I wasn't implying that I was being censored nor was I trying to be condescending to paolone. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.
No, I meant that paolone's tone was (IMHO) condescending, not yours.
I mixed my pronouns, sorry... :confused:
And my comment about censoring was aimed at your post, but it was also including paolone's post as well, as I don't believe either will garnish a censor from the MODs.
My personal opinion; there was a lot of over-reaction about the "censorship" card. I could be wrong, who knows? :biglaugh:
As for 486 vs 68k performance, I have an A1200 with a 68030 accelerator (CSA 1250 12-Gauge) clocked at 50 Mhz and ran benchmarks against a 486DX 33. Performance is about equal even with the huge difference in clock speed. So paolone's remarks are spot-on in spite of all the irrational remarks that will be made about the 68k family and how it's "superior". It certainly is NOT superior.
I haven't yet seen any "irrational remarks." I tend to wait until something actually happens before I react to it... Takes the fun out of it sometimes tho. :laugh1:
I do think there are some aspects of the Motorola line that were superior personally. But I'm not really a CPU guy. Most of the advantages I felt might well have just been the Amiga's design.
As for benchmarks, they are tricky. I'm willing to be that for any benchmark you find that shows Intel's were better, there will be benchmarks that show just the opposite.
It's not that either is wrong. It's just that there are so many possible things to benchmark.
Benchmarks are kind of like statistics in that respect.
Personally, I go way back.
I had an Amiga and I had PCs. My Amiga 500 "felt" much faster to me than the PCs I had/worked on. But it was tricky because I was always doing different things on them. So, it's a very personal performance metric. :rofl:
I do know that for me, about the time I was using my Amiga 1200, I could feel the PCs outpacing the Amiga, especially in the applications side. Doom type games, graphic crunching apps, etc..
But I would use my Workbench on my A1200 and then at work, I would use Windows 3.1..
I much preferred the feel of Workbench. It "felt" much faster to me. So, to me at the time, the Amiga with the slower processor was faster than the PC with the much higher clockrate.
Now, much of this was actually Workbench and the Amiga's hardware design.
But that's how I viewed the Intel/Motorola comparison at the time.
Irrational? Maybe..
Now, for pure crunching numbers, the Intel could probably beat the Motorola. But it just felt so much faster on the Amiga..
Then again, I also used Mac's really early, and they felt really slow to me.
(Again, MY OPINION at the time)
So, I should have probably stopped and said "it's more about what you're doing with the CHIP than the CHIP itself."
and... er.. Wow.. WAY off topic here.. ummm.. and..
that's why I think Ben is against the x86!! :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:
(Wow, back to topic at the last second.)
desiv
