@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: ... >>It was interesting how with the built 486 systems we were able to achieve only 50% of the IDE bandwidth I got with my A4000, same HDD used. And I thought A4000 IDE was bad. >Never heard of it. Any third-party/neutral source for it? I found out when I got HDD for my A4k. (2,3+Mb/s) Then asked from our main x86 builder of what speeds he got from our x86 builds, he confirmed 1Mb/s. (I believe those build did not have VLB IDE controllers etc) Already CBM A590 transferred 2,5Mb/sec with A500. (my A2000 managed 300kb/s)

So, no reliable/third-party source: just words...
Quote:

>>Dator Magazin Mar1995 >OK. So what? Just digging out material of what was sold as standard at that time. (had swedish magazines at hand)

pavlor already reported more useful data.
Quote:

>>typo corrected: SVGA games truly started to take off in 1994...1995 >The typo is still wrong: see my above comment. It seems most DOS games (released per year) were always VGA. So it seems DOS gaming mainstream never went truly above VGA. (according the source that you presented, but perhaps wikis would be more accurate)

According to my source also CGA and EGA was supported for several years. So VGA wasn't mainstream...
Quote:

>For sure, with the fast mem you had better performance, but absolutely NOT doubling the performance. For A1200 Fast RAM almost exactly doubled the CPU performance.

Benchmark, please. Talk is cheap.
Quote:

>It was common, but NOT the only one. As I reported, SVGA was used well before 1993. From the material you pointed out: 32 games of all games released for MS-DOS computers in 1992 were SVGA capable. The rest were still EGA or VGA. In the end, it seems VGA was always the main target for DOS games.

But SVGA was used before 1993. And VGA was use from 1988.
Quote:

>you missed my previous comments regarding the benefits of packed/chunky pixels even for 2D graphics (games included) To me it seems you are the only person who thinks AGA was weaker than VGA for 2D games. So, still, I simply disagree.

I have no difficult to agree with your disagreement, since I haven't stated this. But you're free to quote me and report my words, right?
Quote:

I do not remember ever seeing 2D VGA games that were better than AGA version (with roughly egual CPU).

I already reported one, which you totally ignored. "Strange"...
Quote:

>>It enabled some special tricks >Please, report them. 24bit palette, HAM8 imagery,

They aren't tricks, but standard features.
Quote:

Smooth scrolling, sound, with very little CPU overhead.

They were already introduced by OCS.
Quote:

(too bad amiga game target was OCS untill the death of CBM)

Really? Maybe because OCS and ECS machines were the more common/sold?
Quote:

For some reason also multiplayer splitscreen games were rare/nonexisting on PC/DOS.

PCs had a lot of conversions coming from Amiga, so maybe some game did it.
Quote:

>>(+24bit palette), >It was already common of PCs well before AGA introduction. VGA uses 262144 color palette.

The standard one, but SVGA supported more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAMDAC
http://www.grafi.ii.pw.edu.pl/grafi1/gbm/matrox/ramdac.html
http://zoo.cs.yale.edu/classes/cs422/2014fa/readings/hardware/vgadoc/RAMDAC.TXT

Pay attention to the last link, which is the most important.
Quote:

DOS games used VGA.

Also SVGA, which supported 24-bit palettes. Take a look at the VESA standard, which was used by games.
Quote:

Neither high color modes have 24bit palette.

High colors modes have NO palette at all.
Quote:

Was there any PC system in 199x that enabled 256 colors from 24bit palette?

See above the third link: many SVGA supported it.
Quote:

>>Not because AGA or 68020. >Both were obsolete, unfortunately. Wrong again. Neither were obsolete. When A1200 was released, 286 and 386sx computers were sold as low end and VGA was pretty much in mainstream. (even though some PCs and Macs were still sold with monochrome displays)

We already discussed it on the other thread, in particular with pavlor. I cannot repeat the same things. If there's something wrong which I reported, you're free to quote me and show why.
Quote:

So AGA+020 was spot on at the low end of the computer market.

It was low-end by definition: the cheapest. That's why it sold. But it wasn't the more powerful. Again, it's something which we discussed in the other thread.
Quote:

(without the grazy management, AA would have been released earlier etc. according to CBM R&D)

Stick to the history.
Quote:

>>No. 1994-1995 was the start of SVGA gaming momentum. Check your facts. >False. See above. VGA games were dominant target for DOS games releases according to your source.

But SVGA were support from long time.
Quote:

>2D games already used SVGA since the 1990. In 1992 only 32 of the released games used SVGA, the rest used EGA or VGA.

Fine, but SVGA was already supported.
Quote:

>>I think in 1993 a lot of Amiga games came wit Atari or EGA GFX ported to Amiga. >False again. Only when the Amiga (1000!) was introduced, games were developed primarily for the Atari ST, and then converted (with only 16 colors) to it. False. I'm pretty sure SpaceQuest and Leisure suit larry etc. games came from DOS & EGA.

Sure, there are some PC games ported to other platforms. Never stated the contrary. But when Amiga 1000 was introduces, Atari was the mainstream platform for gaming.
Quote:

And Atari ST ports to Amiga was common procedure at least until 1990.

We can compare Atari ST and Amiga games of 1988 and 1989, and see when they are the same or the latter is better.
Quote:

>>64color OCS modes not used at all. >See the other comment: it was too much expensive in terms of memory space and bandwidth. I personally never experienced speed difference between 32color and 64color.

I agree, because you had no experience with low-level coding on Amiga.
Quote:

Have you tried to develop games for EHB64 mode?

I already written several times that I did. Fightin' Spirit used EHB, in fact.
Quote:

Neither have I.

So talk about yourself, please.
Quote:

Some 2D games on Amiga have used also HAM6 and HAM8 modes and I doubt EHB is slower.

Which games?

HAM6 and EHB used both 6 bitplanes, so they had the same bandwidth constraints.

HAM8 was different, because even if it had 8 bitplanes, the display fetched 64-bit data at the time instead of 16 (of the normal HAM and EHB modes). So there was more available bandwidth using HAM8 (since the display logic stolen much less chip mem accesses).
Quote:

>>AGA amigas were superior especially for productivity at 1993, especially vs price. >Because of the good software which was developed. SW did not enable HAM8, video output, multiple simultaneous resolutions and color depths etc. HW did.

You can have the best hardware of the world, but without software you cannot use it.

It's very well known that Amiga had A LOT of graphic applications. And PC had few.
Quote:

>>And Amigas were not locked to any screenmode or resolution. I could change resolution and color depth hunders of times per seconds. >?!? What are you talking about? I could change from high res and word processing display to HAM8 display faster than windows changed from window to another. Handy. Also one could drag screen halfway down to see the another resolution and color depth behind. For example to monitor some process on HAM8 screen.

Please, show me how can you do all that having an high-res PAL screen and a VGA or DBLPAL one.
Quote:

>>My workbench was rocketing at 16 colors at 640x900 flixer free virtual desktop, graduation thesis on it's own flixer free virtual screen, web browser on a screen with more colors etc. >Why a virtual desktop? Wasn't your powerful Amiga able do directly display such resolution? My AGA amiga was from VGA GFX era.

VGA was released on 1987, and AGA on 1992.
Quote:

(as we know by now, basic Amiga had AGA 2mb, basic PC had VGA 512k)

See the other comment: VGA memory was used only to display the (final) screen.
Quote:

I did not have that kind of monitor either (I had 800x600 capable monitor on Amiga).

The reason was another: your AGA didn't supported the resolution of your virtual screen. Unless you used low frequency refresh with interlace (lower than the normal PAL refresh).
Quote:

If I could I would use the same setup on PCs even today, because so much screen space is wasted on things that do not need to be visible all the time.

It depends on personal needs: other people may find it useful.
Quote:

>>My brand new PC in y1995 could do 1024x768x4 etc. But it was totally unusefull computer for graphics I had to do my videos + photo stuff on vanilla AGA amiga. >Because of the lack of PC software for this What kind of PC SW can output 1440x580 to video output on a basic PC?

Any which supported the VESA standard and a graphic card with a proper resolution.
Quote:

>, or because you were unable to do it? The P1/75 had the CPU for it, not the RAM (win95 needed the 8Mb to say tada). And I really could not figure out how to decently edit highres 24bit images on low end PC GFX card. etc etc... The HW managed 1024x768*8 and low res 24bit, IIRC.

So the software was missing, as I stated before.
Quote:

>Not only the Speccy specs are wrong, but clock isn't always a measure of speed. In fact, the 3.5Mhz Speccy's Z80 was comparable to the 1Mhz C64's 6510. Then. What made vector games faster on Speccy when the CPU was not faster. Tell me.

It can depend from the conversion. Have you same examples?

BTW, I've said that the two processors were equal, but comparable. It means the on average the performance was similar. Of course, they both have strong and weak points, depending on specific context/algorithms.
Quote:

>>dasboot... >OK, but what's your opinion here? Was the Amiga version better than the PC one? To evaluate that, one would need to compare on similar kind of setup of the time. DOS version of dasboot ran faster but sounded little worse. Most likely DOS version was better experience on similarly priced HW as Amiga. Same for all other vector gfx games. (3D games you know...)

I know.
Quote:

(Even if some game like dasboot is faster on dummy frame buffer + fast cpu, I prefer real GPU systems.)

Like what?
Quote:

>Does it apply also for the opposite (Amiga games ported to PC)? I think I have never tried that. Too pervert to my taste.

Usually games become worse in porting unless extra effort is used (easy & fast money is more important usually).[/quote]
That's why your previous link with the Amiga VS PC comparison didn't make sense. If you don't invest money, it's difficult to have a conversion of good quality, and results can be poor.

P.S. Again, not time to re-read. Sorry, I spent too much time just writing.