I know this is not really a forum for Classic Amiga's but I thought some of you might like to see a little video of Quake 2 running on AGA 68k.

Quake 2 AGA

@NovaCoder

Wow, how is that even possible on an A1200 68k?
Which accelerator is in there Nova?

Rude!

_________________

@Rudei

Quote:

Wow, how is that even possible on an A1200 68k?

Only 320x200 8bit on 68060 80 MHz - comparable to minimum requirements (Pentium 90, 16 MB RAM). Looks good.

@NovaCoder

Wow! You have done truly awesome work! Great job! I understand that you have ported Quake and are working on Descent as well for AGA Amigas. Its amazing to realize that classic Amigas were always capable of this, if only people would have continued programming for them and releasing such programs for them throughout the 1990s.
Have you ever considered using your wonderful programming talents to write demos for PPC Amiga Ones? If you can do this on a classic with AGA and a 68060, what might you be able to achieve with an 800MHz PPC and a graphics card?

Good work!

Scott

_________________
AmigaOne uA1-c 512M RAM - Only Amiga Makes It Possible!
Check my blog AmigaOne Computing

@scabit

Do not try to take away one of our best man

@scabit

i prefer he keeps doing what he is doing now.

@NovaCoder

great job mate!
why not support the rtg picasso96 too? i think all guys who have an 68060@50mhz will be great for this and my are one of this :P

_________________

@pavlor

Quote:

Only 320x200 8bit on 68060 80 MHz - comparable to minimum requirements (Pentium 90, 16 MB RAM). Looks good.

I think the P90 has a better FPU and such a system would have had chunky graphics rather than planar.

@Rob

Quote:

I think the P90 has a better FPU and such a system would have had chunky graphics rather than planar.

Maybe on paper, I don´t think it will be so great difference in this case. Chunky vs planar problem is over-rated, GFX bandwidth is also important. Wotk of NovaCoder is impressive, without doubt.

@pavlor

Quote:

Chunky vs planar problem is over-rated,

Sorry, I don't have time to say more, but I have to say it: C2P does take a sizable amount of processing time.


Quote:

GFX bandwidth is also important.

The little CPU <-> CHIP RAM bandwidth is precisely one of the main factors that make C2P so expensive.

Last edited by saimo on 10-May-2013 at 05:29 PM.

_________________
RETREAM - retro dreams for Amiga, Commodore 64 and PC

Thanks :)

Yep it turned out pretty good in the end.

Yep I'm currently trying to get Descent Rebirth running properly on AGA, it's slowly coming together.

@saimo

Quote:

Sorry, I don't have time to say more, but I have to say it: C2P does take a sizable amount of processing time.

What is "sizable amount of processing time"?

Quote:

The little CPU CHIP RAM bandwidth is precisely one of the main factors that make C2P so expensive.

Did you try to run Doom on PC with ISA VGA? My 486SX notebook delivers exactly the same performance as my A1200 (68030 50 MHz) in Doom benchmark. AGA clearly isn´t that slow for such purpose.

Last edited by pavlor on 10-May-2013 at 06:17 PM.

@NovaCoder

saw this a while back, congratulations with your hard work.

_________________
See my blog and collection website! . https://www.blog.amigaguru.com

@NovaCoder

Very cool!

@NovaCoder

Impressive!

@pavlor

sorry for my asking how do the benchmark with doom?

_________________

@pavlor

Quote:

What is "sizable amount of processing time"?

It depends on many factors (CPU, algorithm, FAST RAM speed, screen size, etc.), but, very roughly, for a 320x200 screen, it amounts to something between 1 and 2 frames (which means that the frame rate, just to do C2P, is between 25 and ~17 Hz). Even a pure copyspeed engine (which I don't know if anybody developed, in the latest years - I've lost contact, so I don't know) would take a bigger part of a frame.

Quote:

Did you try to run Doom on PC with ISA VGA? My 486SX notebook delivers exactly the same performance as my A1200 (68030 50 MHz) in Doom benchmark. AGA clearly isn´t that slow for such purpose.

I'm not making comparison, just stating that C2P does take its toll due to the AGA bandwidth limitations, so it cannot be underestimated.

_________________
RETREAM - retro dreams for Amiga, Commodore 64 and PC

@tlosm

Quote:

sorry for my asking how do the benchmark with doom?

doom -timedemo demo3

You can post you results in this thread.

@pavlor

Thanks I ll make the tests on my Amiga 4000 and on my Sam :)

_________________

Quote:

Rob wrote: @pavlor Quote: Only 320x200 8bit on 68060 80 MHz - comparable to minimum requirements (Pentium 90, 16 MB RAM). Looks good. I think the P90 has a better FPU and such a system would have had chunky graphics rather than planar.

The pipelined Pentium FPU is up to 2x as fast on paper but the unpipelined 68060 FPU can operate in parallel with the dual integer and branch units of the 68060. The Pentium stack based FPU is not as good of a design either. The 68060 never received the software and optimization support that the Pentium did (especially from Motorola who were pushing PPC) or it would have made the higher clocked Pentium owners put their pencils away. With equivalent memory speed and caches, the 68060 is competitive with x86 and PPC processors running at 2x the clock speed. There isn't a compiler yet that generated good quality code for the 68060 (needs instruction scheduling as any superscalar processor). Nova's Q2 AGA should be running at 15+ fps on AGA IMO.

The biggest problem with the c2p is the slow chip memory speed. C= never saw a need to improve it. Nova is using Kalm's c2p code for his ports so it still only takes a few percent (