Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 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
23 crawler(s) on-line.
 72 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 amigakit:  7 mins ago
 pavlor:  14 mins ago
 AmigaPapst:  29 mins ago
 Frank:  30 mins ago
 OlafS25:  48 mins ago
 clint:  1 hr 7 mins ago
 pixie:  1 hr 34 mins ago
 BigD:  2 hrs 4 mins ago
 zipper:  2 hrs 15 mins ago
 Gunnar:  2 hrs 43 mins ago

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

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 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
fishy_fis 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 7-Mar-2023 8:56:42
#841 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2004
Posts: 2159
From: Australia

@Hammer

Quote:
Unit sales matters. Your argument is flawed.


No they don't.
Unit numbers have zero correlation to how capable the AGA chipset was or wasn't.

Quote:
Gaming PC has 1994 Descent which makes Super Stardust 1994's tunnel scene gameplay restrictive.


Moot. This has zero to do with how capable, or not the AGA chipset was. Not to mention Descent is also available to AGA Amigas. It may have come later, but it shows AGA can handle Descent.

Quote:
This topic is "How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993" which includes multi-platform comparisons.


And a decent chunk of the games you've used as comparison also have Amiga versions on the AGA chipset, from 92.
Whether or not the titles came out at the same time as PC versions is irrelevant in a discussion about how good the chipset was in 92. If anything its a point in AGA's favor that it can handle games that come out later.

Quote:
Your argument does NOT address the "How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993" topic!


Absolute nonsense. It shows what it was doing at the time, which addresses it much more than what other machines were doing at the time.

Quote:
You can't handle the real truth.


Are you 12 years old? Get over yourself.

I never once said it was as capable as what else was available at the time and Im very aware of "the real truth". In fact my vote to the poll was "barely hanging in there".
My response to you was just to point how how completely an utterly irrelevant most of your commentary was.

Last edited by fishy_fis on 07-Mar-2023 at 08:59 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 7-Mar-2023 9:44:09
#842 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4402
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@fishy_fis

He's still rubbing his butt over the fact his PS1 friends laughed as his AGA. He can still hear their mockery echoing in his head.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
fishy_fis 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 7-Mar-2023 10:41:27
#843 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Mar-2004
Posts: 2159
From: Australia

@Karlos

Perhaps this is why he has a predisposition to being anal (bad pun intended).

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 7-Mar-2023 10:56:30
#844 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 7322
From: UK

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote:
@fishy_fis

He's still rubbing his butt over the fact his PS1 friends laughed as his AGA. He can still hear their mockery echoing in his head.


Get THEA500 Mini, use Pandory and pretend 68k Amigas got all the PS1 games too! It cheers me up!

It's better than p!$$!ng around with Tower57, Wings! Remastered and the all conquering, Pandemonium destroying 'Spencer' on AmigaOne vapour/fantasy/out-of-my-price-rangeware!

Last edited by BigD on 07-Mar-2023 at 10:58 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 07-Mar-2023 at 10:57 AM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 7-Mar-2023 11:02:29
#845 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 7322
From: UK

@Thread

Come to think of it, why did they never adapt Pandemonium! on the PS1 for the big screen! You coud have had Julia Stiles as Nikki, the sorceress and Rik Mayall as Fargus, the joker! That's a solid gold, fantasy pseudo-sequel to Drop Dead Fred! Awesome!

RIP Rik.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 9-Mar-2023 11:16:10
#846 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 11200
From: Greensborough, Australia

@Samurai_Crow

AGA really had to be retro fitted onto ECS and OCS design. The OCS design is 16 bit in nature. It all moves 16 bit data around. The chip ram pointers are 2x 16 bit halves. Internal data is moved in 16 bit. Copper codes are 32 bit but divided into 16 bit code and 16 bit data. Audio is 8 bit but moved in 16 bit quantities. A proper 32 bit redesign would have been hard. Although, it had internal 16 bit registers but they didn't need to be exposed. Might have needed moving for 32 bit transfer.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 9-Mar-2023 11:58:04
#847 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 11200
From: Greensborough, Australia

@matthey

Quote:
ECS was competitive with VGA and AGA was better than VGA overall


Except ECS only had 32 colour palette with 12 bit resolution. VGA had 256 colour palette at 18 bit resolution. After 1987 the Amiga lost it with games. Only Amiga specific developers cared about using sprites, dual playfield or copper FX since they needed too. And for games needing full screen rewritten lacking chunky slowed it down. Once VGA became a lowest common denominator, even without hardware sprites or dual modes, or even a linear chunky buffer since it was split over planes, it was game over as DOS took over and ECS got left behind. By the time AGA came it was too late to pick up the slack.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 9-Mar-2023 20:22:43
#848 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 2879
From: Trondheim, Norway

@Hypex

VGA did 256 colours only with that glorious 320x200 mode, for anything higher it only did 16 colours.

Yes, it would have been nice if Amiga chipset could have supported 8bit chunky 320x200 as well, but it wouldn’t have made that much difference.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
SHADES 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 9-Mar-2023 20:53:55
#849 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 13-Nov-2003
Posts: 865
From: Melbourne

@kolla

Quote:
VGA did 256 colours only with that glorious 320x200 mode, for anything higher it only did 16 colours. Yes, it would have been nice if Amiga chipset could have supported 8bit chunky 320x200 as well, but it wouldn’t have made that much difference.


That's true! although, VGA would support up to 640x480, it wasn't until later and still falls under Super VGA
I think a lot of people don't remember very well from back then, but all that SVGA 640x480, then 800x600 and XGA 1024x768 resoultions came a lot later.

Last edited by SHADES on 09-Mar-2023 at 08:56 PM.
Last edited by SHADES on 09-Mar-2023 at 08:55 PM.
Last edited by SHADES on 09-Mar-2023 at 08:54 PM.

_________________
It's not the question that's the problem, it's the problem that's the question.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 9-Mar-2023 20:56:27
#850 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 2879
From: Trondheim, Norway

The main reason why PC ”won” was that it was the standard computer for offices, businesses and engineering. And then people brought them home. I remember my dad brought home a 386DX of some sort, along with a huge CRT to do AutoCAD 10 (with ProShip extension, heh) from home, back around 1990 or so. A friend of mine whos father was architect inherited his dad’s olivetti PC - also with AutoCAD - as he upgraded. And this was the story in many homes, parents brought home old PCs for free from work, for their kids to do school work on (suuure). Meanwhile, at school we had Tiki-100 (aka Kontiki) with KP/M (cp/m translated to Norwegian) and, if lucky, i286 systems with cp/m or ms-dos, or if you had a really adventurous teacher - minix.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
SHADES 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 9-Mar-2023 21:01:01
#851 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 13-Nov-2003
Posts: 865
From: Melbourne

@kolla

True.

I still remember the smear campaign on Amiga that it wasn't a serious computer due to all the colours and that real computers used high-resolutions in grey-scale for serious work.
Even back then, as a child, I didn't agree although the herculese graphics cards did make 16 shades of grey scale, high-res pictures look pretty good. I think it did 640x480 or near enough.

Last edited by SHADES on 09-Mar-2023 at 09:01 PM.

_________________
It's not the question that's the problem, it's the problem that's the question.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 9-Mar-2023 21:01:02
#852 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 2879
From: Trondheim, Norway

@SHADES

Quote:

SHADES wrote:

I think a lot of people don't remember very well from back then


Indeed, specifications for 1990 PCs keep improving as time goes by, it seems.

Quote:
all that SVGA 640x480, then 800x600 and XGA 1024x768 resoultions came a lot later.


Yes. And not super cheap!

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
SHADES 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 9-Mar-2023 21:07:42
#853 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 13-Nov-2003
Posts: 865
From: Melbourne

@kolla

Even the add-on Hercules cards were expensive.
Amiga didn't need anything additional added on.

_________________
It's not the question that's the problem, it's the problem that's the question.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 10-Mar-2023 1:54:01
#854 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 1644
From: Melbourne, Australia

@kolla

Quote:
kolla wrote:
@SHADES

Quote:
SHADES wrote:

I think a lot of people don't remember very well from back then, but all that SVGA 640x480, then 800x600 and XGA 1024x768 resoultions came a lot later.

Indeed, specifications for 1990 PCs keep improving as time goes by, it seems.

Quote:
all that SVGA 640x480, then 800x600 and XGA 1024x768 resoultions came a lot later.

Yes. And not super cheap!

According to some, it doesn’t matter when something had mass adoption or general availability.
They look at the dates of when standards where ratified, or when things were announced or first shown at CeBIT/COMDEX/CES.

“VGA was first introduced with the IBM PS/2 line of computers in 1987”.
Yeah numbnuts, but that doesn’t even mean that all PS/2 computers in 1987 had exclusively VGA adapters, let alone the other lines of computers from IBM, or even less so computer lines from other IBM clone makers.

In 1991, when I returned to Australia and bought myself a used Amiga 500, as I had left my first one back in Yugoslavia for my brother, most parents of high-schoolers where buying used 286 XT machines with CGA graphics, or if their parents were a bit more generous a proper 286 AT with EGA graphics, in the same price range as the used A500.

The fact that VGA and SVGA were around at the time did not factor into the common family household budget for computers.

It really wasn’t until 1994 that performant hardware was available at a low enough price, coupled with the rising interest in 486 driven Windows systems for non-business applications, that there was a palpable shift toward purchasing a new and up-to-date computer from a growing number of self-branded beige box assemblers.

Last edited by agami on 10-Mar-2023 at 01:56 AM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 12-Mar-2023 20:55:47
#855 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4402
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote:
@SHADES

Quote:

SHADES wrote:

I think a lot of people don't remember very well from back then


Indeed, specifications for 1990 PCs keep improving as time goes by, it seems.


Nonsense! I distinctly remember PCs in 1990 having DDR3, PCIe and quad core 64 bit processors. The Amiga was laughable by comparison with it's 8-bit 6502. Plus you had to do all the wirewrapping yourself. Everyone knows that.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 13-Mar-2023 13:39:06
#856 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 11200
From: Greensborough, Australia

@kolla

Quote:
VGA did 256 colours only with that glorious 320x200 mode, for anything higher it only did 16 colours.


Yes, true, but on the Amiga it was the same for hi res modes. Before AGA, hi res modes were likewise limited to 16 colours. That wiped HAM out. And most productivity software didn't have copper FX to make up the difference.

Quote:
Yes, it would have been nice if Amiga chipset could have supported 8bit chunky 320x200 as well, but it wouldn’t have made that much difference.


In my experience with an 060 a copy compared to a chunky conversion has little difference but that's an usually high end configuration. I think the ECS productivity mode really needed to be nibble chunky in 16 colours instead of 4 colour CGA like in bit planes. Then extended to 8 bit and matching VGA on AGA. But, given how the bitmap was layed out, unlike VGA it could also have been a linear chunky map and easier to write too. Which would be good if it was a simple frame buffer with no hardware tricks.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hammer 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 14-Mar-2023 3:28:52
#857 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Mar-2003
Posts: 5268
From: Australia

@fishy_fis

Quote:
No they don't.
Unit numbers have zero correlation to how capable the AGA chipset was or wasn't.

Wrong, the install base is important. Case in point, official Doom port.

PC 386DX and 486 have a longer time to grow and evolve gaming PC install base that can run Doom while the existing full 32-bit 68K-accelerated Amigas with OCS/ECS are unable to be upgraded. The PC gaming graphics hardware for PC's EGA/VGA standards are modular and upgradeable.

Bigbox Amiga 1500/2000/2500/3000/3500/3000T and Amiga 500 with 68030/68040 accelerators are unable to be upgraded to run AGA games.

Modularity is a hardware feature that helps to evolve the existing install base.

Quote:

Moot. This has zero to do with how capable, or not the AGA chipset was. Not to mention Descent is also available to AGA Amigas. It may have come later, but it shows AGA can handle Descent.

You failed to factor in modularity as a hardware feature since this helps to evolve the existing install base.

On full 32-bit CPU terms, Amiga 3000/030 @ 25Mhz is comparable to 386DX-33 based PC, but the lack of a cost-effective AGA upgrade path made it a dead end since it can't participate with the Amiga AGA gaming standard. The same 386DX-33-based PC evolved with an ET4000AX graphics card upgrade. Amiga 4000/030 is late and not cost-effective against the 486SX-25-based PC.

PC clone has an advantage with game graphics modularity, common game graphics standards, and common motherboard form factor.

I'm sure Amiga 500 owners with GVP A530 (EC030/030 @ 40 Mhz, 030 @ 50 Mhz) are happy with their dead-end doorstop. LOL. A530 is functionally equal to the A2000 G-Force 030 Combo accelerator series product.

Your argument is flawed.

PS; I welcome AGA drop-in replacement chips for Amiga OCS/ECS motherboards project.

Quote:

And a decent chunk of the games you've used as comparison also have Amiga versions on the AGA chipset, from 92.

Whether or not the titles came out at the same time as PC versions is irrelevant in a discussion about how good the chipset was in 92. If anything its a point in AGA's favor that it can handle games that come out later.

AAA or AGA chipset is useless without math compute power.

Dave Haynie's AT&T DSP 3210 (with 33 MFLOPS FP32, supports 68K and X86 signaling) selection is addressing the need for improved math power for AGA.

I support Dave Haynie's viewpoint over yours.

Quote:

Absolute nonsense. It shows what it was doing at the time, which addresses it much more than what other machines were doing at the time.

FALSE. Stop drinking the cool aid.

The time period for this topic is between 1992 and 1993, NOT the late 1980s, 1990, and 1991.

Quote:

Are you 12 years old? Get over yourself.

I never once said it was as capable as what else was available at the time and Im very aware of "the real truth". In fact my vote to the poll was "barely hanging in there".
My response to you was just to point how how completely an utterly irrelevant most of your commentary was.

The Amiga wasn't cost-competitive between 1992 to 1993 time period.

Last edited by Hammer on 14-Mar-2023 at 07:51 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 14-Mar-2023 at 06:45 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 14-Mar-2023 at 03:29 AM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
SHADES 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 14-Mar-2023 4:31:09
#858 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 13-Nov-2003
Posts: 865
From: Melbourne

@Hammer

I still maintain AGA was too little, too late.
I was so hankering for AAA which, would have mad a dramatic entry.
Even just for the data getting shunted around.
If only.....

Last edited by SHADES on 14-Mar-2023 at 04:31 AM.

_________________
It's not the question that's the problem, it's the problem that's the question.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hammer 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 14-Mar-2023 6:05:22
#859 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Mar-2003
Posts: 5268
From: Australia

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote:
@SHADES

Quote:

SHADES wrote:

I think a lot of people don't remember very well from back then


Indeed, specifications for 1990 PCs keep improving as time goes by, it seems.

Quote:
all that SVGA 640x480, then 800x600 and XGA 1024x768 resoultions came a lot later.


Yes. And not super cheap!


https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_hqQJaNzN9IcC/page/n603/mode/2up
PC Mag 1992-08, page 604 of 664,
Diamond Speedstar 24 (ET4000AX ISA) has $169 USD.

Graphics capability that drives SVGA resolution also improves VGA's low resolution.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hammer 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 14-Mar-2023 6:23:00
#860 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Mar-2003
Posts: 5268
From: Australia

@SHADES

Quote:

SHADES wrote:
@Hammer

I still maintain AGA was too little, too late.
I was so hankering for AAA which, would have mad a dramatic entry.
Even just for the data getting shunted around.
If only.....

For 3D games that matter from 1993 to 1995, AAA without improvements in math compute capability is nearly useless.

68K family wasn't able to keep up with the rapidly evolving X86 and RISC competitors.

Dave Haynie's AT&T DSP 3210 (with 33 MFLOPS FP32, supports 68K and X86 signaling) selection is addressing the need for improved math power for AGA.

FP32 datatype dominates the current PC GPU render workloads.

AT&T DSP 3210 follows RISC's 1 instruction per clock throughput idealogy and DSP 3210 can pointer swap with the host CPU (like AMD Fusion compute model, CELL's SPU can't pointer swap with the host PPE CPU).

Amiga 1200 with 28 Mhz 68020, DSP 3210 (33 MFLOPS FP32) and Fast RAM would be pretty good.

Both AT&T DSP 3210 and modern PC GPUs support IEEE FP32 formats.

AT&T DSP 3210 also supports extended single precision (FP40, uses 8 mantissa guard bits).

Last edited by Hammer on 14-Mar-2023 at 06:39 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 14-Mar-2023 at 06:28 AM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 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