> Everyone is discussing the merits of a graphics coprocessor.
> Some people argue that the R3000 will saturate the memory bandwidth anyway,
> so it will be just as fast as a dedicated graphics coprocessor.
> Other argue that in the time that the coprocessor is doing things, the
> R3000 would be free to do other things.
> The current tendency is that the graphics moves from dedicated graphics
> processors to the main processor. This is because they can sustain the
> same graphics performance as the graphics processors. On the other hand,
> if you want 150% performance (that is I estimate the "help" of the graphics
> coprocessor at half the power of the main CPU.), why not invest in a
> processor that is 1.5 times faster? In this case the main processor will also
> run your applications 1.5 times faster.
Since the r3k's all have caches, they would all be able to run a bitblt
fast enough to saturate the memory bus with only data transactions (
instructions are all in cache remember). Therefore its not the CPU speed
that determines graphics speed; its the memory. I expect that everyone
that cares will buy the fastest memory available. So your point it moot.
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