From: wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!)
Subject: Re: REAL FALCON 030 SPECS
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:04:07 GMT
Organization: MSD software vault #9 @THD

In article <1am6prINN718@uwm.edu> bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R. Block) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.194904.32308@news.th-darmstadt.de> wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Natuerlich!) writes:
>
>>Hey Greg, it's called a signal processor, not a signal storer. That means you
>>get input, possibly save a piece of it for analysis, and write it as output
>>and then forget it. You don't run a desktop on it, you don't run a complete
>>raytracer on it (maybe the raytracing engine you could put in there) and
>>you don't compile C on it. the 65K maxes out at 65Kwords for each of the three
>>address spaces anyhow. 
>
>First: It's a 56K+1.  5-6-0-0-1.  That's so people don't get confused,
>and misinformation doesn't get spread around.
Well you got the idea. Did you know Greg that typing-error flames are 
considered the lowest level of flame-kind known to USENET?

>Second:  You don't run raytracers on an integer-based DSP and expect
>to beat the 030 you've already got sitting there.
To be correct it's fractional-integer based. (values from -1 to +1 (approx.))
I don't see no real problem using this for raytracing, just scale your
coordinates down. It will beat the shit out of the 030 and likely of the
040 too.


>Third:  I _KNOW_ the limitations of the DSP.  I'm not knocking the
>IMPLEMENTATION, I'm knocking the CHOICE.  I believe that the AT&T
>chips are much better.  And when I say this, I knock the DSP boards
>available for the Amiga.
So what ? The gras is always greener on the other side. If you can only
afford a VW, you can't expect Porsche performance. And this VW is zooming!


>Fourth:  It's easily possible for audio data in stereo to be too large
>forthat ram.  I'm still waiting to hear on real hardware
>specifications, I've received none, and I've asked the Atari people
>themselves to no avail.
Again: you just pipe the audio data THRU the signal processor.

>Nobody knows anything.  And anyone who buys something they don't know
>enough about is asking to be screwed.  Not that it's wrong to ask for,
Sure like you know about the AGA chipset registers ?

>>Also the recurrent theme in this newsgroup (wishful thinking BTW) that the
>>65K is not a powerful chip, is bullshit. There are obviously better (and much
>
>As far as I know, it's not powerful at all.  I don't believe a 65K is
>made by motorola.  Now, a 6500, perhaps.
ti kcuf, heay

>Software support in the OS is again totally up in the air.  They're
>not even SHIPPING MultiTos yet, who the hell knows what kind of OS
>support they'll have for it.  And not having OS support is a bad
>thing:  Look where not having an OS got IBM's?  Everybody runs their
>own support code, everyone hits the hardware.  (I'm not referring to
>OS/2.)

Seems to sell, though. Well since the Falcon comes with the DSP standard,
everyone that writes for the Falcon, can be sure that it will be there.
This ensures, that the thing gets really used. If the Amiga DSP 
(vaporware) board finally arrives, software developers will wait whether
anyone buys it and most people will be waiting till software arrives.
In the end you may end up with some ported Falcon applications if you're
lucky.
If you don't want to severely limit the use of the DSP, you must allow
it to be programmed. And this is just a little more involved then creating
a copper list or some such, so using it thru the OS alone with system
calls is out of the question. 

Nat!

-- 
 -----   Email: wallmann@backus.pu.informatik.th-darmstadt.de  -----
                "Bang that bit that doesn't bang"                 
 Album of the month: "Psalm 69" Ministry

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy