>> Rather more personal preference than anything else: Don't you just _love_
>> the idea of the X server running on its own CPU? It'd be the equivalent of
>> having your own X terminal on board <grin>. No, it probably won't compete
>> for speed with a well-designed framebuffer, but I think it's a very elegant
Can't say I love it actually.. The Tandberg TDV 6230 runs an X-server
on the 34010 in 1024x768x1 (or x4), and it's slower than a 486+et4000 for
almost anything. The only thing that is slower on the PC is scrolling.
The TDV 6230 is certainly much slower than a 486 + S3.
Of course, the X-response on the PC gets real bad when compiling the
kernel at the same time! :-)
>The 34010 will be around half the speed at doing bitblt's than the r3k;
>the 34k can probably do other things faster (lines, circles) but they
>don't matter. As Pat says though, the 34k will take the load off the