@agami

Or you killed Commodore because you're insane.

Also this is "Hitler-Dennis". He was obsessed with everything war as a kid and has matured to become a very fine human being...

No he belongs to a criminal network of narcissistic people and the rest that I've written is true.

@agami
The broad measure for desktop value may be performance/$ but there are various ways of measuring it including int performance, fp performance, memory performance, drive performance, etc. Then there are features which add value that vary by customer and are difficult to quantify. As you mentioned, the value of a product is relative to similar products on the market. This is where the value problem for CBM came from. The value of Amiga hardware did not improve as fast as the value of PC hardware. Moore's Law kicked CBMs butt starting in about 1992. This was just as they improved value with a new generation of 68EC020@14MHz, AGA@14MHz, 2MiB chip mem systems but it was too little too late. They barely competed with higher clocked 386+VGA systems that were the low end PC. If they had 68EC030@28MHz, AA+@28MHz, 2MiB chip mem and 1MiB fast mem, at least they would be close to matching specs with low end PC hardware. This is why the CBM UK division wanted to add installed accelerators and maybe some games to improve value. Including more games helped to move Amiga 1200s and CD32s. The successful technique was even repeated in more modern times with THEA500 Mini. There is not much value in the ARM hardware but the included games and USB mouse and pad bring the value back up. Some Amiga fans would say THEA500 Mini eye candy case too but I consider it a gimmick. At the same time, I expect THEA500 Mini gimmick case will result in more sales than the more functional A600GS case though. Marketing can defy logic as customers can be fickle and impulsive.

Last edited by matthey on 27-Jun-2024 at 04:31 AM.

Look, look. We all know the 68k failed because it had not chunky pixels.

Move on.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

Commodore bankrupt because AGA has not chunky pixels.
68020 in 1992 was good enough.

@ppcamiga1

68020 had not chunky pixels in 1992. And now it is dead because it stuck with planar (bitfield instructions were added). All things that had not chunky pixels in 1992 are dead and of zero value. Just keep MOOI.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@bhabbott

Quote:

No, it isn't. Without proper sound that 486 is no solution. Must add ~$150 for a Sound Blaster card and speakers. But even that isn't enough to run the latest hot PC titles. So better make it a Creative Labs CD-ROM multimedia kit for $388. Now the 486 system costs $1883.

CD-ROM is optional. Both sides would require a CD-ROM when software is supplied on CDs.

A1200 has Squirrel PCMCIA external CD-ROM with Akiko C2P emulation.

Quote:

A1200 $399 - that's all you need to enter the wonderful world of Amiga! Your Gateway 486 system is nearly 5 times more expensive than the awesome Amiga 1200! Well OK maybe you really want a monitor and don't have one already, so add $129.95 for a 1084S.

C= 1084S doesn't support AGA's stable entry level VGA-SVGA "business" resolutions i.e. 640x480p 16 to 256 colors. Need dual 15kHz/31 kHz frequency monitor like C= 1942.

AGA has an entry SVGA's 640x480p 256 colors level i.e. AGA is above VGA!

Your cheapo C=1084S monitor would attract a counter cheapo PC clone response.

https://vintageapple.org/pcworld/pdf/PC_World_9306_June_1993.pdf
Page 128 of 314
Polywell Poly 486-33V with 486SX-33, 4MB of RAM, SVGA 1MB VL-Bus, price: $1250



Quote:

Must have a hard drive too? Add $146 for A1200HD/40. Now you're at $675, still way under half the price of the 486. "But I want a 50MHz 030 with 4MB of 32 bit RAM too!!!". Then add an MBX1230XA + 4MB ($349 + $139), for a total of $1163. Now you're ready for Doom when when it arrives 4 years later, and still $720 cheaper than the 486!

Wrong. Your "ready for Doom" is at Am386DX-40 level. LOL. 486-SX 33Mhz is superior to Am386DX-40!

80486SX @ 33Mhz is comparable to 68LC040 @ 28 level.

https://ibb.co/pj0DK94
Sound Blaster Deluxe = $79 USD.
Sound Blaster Pro = $132 USD.

https://ibb.co/PTgs4DQ
Sound Blaster Pro = $128 USD.


4SX-33 with 486-SX 33Mhz, 4MB RAM, 212MB HDD, Windows Video accelerator 1MB video DRAM, 14-inch monitor for $1495 +
Add Sound Blaster Pro = $128 USD.
Total: $1,623.


Page 128 of 314
Polywell Poly 486-33V with 486SX-33, 4MB of RAM, SVGA 1MB VL-Bus, price: $1250
Add Sound Blaster Pro = $128 USD.
Total: $1,378.

Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 09:22 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 09:20 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 09:17 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 09:11 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 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote: @kolla Quote: kolla wrote: Price was _the_ main factor when I bought my first Amiga ... Yep price, but also more than that, value.

Indeed.

With the A1200, a Blizzard 1230 III and 8MB of RAM I made enough money to spend the summer of 95 on Interrail (right before the release of Win95). It was an animation job, for a candy factory. Could never have accomplished that job with any other available platform. It took years more for animation to be available and affordable on mac and windows, and I would argue that even today Deluxe Paint on Amiga is easier than anything else.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: CD-ROM is optional.

Not if you wanted to play the latest PC games it wasn't. It was essential.

Quote:

C= 1084S doesn't support AGA's stable entry level VGA-SVGA "business" resolutions i.e. 640x480p 16 to 256 colors.

Huh? We weren't buying A1200's to run 'business' resolutions! But if you were then a multisync monitor was only another $70.

Quote:

Wrong. Your "ready for Doom" is at Am386DX-40 level. LOL. 486-SX 33Mhz is superior to Am386DX-40!

Changing the goalposts? I was specifically referring to your choice of 486 PC. Besides, if you're going to get a PC it might as well be the one recommended for Doom. Why go for less?

Quote:

https://ibb.co/pj0DK94 Sound Blaster Deluxe = $79 USD. Sound Blaster Pro = $132 USD. https://ibb.co/PTgs4DQ Sound Blaster Pro = $128 USD.

Pretty useless without speakers (1084 monitor has them built in).

Quote:

Total: $1,623

Still too much.

@matthey

Quote:

PS1, PS2 and PS3 had similar design philosophies with each surpassing the predecessor in compute performance. It was a given that the PS1 and PS2 needed significant rework of PC games to port them but there was no other option as x86(-64) hardware used too much power for a console.

PS1 has LSI CoreWare CW33300 based MIPS R3000A @ 33.8Mhz with 30 MIPS, custom geometry engine GTE @ 58Mhz with 66 MIPS and custom display engine with pixel related fixed functions @ 53 Mhz (based on GTE, designed by Toshiba). That's roughly 162 MIPS.

Pentium 75-to-90 would be needed to run PS1 game ports.

CoreWare MIPS R3000A has a five stage pipeline comparable to 68LC040 (six stage pipeline) class CPU.

Quote:

Some people would argue that 32x32=64 is a violation of the RISC philosophy for a 32 bit RISC ISA. MIPS allowed it by using non-GP custom 32 bit LO and HI registers. Some RISC ISAs like PPC have low (MULL) and high (MULH) versions of multiply instructions requiring 2 multiplies to get a 64 bit result. CISC doesn't have to worry about violating any philosophy but back then the 68060 designers were trying to reduce the 68060 and ColdFire to be more RISC like while x86 designers were trying to beef up x86 to out performance RISC.

For RISC-V, a 64-bit result from 32x32 bit multiplication would need to use 2 instructions i.e. MUL, and one of the MULH variants.

_________________
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 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: I would argue that even today Deluxe Paint on Amiga is easier than anything else.

Yep. Even the very latest high-end PC can't match it. Once reason being they all have horrible 'accelerated' mouse movement that isn't precise enough for drawing bitmap images.

For years I used an old version of Coral Photopaint because it came bundled with a PC motherboard. It's not great for animation but ok for static images. Recently I switched to Linux and have been using GIMP. Horrible program. Nothing is intuitive and 'simple' operations are either overly complicated (eg. saving an image is done by 'exporting' it, and you can't chose a file format - have to type in the extension) or simply not possible. Looks like I will have to keep my XP machine for a while longer!

@bhabbott

While working on my mod for AB3D2, I have rediscovered the joy of both Deluxe Paint but perhaps even moreso, Personal Paint. There is something very... I don't know how to describe it l, really. Maybe just nostalgic overload. But anyway, it gives you a certain creative feeling I just don't get with modern tools.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@matthey

020 was good enough in 1992
DOOM run on it as good as on affordable pc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kDM3S7gQTk
Amiga with 020 just need chunky pixel and fast ram

@ppcamiga1

You already have a whole thread on this topic. By the looks of it those affordable PCs must have been crap.

@bhabbott

Quote:

Not if you wanted to play the latest PC games it wasn't. It was essential.

CD-ROM is not needed for the following games:
Doom,
IndyCar Racing,
Star Wars: X-Wing (5 floppy disks),
Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss (4 floppy disks),
Wing Commander 1,
Wing Commander 2 (7 floppy disks for WC2),
Rise of the Triad (3 floppy disks),
The Elder Scrolls: Arena,
Hexen (7 floppy disks),
Magic Carpet (floppy and CD version)
Mortal Kombat II
Heretic (4 floppy disks),
Star Wars Tie Fighter (6 floppy disks),
Descent (5 floppy disks),
'etc'

Quote:

Changing the goalposts? I was specifically referring to your choice of 486 PC. Besides, if you're going to get a PC it might as well be the one recommended for Doom. Why go for less?

Look in the mirror with your "it might as well be the one recommended for Doom" i.e. 486 or 040.

My point with 486SX-33 examples is A1200 with a small 3rd party 68030 @50 Mhz accelerator doesn't have bang per buck value. Economies of scale matter.


Quote:

Pretty useless without speakers (1084 monitor has them built in).

PC desktop speakers are cheap.

Quote:

Still too much.

My post has two 486SX-33 clone vendors.

Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 05:14 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 05:09 PM.

_________________
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 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@bhabbott

Quote:

bhabbott wrote: @kolla Quote: kolla wrote: I would argue that even today Deluxe Paint on Amiga is easier than anything else. Yep. Even the very latest high-end PC can't match it. Once reason being they all have horrible 'accelerated' mouse movement that isn't precise enough for drawing bitmap images. For years I used an old version of Coral Photopaint because it came bundled with a PC motherboard. It's not great for animation but ok for static images. Recently I switched to Linux and have been using GIMP. Horrible program. Nothing is intuitive and 'simple' operations are either overly complicated (eg. saving an image is done by 'exporting' it, and you can't chose a file format - have to type in the extension) or simply not possible. Looks like I will have to keep my XP machine for a while longer!

https://pulkomandy.tk/projects/GrafX2

https://github.com/mriale/PyDPainter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyxi5I_x1eY
PyDPainter - Deluxe Paint Clone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CvxRgU8p1c
DPaint.js, A Modern Deluxe Paint

PRO MOTION:
http://www.cosmigo.com/promotion/index.php


GRAPHICS GALE:
http://www.humanbalance.net/gale/us/


ASEPRITE:
http://www.aseprite.org/


PYXEL EDIT:
http://pyxeledit.com/index.php


Project Dogwaffle:
http://www.thebest3d.com/dogwaffle/index.html


PaintTool SAI
http://www.systemax.jp/en/sai/

Use Google search.

GIMP attempts to be Photoshop i.e. wrong tool for the pixel art job.

My gaming PC mouse can change acceleration factors via the additional mouse buttons i.e. switch to sniper mode vs fast look/fast travel mode. I use sniper mode for pixel painting my icons or improved sniper accuracy. Mouse sensor resolution can be a factor.

Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 05:23 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 05:22 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 05:16 PM.

_________________
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 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote: @agami The broad measure for desktop value may be performance/$ but there are various ways of measuring it including int performance, fp performance, memory performance, drive performance, etc. Then there are features which add value that vary by customer and are difficult to quantify. As you mentioned, the value of a product is relative to similar products on the market. This is where the value problem for CBM came from. The value of Amiga hardware did not improve as fast as the value of PC hardware. Moore's Law kicked CBMs butt starting in about 1992. This was just as they improved value with a new generation of 68EC020@14MHz, AGA@14MHz, 2MiB chip mem systems but it was too little too late. They barely competed with higher clocked 386+VGA systems that were the low end PC. If they had 68EC030@28MHz, AA+@28MHz, 2MiB chip mem and 1MiB fast mem, at least they would be close to matching specs with low end PC hardware. This is why the CBM UK division wanted to add installed accelerators and maybe some games to improve value. Including more games helped to move Amiga 1200s and CD32s. The successful technique was even repeated in more modern times with THEA500 Mini. There is not much value in the ARM hardware but the included games and USB mouse and pad bring the value back up. Some Amiga fans would say THEA500 Mini eye candy case too but I consider it a gimmick. At the same time, I expect THEA500 Mini gimmick case will result in more sales than the more functional A600GS case though. Marketing can defy logic as customers can be fickle and impulsive.

For gamers, "you're selling dreams" - David Pleasance, ex-Commodore UK MD.

In a YouTube video interview, David Pleasance wanted to bundle accelerators with A1200 game bundles. Commodore UK would bankroll 3rd party accelerators for A1200 bundles. Ali rejected it.

I need to find that video and throw it at that NZ poster.

1. A1200 base model with the game bundle for 2D gaming.
2. Accelerated A1200 game bundle for fast 386DX-33 class texture mapped 3D gaming. Economies of scale are important.

My A500 Rev6A starter pack includes a games bundle and a black-colored desk.

Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 05:49 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 05:43 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 05:34 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 28-Jun-2024 at 05:32 PM.

_________________
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 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

Hammer Quote:

PS1 has LSI CoreWare CW33300 based MIPS R3000A @ 33.8Mhz with 30 MIPS, custom geometry engine GTE @ 58Mhz with 66 MIPS and custom display engine with pixel related fixed functions @ 53 Mhz (based on GTE, designed by Toshiba). That's roughly 162 MIPS. Pentium 75-to-90 would be needed to run PS1 game ports. CoreWare MIPS R3000A has a five stage pipeline comparable to 68LC040 (six stage pipeline) class CPU.

The PS1 MIPS R3051 (R3000A compatible) customized variant CPU is specialized for integer fixed point 3D where the 68040, 68060, 80486 and Pentium are general purpose and have floating point which can render higher quality 3D. The general purpose 68040 and 80486 have similar if not better integer performance compared to the PS1 CPU for general purpose processing but can't keep up with the specialized processing of the custom hardware. The next generation general purpose 68060 and Pentium can come close to matching the PS1 specialized performance. They are more expensive and use more power but can provide higher quality floating point 3D.

Hammer Quote:

For RISC-V, a 64-bit result from 32x32 bit multiplication would need to use 2 instructions i.e. MUL, and one of the MULH variants.

RV32IM requires 2 multiply instructions anyway. The CPU core may be able to avoid two multiplies with code fusion.

https://riscv.org/technical/specifications/ Quote:

If both the high and low bits of the same product are required, then the recommended code sequence is: MULH[[S]U] rdh, rs1, rs2; MUL rdl, rs1,rs2 (source register specifiers must be in same order and rdh cannot be the same as rs1 or rs2). Microarchitectures can then fuse these into a single multiply operation instead of performing two separate multiplies.

Most publicly available RISC-V cores are implementing RV64IM requiring only a single MUL instruction for 32x32=64 and 64x64=64 as the product fits in the destination 64 bit register. There is no high performance way to get the upper 64 bits of a 64x64=128 even though RISC-V defines a 128 bit ISA and there are a few uses for 128 bit datatypes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/128-bit_computing#Uses

Division is worse performance for most RISC ISAs where the quotient and remainder are both needed requiring two division instructions and code fusion to avoid performing two very costly divisions.

https://riscv.org/technical/specifications/ Quote:

If both the quotient and remainder are required from the same division, the recommended code sequence is: DIV[U] rdq, rs1, rs2; REM[U] rdr, rs1, rs2 (rdq cannot be the same as rs1 or rs2). Microarchitectures can then fuse these into a single divide operation instead of performing two separate divides.

The RISC philosophy is to not share GP registers (e.g. a division quotient and remainder results in the same register), not update more than one GP register with an instruction result and only use GP registers for common instructions. The RISC-V ISA follows the RISC philosophy better than the MIPS ISA and both are weaker than CISC ISAs like 68k and x86. Some MIPS fans and RISC purists may argue that RISC-V code fusion and compressed encoding options violate RISC principals. It can be argued that multicycle MUL and DIV instructions violate RISC principals.

https://wiki.preterhuman.net/MIPS_architecture#History Quote:

In 1981, a team led by John L. Hennessy at Stanford University started work on what would become the first MIPS processor. The basic concept was to dramatically increase performance through the use of deep instruction pipelines, a technique that was well known, but difficult to implement. Generally a pipeline spreads out the task of running an instruction into several steps, starting work on "step one" of an instruction before the preceding instruction is complete. In contrast, traditional designs of the era waited to complete an entire instruction before moving on, thereby leaving large areas of the CPU idle as the process continued. Moreover, the clock frequency of the entire CPU was dictated by the latency of the entire cycle, rather than by the critical path (i.e. the latency of the pipeline stage taking the longest time to complete). One major barrier to pipelining was that it required interlocks to be set up to ensure that instructions that took multiple clock cycles to complete would stop the pipeline from loading more data — basically to pause while it completed. These interlocks can take a long time to set up, and were thought to be a major barrier to future speed improvements. A major design aspect of the MIPS design was to demand that all instructions take only one cycle to complete, thereby removing any needs for interlocking. Although this design eliminated a number of useful instructions, notably things like multiply and divide which would take multiple steps, it was felt that the overall performance of the system would be dramatically improved because the chips could run at much higher clock rates. This ramping of the speed would be difficult with interlocking involved, as the time needed to set up locks is as much a function of die size as clock rate: adding the hardware needed might actually slow down the overall speed. The elimination of these instructions became a contentious point. Many observers claimed the design (and RISC in general) would never live up to its hype. If one simply replaces the complex multiply instruction with many simpler additions, where is the speed increase? This overly-simple analysis ignored the fact that the speed of the design was in the pipelines, not the instructions. In 1984 Hennessy was convinced of the future commercial potential of the design, and left Stanford to form MIPS Computer Systems. They released their first design, the R2000, in 1985, improving the design as the R3000 in 1988. These 32-bit CPUs formed the basis of their company through the 1980s, used primarily in Silicon Graphics series of workstations. These commercial designs deviated from the Stanford academic research by implementing most of the interlocks in hardware, supplying full multiply and divide instructions (among others).

It could also be argued that RISC development and propaganda has been a lesson in hypocrisy from the beginning. The RISC propaganda still exists but closely following the original RISC principals results in weak performance. This was/is the problem for Alpha, PA-RISC, MIPS, SPARC and RISC-V. ARM AArch64 is barely RISC but benefits from RISC propaganda and using CISC performance enhancing ideas at the same time. PPC was like AArch64 but AArch64 killed it by being similar and improving on it with better CISC like addressing modes and code density.

ppcamiga1 Quote:

020 was good enough in 1992 DOOM run on it as good as on affordable pc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kDM3S7gQTk Amiga with 020 just need chunky pixel and fast ram

A "020 was good enough in 1992" considering Doom did not come out until December of 1993. A 68EC020@14MHz had barely competitive CPU performance for the low end PC market at the beginning of 1992 but a 68EC020@28MHz was likely possible and would have been much more competitive, especially if the chipset clock speed was increased too. A 68EC030 would have provided a larger address space, a small data cache (fast mem needed to be beneficial), instruction and data cache bursts (fast mem needed to be beneficial). Lack of fast mem was the largest Amiga performance impediment but a 68EC020@14MHz is weak for games like Doom.

@matthey

For PS1 Geometry Transformation Engine (GTE)'s registers:

Matrix registers are 16-bit (1-bit sign, 3-bit integer, 12-bit fraction). Reading the last elements (RT33, L33, and LB3) returns the 16-bit value sign-expanded to 32-bit. This is not IEEE-754 FP16 (1-bit sign, 5-bit integer, 10-bit fraction).

Translation vector registers, each element is fixed point 32-bit (1-bit sign, 31-bit integer).

Background Color registers, each element is 32-bit (1-bit sign, 19-bit integer, 12-bit fraction). This is not IEEE-754 FP32 (1-bit sign, 8-bit integer, 23-bit fraction).

PS1's GTE's matrix feature is non-IEEE-754 FP16 math.

GTE's 16-bit matrix DSP is worse than DSP3210's IEEE-754 FP32 (GLFloat).

For cost reduction, design compromises have to be made while preserving fast performance.

Unlike Motorola, IBM has offered a game console low price PowerPC 602 CPU design.

Last edited by Hammer on 29-Jun-2024 at 12:21 PM.

_________________
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 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@matthey

Quote:

he PS1 MIPS R3051 (R3000A compatible) customized variant CPU is specialized for integer fixed point 3D where the 68040, 68060, 80486 and Pentium are general purpose and have floating point which can render higher quality 3D. The general purpose 68040 and 80486 have similar if not better integer performance compared to the PS1 CPU for general purpose processing but can't keep up with the specialized processing of the custom hardware.

Reminder, MIPS R3000 is 1988 released hardware. R3000 attracted SGI.

80486 was released in 1989.
68040 was released in 1990.

------------

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.benchmarks/c/zvnlKLIgUDk/m/ut4VeY_t0lcJ
SpecINT92 and SpecFP92 scores

SGI Indigo R3000 @ 33 32/32KB cache
SpecINT: 22.4
SpecFP: 24.2
Benchmark date: Nov92


DEC 5025 R3000 @ 25 Mhz 64KB/64KB cache,
SpecINT: 15.7
SpecFP: 21.7
Benchmark date: Jun93


HP 425t 68040 @ 25, 4KB/4KB cache
SpecINT: 12.3
SpecFP: 10.3
Benchmark date: Jun93


Compaq Dkpro 80486DX @ 33 Mhz, 128KB L2+8KB L1 cache
SpecINT: 18.2
SpecFP: 8.3
Benchmark date: Sep92


Compaq Dkpro, 80486DX2 @ 66 Mhz, 256KB L2+8KB L1 cache
SpecINT: 32.2
SpecFP: 16.0
Benchmark date: Sep93


Compaq ProXL, Pentium @ 66.7 Mhz, 256KB L2+8/8KB L1 cache
SpecINT: 65.1
SpecFP: 63.6
Benchmark date: Sep93


DEC 5260 R4400 @ 60 Mhz, 1M L2+16/16KB L1 cache
SpecINT: 57.1
SpecFP: 54.5
Benchmark date: Sep93


DEC 2300 Alpha 21064 @ 150 Mhz, 512KB L2 + 8/8 KB L1 cache (there are faster Alpha CPUs in 1992-1993 year)
SpecINT: 57.1
SpecFP: 54.5
Benchmark date: Oct93


HP 705 PA-1.1 @ 35 Mhz, PA-RISC
SpecINT: 21.9
SpecFP: 33.0
Benchmark date: Nov92


HP 750 PA1.1 @ 66 Mhz, 256KB/256KB cache
SpecINT: 48.1
SpecFP: 75.0
Benchmark date: Oct92


IBM 250 MPC601 @ 66 Mhz, PowerPC 601
SpecINT: 62.6
SpecFP: 72.2
Benchmark date: Sep93


----------------------------
Motorola 88000 is a joke. Check out 88000@ 33Mhz's Spec89 scores i.e. refer to my link. LOL. It's pathetically bad.

Motorola deserves to go bankrupt or taken over by NXP!

IBM PowerPC 601 @ 66Mhz smashed 68040 @ 25Mhz into the ground.

The RISC threat is real, you're in dreamland. Motorola was largely missing in 1992-1993 in the "powerful" workstations. Most of these "powerful" workstations have external 64-bit bus.


Compaq has threatened Intel to improve its offerings or they move to the MIPS CPU family. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Computing_Environment
Intel quickly released the Pentium P54 with 100 MHz in 1994 and the Pentium Pro with 200 MHz in 1995.

For Amiga's future, my argument position is a full EXIT from Motorola. I'm not referring to Apollo-Core's pretty good AC68080, just needs 68K MMU for Linux68K. Motorola has leadership problems.


Quote:

The next generation general purpose 68060 and Pentium can come close to matching the PS1 specialized performance. They are more expensive and use more power but can provide higher quality floating point 3D.

68060 has a major bottleneck with 4 bytes per cycle fetch from L1. Pentium doesn't have this bottleneck.

SysInfo has a significant amount of 6-byte instructions. To fully use 68060's dual integer pipelines, the programmer has to limit instruction usage to 2 bytes.

68060 needs to be updated to remove this limiter.

Last edited by Hammer on 29-Jun-2024 at 01:33 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 29-Jun-2024 at 01:30 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 29-Jun-2024 at 01:13 PM.

_________________
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 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB

@Hypex

Quote:

By the looks of it those affordable PCs must have been crap.

Affordable PCs up to 1996 was crap. It just have many times faster graphics than Amiga.