@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: @all: keep calm. What's an Amiga was already clearly defined by Commodore and it's a machine that should have: - a processor from Motorola 68k family; - the custom chipset (OCS, ECS, and AGA); - the Amiga o.s. (pay attention: not the AmigaOS or the Amiga OS. The Amiga o.s. = the Amiga operating system). Definitions are important, and people should use them instead of reporting their wishes. RTFM!

Fact: Commodore has purchased 68000 clones, not just from Motorola 68000.

_________________
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

The new classic Amiga market already has a great cool name that reflects its uber undead status. That name is Vampire, a classic and appropriate name that’s even better than the word Amiga.

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

@OlafS25

Quote:

OlafS25 wrote: @cdimauro You define a retro machine. Nothing against that, I like the 68k platform for a number of reasons.

Olaf, what's not clear to you that it's not me that defined what an Amiga was/is, rather mother Commodore?
Quote:

But if we talk about "NG" in any context here, that is not enough

There was not, is not, and never will be anything "NG". As I've already written on article just a few months ago.

Put a big tombstone on it.


@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: @all: keep calm. What's an Amiga was already clearly defined by Commodore and it's a machine that should have: - a processor from Motorola 68k family; - the custom chipset (OCS, ECS, and AGA); - the Amiga o.s. (pay attention: not the AmigaOS or the Amiga OS. The Amiga o.s. = the Amiga operating system). Definitions are important, and people should use them instead of reporting their wishes. RTFM! Fact: Commodore has purchased 68000 clones, not just from Motorola 68000.

"Motorola 68k family" identifies products which have specific characteristics. In this case, the architectures which were defined by Motorola for its 680x0 processors, and their microarchitectures (AKA: particular implementations of a specific architecture).

Licensing to second suppliers is a completely different thing which has nothing to do with that, and which was common to other companies which have created other processor families.
Intel is the most obvious example, and here I'm not referring only to the 8086 family. MOS is another glorious example with the 6502. And so on.

Fact: you should understand the context of the discussion, instead of replying like a bot.


@DiscreetFX

Quote:

DiscreetFX wrote: The new classic Amiga market already has a great cool name that reflects its uber undead status. That name is Vampire, a classic and appropriate name that’s even better than the word Amiga.

First of all, you do NOT own the Amiga trademark and you've no right to define what's an Amiga is, included "new" ones.

Second, Vampires have:
- no CPU from Motorola 68k family;
- no custom chipset from the above ones;
- no Amiga o.s..

So, they are the last ones which could be called as Amigas.


@Hammer
Quote:

Hammer wrote: 68000 was Motorola's toy, not Commodore's. The big chunk of 68000 is the micro-coded ROM you fool. 68000's simple CPU core executes 68K instructions in several clock cycles. Commodore has purchased 68000 licensed clones. The main purpose of the Amiga chipset is to patch the multimedia incompetent weak IPC 68000. A500 with PiStorm-Emu68 and stock A500 plays Metro Siege out of the box! Just works! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-epWxOG5eg I tested Metro Siege with A500 with PiStorm-RPi3A+ Emu68.

A utterly, complete non-sense from the official Amiga forums bot.

You have clearly no clue about the concept of time and how the line of time evolves.

The 68000 processor was NOT a toy neither had incompetent weak IPC: it's a processor which was introduced on... rulling drum... 1979! And designed to the best of technologies available at the time (which meant: microcode to... save transistors!).

Of course it had weak performance (IN GENERAL! Not only about multimedia), because... what do you expect from such a processor?!? A 8-way superpipelined monster?

That's why it's absolutely stupid comparing it with an Amiga 500 using PiStorm: it's total non-sense!

BTW, the Amiga chipset was NOT designed to patch the 68000 deficiencies: that's something which you've completely invented!

The chipset was designed to provide specific multimedia features, and the 68000 processor was chosen by Jay Miner because... another rolling drum... HE LIKED!

You're really hopeless, bot!

@cdimauro

In today’s world the Vampire V4 is picked by Dave Haynie himself because, He likes it! If Jay was alive I bet he would love it too. Perhaps we can ask his son.

Quote from Dave below. It carries a lot more weight then your opinion or even mine.

"The Vampire Team CPU and chipset innovations are truly in the same innovative spirit of the original Amiga inventors."
- Dave Haynie, former Chief Engineer at Commodore International

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

@DiscreetFX

Quote:

DiscreetFX wrote: @cdimauro In today’s world the Vampire V4 is picked by Dave Haynie himself because, He likes it! If Jay was alive I bet he would love it too. Perhaps we can ask his son. Quote from Dave below. It carries a lot more weight then your opinion or even mine. "The Vampire Team CPU and chipset innovations are truly in the same innovative spirit of the original Amiga inventors." - Dave Haynie, former Chief Engineer at Commodore International

Nevertheless, it changes nothing about what an Amiga is.

BTW, I'll write another article about Commodore engineers which took the place of the ones which have created the machine, to show how and why the "successors" had not the same vision and even not a clear understanding of the hardware and how to evolve it "in the same innovative spirit of the original Amiga inventors".

@MagicSN

Quote:

Personally I do not see 000+OCS or 020+AGA or 020+AGA+RTG as a target market. I see 060+RTG, Vampire and PiStorm as the three 68k markets. Yes there is a market for 030/040+AGA too but I currently have no games for those. Maybe in the future. 020? Definitely no. Too slow, and I expect in the time to make a new games most of these will get some updates anyways.

What would be the best supported CPU in emulation, 060, 020? I think that would be the point matthey's was making.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@DiscreetFX

Vampire is not the only thing on Classic Market. Basically there are three and only one of them is compatible to 68080. There is Vampire, PiStorm and highclocked 060. So no, Vampire is not a name for the new classic market but only for a (sizable) part of the Classic market.

@OlafS25

>Real Amiga have the look & feel of AmigaOS.

If it is only the look and feel it would not be Real Amiga, but "Amiga-like". The OS makes it an Amiga.


>There are Amigas and Compatibles and there is AmigaOS. Only the trademark holder can really >tell you what an Amiga is, but for the avoidance of doubt, my take is that the Amiga is the >original series of 68K/custom chipset machines made by commodore that ran AmigaOS as their >primary OS. Compatibles include any machines that also run AmigaOS as their primary OS but >are not the original commode hardware. I also hold that AmigaOS4 is still AmigaOS, despite the >CPU architecture change.

>Under this definition, all newer NG machines are "compatibles".

>Again, this is my take. Yours may be different.

Definitely. My AmigaOne and later my x1000 were always "my Amiga" in speaking and I would not have thought of it any other way. I would say something running AmigaOS as their primary OS is an Amiga. I only heard there are people who see it different maybe some months ago. Never would have imagined...

And when I heard this claims first time I assumed it was meant as some sort of insult, not seriously.

What you mean is not an Amiga it is a "Classic Amiga". Term has been used that way since years. Why diffrentiate between Amiga and Classic Amiga then ? The term Classic Amiga would be useless if the chipset would be relevant in any ways.



@pixie

>What would be the best supported CPU in emulation, 060, 020? I think that would be the point >matthey's was making.

I see. Personally I think this question is irrelevant. More relevant is what would be the RECOMMENDED CPU for emulation. At least for PiStorm it seems to be 040.

Remember also you can compile for different targets. This is recommended anyways, for example for PiStorm 040 code is best, while for Vampire it is recommended to do some stuff with AMMX optimization so you need two code paths anyways (at least if you want to do more optimal code for both platforms). And when you are at it you can at least do a 060 compile for fast 060 systems. And if you do a low end game if it runs on something lower and you already do 3 paths, why not add a 020 target then ?

The question what would be the best supported cpu is irrelevant in my opinion.

MagicSN

Last edited by MagicSN on 14-Jul-2024 at 08:44 AM.

It is still Classic Amiga .. If needing a 060 is classic, a pistorm is also classic :)

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

commodore hardware with pistorm is not amiga.

To the Amiga computer into which it's plugged, the PiStorm is just another 68k accelerator board with some bonus feature that would otherwise require Zorro or PCI cards.

Quote:

emulator on rpi is not comparable to the JIT running on MOS or Amiga OS 4.

You're quite right there. The OS doesn't have to worry how it treats binaries for different architecture because 68k emulation only runs 68k binaries.

Quote:

MOS or Amiga OS 4 is native !!! whole os is native !!!

For all intents and purposes OS3.x or whatever other OS running on PiStorm is 100% native,

Quote:

cpu is important

If you want to run OS3.x you need a 68k CPU. That why PiStorm repurposes the RPi as an inexpensive 68k CPU which is much faster than even the very best 68060.

Last edited by Rob on 14-Jul-2024 at 01:22 PM.

DiscreetFX Quote:

In today’s world the Vampire V4 is picked by Dave Haynie himself because, He likes it! If Jay was alive I bet he would love it too. Perhaps we can ask his son. Quote from Dave below. It carries a lot more weight then your opinion or even mine. "The Vampire Team CPU and chipset innovations are truly in the same innovative spirit of the original Amiga inventors." - Dave Haynie, former Chief Engineer at Commodore International

HazyDave originally said something similar about the Natami to a comment I made. I couldn't find the original comment so I will have to paraphrase. Dave suggested that Natami development using a FPGA was the way to modernize the Amiga and that it could be done using new technology without the compromises they had to make. I found a thread from 2011 where someone asked when AAA would be implemented in FPGA and I paraphrased Dave's answer as well as giving a link to the original comment that no longer works.

First to implement AAA chipset?
https://forum.amiga.org/index.php?topic=59297.0

There is no AAA chipset today or need for it as chipsets more closely resemble a more compatible and practical AA+ chipset. Dave has made comments that he is not a fan of Amiga NG hardware but he is a fan of further Amiga chipset development with FPGAs like CBM should have done. Considering Amiga NG hardware has not been nearly as popular as the Natami was, his opinion seems to be supported by the Amiga masses. There is discussion about a 68k or 68k+chipset standard in the thread above but Natami development was more open than the vampire cult. Of course nothing came of the discussion or the Natami with a major opportunity lost in the case of the Natami momentum that was ignored. THEA500 Mini later verified that the Amiga NG market is minuscule while the 68k market is why this thread exists.

pixie Quote:

What would be the best supported CPU in emulation, 060, 020? I think that would be the point matthey's was making.

That is not what I meant but brings up an important related topic.

In general, code for emulation can't be optimized because the performance depends on a wide variety of hardware. A general purpose ISA with instructions similar to other ISAs is about as good as it gets. The 68k integer ISA is relatively small today even in comparison to reduced instruction set computers (RISC) and it is mostly general purpose with common instructions. One of the things that make it special and gives it performance is that the instructions are high performance and compact due to powerful CISC addressing modes and CISC mem-reg and reg-mem accesses. These powerful instructions can be broken down into simpler RISC instructions with a loss in performance due to increased instructions, increased memory traffic, larger code and increased stalls. The only reason emulation is considered high performance for the Amiga is that 68k silicon is 30 years old. Emulation brings a huge loss in power efficiency (performance/W), price efficiency (performance/$) and performance efficiency (performance/MHz) making it nowhere close to competitive in anyway with an ASIC. Creating a standard based on inefficiency is an amateur decision and most developers know this and will ignore it. There were a few attempts to use emulation and virtual machines like Java bytecode, Android Dalvik bytecode and Amiga Anywhere (Nowhere) but they are dead because they weren't competitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_(software)#Performance Quote:

Tests performed on ARMv7 devices in 2010 by Oracle (owner of the Java technology) with standard non-graphical Java benchmarks showed the HotSpot VM of Java SE embedded to be 2-3 times faster than the JIT-based Dalvik VM of Android 2.2 (the initial Android release that included a JIT compiler). In 2012, academic benchmarks confirmed the factor of 3 between HotSpot and Dalvik on the same Android board, also noting that Dalvik code was not smaller than Hotspot. Furthermore, as of March 2014, benchmarks performed on an Android device still show up to a factor 100 between native applications and a Dalvik application on the same Android device. Upon running benchmarks using the early interpreter of 2009, both Java Native Interface (JNI) and native code showed an order of magnitude speedup.

There are some just-in-time compiler based virtual machines still around for cross platform use but they have major disadvantages as well, especially for lower end small footprint hardware. The 68k Amiga advantage of low cost small footprint hardware is completely ruined by emulation. Take the A600GS for example. It has 4GiB of memory to provide AmiBench with 1GiB of Fast Memory. Even worse, roughly half the ARM Cortex-A53 performance is likely lost to load-to-use stalls after breaking down the CISC instructions into RISC instructions without instruction scheduling (the same is likely true for THEA500 Mini as well). Some people may point out that the ARM hardware is cheap at only a few U.S. dollars even though four times the memory and more than double the clock speed is needed to offset inefficiencies but any mass produced chip can be this cheap and cheaper yet with a more efficient CPU and smaller footprint. ARM Thumb2 has a significant performance disadvantage and AArch64 a significant footprint disadvantage compared to the 68k and that is without emulation overhead.

Last edited by matthey on 14-Jul-2024 at 11:14 PM.

@matthey

Quote:

Take the A600GS for example. It has 4GiB of memory to provide AmiBench with 1GiB of Fast Memory. Even worse, roughly half the ARM Cortex-A53 performance is likely lost to load-to-use stalls after breaking down the CISC instructions into RISC instructions without instruction scheduling (the same is likely true for THEA500 Mini as well).

Well, since they are using AROS already, they could use the arm version and run the system natively... Like MorphOS/AmigaOS 4. But I wonder if the user would actually feel the difference

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

pixie Quote:

Well, since they are using AROS already, they could use the arm version and run the system natively... Like MorphOS/AmigaOS 4. But I wonder if the user would actually feel the difference

A native AROS port with emulator for 68k code that can't be ported makes more sense and is more efficient. Another of the Amiga strengths was a standard 68k AmigaOS that would be lost with AArch64 AROS, Thumb2 AROS, x86-64 AROS, RISC-V AROS and 68k AROS. Then maybe there could be AArch64 MorphOS, Thumb2 MorphOS, x86-64 MorphOS, RISC-V MorphOS, 68k MorphOS, AArch64 AmigaOS, Thumb2 AmigaOS, x86-64 AmigaOS, RISC-V AmigaOS and 68k AmigaOS. There could even be AmigaOS 3 and AmigaOS 4 versions for each architecture. I can hear a voice chiming in now, might as well use Linux or Android instead and plan on spending hours figuring out how to compile all your software instead of clicking on a link to download an already optimized 68k Amiga version of software. Even the RPi which brought some low end ARM hardware standards is far from standardized. There are 25 different models, 6 different CPU cores, at least 4 different ISAs, 50-140 OSs/distros by one count and then variations of installs like 32 or 64 bit and CLI or GUI installs.

RPi Distro Watch (Alternative OS Survey)
https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=359321

What Operating System did you choose for your Raspberry Pi?
https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=197553

CBM did a lot of things wrong but software for the first Amiga 1000 ran on the last Amiga 4000T without recompiling. This is the kind of standardization and compatibility Amiga fans are used to. Jay Miner pointed this major advantage out in one of his speeches. The PPC Amiga1 went away from this and failed which is why we are back to the 68k Amiga and this thread.

back to the topic

pistorm changes amiga into joystick mouse keyboard interface for rpi
making software for it is extremelly stupid
want made software for pistorm
made it for android and just add some lines to read joystick mouse keyboard connected to commodore hardware

@cdimauro

Quote:

Motorola 68k family" identifies products which have specific characteristics. In this case, the architectures which were defined by Motorola for its 680x0 processors, and their microarchitectures (AKA: particular implementations of a specific architecture). Licensing to second suppliers is a completely different thing which has nothing to do with that, and which was common to other companies which have created other processor families. Intel is the most obvious example, and here I'm not referring only to the 8086 family. MOS is another glorious example with the 6502. And so on. Fact: you should understand the context of the discussion, instead of replying like a bot.

Fact: Commodore has purchased 68000 clones, not just from Motorola 68000.

https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/the-motorola-68000-cpu-in-the-amiga--4503668347702837/
A500 with 68000 clone

Fukcoff with your bot label.

_________________
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

@cdimauro

Quote:

A utterly, complete non-sense from the official Amiga forums bot. You have clearly no clue about the concept of time and how the line of time evolves.

Wrong. The context is the "Amiga", not just "68000" dingbat.

Fact: the Amiga didn't exist in 1979.

Quote:

The 68000 processor was NOT a toy neither had incompetent weak IPC: it's a processor which was introduced on... rulling drum... 1979! And designed to the best of technologies available at the time (which meant: microcode to... save transistors!). !

The context is the "Amiga" as the whole, not just "68000" dingbat.

Fact: Amiga's custom chip is to patch the 68000's weak IPC and multimedia incompetency.

68000 alone doesn't make the "Amiga".

Sinclair QL has 68008 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga.

Atari ST has 68000 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga.

Quote:

Of course it had weak performance (IN GENERAL! Not only about multimedia), because... what do you expect from such a processor?!?

You missed the purpose of the Amiga custom chipset's value add over the plain Jane 68000.

You don't understand the value add from the Amiga custom chipset.

Quote:

A 8-way superpipelined monster?

Your fiction.

Quote:

That's why it's absolutely stupid comparing it with an Amiga 500 using PiStorm: it's total non-sense!

Wrong. You don't understand the value add from the Amiga custom chipset.

Quote:

BTW, the Amiga chipset was NOT designed to patch the 68000 deficiencies: that's something which you've completely invented!

FALSE. You can't handle the truth.


68000 alone doesn't make the "Amiga".

Sinclair QL has 68008 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga.

Atari ST has 68000 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga.

If you're so focused on 68000, bugger off to Atari ST land.

Quote:

The chipset was designed to provide specific multimedia features, and the 68000 processor was chosen by Jay Miner because... another rolling drum... HE LIKED!

Hosting 32-bit programming model OS.

Quote:

You're really hopeless, bot!

You're a fckwit idiot.

Last edited by Hammer on 15-Jul-2024 at 08:33 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: @cdimauro Quote: A utterly, complete non-sense from the official Amiga forums bot. You have clearly no clue about the concept of time and how the line of time evolves. Wrong. The context is the "Amiga", not just "68000" dingbat. Fact: the Amiga didn't exist in 1979. Quote: The 68000 processor was NOT a toy neither had incompetent weak IPC: it's a processor which was introduced on... rulling drum... 1979! And designed to the best of technologies available at the time (which meant: microcode to... save transistors!).! The context is the "Amiga" as the whole, not just "68000" dingbat. Fact: Amiga's custom chip is to patch the 68000's weak IPC and multimedia incompetency. 68000 alone doesn't make the "Amiga". Sinclair QL has 68008 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga. Atari ST has 68000 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga. Quote: Of course it had weak performance (IN GENERAL! Not only about multimedia), because... what do you expect from such a processor?!? You missed the purpose of the Amiga custom chipset's value add over the plain Jane 68000. You don't understand the value add from the Amiga custom chipset. Quote: A 8-way superpipelined monster? Your fiction. Quote: That's why it's absolutely stupid comparing it with an Amiga 500 using PiStorm: it's total non-sense! Wrong. You don't understand the value add from the Amiga custom chipset. Quote: BTW, the Amiga chipset was NOT designed to patch the 68000 deficiencies: that's something which you've completely invented! FALSE. You can't handle the truth. 68000 alone doesn't make the "Amiga". Sinclair QL has 68008 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga. Atari ST has 68000 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga. If you're so focused on 68000, bugger off to Atari ST land. Quote: The chipset was designed to provide specific multimedia features, and the 68000 processor was chosen by Jay Miner because... another rolling drum... HE LIKED! Hosting 32-bit programming model OS. Quote: You're really hopeless, bot! You're a fckwit idiot.

So I'm guessing you didn't vote for 68k+

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Motorola 68k family" identifies products which have specific characteristics. In this case, the architectures which were defined by Motorola for its 680x0 processors, and their microarchitectures (AKA: particular implementations of a specific architecture). Licensing to second suppliers is a completely different thing which has nothing to do with that, and which was common to other companies which have created other processor families. Intel is the most obvious example, and here I'm not referring only to the 8086 family. MOS is another glorious example with the 6502. And so on. Fact: you should understand the context of the discussion, instead of replying like a bot. Fact: Commodore has purchased 68000 clones, not just from Motorola 68000. https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/the-motorola-68000-cpu-in-the-amiga--4503668347702837/ A500 with 68000 clone

Since you're a bot, it's evident that you do NOT read what people write and just reply with dumb stuff.

WHAT'S NOT CLEAR TO YOU THAT WHAT I'VE WRITTEN (see above: the quotes are still there) IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT?

Now I give you another example, ONLY FOR YOUR BENEFIT.

Intel's x86 family: it's a family of processors with their architecture which was developed by Intel. We know that they were licensed to other companies (AMD, IBM, National Semiconductor, and maybe others).

Now, the question (to check if you've REALLY understood it): are AMD's processors part of "Intel's x86 family"?
Quote:

Fukcoff with your bot label.

Again, personal attacks. What a news, bot!

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: @cdimauro Quote: A utterly, complete non-sense from the official Amiga forums bot. You have clearly no clue about the concept of time and how the line of time evolves. Wrong. The context is the "Amiga", not just "68000" dingbat. Fact: the Amiga didn't exist in 1979.

Neither the PiStorm.

And?
Quote:

Quote: The 68000 processor was NOT a toy neither had incompetent weak IPC: it's a processor which was introduced on... rulling drum... 1979! And designed to the best of technologies available at the time (which meant: microcode to... save transistors!). ! The context is the "Amiga" as the whole, not just "68000" dingbat. Fact: Amiga's custom chip is to patch the 68000's weak IPC and multimedia incompetency.

That's YOUR invention, which you've NOT proved. Care to prove it?
Quote:

68000 alone doesn't make the "Amiga".

I've already written an article about it, dear bot...
Quote:

Sinclair QL has 68008 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga. Atari ST has 68000 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga.

I reveal you another secret: both 68008 and 68000 deliver weaker computation capabilities. So, IN GENERAL: not only in the multimedia side...
Quote:

Quote: Of course it had weak performance (IN GENERAL! Not only about multimedia), because... what do you expect from such a processor?!? You missed the purpose of the Amiga custom chipset's value add over the plain Jane 68000. You don't understand the value add from the Amiga custom chipset.

Again, I've just written an article about it which you clearly have NOT read...
Quote:

Quote: A 8-way superpipelined monster? Your fiction.

No, it's called Hyperbole, and it's a figure of speech, dear bot...
Quote:

Quote: That's why it's absolutely stupid comparing it with an Amiga 500 using PiStorm: it's total non-sense! Wrong. You don't understand the value add from the Amiga custom chipset.

See above, bot!
Quote:

Quote: BTW, the Amiga chipset was NOT designed to patch the 68000 deficiencies: that's something which you've completely invented! FALSE. You can't handle the truth.

It it's the truth it should be very easy for you to PROVE it, right?

BTW, it was/is YOUR statement, then YOU must prove it.
Quote:

68000 alone doesn't make the "Amiga". Sinclair QL has 68008 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga. Atari ST has 68000 CPU and delivers weaker multimedia capabilities compared to the Amiga.

Again, the bot in action: repeating again the same things...
Quote:

If you're so focused on 68000, bugger off to Atari ST land.

I? When? YOU are the one talking about the Atari ST here!

Bot!
Quote:

Quote: The chipset was designed to provide specific multimedia features, and the 68000 processor was chosen by Jay Miner because... another rolling drum... HE LIKED! Hosting 32-bit programming model OS.

It was possible with other processors as well.

However, you still don't know neither understand why the 68000 was chosen.

And do you know why? Because you haven't READ AND (especially) UNDERSTOOD the Amiga Hardware Manual in your life. Not even talking about having developed something using the Amiga hardware.

As I've said several times, you're just a bot which copies and reports stuff like a parrot, without a real clue of what was the context discussion.

RTFM at least ONCE in your file, and you'll find why the 68000 was chosen.

Then read some other thing about Commodore's management, and you'll understand why exactly the 68000 was chosen (despite OTHER processors from the same family were available).
Quote:

Quote: You're really hopeless, bot! You're a fckwit idiot.

And now you're insulting. What a news!

Let me copy the official Amiga forums bot: "You can't handle the truth."

@matthey

I guess you use the core parts which gave you the most speed advance and use the 68k for the rest, that's the part where I said 'i wonder if the user could actually feel the difference '. Imagine having all native but you have a subpar RTG system, it would all fell slow despite having the apps running natively in arm...

But if you had the core all well optimized for core and the hardware. You could use the 68k software without user ever noticing.

One of my grips* with AROS is on how it performs on 68k, although I bet it all the programs run as fast as they do in workbench, the RTG is not ao well tunned as Workbench and doesn't feel as responsive in a lower performance machine.
aros tests

*I obviously have no ill will towards AROS, with so few developers and so much distance from the community they do what they can when they can, it's more of acknowledging the potential

Last edited by pixie on 16-Jul-2024 at 07:49 AM.

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@cdimauro

Quote:

Neither the PiStorm.

You failed to grasp the Amiga custom chip's value add over plain Jane 68000.

Spectrum QL says Hi.

Quote:

That's YOUR invention, which you've NOT proved. Care to prove it?

Spectrum QL says Hi.
Atari ST says Hi.

You failed to grasp the Amiga custom chip's value add over plain Jane 68000.

Quote:

I've already written an article about it, dear bot...

Fuck your "dear bot" insult.

Quote:

I reveal you another secret: both 68008 and 68000 deliver weaker computation capabilities. So, IN GENERAL: not only in the multimedia side...

Hint: Amiga was marketed in the "multimedia" context e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhXC_vQ5IkM

Quote:

Again, I've just written an article about it which you clearly have NOT read...

Hint: The world doesn't revolve around you and your website.

Hint 2: Amigaworld.net forum does NOT include your website.

Quote:

it's called Hyperbole, and it's a figure of speech, dear bot..

Your exaggerated statements are garbage.

Quote:

And now you're insulting. What a news!

You started the flamewar with the bot negative attribution on me. You're fucking a hypocrite. You defamed my character, I will fight back. You start wars.


Quote:

However, you still don't know neither understand why the 68000 was chosen.

You failed to grasp why Amiga custom chip's value add was designed in addition to the plain Jane 68000.

Fact: Amiga custom chip's value-added design was to patch 68000's incompetent multimedia capabilities.

1984 released 68020 has a hardware barrel shifter which enabled A1200's Chip RAM gimped 68EC020 14Mhz to reach 49 percent of Alice Blitter. Amiga custom chip's value-added design was cheaper for a targeted workload against 68020 and 68EC020-14 ($16.99 in 1992).

Last edited by Hammer on 16-Jul-2024 at 12:04 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 16-Jul-2024 at 12:02 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 16-Jul-2024 at 12:01 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 16-Jul-2024 at 11:44 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