Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6064 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
15 crawler(s) on-line.
 36 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 _ThEcRoW:  10 mins ago
 Karlos:  28 mins ago
 sananaman:  40 mins ago
 Bosanac:  56 mins ago
 matthey:  1 hr 6 mins ago
 V8:  1 hr 11 mins ago
 cip060:  1 hr 34 mins ago
 amisteph:  1 hr 38 mins ago
 Hypex:  1 hr 40 mins ago
 Gunnar:  1 hr 42 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Register To Post

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
Poll : How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
10p Excellent (Best at 2D/3D, colors, and resolution, frame rate etc.)
5p Good / better than most computer.
0p Barely hanging in there.
-5p Below average / slow but usable
-10p useless / horrible
 
PosterThread
NutsAboutAmiga 
How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 2-Dec-2021 17:09:46
#1 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12277
From: Norway

We talking about AGA chipset for days now,
but it did not answer how bad or good people think it was.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 02-Dec-2021 at 05:25 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 02-Dec-2021 at 05:24 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
DiscreetFX 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 2-Dec-2021 18:11:21
#2 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-Feb-2003
Posts: 2209
From: Chicago, IL

@NutsAboutAmiga

It was the bees knees!

_________________
Sent from my Quantum Computer.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 2-Dec-2021 18:55:58
#3 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 6473
From: UK

@NutsAboutAmiga

It was like the psychedelic sweet spot of 256 colours if you needed it or enough for 64 colours on screen for a decent action game like the MegaDrive. I think it was better than the MegaDrive after all "to be this good will take SEGA ages!"

However, SEGA had the last laugh for while Zool got a limp Windows 10 only remaster, Sonic got a full on EDM dance party from Steve Aoki!

Steve Aoki Sonic 30th EDM Party

Sonic rave party > Amiga Zool AGA remaster by some margin!

Last edited by BigD on 02-Dec-2021 at 06:57 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 02-Dec-2021 at 06:56 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Samurai_Crow 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 2-Dec-2021 19:43:56
#4 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 18-Jan-2003
Posts: 2317
From: Minnesota, USA

AGA was only half-done. The Lisa chip had extra features for the page mode RAM but the rest still limped along on 16-bit bus accesses. The blitter and copper suffered accordingly in the Alice chip as did the unchanged Paula.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 2-Dec-2021 20:17:23
#5 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1586
From: Kansas

@NutsAboutAmiga
There were very limited 3D chipsets up to 1993, especially for PC clones.

1993 Atari Jaguar
1994 Sony Playstation (December in Japan and 1995 for most of world)
1995 S3 Virge
1996 3dfx Voodoo
1996 ATI 3D Rage (ATI acquired by AMD in 2006)
1996 Nintendo64

A 68040 or 80486 was the early 3D hardware although chunky graphics gave a small advantage for 3D graphics.

The Amiga could usually do more than the PC with less including cost up to about 1993.

Amiga VS PC (DOS) games
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETl8PhUy_E

Amiga vs PC 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4uwzNkUVE

1989 It Came From the Desert (1990 DOS version)
1989 Stunt Car Racer
1989 Test Drive II
1990 Ducktales
1990 Golden Axe
1991 Gods
1991 First Samurai
1991 Wrath of the Demon
1992 Lotus III
1993 Lost Vikings
1993 James Pond 2 (AGA)
1993 Aladdin (1994 AGA)

ECS was competitive with VGA and AGA was better than VGA overall. AGA was eventually eclipsed by higher end SVGA and GPU chipsets but this was 1994-1996 before the higher performance ones became affordable and common. PC Clones in the '90s started being upgraded with 80486 and then Pentium CPUs which had synergies with graphics chipset and bus improvements, especially for 3D games. AGA would have likely remained viable for other types of games into the mid-90s at the low end but CBM needed to use higher performance CPUs and get AA+ out the door pronto. CBM had failed to create an Amiga CD-ROM drive standard using their $15 audio CD-ROM drives and hard drives standard with their 68020+AGA standard. This made it more difficult for larger games to target the Amiga which started becoming PC only.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 2-Dec-2021 20:21:11
#6 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 448
From: Unknown

AGA was too late too little.
No chunky pixels.
Blitter as fast as in 1983.
16 color sprites as in 1983.
Only 16 color playfields. Little better than 8 color playfields in 1983.
Chip working with the same clock as in 1983.
From cpu side chip ram only two times faster than in 1983.
As fast as in ECS in A3000 in 1990.
From graphics side only four times faster than in 1983.

I vote barely hanging on.


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 2-Dec-2021 20:31:54
#7 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 448
From: Unknown

@matthey

In Amiga asylum.
Rest of world play Wol3D and it clones.
Rest of world play Comanche and it clones.
Jan 1993 and for everyone is clear that it is end of retro, 2d, and Amiga chipset.
DOOM in Dec 1993 was the final nail in the coffin.
But up to 2001 and XP, Amiga was very good alternative computer for work.

Last edited by ppcamiga1 on 02-Dec-2021 at 08:33 PM.
Last edited by ppcamiga1 on 02-Dec-2021 at 08:33 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 2-Dec-2021 21:16:06
#8 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1586
From: Kansas

ppcamiga1 Quote:

AGA was too late too little.
No chunky pixels.
Blitter as fast as in 1983.
16 color sprites as in 1983.
Only 16 color playfields. Little better than 8 color playfields in 1983.
Chip working with the same clock as in 1983.
From cpu side chip ram only two times faster than in 1983.
As fast as in ECS in A3000 in 1990.
From graphics side only four times faster than in 1983.


Check out Aladdin AGA in the Amiga vs PC 2 video I posted. A 68020+AGA is moving around some sizable and colorful objects on screen just as well as VGA on very likely a higher performance processor.

Quote:

I vote barely hanging on.


I'm surprised you considered it that good.

ppcamiga1 Quote:

In Amiga asylum.
Rest of world play Wol3D and it clones.
Rest of world play Comanche and it clones.
Jan 1993 and for everyone is clear that it is end of retro, 2d, and Amiga chipset.
DOOM in Dec 1993 was the final nail in the coffin.
But up to 2001 and XP, Amiga was very good alternative computer for work.



May 1991 - At the Comdex show, Intel introduces the 20 MHz i486SX microprocessor. The i486SX is like the 486DX, but without the math coprocessor. Price is US$527. Speed is 16.5 MIPS.

March 1992 - Intel introduces the i486DX2 microprocessor, with clock speeds of 25/50 MHz (external/internal). For the most part, the DX2 acts like a 25 MHz 486 that internally runs twice as fast. Price is US$550 each in quantities of 1000. Performance is 41 MIPS, 25.4 SPECint89, and 15.9 SPECfp89. Code-name during development was P24.

September 1992 - Intel announces OverDrive processors for 486DX systems. The OverDrive processor is the same as a clock-doubled processor (486DX2-50 or 486DX2-66) but with a heat sink, retail packaging, and list of systems certified upgradeable. Price for 25 MHz systems is US$599; price for 33 MHz is US$799.

September 1992 - Intel introduces the 33 MHz i486SX microprocessor. Speed is 27 MIPS Price is US$189 each for 1000.

1992 - During the year, 18% of Intel-based PC sales contain a 486 processor.
1992 - Shipments of Advanced Micro Devices 386 processor chips for the year: 9.5 million.

http://kpolsson.com/micropro/proc1990.htm

June 1993 - Intel adds more 3.3 volt 486 processors to its line: 33 MHz i486SX (US$171), 33 MHz i486DX (US$324), and 20/40 MHz i486DX2 (US$406). Prices are in quantities of 1000.

October 1993 - Advanced Micro Devices announces the 66 MHz Am486DX2, for US$463 in 1000 unit quantities.

1993 - Unit shipments of Advanced Micro Devices 486 processors during the year: 350,000.
1993 - Shipments of Motorola 68000 processors for the year: 36 million.

http://kpolsson.com/micropro/proc1993.htm

The Amiga 1200 was introduced in October 1992 for $599 while the Overdrive 486DX@25MHz was introduced in September 1992 also for $599. The 486 and Pentium were eventually the primary reasons why 3D games prevailed on PC clones but there was a good reason why it didn't happen in 1993. Ironically, the low end and embedded 68000 CPU was still selling quite well while it was the 68040 which needed to sell better to improve economies of scale to be competitive into the future. There were 3 different x86 competitors and while prices for a full 32 bit 486 were high they were dropping.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 2-Dec-2021 22:12:27
#9 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 6473
From: UK

@matthey

Quote:
The Amiga could usually do more than the PC with less including cost up to about 1993.


I think the period of 2D superiority and attempts at 3D comparative performance extended longer than that! Depending on whether you wanted the hype of C&C or could hold on for Napalm in 1999 (4 years to replay Dune 2 ). Or whether you couldn't cope with the sublime Alien Breed 3D (with amazing level design but slightly blocky blitter accelerated graphics) in the meantime before finally getting ADoom in 1998! Both delays were fine with me

You had Xtreme Racing during that period too and don't forget Slam Tilt! Hardly a barren time for Amiga gaming and something most of the A500 brigade missed out on! I hope they all buy the A500 Mini and experience what they missed. AGA rocks!

I still voted +5 good as yes obviously at least an 8bit chunky graphics mode would have been good! It didn't spoil the fun though and we still got

R_Init: Init DOOM refresh daemon - [..............................................eventually]

Last edited by BigD on 02-Dec-2021 at 10:17 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
bison 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Dec-2021 3:09:30
#10 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 18-Dec-2007
Posts: 2088
From: N-Space

@NutsAboutAmiga

Barely hanging in there. Five years after VGA mode 0x13, and still no chunky mode.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Dec-2021 10:02:56
#11 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 6473
From: UK

@bison

But it didn't matter when the Atari Falcon showed software support was the important thing not necessarily better hardware. AGA needed to out at the latest 1991 to keep developers interested with the CDTV technology built in and upgraded Paula sound and HD floppy drive if not a hard drive as standard (too expensive probably).

Last edited by BigD on 03-Dec-2021 at 10:04 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Dec-2021 10:43:19
#12 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 9373
From: Unknown

@NutsAboutAmiga

Really good for 600 USD computer (A1200), really bad for 3000 USD computer (A4000).

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
amigang 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Dec-2021 12:05:00
#13 ]
Super Member
Joined: 12-Jan-2005
Posts: 1873
From: Cheshire, England

@pavlor
^pretty much hits on the nail.

AGA was a good upgrade, but like many pointed out by 1996, we needed another upgrade to keep up with the industry.

Still I think devs did prove how far you can push AGA, like Quake 2 running on AGA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61RzFK9xjlQ&ab_channel=anouk33

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Dec-2021 12:58:30
#14 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 6473
From: UK

@amigang

We nearly had the Walker?! Did Amiga Technologies have any budget to pay HP to upgrade AGA in 1996? I'll go with no!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
KimmoK 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Dec-2021 14:05:10
#15 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2003
Posts: 5209
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland

AGA was ok or good with a multisync monitor.

I could for example view and process large images that refused to open on WinNT machines around 1997.
AGA had far more colors to use (and better sound) than my "brand new" win95 computer from y 1995.
Similarly it was superior in graphics and audio vs my first win3.11 work computer in 1996.
And it wiped the floor vs Apple based Multimedia kiosk systems around 1999 (played around with those Aplle systems at Nokia and at Inari airport).

What x86 did better for me (in1996) was high-definition (1024x768 at 256 colors) and speed with 256colors.

IIRC, in y2000 I got Amd Duron that could do better GFX than AGA and DirectX audio started to be ok, IIRC (at that time I also had CV64-3D on my A4k).

Last edited by KimmoK on 03-Dec-2021 at 02:07 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 03-Dec-2021 at 02:06 PM.

_________________
- 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  
ppcamiga1 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Dec-2021 16:32:11
#16 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 448
From: Unknown

@matthey

Wolfenstein 3D is playable on 10 MHz 286 computer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gvz6PMtEuU

And DOOM is playable on 386DX 40MHz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_2qGaIOvjs

So 2D, retro was over before 486 was popular.

Alladin AGA is rare exception. pc developers were too lazy to made 256 color graphics.
Usually AGA games were worse versions of pc games.
Amiga was nice alternative computer but after 1992 games were better on pc.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Dec-2021 17:37:10
#17 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 6473
From: UK

@ppcamiga1

Quote:
Amiga was nice alternative computer but after 1992 games were better on pc.


That is quite simply a lie! Slam Tilt, T-Zero, The Settlers and Napalm were all after 1992 and were not matched on the PC then if ever in their genres (The Settlers isn't even AGA but the extra memory benefits and 2-player on Amiga including versus and co-op on a single machine make it unparalleled). If you are talking about 3D or games with FMV cut scenes then maybe but for 2D fun games you are wrong!

Last edited by BigD on 03-Dec-2021 at 06:06 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ferrels 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Dec-2021 18:26:25
#18 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 20-Oct-2005
Posts: 898
From: Arizona

@BigD

The AGA chipset was pretty terrible as billed. I upgraded to an A1200 from an A2000 in 1993 with high hopes for this new chipset, but AGA was an utter disappointment that prompted me to buy a 486-66Mhz PC and a GPU that supported OpenGL. I had even splurged and bought a 68030/68881 50Mhz accelerator and some fast RAM for this accelerator but the A1200 still ran like molasses in comparison to my PC. Even with the 50Mhz accelerator and tons of fast RAM, I benchmarked my A1200 and it was comparable to a 486-33Mhz for CPU intensive tasks and a complete joke graphically when compared to my Permedia2 based GPU.

The Amiga was already obsolete by 1992 in both 2D graphics and certainly in 3D graphics as well as for CPU intensive tasks. PCs by this time could wipe the floor with any Amiga provided they had a decent GPU and a decent CPU. It was all a matter of how much one wanted to spend on their PC. PC enthusiasts had options. And in 1993 I had spent less on my PC than I had spent on my A1200 with its 50Mhz accelerator and added fast RAM. So it was very easy for me and most other Amiga enthusiasts to leave our Amigas behind. From 1993 onward, the Amiga was never again a serious competitor to any other platform.

Last edited by ferrels on 03-Dec-2021 at 06:27 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Dec-2021 19:19:27
#19 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 6473
From: UK

@ferrels

I am glad that the PC was viewed with such affection in the US but in the UK a 1992 era PC was a joke. The RM Nimbus machines in schools and crappy sound card-less home PCs with a single analogue game port if you were lucky could barely run Xenon 2 or MK and most played on their own with a flight stick! Real arcade perfection

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pavlor 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 3-Dec-2021 19:29:09
#20 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Jul-2005
Posts: 9373
From: Unknown

@ferrels

Quote:
Permedia2


Comparing 1997 GPU with 1992 GPU certainly is not fair. However, your example shows Commodore had nothing to offer to people with moderately high budget for a computer. As I wrote, AGA was really good GFX for a 600 USD computer in 1992 (compare to cheap PC clones with 256 kB ISA SVGA back then).

I think one of the core issues of the Commodore/Amiga demise was something I can call user demographics: Commodore left bussiness market after the failure of CBM-II (early 1980s) and concentrated its efforts on the lower segment of the market (fairly successfully). Its attempts to reach higher margin markets (eg. big box Amigas) were a failure. So, you have bussiness model with low margins targeting users not willing to pay too much for hardware or software. Add ridiculously low Commodore R/D investments and see how fragile this strategy was in the era of a dynamic hardware progress (PCs with better features for even lower price) and cheap and capable video game consoles targeting the very same core market.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 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