@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Lou It just shows the world isn't black and white.

I think this may be the most reasonable statement you have made here in a VERY LONG TIME!

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Lou Quote: When you have to pull external data, there is always a penalty. There's a penalty, but not like you put it. It would mean shared bandwidth for the CPU (and more latency), which is the case by default on the 360. But the benefit for the GPU is not only increased memory but also increased bandwidth. Quote: if Uncharted 2 was ported to the 360, it could still most likely run at a faster frame rate if the art assets weren't upgraded to take advantage of the extra available RAM. LOL Quote: The Neo Geo only have 64k of video RAM (compared to 1MB on Amiga) though it could display more colors and sprites than Amiga, it had to do so in low resolution. Sorry Amiga 500 games don't provide much higher resolution, NTSC games were lower resolution. No offense to the Amiga 500 (it's mid 80s tech, the NeoGeo is 90s tech). NeoGeo games looked way more impressive graphically than Amiga 500 games: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqb0ea31fUI The NeoGeo with its tiny RAM was superior to the Amiga 500 in terms of graphics. Similarly the Amiga 500 was superior to PCs for 80s gaming, despite PC games at the times required many times as much RAM (and a harddrive for mandatory install): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETl8PhUy_E It just shows the world isn't black and white.

Graphically superior is a relative term. Since you want to compare games of the same generation then we'd have to look at the AGA Amigas. I don't see how games like Shadow of the Beast AGA would look better on a NeoGeo or any game involving resolutions >320x224 since the NeoGeo simply cannot do it.

I tell you the PS3 is limited in it's ability to pump out HD visuals on many games and the NEO GEO cannot even do SD visuals which the Amiga could. As is common on the PS3 since the visual fidelity is lower, they apply more effects to compensate...like the NeoGeo can do with more colors and sprites.

So I say the term "better graphics" is relative and you change it's meaning to suit your argument. You talk about the PS3 being the true 'HD' system...well that is defined by pixels and the 360 pushes them easier. I tell you the Amiga can display more pixels and you tell me the NeoGeo has better graphics. Make up your mind please.

@MikeB

Surely Neo Geo had more on screen colors (without tricks), more and better things moving on screen.
But Amiga still had some tricks Neo Geo could not do, like rainbow effects, super ultra smooth scrollings with lots of parallax and the like.
I think that if it's true that Amiga could not run 100% a perfect conversion of Metal Slug, Neo Geo could not run 100% perfect conversions of Agony or Shadow of the Beast.
The two machines are too different for a direct comparison.

_________________
God created Paula so that Allister Brimble and Dave Whittaker could do music

Check my Amiga gameplays (ITA)!

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Lou Quote: When you have to pull external data, there is always a penalty. There's a penalty, but not like you put it. It would mean shared bandwidth for the CPU (and more latency), which is the case by default on the 360. But the benefit for the GPU is not only increased memory but also increased bandwidth. Quote: if Uncharted 2 was ported to the 360, it could still most likely run at a faster frame rate if the art assets weren't upgraded to take advantage of the extra available RAM. LOL Quote: The Neo Geo only have 64k of video RAM (compared to 1MB on Amiga) though it could display more colors and sprites than Amiga, it had to do so in low resolution. Sorry Amiga 500 games don't provide much higher resolution, NTSC games were lower resolution. No offense to the Amiga 500 (it's mid 80s tech, the NeoGeo is 90s tech). NeoGeo games looked way more impressive graphically than Amiga 500 games: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqb0ea31fUI Quote: It also had a 12Mhz 68000, which is faster than an Amiga 500 so once again having more CPU power does not guarrantee you better looking games WHICH HAS BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG! The Amiga wins in graphics memory over Neo Geo as does the 360 over PS3. The NeoGeo with its tiny RAM was superior to the Amiga 500 in terms of graphics. Similarly the Amiga 500 was superior to PCs for 80s gaming, despite PC games at the times required many times as much RAM (and a harddrive for mandatory install): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETl8PhUy_E It just shows the world isn't black and white.

The late 80s i386 DX PC hardware has ID's DOOM (1993) which blows them all away.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3A+/Emu68)