> Wim van den Berge said:
> > Personaly I think you're wrong, I think there is plenty to be gained from
> > a graphics solution which contains a hardware BITBLT and LINE DRAW engine.
> > If I remember correctly these two functions comprise between 50 and 85
> > percent
> > of the overhead in a non accelerated windows environment. That a lot, even
> > for the fast MIPS CPU.
> Nope. Read the papers; the critical path is ALWAYS memory bandwidth,
> and the r3k solution will, if anything, have a better memory interface.
> regards, Mark Hahn.
Also, there are algorithms that when combined with an instruction cache
(which our r3k's have) that will bitblt at 100% of the memory bandwidth
once the code is in the I-cache. That is, we can easily equal the performance
of a hardware blt'er.
Neil Russell (The wizard from OZ)
Pyramid Technology Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
3860 N. First Street Voice: (408) 428-7302
San Jose, CA 95134-1702 FAX: (408) 428-8845