From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip 'AdaX' Sauls)
Subject: Re: Intel HW
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:07:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.060532.24892@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nishith A. Patel) writes:
>jbono@tension.UUCP (John Bono) writes:
>
>>2.  The 486 is *significantly* slower than the '040, *particularly* at
>>floating point math.  This is due to the fact that the 486 has significant
>>ties back to the 8088(note--I said 8088, *not* 8086).  The 8088 is an 8-bit
>>chip.  This means that the 486 has to be run 8088 code.  In thirty two bit
>>applications, the 040 is significantly faster because it need not worry about
>>running 68K code, since the 68K had a 32-bit internal instruction set(like the
>>386sx).  In addition, the '040 has a method of pipelining instructions which
>
>Before you post things you do not understand, look at the facts some more.

This is like the pot calling the kettle black...

>First, how can you call the 8088 an 8-bit chip while calling the 68000 a
>32-bit (or implying it with the refernce to 32-bit instruction set). The
>8088 is a 16-bit chip wih a 8 bit external bus, just like the 68000 is
>a 32 bit with 16-bit external bus. 
>second, this is not nearly enough eveidence to claim that the motorola line
>is faster, if you look at the instruction sets of the two, you will see
>the Motorola chip is in a very sorry state.

If it is in such a sorry state, then why does my A3000 consistently perform
better than a comparably equipped 386-25 PC clone?  You say the Motorola
CPU sucks and the Amiga chipset sucks, yet the Intel based machine can not
even hope to compete.  I guess that the answer is that DOS/Windows really
do suck and that PC programmers are too stupid to take advantage of the
superior Intel chips.

>>further amplified since the Amiga has very little OS overhead.  Actions that
>>suck CPU time out of traditional computers like the PC and MAC are covered by
>>the Amiga's custom chips, such as screen refresh, disk access, etc.  This is
>>why most Amigas will consistently outperform systems with much more powerful
>>CPUs, i.e. an A3000-16 will consistently outperform a Mac IIci, though the
>>IIci has a more powerful CPU, and in most cases, an A3000 will outperform most
>>486's or IIfx's under heavy multitasking, for the same reason.
>
>Screen refreshes! you have to be joking! If the Amiga becomes a powerful
>machine when doing a trivial chore like screen refreshes (compared to the

If screen refreshes are such a trivial chore, why is it so difficult for an
Intel based machine?

>utility and ability of doing anything else a computer does), then it
>obviously sucks when doing some serious work. Nobody takes screen
>refresh into account when considering how powerful a computer is. As for

Are you the spokesperson for the entire world?  Anyone who cares about
video will certainly take screen refresh into account.  Business majors
and other types may only concern themselves with how fast Lotus can 
recalculate a stupid spreadsheet, but there are people who use their 
computers for less mundane tasks.

>disk access, the same applies. The Amiga chipset only provides support for
>floppy drives, not hard drives. The floppy drive speed is of no concern
>to people doing any real work with a computer. You use a hard drive, not
>a floppy. Unless the chipset is real magical and makes the floppy drive
>faster than a hard drive and allows more megabytes and megabytes of storage
>on a flopp,y which obviously is not the case, good floppy access doesn't
>do squat for the power of the system. 

To quote you:
"Before you post things you do not understand, look at the facts some more."
When you say the Amiga chipset, perhaps you need to qualify which chipset.
The original three chips, Agnus, Denise, and Paula, have been joined by a
host of others, namely Gary, Buster, Ramsey, Demac, Amber, and Gail.  The
Demac chip in the A3000 does provide DMA SCSI support and is one of the 
faster interfaces on the market.  The Gail chip in the A600 incorporates an
IDE interface so that the el-cheapo PC IDE drives can be used.

Don't you realize that most of the people who read this group are fairly
well-informed as to what the Amiga can and cannot do?  There are a several
big-boys from C= who read this group who will probably set you straight.

>Nish Patel   nap42487@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Skip Sauls                     //    Graduate Student & Instructor
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu    \X/     CS Department, University of Mississippi 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy