Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6060 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
71 crawler(s) on-line.
 7 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 michalsc:  17 mins ago
 davidf215:  1 hr 48 mins ago
 kolla:  2 hrs 16 mins ago
 Jasper:  2 hrs 32 mins ago
 Tomppeli:  3 hrs 51 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  4 hrs 12 mins ago
 golem:  4 hrs 54 mins ago
 Rob:  4 hrs 59 mins ago
 Fl@sh:  5 hrs 26 mins ago
 miggymac:  5 hrs 44 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
Poll : What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Chipset
Software
Both
Pancakes
 
PosterThread
ppcamiga1 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 6-Nov-2021 10:37:52
#41 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 351
From: Unknown

@matthey

In Amiga community asylum many people fool themselves
and think Amiga 1200 was competitive in 1992.
For the rest of world, it is clear that Commodore bankrupt because AGA has not chunky pixels.
Because AGA has not chunky pixels it was up to fifty times slower
in 256 or hicolor resolutions than graphics in pc/mac/atari in 1992.
Today Amiga One has decent graphics and good enough albeit few times slower cpu than pc.
Today Amiga One is much more competitive than Amiga 1200 was in 1992.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
terminills 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 6-Nov-2021 11:13:24
#42 ]
AROS Core Developer
Joined: 8-Mar-2003
Posts: 1403
From: Unknown

@ppcamiga1

https://books.google.com/books?id=FeIuiOQN-nEC&pg=PT131&lpg=PT131&dq=cost+of+a+pc+in+1992+486&source=bl&ots=U1KmpBL5BO&sig=ACfU3U3Lgrk31zAYODkEQ-NG2lGUWALiUQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP9I2KzYP0AhWChHIEHa2dBIsQ6AF6BAgmEAI#v=onepage&q=cost%20of%20a%20pc%20in%201992%20486&f=false

_________________
Support AROS sponsor a developer.

"AROS is prolly illegal ~ Evert Carton" intentionally quoted out of context for dramatic effect

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
OlafS25 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 6-Nov-2021 11:19:06
#43 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-May-2010
Posts: 5934
From: Unknown

@ppcamiga1

50 times? Where did you get that information. Yes missing chunky pixels support was a disadvantage. But 50x times sounds too much to me. Perhaps you compare it to much more expensive Highend-PCs.

I think I read it was comparable (68020) to 386SX hardware at that time. But that already was the problem. The A1200 was at best comparable to the PCs but those had a much bigger softwarebase so of course people in doubt bought a PC and not amiga. AGA was one year ready already and it needed high pressure by the sales people to force management to use it. If the A1200 would have sold one year earlier and perhaps some Fastram added it would have perhaps made a difference. And of course a new much better chipset would have been needed but AAA was only papers as far as I know, no prototype and no development. A technical company not investing in new technology but only in expensive management. That was the reason for the bankruptsy.

So in short... A1200 was not a bad system with some limitations but "too little too late" to really make a difference.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 6-Nov-2021 13:37:02
#44 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 11914
From: Norway

@OlafS25

Amiga graphics is slow due to two things, one the copper shares access to it, and planar format, 8 writes to change a pixel (as long as your willing to discard the 7bits per plane (8*7=56bit), you are not intended to change), you can use BSET or BCLR, but even this need read value from CHIP, and modify a bit, and write it back, this where complicated and wasteful, 16 read/write operations, and slow access. Maybe something like 32 times slower.

let’s go back to 1993 and see what they where talked about back then.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.amiga.games/c/ni5dg3oOQhY

Quote:
f the A1200 would have sold one year earlier and perhaps some Fastram added it would have perhaps made a difference.


VGA was ready in 1987, sure they sold 486sx computer into 1990's, dx (fpu) where also starting to be common, the big thing for PC's was introduction of PCI 33mhz in 1992.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 06-Nov-2021 at 02:17 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 06-Nov-2021 at 02:01 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 06-Nov-2021 at 01:56 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 6-Nov-2021 20:21:52
#45 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1213
From: Kansas

ppcamiga1 Quote:

In Amiga community asylum many people fool themselves
and think Amiga 1200 was competitive in 1992.


The Amiga 1200 was launched with a base price of $599 U.S. with 2MiB of ram. The 1992 PC Magazine Terminills linked mentioned a recently advertised Gateway 2000 386@33MHz with 4MiB of ram for $2495 U.S. on page 114. The Amiga 1200 68EC020 is a full 32 bit CPU with only a limited address space while a 386SX is a 16 bit CPU with 16 bit data bus. The 68EC020 is nearly the same performance at the same clock speed as a full 386 which is also a full 32 bit CPU (Wiki gives 11.4 MIPS for 386@33MHz and 10 MIPS for 68020@33MHz). The Gateway system mentioned above is clocked higher so would be faster but also costs much more. Adding 2MiB of fast memory to the Amiga 1200 should offer performance between a 386SX and 386 for a price closer to the 386SX. Most people wanted a more affordable PC. The magazine article is talking about 486 systems dropping below $3000 U.S. in 1992 but also mentions an estimate that only 12% of the PC clone market was 486 sales in 1991 with most of it being 386 sales. There was likely room at the low end of the computer market for the Amiga if CBM could have continued to increase value while cost reducing which should have led to Raspberry Pi like products for consumers who want a basic functional low cost computer. The fast growing embedded market was practically ignored by CBM also.

ppcamiga1 Quote:

For the rest of world, it is clear that Commodore bankrupt because AGA has not chunky pixels.
Because AGA has not chunky pixels it was up to fifty times slower
in 256 or hicolor resolutions than graphics in pc/mac/atari in 1992.


Most of the cheaper PC clones used an ISA bus to VGA with cheap video ram like the Amiga which was also a bottleneck. The Amiga could display a nicer static picture using HAM8 which was comparable in quality to 16 bit by saving display bandwidth with compression while VGA was only 8 bit. Both Amigas and low end PC clones had trouble moving data around on the screen due to low memory bandwidth at the time. The Amiga animated better with low resources while PC clones had an advantage with chunky when their CPU performance became high enough to push the chunky pixels and EISA and more expensive memory with more bandwidth like VRAM, which Jay Miner wanted for the Ranger chipset, were utilized. This started about the time the 486 became the most sold PC clone CPU and was in full swing as the Pentium was introduced and dropped in price quickly which was 1993-1995. CBM responded by going bankrupt as they were too slow to get new technology out the door. Not only was the Amiga 1200 late but CBM was producing noncompetitive Amiga 600s instead of the competitive Amiga 1200 which couldn't fill demand when it finally was available.

ppcamiga1 Quote:

Today Amiga One has decent graphics and good enough albeit few times slower cpu than pc.
Today Amiga One is much more competitive than Amiga 1200 was in 1992.


The Raspberry Pi 400 4 GiB starts at $70 U.S. and has more performance than the Tabor A1222. I expect the A1222 will be at least 4 times the cost of the Raspberry Pi 400. Yes, you can add a nicer gfx card to the A1222 but that is additional cost for a product targeting the low end of the PC market where customers are price conscious. Then add in the cost of the AmigaOS which doesn't support SMP and which may cost more than the whole Raspberry Pi computer to turn the PPC Amiga into a joke nobody takes seriously anymore.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 7-Nov-2021 8:55:54
#46 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 11914
From: Norway

@matthey

Quote:
The Raspberry Pi 400 4 GiB starts at $70 U.S. and has more performance than the Tabor A1222.


bull shit alarm.

640x360 video playing 99% CPU...

https://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=44292&forum=25#845791

https://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=44292&forum=25#845826

Don’t get me wrong its impressive under emulation, but emulation he is doing, does not include AGA, Paula, Denice, Alice or any of the custom chips.

Unless you want stick to AROS native application and programs, you are not going to get any huge speed, and even if you did, there are no graphic drivers like once we have for AROS. Your doing everything on the CPU, (and not on the GPU.)

anyway this maybe what should do on amiga

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6j-FZEEovg

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 07-Nov-2021 at 10:45 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 07-Nov-2021 at 09:08 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 07-Nov-2021 at 09:05 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 07-Nov-2021 at 09:00 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 07-Nov-2021 at 08:58 AM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 07-Nov-2021 at 08:57 AM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
OlafS25 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 7-Nov-2021 10:43:29
#47 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-May-2010
Posts: 5934
From: Unknown

@NutsAboutAmiga

As I understand it you seem not understand PiStorm as the PiStorm guys not understood the goals of Vampire project.

PiStorm (Michal can correct me) has similar ideas as the old V2 Vampire cards just by using off-ethe-shelf hardware for it. It replaces more or less old hardware only still using keyboard, peripherals and the chipset. That is of course much cheaper than the V2 cards with FPGA on it.

So it depends of the hardware what chipset you have. RTG is done using the graphic of RPi.

The concept of Vampire of course was always different. It was always targetting to create a new platform and remove the limitations of the old hardware by integrating it in FPGA.

AROS running native on RPi would be something very different. This is about PiStorm and Emu68 from Michal. Emu68 is translating 68k code to ARM, it is not a emulator. It is more like Petunia if I understand it right, just for ARM.

Regarding the game engine... is that all?

Last edited by OlafS25 on 07-Nov-2021 at 10:51 AM.
Last edited by OlafS25 on 07-Nov-2021 at 10:48 AM.
Last edited by OlafS25 on 07-Nov-2021 at 10:46 AM.
Last edited by OlafS25 on 07-Nov-2021 at 10:46 AM.
Last edited by OlafS25 on 07-Nov-2021 at 10:45 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
fishy_fis 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 7-Nov-2021 11:18:39
#48 ]
Super Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2004
Posts: 1952
From: Australia

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:
bull shit alarm.

640x360 video playing 99% CPU.


No.
Just no.

How did you come to the bizarre conclusion that the speed of a cpu emulator with minimal or with no hardware acceleration for its video display is indicative of a platforms potential performance?
It point blank isn't.

All it shows is, shock horror ....... the speed of a cpu emulator with minimal or with no hardware acceleration for its video display.

End of the day a $70 rpi4 *is* considerably more powerful than the Tabor.

Lets see performance of Tabor doing the exact same thing shall we and see how that holds up.
Cant do that of course though. It'd be a level playing field, which is completely counter to your attempted narrative.

It *is* you're attempted narrative isnt it?
No-one can be so stupid to think its a sane source of comparison can they?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 7-Nov-2021 13:51:05
#49 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 351
From: Unknown

On Amiga with AGA putting pixel was 24 operations in 8 bit (8 reads, 8 and/or, 8 write) in 256 kolors.
48 operations on more in HAM mode - because it is often needed to change two or more pixels previous pixels.
Or use sophisticated c2p algorithms, that adds additional conversion overhead.

Since 1992 on pc/mac/atari developer just use hi/true colors.
Putting pixel on pc/mac/atari was just one cpu operation one write.
Developers on pc/mac/atari do not have to deal with bitplanes.
Developers on pc/mac/atari do not have to change many pixels like on HAM.
Developers on pc/mac/atari just write software that use hi/true colors.

How some stupid people can compare this shit bitplanes and ham to current times and have problems with Amiga (one)?

Lack of chunky pixels was problem in AGA times.
Little slower cpu is not even close.





 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 7-Nov-2021 14:17:59
#50 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 351
From: Unknown

@fishy_fis

Tabor is not commodity hardware.
It is hobby. It may be slower.

If You want commodity hardware You have to provide os as good as commodity os.
Something as good as android/ios.


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 7-Nov-2021 19:27:23
#51 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1213
From: Kansas

NutsAboutAmiga Quote:

bull shit alarm.

640x360 video playing 99% CPU...

...

Don’t get me wrong its impressive under emulation, but emulation he is doing, does not include AGA, Paula, Denice, Alice or any of the custom chips.


I didn't say anything about emulation which is likely 1/3 at most of the performance of a single core without utilizing the FPU, SIMD unit or the other 3 cores similarly equipped. I know CPU emulation is not competitive in performance/price any more than FPGA simulation but at least FPGA logic can be turned into an ASIC which is competitive and the way hard CPUs are developed. If the best performance/price for Amiga hardware is the only goal then the Amiga will continue to be a niche market for die hard Amiga fans and die with them. Amiga needs to get significantly more competitive in performance/price for the general market and the only place it makes sense to try is at the low end of the market where the 68k and AmigaOS has advantages.

fishy_fis Quote:

End of the day a $70 rpi4 *is* considerably more powerful than the Tabor.


I'm glad someone understands. Tabor may be the best performance Amiga like hardware in the price range most people can afford but it is far enough from being competitive that most Amiga fans aren't interested, partially due to lack of compatibility and partially due to poor selection of a bastard CPU. Outside of Amiga users, the hardware is so far from competitive that nobody would suggest it except as a joke.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 7-Nov-2021 20:32:17
#52 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1213
From: Kansas

ppcamiga1 Quote:

On Amiga with AGA putting pixel was 24 operations in 8 bit (8 reads, 8 and/or, 8 write) in 256 kolors.
48 operations on more in HAM mode - because it is often needed to change two or more pixels previous pixels.


Most AGA screens in games are not 256 colors or HAM8. Yes, 8 bit planes is inefficient to access in memory although single pixel manipulation is worst case and not that common. It was there for a pretty picture and slow animations while fewer bit planes which saved memory and memory bandwidth were fast enough for games with a low performance CPU, cheap memory and less memory than competitors. The Amiga was doing more with less while chunky required a high performance CPU and more memory bandwidth to push the chunky pixels. Enough PC clones were purchased that CPU and memory performance and prices improved making chunky competitive by removing the disadvantages leaving the advantage of simple low overhead memory access. AGA 256 colors looked significantly better than chunky 8 bit due to a larger color palette and HAM8 looked about as good as 16 bit chunky which is when chunky was the obvious path forward, especially with 3D hardware that could more easily support chunky.

ppcamiga1 Quote:

Or use sophisticated c2p algorithms, that adds additional conversion overhead.

Since 1992 on pc/mac/atari developer just use hi/true colors.
Putting pixel on pc/mac/atari was just one cpu operation one write.
Developers on pc/mac/atari do not have to deal with bitplanes.
Developers on pc/mac/atari do not have to change many pixels like on HAM.
Developers on pc/mac/atari just write software that use hi/true colors.

How some stupid people can compare this shit bitplanes and ham to current times and have problems with Amiga (one)?


Amiga 68k FPGA hardware and emulation has been using chunky for many years now too. They can usually do both chunky and bit planes at the same time even in layers which provides superior compatibility. CBM was updating to using chunky too but they had major upper management issues which affected their product pipeline. The CD32 with Akiko had hardware c2p support but it was unnecessary with faster CPUs like the 68060 where the c2p conversion is done at copy speed. The Amiga was not at much of a disadvantage until 16 bit chunky became popular but CBM was likely bankrupt by that time. The most popular and so called 8 bit chunky was an 8 bit CLUT which is only pseudo chunky requiring a color lookup that gives a much larger color palette than true 8 bit chunky.

ppcamiga1 Quote:

Lack of chunky pixels was problem in AGA times.
Little slower cpu is not even close.


Lack of chunky support is no longer a problem except on very low end FPGA Amiga implementations with severely limited resources where bit planes are still an advantage. One of the reasons the Amiga hardware developers liked bit planes was that it scaled better with resources which was a big advantage.

The cores of the Tabor CPU may have similar integer performance to the Pi 4 but the Pi 4 has twice as many cores, 64 bit cores instead of 32 bit cores and much better FPU and SIMD support. The AmigaOS only uses one core and efficient use of the cores with SMP is unlikely in my opinion.

ppcamiga1 Quote:

Tabor is not commodity hardware.
It is hobby. It may be slower.


Tabor uses an off the shelf commodity hardware SoC from Freescale/NXP. The SoC was not designed for hobby use or even desktop use but was cut down for embedded use to try to compete with ARM SoCs because PPC is fat.

ppcamiga1 Quote:

If You want commodity hardware You have to provide os as good as commodity os.
Something as good as android/ios.


Most AmigaOne hardware has supported Linux. The lack of developer support for the rarely used bastard CPU in Tabor makes this more challenging.

Last edited by matthey on 07-Nov-2021 at 08:38 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Rob 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 7-Nov-2021 22:09:01
#53 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 20-Mar-2003
Posts: 6077
From: S.Wales

@matthey

Quote:
AGA should have been out 1-2 years earlier in the Amiga 3000+ (chipset delays likely affected the Amiga 1200 too) which would have made it more competitive.


According to Dave Haynie the A3000+ revision 0 first booted in February 1991 so it reasonable to assume that if Sydnes hadn't come in and axed it could have been at least a year before the first AGA machines actually hit the market.

The A1000+ was in development at the same time as the A3000+ and would have been a lower cost system with AGA, 2 Zorro III slots with either an 020 or 030. If followed through this could have come a few months after the A3000+ maybe even the end of 1991.

The A1200 wasn't on the drawing board at that time but one could reasonably expect it to have launched in March 1992 insead of the A600 and production being ramped up along with a price drop for the Christmas 1992 season.

All this would have left Commodore in a much healthier position with a larger volume of A1200s sold in 1992 and no time and money wasted on the ECS A600 and never released A2200.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 8-Nov-2021 2:52:58
#54 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1213
From: Kansas

Rob Quote:

According to Dave Haynie the A3000+ revision 0 first booted in February 1991 so it reasonable to assume that if Sydnes hadn't come in and axed it could have been at least a year before the first AGA machines actually hit the market.


Yea, if Lew Eggebrecht had come in at that time instead of Bill Sydnes, the Amiga may have survived 1995 at least. The Amiga 3000+ probably wouldn't have been enough to save the Amiga alone but there would have been a larger AGA hardware base and more AGA software when the Amiga 1200 arrived. This time period was the critical turning point for the Amiga.



Rob Quote:

The A1000+ was in development at the same time as the A3000+ and would have been a lower cost system with AGA, 2 Zorro III slots with either an 020 or 030. If followed through this could have come a few months after the A3000+ maybe even the end of 1991.


In my opinion, the Amiga model lineup needed to be simplified at this point to improve mass production volumes. Where Thomas Rattigan had introduced high and low end Amiga models, maybe this could have been expanded to high, mid and low end models. Keep the 3000+ for mid, introduce 1200 for low and add a 4000T for high. As is, there was a 600, 1000+, 2200, 3000, 3000+, 3000T and soon 1200, 4000, 4000T and CDTV2CR/CD32. The 500 and 2000 may have still been in production as well as the 500 was likely still the biggest seller and customers needed the 2000 for embedded purposes. All the new Amiga models should have come with AGA and development of the AA+ chipset with chunky should have been prioritized. This is pretty much what Lew Eggebrecht did but it was too late and he couldn't undue the damage done by Bill Sydnes (Mehdi Ali's fault for not understanding the technology).

Rob Quote:

The A1200 wasn't on the drawing board at that time but one could reasonably expect it to have launched in March 1992 instead of the A600 and production being ramped up along with a price drop for the Christmas 1992 season.

All this would have left Commodore in a much healthier position with a larger volume of A1200s sold in 1992 and no time and money wasted on the ECS A600 and never released A2200.


I agree. If all the Amiga 600 production would have been Amiga 1200 production instead then the Amiga likely would have survived 1995. The Amiga 1200 would have seen quick inventory turnover at a higher profit margin where the 600 was discounted to sell and tied up valuable capital sitting in the warehouse (time is money).

Last edited by matthey on 08-Nov-2021 at 02:54 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 8-Nov-2021 8:19:55
#55 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 351
From: Unknown

@matthey

Most AGA games are not in 256 colors?
This means AGA was crap.
PC games since 1992 were in 256 colors.
AGA games should be in 256 or more colors.
AGA should be fast enough to handle games in at least 256 colors.
AGA should have chunky pixels in 1992.
Because AGA has not chunky pixels in 1992 AGA was crap.
It was even biggest problem in apps.
Rest of world just use 256 or hicolors.
Developers on pc/mac/atari since 1992 just use 256 or hicolors and do not have to deal with thing like bitplanes and ham.
it took much less time and work to made software for pc/mac/atari than for amiga since 1992.
Little slower cpu is not even close, to big problem like was lack of chunky pixels in AGA.




 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
michalsc 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 8-Nov-2021 8:55:01
#56 ]
AROS Core Developer
Joined: 14-Jun-2005
Posts: 307
From: Germany

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:
bull shit alarm.

640x360 video playing 99% CPU...


You are drawing wrong conclusions about Raspberry Pi 400 from looking at video beeing decoded by M68k (Emu68) running on Raspberry Pi 3b+. Not only Pi 400 has much faster CPU with respect to technology (Cortex A53 vs Cortex A72) but also w.r.t. clock frequency (1.4 GHz on Pi3b+ vs 1.8 GHz Pi400, easily switchable up to at least 2 GHz) and RAM bandwidth (about 1,5 GB/s on Pi3b+ vs 4GB/s on Pi400).

Not to mention you use a software-decoded video playing there (decompression, yuv->rgb conversion, drawing on screen, all done on m68k) to discuss performance comparison of Pi 400 and Tabor.

No, I don't understand what you were trying to say there...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 8-Nov-2021 9:22:21
#57 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 351
From: Unknown

@matthey

Your problem is You compare pc with not pc.
It is simple.
Computer has x86 or arm cpu or any other litte endian cpu
it is commodity hardware which means pc.
Computer has big endian cpu
it is not commodity hardware which means it is not pc.
commodity hardware ("pc") is something to use at work.
it is boring tool. something like refrigerator or oven.
Computer with big endian cpu is hobby, something used for pleasure.
Don't compare hobby with boring tool.
You want people to switch to commodity hardware ("pc")
You have to accept that You compete with Microsoft/Apple/Google
You have to accept that it is Your duty to provide something good enough as win/lnx/osx.
Show Us something like this or stop this anti ppc crap.


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
KimmoK 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 8-Nov-2021 10:32:55
#58 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2003
Posts: 5202
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland

@ppcamiga1

>Most AGA games are not in 256 colors?

256 colors demand a lot more in storage capacity.
Games on Amiga were made to fit on 880kB floppy.
+Most of Amiga game devices were OCS based, devs had to support that OCS first to make any sales.

>This means AGA was crap.

It was slower for 3D than VGA, otherwise it was ok for it's time.
Nowdays games like Doom have been implemented for AGA devices.
http://aminet.net/package/game/shoot/BOOM_AGA
Space games:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twM-NEbluS8&ab_channel=AmigaOmega

If CBM had not died and delivered more AGA machines with 2+2MB and CD or HDD, game developers would have had more reason to properly use AGA.

>PC games since 1992 were in 256 colors.

256 colors out of 262144 palette.
32 or 64 colors from 16M palette would not have been much worse, IMHO.

>AGA games should be in 256 or more colors.

Perhaps nice to have, yes. But not sure if the difference vs 32/64 of 16M was that great.
+HAM8 was available for video clips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWkmV5R-Km8&t=21s&ab_channel=10MinuteAmigaRetroCast

>AGA should be fast enough to handle games in at least 256 colors.
>AGA should have chunky pixels in 1992.
>Because AGA has not chunky pixels in 1992 AGA was crap.
>It was even biggest problem in apps.

LOL! No.
But flixer free version of 1280x700 resolution would have been nice.
And it was HUGE mistake to ship 68020 devices without fast RAM.

>Rest of world just use 256 or hicolors.

Doubt any games of that era used hicolors.

In 1993 I had chance to compare 800x600 24bit and 1280x700 HAM8, IMHO, HAM8 was better.
Vanilla/basic Mainstream Mac and PC devices could not do high-res 24bit.
And they had severe memory limitations, needed masochism to get any game to run beyond "beep"...

But, yes, sure, to comfortably use HAM8 graphics, basic A1200 is not enough.

>Developers on pc/mac/atari since 1992 just use 256 or hicolors and do not have to deal with thing like bitplanes and ham.

In europe, none of normal PC's or macs could use a GFX mode compareable to 1280x700xHAM8.
And atari had 0colors = dead.

>it took much less time and work to made software for pc/mac/atari than for amiga since 1992.

It was also less work to make games for CGA+Beep in 1986. So?

Actually, making PC games was much harder than making Amiga games. Around 1999 things changed after Windows had started to replace dos for games.

>Little slower cpu is not even close, to big problem like was lack of chunky pixels in AGA.

Chunky pixel mode would have helped, yes.

Last edited by KimmoK on 08-Nov-2021 at 10:48 AM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
KimmoK 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 8-Nov-2021 10:38:42
#59 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2003
Posts: 5202
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland

@matthey

"(Mehdi Ali's fault for not understanding the technology)."

There's nothing that could have saved Amiga or CBM when Mehdi and Irwin were running the show.

They would have killed Amiga anyway, like they lobotomized A3000+ to become A4000.

...

Actually ... modern Amiga might very well not be any better than it currently is, if Mehdi & co would have continued their task. Most likely they would have killed AmigaOS in favor of WinNT.


...

Could Mike Battilana be the best Amiga CEO since 1984 ?
I would like to see, at least.

Last edited by KimmoK on 08-Nov-2021 at 10:42 AM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: What defines Amiga: chipset or software?
Posted on 8-Nov-2021 17:43:57
#60 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 11914
From: Norway

@michalsc

Your right, its not black and white, but your CPU emulation, is lot faster EUAE runs on that hardware, but even if hardware is as fast or faster, it make no difference as you say, you need hardware acceleration and good OS support, unless you’re not using AmigaOS / AROS, then we not talking about something. Until then people are dreaming about things that do not exist.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 08-Nov-2021 at 06:07 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle