Quote:

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.

True. I remember my 486/25 was faster than my 030/50 at most CPU tasks (file/image decompression,...). Doom was also faster on it.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@Leo

Quote:

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 ?).

I had an 030/33 and bought Myst after all the hype surrounding it. I can't say that it felt my system was struggling to play it but I did find particularly enjoy it.

Does it really matter what was faster more than 20 years ago?

@Thorham

Quote:

Does it really matter what was faster more than 20 years ago?

Probably not, I don´t know.

@pavlor

>MIPS aren´t suited for direct comparison between

I think nothing is suited for comparing two so totally different kind of things as Amiga and PC.

Classic Amiga HW never had L2 cache and I think that is one thing that affects real performance, outside MIPS test scope. There were a lot of things impossible with normal PC, while being ordinary things on Amigas.

@Leo
>486/25 was faster than my 030/50 at most CPU tasks (file/image decompression,...)

I never had 030/50.
I breafly used A3000&030/25 beside my A2000/000 untill I got A4k.
(and I do not remember any more all the specs of the PCs that I had. I think I had 486/80 and also a half broken P1/133 at some point, I had them mainly for my wife's school needs.)

It seem my 040/25 loaded images slower than the brand new 486 PCs that my friends had (integer math, and I imagine those 486 were 33Mhz or 66Dx2). But A4k (16Mb) was able to open larger images than the NT powered 486 with 32Mb. (I just had better SW or because I could open them in superhireslacedHAM8 while their SW tried to read all RAW data to RAM and failed. Both systems could show larger than screen images, they scrolled smoothly on Amiga and jitterly on PC.)

In 1995 I benchmarked that I could check my e-mails and www news before my P1/75booted to win95. Also if I had to open a small word2 document, I could do it faster with starting PCtask+win3.1+word2 than by powering the p1/75. (but the p1 had only 8Mb RAM, IIRC) With larger documents the pentium was faster.


(some documents that I had to use were 500pages written with word... win3.11+word could not save the file to RTF, the system crashed always before save was done, so saving in small pieces to word format + to open with word2 was one option... but it was so slow that in the end I had to buy my own peecee to get the graduation work done sanely.
IIRC, by selling the PC two years later I financed the buy of CV64-3D. My 640x900 flixer free AGA desktop changed to 1024x1000, got a SVGA monitor for it, nec3D monitor continued to serve as the AGA output display (dual monitor setup) when needed. P5 scandoubler was broken (by design they lied to me) so second monitor was also mandatory to see more than 4096 colors via scandoubler)

@CBM management insanity
My A4k came with 1Mb chip + 0Mb fast + 0Mb HDD.
Irvin Gould and Medhi Ali should have been hung for their crimes!
It's criminal to let that kind of misconfiguration out from the factory!!!

Imagine those poor bastards that bought something like that A4k thinking that they are ready to use systems like A500. (well, they are, but A4k buyer expects more than A500, right?)


@great memories
http://www.retrogamingaus.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Amiga-CD-32-System-Ad-UK.jpg

1995...
http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/comparing-todays-computers-to-1995s/

buyers guide 1993:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M_Vt_7CEKk
(movie maker (nonlinear video editor SW) presented around 3:50 ... damn I must check that, never used it so far)

Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 03:48 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 03:43 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 03:39 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 03:37 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 03:29 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 03:28 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 22-Jun-2015 at 03:23 PM.

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

@KimmoK

Re: How to make Amiga OS a leading operating system?
The answer lies in the present and future, not in the past. If you want to evaluate who was how fast decades ago, open another thread. Won't help the Amiga though.

_________________
--
Author of
HD-Rec, Sweeper, Samplemanager, ArTKanoid, Monkeyscript, Toadies, AsteroidsTR, TuiTED, PosTED, TKPlayer, AudioConverter, ScreenCam, PerlinFX, MapEdit, AB3 Includes and many more...
Homepage: http://www.hd-rec.de

@KimmoK

The 68040 doesn't use clock doubling - it uses clock division. The bus clock is twice the internal clock, something not that uncommon in lower frequency designs, it allows easy generation of multi-phase internal clocks which can simplify some logic.

@megol

Yes, I recall Apple (or their third party providers) trying to use this in marketing, suggesting a "68040 DX2". If what I remember is correct, the problem was that a 040 runs so hot that it easily had timing problems, and two "ticks" per cycle was one way to compensate for this.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@Thorham

Quote:

Thorham wrote: Does it really matter what was faster more than 20 years ago?

Yes, it is of outmost importance when plotting the plan for world domination! ;)

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

You can not just dig up the corpse, dangle it in a wire and say look it's alive! No one will take that seriously. Instead you have to give it electricity on the head... and then feed it with cheap superpowers no one else is able to match...

_________________
Using: One Commodore C64 - One Commodore Amiga 500 - One Commodore Amiga 1200 with BVision and Blizzard 68060 with PPC coprocessor running Amiga DOS - One Hellbillylitre Amigatwox86x64x6000x running Windows7

@Hillbillylitre

Or some nice cyborgization might help

_________________
Scarabocchi Binari - Italian AROS Blog
Binary Doodles - English language AROS Blog

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: 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...

...
All this effort, and the end you are neither an Amiga guru and not even a PC guru?
Quote:

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

Dear "guru", I already explained in the near past the MIPS is a completely misleading unit of measure, and you not only continue with this wrong path, but you also report completely insane data about it.

As megol already pointed-out, you have to explain how a processor like the 68040, which as a SINGLE (read: ONLY ONE!!!) pipeline can execute MORE THAN one instruction per clock cycle.

It's a kind of magic? Magic? Magic!

When the 80486 (DX) and the 68040 were introduced, all magazines reported that they delivered respectively 15 and 20 MIPS (and 1 and 3.5 MFLOPS) running at 25Mhz. It's a very well known FACT which even stones know, so it should be obvious for some guru, right? But just in case of doubt (even gurus have failing ECC memory ), you can make a quick search and verify it yourself.

And since you claimed that your source is Wikipedia, I don't spend my time on looking at the other numbers.
Quote:

The chip ram effect can be measured for example with sysinfo.

The chip mem effect depends by the screen resolution, depth, how many sprites you used, how many audio channels and their frequency, and if you're using the floppy or not.

But it's something that you, an Amiga guru, should know very well, right?
Quote:

Allready when GPU and Audio are doing nothing the above shown negative performance effect can be seen.

When there's nothing active, only the chip mem refresh circuitry was (always) active, and it stolen 4 memory accesses out of 227, but only for processors which are able to access memory in 2 clock cycles. So, the 68000 wasn't affected by it. And BTW it was affected only by the screen resolution and/or depth.
Quote:

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.

See above: it's not true that audio and graphic always affected the processor.

And regarding "HW level multitasking", well, it's a neologism...
Quote:

... I estimate that OCS+ECS+AGA did gfx offloading worth at least 2...?MIPS vs PC,

ROFL. MIPS? The meaning less unit of measure?

Please, can you report how you estimated those 2 MIPS, whatever you mean with it?
Quote:

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.

Again you report completely wrong information. Look here:

"S3 Graphics introduced S3 911A in June 1990 with a Windows accelerator delivering 256 colours"

1990: NOT 1995!
Quote:

.... The offload for audio related processing was perhaps 1MIPS.

Same as above: how you calculated it? Report numbers, please: talk is (too much) cheap...
Quote:

Still in 1996 the standard/basic PC's still did not have a sound card, it had to be added to the build separately.

So what? Many people bought sound cards. And games used them.
Quote:

(Before windows95 games started to appear (starting from late 1996), games had mainly their own internal support for audio cards if at all.

Windows had standard APIs for the sound, so games only needed to use them instead of directly supporting each one.
Quote:

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.) .... ...

The SB card was the standard de facto, but many games supported other cards as well. I already reported the list of games that supported GUS.
Quote:

So, for example my A2000 + fast RAM was compareable to 4..5MIPS x86 computer.

ROFL Please, explain how you calculated it, because it's really funny.
Quote:

(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) ...

Unbelievable. So, even in Finland it's possible to find very "good stuff".
Quote:

Some amiga game specialties were: -being able to play multiplayer games from single CD copy over parnet

CD? On an Amiga? How many Amiga, except CDTV and CD32, had a CD? How much it cost? How many (NOT CDTV or CD32) games supported it?
Quote:

-able to play on large screens,

What kind of "large screens"?
Quote:

two amigas handling synchronous output to form large two display playfield (8 player multiplay)

Example, please, because you're reporting fantasies.
Quote:

-up to four players with four joysticks on one computer + two players on keyboard

The Amiga had only 2 joystick ports, and the keyboard had problems at handling simultaneous key presses.

Can you report the list of games that supported such "extreme" configuration?
Quote:

-being able to multitask, listening music modules or doing backups or rendering worked fine while you played games

ROFL Without the o.s., which was usually killed by games? And even some games which where DOS-based, systematically disabled it during the execution.

Please can you report the list of so much o.s.-friendly games?
I start with mines:
- Frontier
- Frontier
- Frontier
- Frontier
...


Quote:

-no 640k limit ;)

That's only for 8086 and PC which mounted a maximum of 1MB of memory.

PC mounted also > 1MB of memory, and they are perfectly accessible by games. I already explained how they did, dear "guru"...
Quote:

... Some amiga gaming problems: -EHB GFX mode enabled 64/4096 color games since 1987, but no game used it?

Fightin' Spirit used it. Maybe Desert Strike too. And some adventure.
Quote:

Thanks to atari!?

No, thanks to Commodore: 512KB of chip ram was ridiculous, AND enabling the 6 bitplanes required by EHB dropped the available bandwidth of about 25%, PLUS the cookie-cut method wasted a lot of bandwidth due to the mask reloading (it was necessary to reload the SAME mask bitplane for EVERY bitplane of graphics to be drawn).
Quote:

-CDTV was poorly managed (or 5 years too early?)

The first one that you said. As the usual Commodore tradition...
Quote:

-Poorly programmed games broke if too much RAM was available. -Poorly programmed games broke if too fast CPU was available.

Right.
Quote:

-most games did not install to HDD

Because most games completely killed the o.s.
Quote:

-some games disabled multitasking

Right.
Quote:

(or did not know there was multitasking invented)

Yes, and you do NOT know how strong were the constraints of the Amiga hardware to develop a good game.

It's very easy the life of a gamer: he has to only embrace the joystick and have fun...
Quote:

-CPU generated graphics (like 3D games) were slower via planar modes than via chunkymodes

Packed/chunky modes were useful also for non-2D games.
Quote:

-AGA in A1200/A4000 did not have akiko that eliminated chunkyneed in lo res

Akiko didn't eliminated the chunky need at all, because it only converted some chunky pixels to the corresponding bitplanes data. Yes, the display subsystem wasn't changed: it worked ONLY with bitplanes.

BTW, Akiko sucked also on doing such conversion.
Quote:

-CBM did not put fast ram as standard feature on every Amiga

No, she primarily sucked because she put too low chip mem, which was the primary need for games.

She also sucked for other things. You can take a look here, but translate it from the Italian.
Quote:

.... Some amiga productivity specialties were: ---THIS-PART-LATER---

Don't waste your time: you can completely avoid this part. I quote you again (#769):

"The discussion was regarding games."
Quote:

... .... And as gone through, VGA (around 320x200) was the PC gaming mainstream untill 1996.

I already report the list of games which used the VGA, but it's clear that you don't read what other people writes. I report it again.
Quote:

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).

Again, you completely confuse 2D and 3D games, which had different histories.

It's normal that 3D games used lower resolutions and depth, to save processing power. Whereas 2D games already supported the SVGA. See belove for the latter.
Quote:

In computing history material 1995 is seen as year when SVGA games started to appear and gain momentum.

Here is the list.

Here's a screenshot of Wonderland (1990!) at 800x600 with 16 colors:


And here one of Links: Championship Course - Barton Creek (1991!) at 640x400 with 256 colors:


If it's not enough, you can take a look at the other SVGA games...
Quote:

.... In 1993 386DX40 was the most sold x86 (my experiance in sales).

It also means that more software supported them, games included.
Quote:

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.

OK, and know?
Quote:

.... 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.))

So an Amiga 1200 with a 030@50Mhz + FPU was much more expensive compared to a 486SX, and even without a monitor, right?
Quote:

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

Add memory, HD, and a monitor, and the Amiga of course, please.
Quote:

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

Add them and compare to the expanded A500 or 2000. For SoundBlaster Pro or 16, and GUS you already have the prices.
Quote:

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

See above.
Quote:

((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.

Never heard of it. Any third-party/neutral source for it?
Quote:

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.))

Because 68040's cache was disabled when accessing the chip mem, if I remember correctly.
Quote:

... 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

OK. So what?
Quote:

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

Better not, please, if the purpose is to continue to do misinformation.
Quote:

+ 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.

I quote you again (#769):

"The discussion was regarding games."
Quote:

****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.)

Please, translate at least in dollars, otherwise any comparison is impossible.

P.S. No time to re-read and fix errors, but we can survive, right?

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: 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

The typo is still wrong: see my above comment.
Quote:

+ >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.

Not for 2D games, which required more chip mem. The fast mem wasn't useful.

Remember: AGA still used BITPLANES, not packed/chunky.
Quote:

>AGA+14Mhz020+FastRam would have enabled a lot better DOOM -like games. (not to mention akiko)

False. The limit here was represented also by the limited bandwidth for writing to the chip mem (to display the elaborated frame).

For sure, with the fast mem you had better performance, but absolutely NOT doubling the performance.

And Akiko sucked, as I said.
Quote:

>Surely, Hombre or RTG graphics should have been made available very soon after AGA.

That's a "what if". Stick to the history, please.
Quote:

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

They are logical fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Have you ended your arguments/facts and started personal attacks?
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.

It was common, but NOT the only one. As I reported, SVGA was used well before 1993.
Quote:

So, AGA was not behind for gaming even if it was not ahead any more either.

It was even if we consider only 320x200 @ 256 colors for PCs. "Strangely", you missed my previous comments regarding the benefits of packed/chunky pixels even for 2D graphics (games included). Guess why...
Quote:

It enabled some special tricks

Please, report them.
Quote:

(+24bit palette),

It was already common of PCs well before AGA introduction.
Quote:

but failed to have chunkypixel mode (or akiko) as standard.

Again: Akiko sucked. And packed/chunky were very useful, even for 2D graphic.
Quote:

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

That's Commodore fault. The crude fact is that AGA was shipped with the Amiga 1200 and 4000. Not something else...
Quote:

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..

You can say and imagine whatever you want. The reality is different, and doesn't make sense to speculate with "what if"...
Quote:

Not because AGA or 68020.

Both were obsolete, unfortunately.

But they were cheap, and that's why the Amiga 1200 had sold. The reason why I bought it (UNEXPANDED! I added the HD only the year after).
Quote:

@megol That number was from wiki.

Reliable source...

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: @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.

False. See above.
Quote:

Quake was released 1996 with lo res VGA GFX.

It was a 3D game. 2D games already used SVGA since the 1990. See above.
Quote:

etc. >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.

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.

But with the introduction of the Amiga 500, this trend was completely overturn, and the Amiga became the mainstream gaming platform and primary one / the reference for games development, which then were ported to other platforms.

You can see this many games which were ported to the PC. Even if the VGA allowed for 256 colors, the game used roughly the same 32 (or a bit more to emulate the Copper work, if any) of the Amiga version.
Quote:

64color OCS modes not used at all.

See the other comment: it was too much expensive in terms of memory space and bandwidth.
Quote:

>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.

Because of the good software which was developed.
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?
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?
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, or because you were unable to do it?

@KimmoK

Quote:

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

Are you comparing the original Amiga versions with mediocre or horrible PC ports, and trying to generalize the situation?

Please, can you tell me how well compared the Monkey Island Amiga version with the PC one? Just to take of the most famous examples. Not only for the graphics, but we can compare the sound also.
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.)

Again, you don't know of what are you talking about.

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.

Yes
Quote:

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)

OK, but what's your opinion here? Was the Amiga version better than the PC one?
Quote:

*************** @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)

Really? Does it apply also for the opposite (Amiga games ported to PC)?

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @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.

Absolutely. I already tried to explain him, several time, how misleading are MIPS for this. But the "guru" seams to prefer play with some numbers, without having any clue about their meaning...
Quote:

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.

68040 lacked transcendental instructions (and some other for type conversion, if I remember correctly), so performance will badly slow down if an application used them.

@Thorham

Quote:

Thorham wrote: Does it really matter what was faster more than 20 years ago?

@Wanderer

Quote:

Wanderer wrote: @KimmoK Re: How to make Amiga OS a leading operating system? The answer lies in the present and future, not in the past. If you want to evaluate who was how fast decades ago, open another thread. Won't help the Amiga though.

Does it matter talking of 48-bit architectures for the Amiga o.s. revenge?

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: @pavlor >MIPS aren´t suited for direct comparison between I think nothing is suited for comparing two so totally different kind of things as Amiga and PC.

Let's say this: of all unit of measures that can be used for this task, you chose the one the worst.
Quote:

Classic Amiga HW never had L2 cache and I think that is one thing that affects real performance, outside MIPS test scope.

How many PC with L2 cache do you know, at the "Classic" Amiga times?
Quote:

There were a lot of things impossible with normal PC, while being ordinary things on Amigas.

Like what? Report them, please.
Quote:

@Leo >486/25 was faster than my 030/50 at most CPU tasks (file/image decompression,...) I never had 030/50. I breafly used A3000&030/25 beside my A2000/000 untill I got A4k. (and I do not remember any more all the specs of the PCs that I had. I think I had 486/80 and also a half broken P1/133 at some point, I had them mainly for my wife's school needs.) It seem my 040/25 loaded images slower than the brand new 486 PCs that my friends had (integer math, and I imagine those 486 were 33Mhz or 66Dx2). But A4k (16Mb) was able to open larger images than the NT powered 486 with 32Mb. (I just had better SW or because I could open them in superhireslacedHAM8 while their SW tried to read all RAW data to RAM and failed. Both systems could show larger than screen images, they scrolled smoothly on Amiga and jitterly on PC.) In 1995 I benchmarked that I could check my e-mails and www news before my P1/75booted to win95. Also if I had to open a small word2 document, I could do it faster with starting PCtask+win3.1+word2 than by powering the p1/75. (but the p1 had only 8Mb RAM, IIRC) With larger documents the pentium was faster.

So, now you aren't talking about video games, and you're comparing processors with completely different software, and o.s.. How much useful can be it?
Quote:

(some documents that I had to use were 500pages written with word... win3.11+word could not save the file to RTF, the system crashed always before save was done, so saving in small pieces to word format + to open with word2 was one option... but it was so slow that in the end I had to buy my own peecee to get the graduation work done sanely.

Yeah, we know that only Windows crashed, and people lose their work.

It never happened to Amiga, right?
Quote:

IIRC, by selling the PC two years later I financed the buy of CV64-3D. My 640x900 flixer free AGA desktop changed to 1024x1000, got a SVGA monitor for it, nec3D monitor continued to serve as the AGA output display (dual monitor setup) when needed. P5 scandoubler was broken (by design they lied to me) so second monitor was also mandatory to see more than 4096 colors via scandoubler)

How much cost it? And how much cost a PC with comparable hardware at that time?
Quote:

@CBM management insanity My A4k came with 1Mb chip + 0Mb fast + 0Mb HDD.

You don't even know the base specs of your Amiga 4000. Even your favorite source reported them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_4000 And they are quite different of what you've written.

How can you pretend that people trusts one person which doesn't remember what he supposed to have used for quite some time?

@KimmoK

Quote:

http://www.sunnyside.homelinux.org/subpages/old_PC_prices/old_pc_prices_february_1993.html

Thanks for link - added to my collection.

Quote:

When they bundle monochrome monitors with them, doubt their GFX cards have high colour modes

From specs it could be basic 256 kB SVGA card (up to 320x200-256, 640x480-16, 800x600-16 colours).

@cdimauro

Quote:

S3 Graphics introduced S3 911A in June 1990 with a Windows accelerator delivering 256 colours"

Depending what you count as "normal PC". In sub 1000 USD class, KimmoK is right.

Quote:

Please can you report the list of so much o.s.-friendly games?

There are few nice titles:
Battle Chess (works even on OS4!)
Civilization
Colonization
Dune 2
Gloom Deluxe
Gunship 2000
SimCity 2000
UFO


Quote:

Please, translate at least in dollars, otherwise any comparison is impossible.

1993-02-01 1 UKP = 1.4395 USD