@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: But you told before that you had it for 68030, 68040, and 80386DX. Ah, I was wrong about me... I found SpecInt89 value for HP 9000/340 (68030 16 MHz): 2.7 SpecInt89 (I have also results for all 4 integer benchmarks in this SPEC suite) Intel 386/387 33 MHz: 6.4 SepcInt89 Now 68040: HP 425t (68040 25 MHz): 12.3 SpecInt92 M4420A4 (68040 33 MHz): 17.8 SpecInt92

So, a 33Mhz 68030 could be around 5.4, which is below the 386. Here SPEC reports a completely different result compared to Dhrystones.

The 68040 is a total different class, but it's expected.

@pavlor

yes, but Pentium at 100 MHz in 94' was nearly 1000$ in 1000 quantity(68060 was 263$ in 10 000). So not really comparable... And how many Pentiums Pro did you see in consumer desktops those years?
No, your competition would be Pentiums and 486s and PPC601 and 604.

_________________

@Jupp3

Quote:

Jupp3 wrote: @cdimauro Quote: ... I feel I bit sad, honestly. When I worked to Fightin' Spirit the goal was to create he best beat'em up from all point of views. That's why we've chosen Half-Brite mode for the graphic (64 colors for ECS machines. Used by a few games, because the vast majority used 32 or 16 colors), a wide screen (the original version, which was called Perpetual Craze, had a 608x256 screen; the final was had 576x256 screen to save some memory for other things), big characters (tall up to half of the screen) with a lot of animations & "moves", rich soundtrack, and plenty of sound effects, ... and the code of course. Well, like I said, "few I could never imagine requiring 1MB", of course I would never expect f.ex. Liberation or Nemav IV to work on an unexpanded system! What I meant was games like: Ghosts'n'Goblins Speed Buggy Neuromancer Star Control Hero Quest Rampart Smash TV And various SSI games. There's something common between all of these, can you notice what? Yes. There's also C64 version available. If they can squeeze all the data into 64k (perhaps loading more whenever needed), they should be able to do that in 512k. Sure, I know, the code takes more space, and so do better graphics and sound. But the difference between 64k and 512k is BIG. Especially considering that unlike C64 game developers, Amiga game developers didn't have to consider "people who are too poor to buy a disk drive", and could load data on demand more freely. Yes, some of these use extra memory efficiently (better graphics, music + sound) but they COULD have gone the "missing X% of sound effects / different tiles if only 512k memory" route, as many others did. And yes, the C64 version of Star Control sucks (On the other hand, Rampart is better)

Unfortunately this "reductionist" policy cannot be applied with all games. Like I said, games like Fightin' Spirit or USA Racing would haven't existed (OK, USA Racing was never released, but the graphic and sound engine were mostly done, as well some big maps).

I cannot imagine about those games using only 512KB instead of 1MB: it's simply impossible, whatever "squeeze" operation you can apply to them (bitplanes reduction, screen area, size of characters/cars, animations, sound effects).

And the same can be applied to several games in the "1MB required" list. You cannot solve this problem by cutting something and loading some other stuff on-the-fly.

Unless you want games that really sucked, but my preference goes to masterpieces.
Quote:

-EDIT- Also regarding memory requirement comparisons between Amiga and X86, remember whenever someone says that his VGA 386 system has "640k ram", he actually means "640k ram+ (probably) 256k gfx ram".

From what he stated, he was referring only to the main memory: the RAM. The graphic RAM is a different thing, albeit we count it when talking about the whole memory available.
Quote:

Sure, it's quite different from Amiga chip ram, but on Amiga, you need to set aside enough chip ram to store the end image that's going to be shown on screen (*2, if using double buffering). On VGA, this ram is separately on GFX card.

It depends by the game. For not graphically intensive games you could have directly used the VGA memory (64KB with mode 13h), otherwise usually a framebuffer was used in the system memory, and only at end it was written to the graphic memory, either directly on the screen (single buffer), or on the hidden one (double buffering; but it required unchained/Mode-X to access to the full 256KB).

The same for the Amiga games. For example, Fightin' Spirit used a (special) triple buffer because it's frame rate was 25FPS (with some rare peak of 17) due to the massive graphic moved, so it was impossible to use a single buffer.

For USA Racing it was the opposite: I used a single framebuffer/screen because I was able to achieve 50FPS (with some tricks), and there was no need to move the same amount of graphic. The graphic used also 32 colors instead of 64, and it helped a lot (it was impossible to handle the same graphic in Half-Brite at 50FPS).

Other Amiga games had similar requirements, and that's why they needed 1MB of total memory.

@cdimauro

Quote:

So, a 33Mhz 68030 could be around 5.4, which is below the 386. Here SPEC reports a completely different result compared to Dhrystones.

That was ONE particular model. We don´t have other results for comparison. Result for 80386DX was top model of its class (eg. other scores 6.0 SpecInt89). However, I don´t know what Dhrystone results you have, but in mine 386DX is as fast or a little bit faster than 68030 on the same clockspeed - again depending on computer model.

@WolfToTheMoon

Quote:

No, your competition would be Pentiums and 486s and PPC601 and 604.

To compete with x86 world, you would need Pentium class CPU by 1996 for same price (by the end of 1996 Pentium was installed in 1000 USD computers - compare this with then 680x0 situation - even 2 years old 68060 was too expensive!).

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: So, a 33Mhz 68030 could be around 5.4, which is below the 386. Here SPEC reports a completely different result compared to Dhrystones. That was ONE particular model. We don´t have other results for comparison. Result for 80386DX was top model of its class (eg. other scores 6.0 SpecInt89). However, I don´t know what Dhrystone results you have, but in mine 386DX is as fast or a little bit faster than 68030 on the same clockspeed - again depending on computer model.

Sorry, I confused the 386SX Dhrystones results.

@pavlor

Quote:

To compete with x86 world, you would need Pentium class CPU by 1996 for same price (by the end of 1996 Pentium was installed in 1000 USD computers - compare this with then 680x0 situation - even 2 years old 68060 was too expensive!).

Maybe in the USA you could have had a 1000 USD Pentium PC by the end of 96', I don't know. I do know I got a 486 DX2 50 MHz in 98' and it was still expensive for our income - Amiga's market was primarily Europe.
Amiga Technologies raised prices - their fault. I do not think 68060 was that expensive. In 95-96 timeframe you could have a die shrink and reduce price even further.
We saw the what happend, it took many years to get some PPC support and still 68K apps are frequently used.

_________________

@WolfToTheMoon

Quote:

Maybe in the USA you could have had a 1000 USD Pentium PC by the end of 96', I don't know. I do know I got a 486 DX2 50 MHz in 98' and it was still expensive for our income

Are you sure it was in 1998? You could buy nice 100+ MHz Pentium configuration for 500 USD back then. I don´t know situation in your country (Croatia?), but here in the Czech Republic such price was reasonable.

Quote:

I do not think 68060 was that expensive.

Then look at horrible price difference between 68040 and 68060 variants of CyberstormPPC/Blizzard603e - cca 500 USD (1998).

@pavlor

Quote:

Then look at horrible price difference between 68040 and 68060 variants of CyberstormPPC/Blizzard603e - cca 500 USD (1998).

In 98', IIRC, 68060 was made only on order, mostly to telecomm/embedded markets - it was similar situation to PA6T. Small scale production, high prices. Now, if you ordered 50 000 or 100 000 or more, prices go down.

Quote:

Are you sure it was in 1998? You could buy nice 100+ MHz Pentium configuration for 500 USD back then. I don´t know situation in your country (Croatia?), but here in the Czech Republic such price was reasonable.

Somewhere around 97-98, a neighbour got a P133 MHz PC - as I recall, it was around 2000 DEM(deutsch marks), monitor and all.

_________________

@WolfToTheMoon

I went the path from 486 -> Pentium overdrive (P24T - Pentium 83MHz processor in a 486 socket) as it was the most economical one all things considered. Those P24T modules (the module consisted of a ceramic processor package, a (linear) voltage regulator and a heatsink/fan mounted together) were expensive and not very common though. Things that was a good fit could get even better performance than the standard Pentium 90 chip due to increased caches in the P24T but in most cases the slow 486 bus was a serious bottleneck.

A friend bought a loaded configuration with a Pentium 133 that was extremely expensive though things like a CD burner, huge amounts of memory and the largest HDD available at the time may have something to do with it. ;)
BTW if my memory doesn't fail me (again) the chassis of the system mentioned above also housed a A1200 motherboard which would make it more relevant to this forum. :P

Had chance to go through some old magazines during weekend and refersh memories of the time when
I worked at one of the leading finnish PC and Amiga sales companies of early 90's.
(I started at the company in autumn of 1992, at that time they had no-one any more who knew
amiga, so, I was employed as "Amiga guru". I handled Amiga support matters, while participated
in building and selling x86 PC computers. In less than a year I managed to triple the sales of
Amigas for that company, but then CBM problems made everything futile. I worked for the company
beside my engineering studies and finally left the company in late 1994.)

From weekend mag studies...
...
Some basics:
286 0,107 MIPS/Mhz
386DX 0,134 MIPS/Mhz (note: SX is slower because 16bit memory etc.)
486DX 0,348 MIPS/Mhz (note: SX did not have FPU)
...
68000 0,175 -30% MIPS/Mhz (chip ram)
68000 0,175 MIPS/Mhz (fast ram)
68020 0,303 -45% MIPS/Mhz (chip ram)
68020 0,303 MIPS/Mhz(fast ram)
68030 0,36 MIPS/Mhz
68040 1,1 MIPS/Mhz
The chip ram effect can be measured for example with sysinfo.
Allready when GPU and Audio are doing nothing the above shown negative performance effect can be seen.
When adding fast ram, the CPU is no longer blocked because graophics and audio activity, it
makes Amiga system operate faster and more smooth when things work truly in parallel in
HW level multitasking.
...
I estimate that OCS+ECS+AGA did gfx offloading worth at least 2...?MIPS vs PC,
untill in 1995 first windows accelerator GFX cards started to reach normal PC
users, after that AOS was not ahead of Windows any more in HW acceleration.
....
The offload for audio related processing was perhaps 1MIPS.
Still in 1996 the standard/basic PC's still did not have a sound card,
it had to be added to the build separately.
(Before windows95 games started to appear (starting from late 1996), games had
mainly their own internal support for audio cards if at all.
In practice, SounBlaster was the best bet as audio card, because AdLib (IIR the
name correctly) could not produce sampled sound. And cards like GravisUltrasound
was nightmare to set up and usually it's SB emulation did not work with your game.)
....
...
So, for example my A2000 + fast RAM was compareable to 4..5MIPS x86 computer.
(so it had the practical performance of a 40Mhz 286AT or 30Mhz 386DX)
Same way, my A4000/040 (y1994) had the practical performance of a 89Mhz 486DX.
(040/25Mhz was 2x faster than 486DX33 in rendering, just as an example of Real3D)
...
Some amiga game specialties were:
-being able to play multiplayer games from single CD copy over parnet
-able to play on large screens, two amigas handling synchronous
output to form large two display playfield (8 player multiplay)
-up to four players with four joysticks on one computer + two players on keyboard
-being able to multitask, listening music modules or doing backups or rendering
worked fine while you played games
-no 640k limit ;)
...
Some amiga gaming problems:
-EHB GFX mode enabled 64/4096 color games since 1987, but no game used it? Thanks to atari!?
-CDTV was poorly managed (or 5 years too early?)
-Poorly programmed games broke if too much RAM was available.
-Poorly programmed games broke if too fast CPU was available.
-most games did not install to HDD
-some games disabled multitasking (or did not know there was multitasking invented)
-CPU generated graphics (like 3D games) were slower via planar modes than via chunkymodes
-AGA in A1200/A4000 did not have akiko that eliminated chunkyneed in lo res
-CBM did not put fast ram as standard feature on every Amiga
....
Some amiga productivity specialties were:
---THIS-PART-LATER---
...
....
And as gone through, VGA (around 320x200) was the PC gaming mainstream untill 1996.
Prime example being Quake which was released only as 256color VGA game
early in 1996 and it was later updated for SVGA modes (QuakeGL and
WinQuake).
In computing history material 1995 is seen as year when SVGA games
started to appear and gain momentum.
....
In 1993 386DX40 was the most sold x86 (my experiance in sales).
In 1994 the x86 mainstream models were 486SX25 and 486DX33 with 512k GFX card.
Basic models still had ISA GFX, but also VLbus models were available.
In 1995 ISA had pretty much diappeared for GFX, VL bus was hot for GFX,
PCI was becoming affordable.
....
Some direct examples from magazines:
Dator Magazin nr12 Aug1994
i486sx/25Mhz/4Mb/210Mb/ISAGFX512kb/monitor 12498skr (no audio, no CD...)

Dator Magazin nr14 Aug1994
CD32 3495skr
A1200 3795skr
A1200+60Mb+28Mhz+4MB 9295skr (incl AOS+WordWorth+DPaint4, etc etc...)
A1200+420Mb+030/50Mhz+FPU50Mhz+4MB 16495skr
((68060 cards were not yet out, OpalVision, Picasso2, GVP IV-24,
GVP Spectrum EGS were available for graphics & multimonitor use
(5000-13000skr), AD1012 (8000skr) and AD516 (18745skr) for more
professional audio channels, multiple cards worked synchronously,
multitasking with Paula and midi. +Good availability of cheap audio
and video tools.))

for A500/2000:
-030/33Mhz+SCSI+DIMMslot 3325skr
-AdIDE HDD controller 1395skr

"Speldator"
i486SX25Mhz+4Mb+210Mb 8195skr (no monitor, no audio, DOS only, no mouse etc)

486DX2/66Mhz/VLBgfx512k?/170Mb/4Mb/mouse 11238skr (no audio etc.)
P1/66Mhz/PCIgfx1MB/340Mb/8Mb/mouse 22362skr

((at this time when I was working for the compuer sales firm...
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.
A4000/040/25 was handicapped by slow memory, for example videos
played from RAM were 50% slower than with 68030/25 card or with
A1200/030. A4000 was able to stream full screen low resolution video (dithered 32or
64 color I believe) from HDD though (I was present when A4k was first time presented
in finland), but I could not reproduce it with my own A4k. A1200+GVP030/50+SCSI
played full screen CDXL videos from HDD pretty nicely.))

...

Dator Magazin Mar1995

CD32 2495skr ... 3290skr
A1200 4990skr (price going up!!)
A1200 card 1MB RAM 1990skr
A1200 card 4MB RAM 2990skr
CD32 expansion kb+floppy+mouse+4Mb+80Mb 7595skr
CV64-3D 5595skr

486SX2 6995skr (4Mb, 420Mb, 640x480x24b win accelerator, no audio)
486DX2/66 7795skr (4Mb, 420Mb, 640x480x24b win accelerator, no audio)
p1/60 13995skr (8Mbm420Mb, PCI GFX, no audio, no dos, no windows, no monitor)

DVC486PCIbasic (no audio, no monitor, no CD, no win/DOS etc...)
AMD486DX2/80Mhz/420Mb/4Mb/PCIGFX1Mb 11245skr
P1/90Mhz/850Mb/8Mb/PCIGFX1Mb 19995skr

--TO-B-CONTINUED---- or not.


+
Fun(ny) real life example of 386DX40 power:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jj97NXgHw4

Also with 68030/50 one needs to decrease quality to multitask fluently, but 386 is totally pathetic! (just IMO, ofcourse)

+
Also about old stuff. One should ignore all 68k tests done on Apple HW as apple never ever made a fast 68k computer. For example A4000/040 ran Apple OS + apps faster than Mac040/25.

****UPDATE****
While my y1993 magazines are stored some hidden box somewhere...
I wonder what GFX was sold with the PCs shown at the top of this page:
http://www.sunnyside.homelinux.org/subpages/old_PC_prices/old_pc_prices_february_1993.html
(When they bundle monochrome monitors with them, doubt their GFX cards have high colour modes.)

Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 02:28 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 08:36 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 08:27 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 08:24 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 08:12 AM.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@KimmoK

ARM2: 0.5 MIPS/MHz

And your numbers seem off - how can the 68040 get performance that requires superscalar execution while being a scalar design?

--

The fastest MP3 player for PC was a command line one, can't remember the name. IIRC it was purely integer based so no FPU needed.

Last edited by megol on 22-Jun-2015 at 09:20 AM.

To clarify some earlier stuff...

My comment to Matthey saying about gaming...
>>ECS was too little and AGA was too late. C= was too slow adding faster processors and hard drives which kept the gaming spe...
>typo corrected: SVGA games truly started to take off in 1994...1995
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=39917&start=740&post_id=762861&order=0&viewmode=flat&pid=0&forum=14#762861

+

>That is true. It was grazy to sell A1200, CD32 and even A4000 with just chip ram.
>Just adding fast ram doubled A1200 and CD32 performance.
>AGA+14Mhz020+FastRam would have enabled a lot better DOOM -like games. (not to mention akiko)
>Surely, Hombre or RTG graphics should have been made available very soon after AGA.



Then the mixup game started by some (grazy x86 lovers? bitter atari guys? wtf?).


Ignoring the sh*t.


AGA HW was released/started to be sold early 1993.
At that time VGA games were coming (more and more) popular on PC and 320x200x8 capable x86 was the common standard.

So, AGA was not behind for gaming even if it was not ahead any more either.
It enabled some special tricks (+24bit palette), but failed to have chunkypixel mode (or akiko) as standard.

((note though that AGA was years old design when it was released))

Amigas should have been shipped with at least 512k FAST RAM since 1993 and with CD or HDD as standard.
With that small finetuning it would have been a lot stronger, but CBM was already in deathbed, mainly because losses in PC segment & insane management spendings etc..
Not because AGA or 68020.

@megol
That number was from wiki.
(might be wrong + I'm not sure if 040 has internal DX2 kind of structure though (like said in y1994)...
+wiki "delivered over four times the per-clock performance of the 68020 and 68030")

+"Note that intel used internal clock when talk about CPU speed while Motorola used external clock!!"

So, if that is true, then 68040/25 is really a 68040DX2/50Mhz. And internal core delivers 0.505MIPS/internalMhz)

Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 10:16 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 10:16 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 10:15 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 10:12 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 10:05 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 10:04 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 10:01 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 09:55 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 09:54 AM.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

Quote:

AGA HW was released/started to be sold early 1993. At that time VGA games were coming (more and more) popular on PC and 320x200x8 capable x86 was the common standard. So, AGA was not behind for gaming even if it was not ahead any more either.

No, VGA games weren't simply "coming" in 1993. Pretty much all games released in 1993 were VGA. Those that weren't VGA were... SVGA!

(1993 is the year 7th guest, Myst were released...). Myst came 4 years later on the Amiga, and is barely usable on a 030/50+AGA that was common by then (can you imagine Myst on a stock 1200 ?).

See a list there: http://www.abandonware-france.org/ltf_abandon/ltf_listes_jeux.php?type=&rub=&date=1993&ordre=alpha&search=0

In comparison, in 1993, most Amiga games were ECS/OCS, with some versions adding more colors and/or parallax screen. Some were AGA only but these were rare. Sound was still the same. Most required slow disk loading/swapping.

AGA was too little, too late.

Oh, and btw, ISA graphics cards were usable in Windows in high resolutions 800x600x16bit or 1024x768x8bit. AGA is not usable for anything else but still images in high resolutions/8bit+.

Last edited by Leo on 22-Jun-2015 at 10:17 AM.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@Leo

>No, VGA games weren't simply "coming" in 1993. Pretty much all games released in 1993 were VGA. Those that weren't VGA were... SVGA!

No. 1994-1995 was the start of SVGA gaming momentum. Check your facts.
Quake was released 1996 with lo res VGA GFX.

etc.

CORRECTION:
I wrote VGA games were coming more and more mainstream.
446/695 of the released games were VGA games at the year of AGA release.
So I was wrong. VGA was mainstream.

>In comparison, in 1993, most Amiga games were ECS/OCS, with some versions adding more colors and/or parallax screen.

I think in 1993 a lot of Amiga games came wit Atari or EGA GFX ported to Amiga. 64color OCS modes not used at all.

>Oh, and btw, ISA graphics cards were usable in Windows in high resolutions 800x600x16bit or 1024x768x8bit. AGA is not usable for anything else but still images in high resolutions/8bit+.

AGA amigas were superior especially for productivity at 1993, especially vs price.
And Amigas were not locked to any screenmode or resolution. I could change resolution and color depth hunders of times per seconds.
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.

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.



UPDATE: at "AGA too little too late" for games

AGA could do VGA level graphics.

This lists 34 of all released DOS games (695) being SVGA:
http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/dos/tic,2/ti,12/1992/

Two years (1994) later 115/825 games supported SVGA. (549 VGA games) http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/dos/tic,2/ti,2/1994/

In 1996 284/712 supported SVGA. 353 of the released DOS games of y1996 still were VGA games.

Audio:
1992 695 games were released for MS-DOS:
http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/dos/1992/

Only 431 of them supported other than BEEP sound. ??error??

331 games supported soundblaster.
http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/dos/1992/tic,1/ti,17/

So in 1992 38% of PC games were mute or BEEPing.
Only 48% of PC games supported Paula caliber sound.

So, neither Paula does seem obsolete for y1992 IMHO.

(And to me it seems DOS gaming never truly went beyond VGA. previously I thought it happened in 1994-1995.)

Last edited by KimmoK on 23-Jun-2015 at 11:30 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 10:45 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 10:42 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 10:41 AM.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

insted to test specinc or specfpu, try real software.

Das Boot on Amiga 500
Das Boot on 286 / 386

so no texture, no complex world.

_________________

@Seiya

This is more relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETl8PhUy_E


(vector graphics was faster on 2Mhz spectrum than on 1Mhz C64, still C64 was superior overall,
if a game is done by brute CPU force, the higher CPU spec wins.)


btw
DasbootMSDOS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2phrqL7wgw (no HW info)
DasbootAMIGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5JMko9vqGg (no HW info)

(sound effects are bad on both, perhaps only slightly better on Amiga)

***************
@Myth
Windows95+ P1/166Mhz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab3nitwX-vE
AGA+030/50Mhz? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtO4E3cIn0w
(never played it myself, generally ported games are not optimal for classic)

Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 02:38 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 11:39 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 11:39 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 11:31 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 11:30 AM.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@KimmoK

Quote:

vector graphics was faster on 2Mhz spectrum than on 1Mhz C64

Just nitpicking, but there's no such thing as a 2MHz spectrum, they were 3.5MHz ;)

@KimmoK

Quote:

(vector graphics was faster on 2Mhz spectrum than on 1Mhz C64, still C64 was superior overall, if a game is done by brute CPU force, the higher CPU spec wins.)

You do realize that Spectrum has a different CPU (Z80), so the system performances cannot be directly compared simply based on MHz rating?

Most commands take longer to execute on Z80. On the other hand, it's definitely more suited for 3D transformations due to having more registers available to the user. Still, the performance of 2MHz Z80 definitely isn't 200% of what 6502@1MHz has.

Last edited by Jupp3 on 22-Jun-2015 at 01:02 PM.

@KimmoK

Quote:

486DX 0,348 MIPS/Mhz (note: SX did not have FPU)

Quote:

68030 0,36 MIPS/Mhz

Well, my 486SX 25 MHz laptop has faster CPU than my A1200 with 68030 50 MHz. I´m sure your MIPS aren´t suited for direct comparison between CPU architectures.

Quote:

my A4000/040 (y1994) had the practical performance of a 89Mhz 486DX.

Quote:

(040/25Mhz was 2x faster than 486DX33 in rendering, just as an example of Real3D)

68040 has higher FPU performance than 486DX (2x in some benchmarks). Integer performance was comparable per MHz.