[Top] [All Lists]


To: riscy@pyramid.com
Subject: video
From: rei2!tsprad@uunet.UU.NET (6692)
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 08:48:21 -0500 (CDT)
In-reply-to: <9307020821.AA26341@rei.com> from "UUCP Login" at Jul 2, 93 03:21:32 am
> 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.
>                                       Roger.
If it reduces the parts count by one package, let the CPU do the
graphics.  If the memory bandwidth is going to be saturated anyway,
the memory cycles spent setting up and communicating with the
graphics coprocessor will probably swamp out the benefit of having
it.  The hardware design and the software design will be simpler
(read, "more likely to work in your lifetime") without it.
Ted Spradley   Recognition International, Inc.  Opinions are mine, not theirs.
2701 E Grauwyler Rd. |Your productivity is not enhanced when you're staring
Irving TX 75061      |at that thing.  Your productivity is enhanced when
214-579-6692         |the computer is working and you're doing something else.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>