home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: tattoo.sccsi.com!nuchat!usenet
- From: Lars Nelson <lars@infohwy.com>
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.networking
- Subject: Re: New Press Release!
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 18:26:48 -0600
- Organization: InfoHighway INternational, INc
- Message-ID: <31534548.3DE4@infohwy.com>
- References: <2937.6638T1404T1877@mozart.inet.co.th> <4hivul$nn8@server05.icaen.uiowa.edu> <4i440e$1b9@infa.central.susx.ac.uk> <4i5hlq$rn3@nyx.cs.du.edu> <314B536E.5B1D@infohwy.com> <4im6oj$h9u@soleil.uvsq.fr> <4into7$136@nyx.cs.du.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: lucky.infohwy.com
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
-
- Karl Thomas wrote:
- > >> One benchmark was faster than another. So what. Don't you know
- > >>that software applications run on a 68060 Amiga can run faster than on a
- > >>Pentium Mhz for Mhz. Have you tried running Lightwave on a Pentium versus
- > >>a 68060? Amiga wins. What's hilarious is that the Pentium is a 64-bit
- > >>processor running on new hardware, and the 68060 is still 32-bit and
- > >>running on old hardware.
-
- > What benefit would Motorola derive from underestimating their own benchmarks?
-
- Nobody ever said they did.
-
- > LightWave just wasn't well optimized for the Pentium if this is the case.
-
- Lightwave was not optimized for the 68060 either.
- --
- - lars@infohwy.com Amiga 4000/040/25
-