally.
These results reflect aggresive usage of some of the unique
Amiga graphics hardware. Other tests that do not depend as much
on the blitter, etc. do show that yes, a 68000 at 7mhz does
not have as much steam as some of the faster cpus. Such as
window mapping, thick lines, etc. some of which use floating pnt.
In general though we do fair pretty well.
All the servers benchmarked are running R3 X11.


-- 
Dale Luck     GfxBase/Boing, Inc.
{uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale