> > > In fact the PERQ 1 considerablly exceeded that spec. Just doing graphics,
> > > it could manage 10 full-screen bit-blits per second (!). Something that
> > > few PCs could manage (or even can manage?)
> > Today its possible - Memory to Memory transfer using
> > PCI is above 40 MB/s and thats well for a 4 MegPix
> > display.
> Remember a bit-blit involves a little processing (ANDing or ORing 2
> bitmaps, maybe having to align them with a shifter).
Jep, the hurdle is the memory transfer - just remember,
The CPUs are already running at a multiple of the bus
clock ...
> OK, A PC _now_ can do it. A PC 19 years ago (when the PERQ came out), or
> even one 10 years ago would have had problems...
Exactly my point - you're running open doors.
> Mind you, the Whitechapel MG1 has a graphics processor that's bit-serial
> (makes a sort of twisted sense to handle bitmaps this way), and it was
> actually slower than using the 32016 processor to do the operation...
Could it work paralell with the CPU ? If yes, using it
was still smarter - only if you don't have to look for
speed anything is better done with one CPU (I still can't
get the idea that all junk has to be done via the main CPU).
Gruss
H.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
Received on Tue Dec 15 1998 - 07:29:51 GMT