From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Falcon IBM emul: speed guesses?
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:48:35 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Originator: robert@labyrinth


	
	I use my computer mostly for games and midi applications.  Midi was
the reason I got an ST in the first place, and the sound processing
possibilities inherent in the Falcon make an exciting addition to the whole
music processing concept...so I'm seriously thinking about a Falcon.

	But I'm not kidding myself; Atari has a history of making poor
marketing decisions.  If they promoted this machine right, I think it could
make history...but I don't believe that's gonna happen.

	One thing I'm very pessimistic about is whether Atari will be able to
lure games programmers from the PC world into the Atari camp.  Will there ever
be a Wing Commander for the Atari?  A lot of the reason why some game
producer's dropped the Atari (for instance Sierra's stated reason) was that
it was murder to support Atari graphic standards in addition to VGA, and since
the Falcon can handle VGA, it could just be a matter of dusting off Sierra's
Atari graphics engine (though there's still the matter of sound) to get Sierra
back into the fold.
	But again, Wing Commander? I doubt it...and I really want to play
Wing Commander.

	So, the Falcon's gonna be able to take a 286, 386, or 486 SX chip
running at 16 mhz.  Maybe someone will actually make that happen.  My question,
based on a probably faulty understanding of the technology (hint: that's a
plea for no flames, please! I confess ignorance in advance! :-) ) is, based 
on educated guesses, will a 486SX chip in a Falcon produce a machine that 
will run as fast or faster than, say, a 386DX in a "standard" clone at, 
say, 33 Mhz (a configuration I've heard is a minimum for playing Wing 
Commander without serious slowdown).

	It sounds like a dumb question (maybe it is) since a 16 Mhz speed
shouldn't compare with 33Mhz, all other things being equal; but are all other
things equal?

	In the limited way I have been able to understand these discussions,
the chip will have a 16 bit bus to memory; the graphics chip will have a full
24 bit access.  A "standard" bus (not EISA, or other potential new standard
that's actually 3 years away from becoming a standard) on a PC is 8 bits? 
meaning that a 16 bit chip is somewhat crippled in ability regardless on a 
"standard" PC, while it can operate at full functionality on a Falcon.  Am 
I confused in fact or understanding?

	Plus, the graphics chip is on a full 24 bit bus?  Won't that be
advantageous compared to what can be done with PC graphics boards (a subject
wherein I am completely ignorant) or is graphics technology more bound to
the clock speed of the chip...and what would the clock speed of the Falcon
graphics chip be in comparison to PC graphics boards (average) anyway?  Do
any of these questions even make sense?

	I understand that I should be able to play a lot of games, of the 
sorts I like, such as rpgs and adventure games, with no trouble, regardless.
I'm just curious about games that push the technology, like Wing Commander.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.