Author: FatRakoon (host62-7-53-46.in-addr.btopenworld.com)
Date: 12-03-2002 01:40
>>I've never heard of such, but I guess it might be possible. It would be rather strange, though, since it would require a different chip (or some extra hardware) than the normal one due to the wider bus.
Hang on, does anyone here actually own a friggin TT?
Have you gone to the desktop, and clicked on the Blitter option, and then compared the results of drawing things????
Yes, I have compared the results of GEMBENCH ( As I have already said ), and the Blitter chip ( that I dont have ) speeds up the system many times over
>The Falcon CPU and blitter sit on the same bus. Thus, if the CPU can max out the bus, the blitter can do no better.
Ok, I can accept that, I can see now.
>Have you tried GEMBench or VDIBench?
Window movement is not something that you can easily beat the blitter at.
Yes, of course!
> all the CPX modules I have say the TT has one, and the Falcon does not.
Then they are wrong.
So, they are wrong - It just so happens that I am the only one here with a TT that has a Blitter then?
I ask again, who actually has a TT?
>>It is not possible to 'turn off' (it's not actually ever turned off, only unused)
Yes, ok , you know what I mean!
>>It is rather surprising that they claim the TT has a blitter, though.
Maybe thats because it has one!
> The '030 has 2*256 byte caches for code and data, respectively. It's the same for the TT since it uses the same CPU.
Hell, of course!
Yes, I remember now thanks for clearing that one up!
|
