Re: A89: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grayscale troubles

Re: A89: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grayscale troubles

• To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
• Subject: Re: A89: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grayscale troubles
• From: Johan <johei804@student.liu.se>
• Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:41:44 +0200
• In-Reply-To: <20000804155706.A30409@m101.ryd.student.liu.se>; from Johan on Fri, Aug 04, 2000
• References: <20000803165830.5DB8AA4026@towerguard.edu.sollentuna.se> <001f01bffd98$4db61c60$cb02e0c7@Pnoveck> <002e01bffd89$0096e860$dbd6c540@default> <20000804033910.A29806@m101.ryd.student.liu.se> <000701bffda4$9b8c72c0$6ad7c540@default> <20000804155706.A30409@m101.ryd.student.liu.se>
• Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 03:57:07PM +0200, Johan wrote:
> 
> [In my test program] the CPU seems to use ~70% of the bus bandwidth;

Only 70%?!? What did my program do? Muls and divs only? The real figure is
probably closer to 100% than to 70%...

Anyway, this doesn't make my conclusion false. Instead, it makes grayscale
on HW1 to take MORE CPU time (in percent) than on HW2.


/Johan

• From:
• A89: Re: Re: Re: Grayscale troubles
• From: "Scott Noveck" <noveck@pluto.njcc.com>
• A89: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grayscale troubles
• From: "James Darpinian" <J112282@prodigy.net>
• Re: A89: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grayscale troubles
• From: Johan <johei804@student.liu.se>
• Re: A89: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grayscale troubles
• From: "James Darpinian" <J112282@prodigy.net>
• Re: A89: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grayscale troubles
• From: Johan <johei804@student.liu.se>

• Prev: Re: A89: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grayscale troubles
• Next: Re: A89: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grayscale troubles
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread