Moderators: Mug UK, Silver Surfer, Moderator Team
catmando wrote:Saw this on another forum thought it might be worth something
68000 7 = 8086 5
68020 14 A1200 no FAST = 286 8
68020 14 w/fastmem = 386DX 20
68030 16 = 386DX 25
68030 25 = 386DX 40
68030 40 = 486SX 20
68030 50 = 486DX 25
68040 25 = 486DX 33
68040 40 = pentium 66
68040 50 overclocked = pentium 90
68060 50 = pentium 233 (no MMX type cpu)
Amiga 3000 16 mhz 3.97 BogoMIPS
Atari Falcon 16 mhz 3.95 BogoMIPS
68060 50 = pentium 233 (no MMX type cpu)
Atarieterno wrote:The point is that Intel 356 is not capable of recording 16 audio tracks even if a miracle is requested.
That comparison is as relative to the utilities that they have had in each epoch.
mikro wrote:68060 50 = pentium 233 (no MMX type cpu)
Yeah, sure. Do a simple mind experiment, imagine Quake, or even better Quake II, running on the Pentium 233 and on the 68060, I'll even give you the liberty to overclock it to 100 MHz and use SuperVidel's 8-bit chunky graphics.
No freaking way.
Zarchos wrote:For Doom which is simpler it will be ok, though.
AtariZoll wrote:Atarieterno wrote:The point is that Intel 356 is not capable of recording 16 audio tracks even if a miracle is requested.
That comparison is as relative to the utilities that they have had in each epoch.
Sure, Intel 356 is not capable. Something what exists not is not capable![]()
And what some CPU is capable depends a lot of how SW is written, + peripherals.
To add, CPU does not recording - storage does it - hard disk for instance
Atarieterno wrote:..
I am sure that anyone has seen that it is a simple errata and I wanted to indicate "386".
Even a simple musician like myself know that many more factors intervene in the operation of a computer besides its CPU, but an Intel 386 with all the software of the world and all the peripherals was never able to work professionally in a music recording studio ; That is what I was trying to say and that is why I find the comparison with Atari absurd.
However, even with the idiomatic difficulty, I will try to be more precise to avoid more responses of this type.
Greetings.
AtariZoll wrote:Atarieterno wrote:..
I am sure that anyone has seen that it is a simple errata and I wanted to indicate "386".
Even a simple musician like myself know that many more factors intervene in the operation of a computer besides its CPU, but an Intel 386 with all the software of the world and all the peripherals was never able to work professionally in a music recording studio ; That is what I was trying to say and that is why I find the comparison with Atari absurd.
However, even with the idiomatic difficulty, I will try to be more precise to avoid more responses of this type.
Greetings.
I was cynical not because that typo. Your claim about 386 is just totally biased. 386DX at 40 MHz surely can do it. CPUs does not differ so much as some may think.
EmpireAndrew wrote:
So yes, a Falcon with an 030 (especially with a DSP) could do things a 386 or 486 could not. But try something that takes raw CPU power and watch a 486 or even 386DX40 stomp a Falcon into oblivion...
catmando wrote:Saw this on another forum thought it might be worth something
68000 7 = 8086 5
68020 14 A1200 no FAST = 286 8
68020 14 w/fastmem = 386DX 20
68030 16 = 386DX 25
68030 25 = 386DX 40
68030 40 = 486SX 20
68030 50 = 486DX 25
68040 25 = 486DX 33
68040 40 = pentium 66
68040 50 overclocked = pentium 90
68060 50 = pentium 233 (no MMX type cpu)
AtariZoll wrote:Some, who made huge claims here should correct self - it is not CPU what is not capable for something, but some concrete computer architecture.
Cyprian wrote:Zarchos, yep, thats obvious.
CPU in Archimedes was 4 times faster than in ST and more than in amiga
Return to “Non Atari Platforms”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest