@matthey

Quote:

Yes, that was the point I was just trying to make. There was x86 hardware that was more powerful than the Amiga but most x86 personal computer hardware in the home wasn't overall better than the Amiga until the mid '90s...

I know you're making that point. I made the same point in post #33, and others have also made the same point. We're on the same page you and I.

I was more talking to Mr. Revisionist History (@ppcamiga1) with that last one. He keeps bringing up crummy reasons why AGA was crap in 1992 because it lacked technologies which were 2x and 3x the cost, and were not widespread in the user base.

Commodore had many faults, but I challenge anyone to put together and market a profitable personal computer in 1992 with a sub $700 USD target price, that is compatible with the OCS/ECS Amiga's that came before, and is materially better than the A1200 we got. Keeping in mind that hardware is usually priced at cost of components x 3.

Quote:

It is surprising the Amiga didn't try to introduce an ECS based Amiga game console after the Amiga PC was introduced (only the CDTV device but dropped even standard CD support after it failed)...

I agree. The CDTV was such a misstep. The interactive CD appliance was so out of character for Commodore. If they wanted to put an Amiga-based device under the living room TV, it should've been a cartridge based console made for the masses. Then the CD32 would've been a welcome upgrade to this secondary market. Like you said, with the planned Hombre chipset, it could've even been a competitor to Sony's PlayStation.
If only.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@matthey

Pc run version at 640x480, but Amiga ports runs at 640x200 (or 320x200), or something like that. 1/2 screen = 1/2 cpu needed.
(you almost never see dbpal or dbntsc being used in games, ufo enemy unknown being an exception.), at least AmiHeXen does (640x200).
the Amiga port assembler optimized so it run on 68030, the PC version is only written in C code.
it was one advantages DOOM had it easy to port many different platforms, it even runs some calculators.
I know CHIP ram is slow to write, the CPU has to wait many cycles before it given access, with faster CPU that problem increases. the c2p has do lot of work, I have hard time it image can do all that work in that time. It has to change the layout of all bits in pixels after all.

what I'm saying is Amiga port, saves times but not doing 100% of the work, it runs hand optimized code in asm, you can't compare just fps, the same work is not being done.

a static test only test pixel plotting, memory copy, rectangles, and basic draw test will give better indication of how slow the AGA chipset is, compared to VGA.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Nov-2021 at 10:52 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Nov-2021 at 09:37 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Nov-2021 at 08:45 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Nov-2021 at 08:44 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Nov-2021 at 08:43 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Nov-2021 at 08:42 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Nov-2021 at 08:40 AM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@matthey

In Amiga community asylum many people compare original DOOM writen in C
with Amiga version with hand optimised assembly.
Suprise no one made working DOOM on 030 back in the half of 90.
This is best proof that lack of chunky pixel in AGA was what killed Commdore.

I don't care how fast c2p is on 040 or 060.

Back in the half 90 040 was too expensive.

060 was even worse.
060 was and is ridiculously expensive.
When I try to return to Amiga at the end of 90 it cost more than ppc plus bvision to Amiga 1200.
This was pure BS.