@matthey

Quote:

I have explained this to you before. Look at the MC68060 User's Manual "Figure 1-1 MC68060 Block Diagram" on page 1-6. Integer and FPU instructions share the same pipelines (IFP and OEP) until the last 2 stages and all instruction pipeline paths are shown as 8 total stages in the block diagram. Pipelined FPUs may have additional stages but FPU instructions still use at least 8-stages on the 68060. Multi-cycle FPU instructions likely loop through the "FP Execute" stage multiple times but integer instructions can continue executing in parallel as long as another FPU instruction is not encountered which stalls all pipelines until the first FPU instruction finishes executing. A FPU instruction queue like the Cyrix 6x86 uses may be able to avoid most of these stalls with minimum 68060 design changes and low resources.

I have explained this to you before, Alpha 21064 FPU is longer than 68060's 8-stage integer pipelines.

Alpha 21064
Integer: 7 stages
Floating point: 10 stages


Pentium P5
Integer: 5 stages
Floating point: 8 stages
The original P5's .80 microns fab tech is similar to the later 68040's .80 microns. P5 reached 66 Mhz.

Pentium P54C uses .60 microns and reaches 100 Mhz.
Pentium P54CS uses .350 microns and reaches 200 Mhz.


Pentium MMX
Integer: 5 stages
Floating point: 9 stages,
Pentium P55C uses .350 microns and reaches 233 Mhz.


Pipeline stages alone don't dictate the final clock speed attainment. A new refined stepping can yield higher speed.

Internal circuitry design can influence the final clock speed attainment. For example, compact Zen 4C and big Zen 4 have the same pipeline stage length with different attained clock speeds. Zen 4C was designed for higher transistor density at the expense of higher clock speed. Circuitry layout design also influences clock speed attainment.

Motorola's 68040 lost clock speed war since Intel's 486 era.

Using Motorola's 90 nm and 130 nm process tech, AMD's Athlon CPU designs were reaching higher clock speeds when compared to Motorola's PowerPC G4 designs.

K8 Athlon's clock speed is slightly higher than the IBM's PowerPC 970 family.

Microsoft assimilated DEC's VMS OS software tech i.e. Dave Cutler's team for Windows NT.
Both Intel and AMD assimilated skilled engineers from workstation clock speed king which is DEC.

X86 PC world fully assimilated DEC's technological and biological (people). Bill Gates as "the Borg" meme is real.

Motorola didn't pirate DEC's skilled engineers! People's skills matter in the tech race.

I investigated the hype with 68060 rev1, and my decision for the Pentium 166Mhz 1996 purchase is the correct one. Games like Quake matter in 1996.

Quake punished Cyrix 586/686 clones.

I don't give a damn about the embedded market since Amiga's primary market is gaming.

Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 01:27 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 01:21 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 01:11 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@matthey

Quote:

All very true. CPU | DMIPS/MHz | pipeline | transistors | power@66MHz | price (1000s) 68040 1.1 6-stage 1,200,000 N/A $218 68060 1.8 8-stage 2,530,000 4.9W $308 PPC601 1.4 4-stage 2,800,000 9W $370 P54C 1.4 5-stage 3,300,000 14W $995

On cost, that's a FALSE narrative.

Pentium prices rapidly falls with rapid new model releases and intense X86 clone competition.

I'm game for around for Dataquest driven debates.

https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2013/04/102723315-05-01-acc.pdf
From DataQuest 1996, Page 227 of 417 for Year 1996
68040-25 = $93.75
68LC040-25= $46.00
80486DX4-75 = $81.00

Pentium-66 = $92.50
Pentium-75 = $92.50
Pentium-100 = $154.57

PowerPC-601-66 = $97.45
PowerPC-601-80 = $128.08
Power PC 603-80 = $90.82


From DataQuest 1996, Page 225 of 417 for Year 1995

68040-25 = $150
68LC040-25= $65
80486DX4-75 = $106

Pentium-66 = $134
Pentium-75 = $151
Pentium-100 = $281

PowerPC-601-66 = $110
PowerPC-601-80 = $159
PowerPC-601-100 = $273
Power PC-603-80 = $108


During 1996, Pentium 150 Mhz (overclocked to 166 Mhz with FSB 60 Mhz to 66 Mhz jumper)/PC-Partner 520N Socket 7 motherboard/S3 Trio 64UV full PC build is cheaper than Phase 5's 68060-50 Cyberstorm+ CyberGraphics 64 offerings which doesn't include A3000 or A4000 platform cost.

Amiga's 68060-50 experience is during the 1995 year.

For 68060, Phase 5 focused on below 1 million install base Amiga models such as A1200, A2000, and A3000/A4000 models. Phase 5 didn't tap the larger multi-millions A500 install base.

IBM's PowerPC 602 cheap price is for the 3DO MX game console. No mainstream game console platform vendor has selected 68060.

Amiga 500's cost structure is closer to a game console.

Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 01:59 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 01:54 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 01:49 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: Pentium prices rapidly falls with rapid new model releases and intense X86 clone competition. I'm game for around for Dataquest driven debates. https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2013/04/102723315-05-01-acc.pdf From DataQuest 1996, Page 227 of 417 for Year 1996 68040-25 = $93.75 68LC040-25= $46.00 80486DX4-75 = $81.00 Pentium-66 = $92.50 Pentium-75 = $92.50 Pentium-100 = $154.57 PowerPC-601-66 = $97.45 PowerPC-601-80 = $128.08 Power PC 603-80 = $90.82

This shows that 68k, x86 and ppc CPUs all had similar prices. But that wasn't of much importance to users. On the Amiga you needed an accelerator card with the CPU you wanted, and on the PC a motherboard. The big difference was that chipsets were being designed for PC motherboards that used the huge economy of scale of the PC market to keep the price down, while Amiga accelerator cards were full of expensive programmable logic and duplicated design effort spread over a tiny market that kept prices up.

The other factor (the 'elephant in the room' so to speak) is that the PC was where it was at. Even if you could get an equivalent 68k CPU for less money, it didn't help when all the latest software was coming out on PCs. If an x86 CPU was faster it just sealed the 68k's fate that much sooner, but it was going to happen anyway regardless.

Quote:

During 1996, Pentium 150 Mhz (overclocked to 166 Mhz with FSB 60 Mhz to 66 Mhz jumper)/PC-Partner 520N Socket 7 motherboard/S3 Trio 64UV full PC build is cheaper than Phase 5's 68060-50 Cyberstorm+ CyberGraphics 64 offerings which doesn't include A3000 or A4000 platform cost.

The price wasn't really that important. Professional users weren't fazed by it, and consumers bought PCs to run the latest software, not to save money.

Quote:

For 68060, Phase 5 focused on below 1 million install base Amiga models such as A1200, A2000, and A3000/A4000 models. Phase 5 didn't tap the larger multi-millions A500 install base.

Let's be honest, in 1996 there wasn't any A500 base to tap into.

Quote:

IBM's PowerPC 602 cheap price is for the 3DO MX game console. No mainstream game console platform vendor has selected 68060.

The 68060 was a desktop CPU, so duh.

Quote:

Amiga 500's cost structure is closer to a game console.

True, as were most home computers of the day. They were all (with a few exceptions) built down to the lowest possible price so home users could afford them. Most were also at least partly aimed at gamers too, but that didn't make them games consoles. Consoles didn't have keyboards, and file storage, and I/O ports, and an OS, and programming languages for the user to create their software.

In fact the A500 was identical to the A2000 except for not being in a big box with slots and a separate keyboard. You could add an A590 and get the equivalent of an A2091 SCSI controller with 2MB FastRAM, which was a popular A2000 setup. With 3rd party addons such as the GVP A530 you could have the equivalent of an A2500-030 or better, and even have a 286 CPU for running PC programs! Most other 'turbo' boards plugged into CPU socket, which had the advantage of maintaining the A500's compact form factor.

The fastest board made for the A500 'back in the day' was the Progressive 040/500, which sported a 33MHz 68040 and 8MB of 32-bit RAM, with onboard kickstart ROM and 68000 sockets so you could switch back to a stock A500 for playing incompatible games etc. I doubt that many were sold though, because the vast majority of A500 owners would get little benefit from it. The A1200 and A4000 came out soon after this board was released. For most users it probably made more sense to buy an AGA machine than upgrade their A500.

Last edited by bhabbott on 15-Nov-2024 at 03:35 AM.

@bhabbott

Quote:

bhabbott wrote: Quote: matthey wrote: One advantage of an ISA in FPGA is that mistakes can be fixed. And it's a big one. Imagine spending millions on an asic, then discovering something needs to be changed.

Which is why all CPUs, APUs, GPUs, NPUs, MCUs are FPGA.

Oh wait.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@matthey

Quote:

Hans Quote: Quote: True, and I'd have been okay with that. If they had invested more heavily in PowerPC, then PowerPC might still be competitive on the desktop today. It is unlikely that throwing more money at problems while ignoring technical considerations would have resulted in success. The same is true of Trevor wasting money on the A1222+ to increase PPC competitiveness. Wasting money is not investing.

When I use the word "invested," I mean "invested," and NOT "throwing more money at the problem." Motorola had some very smart people who knew how to get things done. You seem to assume that they'd be incompetent and waste it all.

IMHO, one of Motorola's weaknesses was trying to run in too many directions. Satellite communications, radio, mobile phones, PowerPC, etc.

Hans

_________________
Join the Kea Campus - upgrade your skills; support my work; enjoy the Amiga corner.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - see more of my work

@bhabbott

Quote:

This shows that 68k, x86 and ppc CPUs all had similar prices. But that wasn't of much importance to users.

During 1995, 68K wasn't price vs performance competitive e.g. 68040-25 is about 486DX-33 class when the competition has a similar price range of 486DX4-75 and Pentium 66.

Quote:

@bhabbott, On the Amiga you needed an accelerator card with the CPU you wanted, and on the PC a motherboard.

Not the same when Quake results reveal I/O bottleneck issues with the Zorro III chipset and 68060's 32-bit external bus.

My guess was correct on Clickboom's Quake performance on CyberStorm 060.

I had my A3000 in 1996 before I sold it to my Dad's Sydney CBD contacts with a small TV studio.

Quote:

@bhabbott, The big difference was that chipsets were being designed for PC motherboards that used the huge economy of scale of the PC market to keep the price down, while Amiga accelerator cards were full of expensive programmable logic and duplicated design effort spread over a tiny market that kept prices up.

Intel 430VX PCI chipset is highly integrated when compared to the glue chips on A1200 and A3000/A4000. 430VX PCI chipset R&D has the backing from Intel Corp.

My selected 1996 PCPartner MB520N Intel 430VX PCI motherboard example
https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/pcpartner-mb520n-35-8258-xx

https://theretroweb.com/motherboard/image/35-8258-00-5fbe31dbd08c5889140447.jpg
It has headers for two IDE, floppy, PS2 mouse, two serial, LPT and USB.

It just needs a S3 Trio 64UV+ (one main chip) and a Sonata SR-S163 16-bit sound card (OPL3, one main chip).

Commodore didn't merge A500/CD32's mass production techniques for big box Amigas.

DaveH wanted to mass-produce 68EC040-25 (priced like Am386-40 in 1992-1993) based Amiga which could establish mass production for Amiga's 68040 socket platform.

The price gap between A1200 and A4000/030-25's $1500 USD was slotted in by Commodore's 386DX25, Am386-40 and 486DX25 PC clones.

Quote:

@bhabbott, The other factor (the 'elephant in the room' so to speak) is that the PC was where it was at. Even if you could get an equivalent 68k CPU for less money, it didn't help when all the latest software was coming out on PCs. If an x86 CPU was faster it just sealed the 68k's fate that much sooner, but it was going to happen anyway regardless.

It was game over for 68060 desktops when Intel ramped up Pentium (P5xx)'s clock speed and released Pentium Pro (P6)'s release in 1995.

Intel Pentium Pro chipset supported ECC memory for workstation and server markets.

Quote:

@bhabbott, Let's be honest, in 1996 there wasn't any A500 base to tap into.

Let's be honest, Vampire V2, Firebird V4, and PiStorm for A500 proves you're wrong.

The A500 is similar to the A2000 in a compact form.

A500 could have
1. IDE
2. Progressive like 040/060 card on 68000 socket. This could be 68060-50.
3. RTG side card (Zorro I).

Phase 5 released 68040/68060 accelerators for A2000s. https://amiga.resource.cx/exp/blizzard2060


A500's case was able to house Progressive's 040-25 or 040-33 accelerator, hence Am386-40 PC killer 68EC040-25 with AGA+C2P was possible.

https://amiga.resource.cx/exp/progressive540
Progressive 040-25 or 040-33 accelerator for A500 and it needs an RTG solution.

AA500 with 68EC040-25 mass production would target countries with strong currencies and spending power. The target would be PC's Am386-40 markets with 68K's 486SX-33-like power.

$1500 USD is about $2000 AUD. A4000/030-25 wasn't performance vs cost-effective.
$1000 USD is about $1500 AUD.

Without factoring being very late, Vampire V2, Firebird V4, and PiStorm for A500 allows these A500 retro owners to participate in the high preformance 68K with RTG ecosystem.

Quote:

@bhabbott, The 68060 was a desktop CPU, so duh.

There are cheaper 68EC060-50, but the Amiga can't use it without DaveH's proposed new glue chipset.

PS1 is a fixed point integer 3D games machine.

Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 07:27 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 07:26 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 07:24 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 07:18 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 07:11 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 07:05 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 15-Nov-2024 at 06:58 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: @bhabbott Quote: bhabbott wrote: [quote]matthey wrote: One advantage of an ISA in FPGA is that mistakes can be fixed. And it's a big one. Imagine spending millions on an asic, then discovering something needs to be changed.

Which is why all CPUs, APUs, GPUs, NPUs, MCUs are FPGA.

Oh wait.

[/quote]

If you are a major player you can afford to write off a couple of million in your R&D path to commercial silicon. Except you also have the expertise and resources to avoid it most of the same time anyway.

If enough enthusiast backing and technical expertise were assembled together to design and build the MH68100 ASIC and it was found to be broken, you've burned all the fuel for your moonshot already. You can't just write it off and fix it because you aren't a multi billion chip design/manufacturing outfit.

Last edited by Karlos on 15-Nov-2024 at 10:43 AM.
Last edited by Karlos on 15-Nov-2024 at 10:43 AM.
Last edited by Karlos on 15-Nov-2024 at 10:41 AM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

FPGA is for retro to rebuild old hardware or to develop hardware on it.

ASIC would be last step when all works perfect and is tested

@OlafS25

An FPGA can be used to validate an implementation of an architecture but just because something works in an FPGA doesn't mean you can just poop out an ASIC from the same wiring design, especially if the intention is to go to much higher clocks. Your FPGA solution may well be indirectly dependent on the speed it's operating at, masking latencies that would otherwise cripple the design at the speeds you want to achieve. If you want a proper ASIC you are still going to be faced with implementation challenges.

Last edited by Karlos on 15-Nov-2024 at 01:44 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@OlafS25

Quote:

FPGA is for retro to rebuild old hardware or to develop hardware on it.

Or when you want hardware acceleration on tasks that involve parameters that might change over time. For example, on a network router, you may wish to do packet filtering "in hardware", but of course you do want to be able to change the actual filtering rules over time, and not burn them in ASIC.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

Quote:

bhabbott wrote: Quote: From DataQuest 1996, Page 227 of 417 for Year 1996 68040-25 = $93.75 80486DX4-75 = $81.00 Pentium-66 = $92.50 Pentium-75 = $92.50 Pentium-100 = $154.57 This shows that 68k, x86 and ppc CPUs all had similar prices.

To me it only shows how different price and performance was.

A 68040-25 has a higher price as a much faster 80486DX4-75
A Pentium-75 is still a bit cheaper than a 68040-25 = $93.75

For the price difference between a card with 040 and the same card with 060 you could get nearly two Pentium-100.

It was around the time when Pentiums got clocked around 120MHz when a change in cache (external cache) technology happened, some benchmarks nearly showed doubled performance for the Pentium-1 CPUs with nearly the same clock frequency. And Motorola stood beside and still wanted 300€ for a 060 CPU with 50MHz clock.

---

The 68060 was not really suitable for embedded devices, it was designed as a Desktop CPU, it didn't had internal memory or I/O, that is something you would have found on the Dragonball, they came later and they where tuned to be power efficient but slow.

68k was nice
but it is still where it was in 1992
no real 68k amiga with nice usable 3D graphics at rational price

@ppcamiga1

3D graphics took off mostly after the 68K was discontinued, so your complaint is largely nonsensical.

To put it in your own terms:

"I have a nice fast PC with good graphics card for nice 3D games I don't need worthless PPC 32-bit-can't even-map-all-the-videoramz, no Vulkan, no SMP crippled horseshit.

If you want PPC at least make something as good as Windows NT... now stop trolling and start porting Exec to 64-bit SMP..."

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

@Karlos

Yes of course, doing a ASIC from FPGA is not like simple recompiling something. If your FPGA design is highly optimized it will very propably not work 1:1 in a different environment. But you can test hardware features tself without time consuming and expensive ASICS like in the 80s and 90s. In example of Apollo hardware, they can optimize the hardware like SAGA. But doing a real ASIC would certainly require months of work.

Quote:

OlafS25 wrote: Yes of course, doing a ASIC from FPGA is not like simple recompiling something.

I you really want to have a benefit from the ASIC, you should do more than ramp up the clock frequency.

More cache, flexible access times for memory.

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: @agami If you are a major player you can afford to write off a couple of million in your R&D path to commercial silicon. Except you also have the expertise and resources to avoid it most of the same time anyway. If enough enthusiast backing and technical expertise were assembled together to design and build the MH68100 ASIC and it was found to be broken, you've burned all the fuel for your moonshot already. You can't just write it off and fix it because you aren't a multi billion chip design/manufacturing outfit.

Yes, I know this. It costs a lot to tape out a chip, and you're not getting it right on the first or second go.
I'm not sure anyone is seriously arguing otherwise.
Thus the contention isn't about the benefits of FPGA vs. ASIC, as much as it is the contention of budget vs. market.

I also know this is an Amiga forum so it comes pre-built with Amiga nostalgia views, and with that schema we mostly wish we just had the current diversity of 68k+ offerings a decade ago. And talking about some hypothetical 1GHz+ 68k ASIC does not in any way give us that desired time machine.

But it sure would be nice if such an ASIC could be made real.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@Hammer

Quote:

Let's be honest, Vampire V2, Firebird V4, and PiStorm for A500 proves you're wrong.

No, they prove that relatively cheap all in one (CPU, RTG and flash based storage) can be sold into a retro market.
In 1996 a bare 060 with some RAM was 3-10 that (adjusted for inflation) had no RTG and storage would have been a 3.5" SCSI drive and CD-ROM none of which really fitted into an A500.

Quote:

The A500 is similar to the A2000 in a compact form. A500 could have 1. IDE 2. Progressive like 040/060 card on 68000 socket. This could be 68060-50. 3. RTG side card (Zorro I).

And what would have been the point of that frankenstein system when A500 were worthless and a used A2000 could have been had for little less?

Quote:

Phase 5 released 68040/68060 accelerators for A2000s. https://amiga.resource.cx/exp/blizzard2060

Look at the size of that thing alone.

Back than people still using their Amigas were actually using their Amigas and most who couldn't afford an A4000 opted for A1200 tower conversion before going 060, heck even many who did have an A4000 went that way for the extra space.

Quote:

A500's case was able to house Progressive's 040-25 or 040-33 accelerator, hence Am386-40 PC killer 68EC040-25 with AGA+C2P was possible. https://amiga.resource.cx/exp/progressive540 Progressive 040-25 or 040-33 accelerator for A500 and it needs an RTG solution. AA500 with 68EC040-25 mass production would target countries with strong currencies and spending power. The target would be PC's Am386-40 markets with 68K's 486SX-33-like power. $1500 USD is about $2000 AUD. A4000/030-25 wasn't performance vs cost-effective. $1000 USD is about $1500 AUD.

Not sure what you are rambling about, but any "mass produced" keyboard Amiga past ESCOM would have build around the A1200 as it was the much less brainfarty starting point.

Quote:

Without factoring being very late, Vampire V2, Firebird V4, and PiStorm for A500 allows these A500 retro owners to participate in the high preformance 68K with RTG ecosystem.

That HW could/would still be "high preformance 68K with RTG" without that A500 dongle.

Last edited by Kronos on 16-Nov-2024 at 07:02 AM.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@ppcamiga1

Phase 5's PPC efforts ignored the larger A500 install base which is just a compact A2000.

The Vampire team had the last laugh when Phase 5 ignored the A500s.

Last edited by Hammer on 16-Nov-2024 at 08:05 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@Kronos

Quote:

No, they prove that relatively cheap all in one (CPU, RTG and flash based storage) can be sold into a retro market. In 1996 a bare 060 with some RAM was 3-10 that (adjusted for inflation) had no RTG and storage would have been a 3.5" SCSI drive and CD-ROM none of which really fitted into an A500.

Economic of scale matters. Without RTG solution for 68040/68060 CPU accelerated A500 would be pointless.

A1200's BlizzardPPC with BlizzardVision (Premedia 2) 3D RTG design didn't tap into the larger A500 user base.

If AGA sales numbers are treated as worldwide
44,000 (the UK has 30,000 during its launch),
100,000 (AF50, Sep 1993),
170,000 (AF56, Feb 1994),
166,000 (CD32, Commodore US president, Jan 1994),
7,500 (Germany's A4000/030),
3,800 (Germany's A4000/040),
Total: 491,300 AGA units.

Phase 5's A1200 potential market size is about 314,000 A1200 owners. Attach rates are another issue.

A500's install base is more than 10X larger than the A1200's install base.

SCSI controller is by add-on vendor's design selection against cheap AdSpeed IDE-like solution.

Quote:

@Kronos, And what would have been the point of that frankenstein system when A500 were worthless and a used A2000 could have been had for little less?

Your Frankenstein argument is not consistent with PiStorm, Vampire V2, and FireBird V4 for the A500 existing install base.

For 16-bit Amigas, Phase 5's 060 and PPC accelerators have targeted the smaller A1500/A2000 existing install base.

Last edited by Hammer on 16-Nov-2024 at 08:54 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 16-Nov-2024 at 08:53 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 16-Nov-2024 at 08:52 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 16-Nov-2024 at 08:24 AM.

_________________
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32/RPi CM4/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, ECS, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 4B/Emu68)
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB