home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Bob_BobR_Retelle
- From: Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
- Subject: Re: PC VS ST
- Message-ID: <74132@cup.portal.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 23:30:03 PST
- Organization: The Portal System (TM)
- References: <OKES.93Jan15162519@SunLab40.essex.ac.uk>
- <1993Jan19.005142.13777@bsu-ucs> <73872@cup.portal.com>
- <C17pJr.CoC@cdsmn.mn.org>
- Lines: 32
-
- Doug Plate writes:
-
- >In the PC based (i486) workstations we make here, we have a RISC
- >blitting the graphics, and a 4 DSP coprocessor helping with math intensive
- >operations. It's the... may I say - clever - programming of these ancilliar
- >processors that sets our product apart (far apart!) from similar packages
- >running on stock PC's.
-
- >Just for the record, I'm not one of the "PC's suck eggs' crowd. I just
- >didn't agree with your statements.
-
- Oh, I agree that the DSP can be used for some pretty useful
- applications.. it sounds like your workstation is a very good
- example of highly creative applications for them..
-
- I'd assume that the workstation architecture is specially
- designed to integrate the DSPs into the system, instead of trying
- to make them as general purpose as possible though.
-
- I should have indicated that manu of my comments regarding the use of
- DSPs is in relation to the way they're implemented in the Falcon.
-
- Most of my reading about DSPs in general though seems to indicate that
- as mentioned, a general purpose FPU math co-processor would be far
- better than trying to make a DSP do things it wasn't really optimized to
- to.
-
- A lot of what we've been hearing here is that the DSP in the Falcon seems
- to have taken on the proportions of a "magic bullet" that can do anything
- faster and better than anything else. And that's just not true...
-
- BobR
-