🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On 22 Jan 93 12:12:40 GMT, s914534@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (UT) said:
	>> NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

	>> jornmoe@fredrik.atari.no (Joern Moe) writes:

>>These days the atari and amiga people are arguing which computer have 
>>the fastest cpu (Falcon 030 versus A1200). The 68030 have better performance 
>>than a 68020 when placed in an equal arcitecture. Additionaly the A1200 runs
>>at 14.4 Mhz, wheras the F030 runs at 16Mhz (i realy think its 16.01xxxMhz)
>>giving it a extra 10% over the A1200. Summing it all up, my bet is that
>>this is a dead race!

> Shouldn't that be 16Mhz - 25% ?
No, the fact that the 030 is running at 16Mhz compared to the 020's 14.4
will give the 030 a 10% improvement. The fact that the 030 is on a 16
bit bus and the 020 a 32 might give a 25% improvement to the 020. He was 
talking (quite obviously, actually) about the effect of the clock speed
isolated from any other issues.


> Also the Falcon doesn't have the custom graphics chips that the 1200 has,
> so its going to be slower still. Remember the ST 68000 was faster than the
> the 68000 used in the Amiga - yet most Amiga games ran faster than their ST
> counterparts - because everything had to be done by the CPU in the ST.

I don't buy that. My friend used to have a 1040ST. He sold it and bought an
A500 about 12 months ago because the Amiga had more games available for it
(he only used both machines for games). He's now bought an A1200. One of the
first things he noticed about the A500 was that it ran equivalent games slower
than the ST. For the record, he had about 3 (maybe 4) meg of ram in the A500,
configured (as chip or fast ram)  in what he'd been told was the optimum 
configuration for extra speed.

Kev