@iggy

Disappearing posts? Isn´t this site error rather than moderator problem?

@OneTimer1

It's 496 Euros for the card alone and only if you buy 1000 of them and that appears to be for the lowest specced model.

_________________
Fred Booth
========================================
A500, A600, A1200 c/w Mediator and 030
AmigaOne and OS4.1
Mac LCII, G4 Powermac running OSX + Amigakit and MorphOS 3.0
Dell Mini 10 Netbook running IcAros and AmigaForever+Amikit+AmigaSys
2006 Macb

@tlosm

Assume, as no one has made more ram then 256MB for the A1200...

@pavlor

I don't know.
Obviously I jumped into "let's piss off someone and find out" mode prematurely.
And not to sound paranoid, but the only posts missing are those that might SEEM to be slightly negative.
I don't think they are, but that is MY opinion (and obviously I am biased).

Of course the "spineless ass" comment was meant to offend, and in that I may have cut off any chance for an explaination.

But its simple, the posts were there, and then they quietly disappeared.
So I resorted to something childish I already feel bad about.

I guess being an ass myself isn't justified, but I hope all of you never experience this kind of silent censorship.

Last edited by iggy on 18-Jun-2016 at 06:07 PM.
Last edited by iggy on 18-Jun-2016 at 06:06 PM.

Am I the only one disappointed by this news? An A1200 card as fast as the A600 version for, say, 200-250 EUR would be excellent. The faster performance of this new version would be great, but at > 500 EUR, this puts the A1200 version in the realm of PowerPC boards, which are already too expensive for most people.

The performance of an affordable A1200 version of the current '600 card would be more than enough for most 'classic' fans -- faster than any 68K card ever, at least. (And I could have convinced myself it would be worth saving for!)

Great for the few who can afford it and/or justify it, of course.

@bennymee

yes true ... but the zorro space is more than 1GB if i remember good

_________________
I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG
A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32;
PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB;
MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz;
#nomorea-eoninmyhome

@tlosm,

Lol, a far cry from the 2000 with 8MB!

@DruggedBunny

Maybe they need to start licensing the core so that other hardware producers can make boards at different performance and price points.

@tlosm

Quote:

tlosm wrote: where do you read the a1200 is limited to 256mb?

Indeed there are some software limitations on the OS, there is a 128MB limitation for onboard RAM in processor cards used in the A4000, at least when you want to use the RAM as proper auto configurable fast RAM.

I don't remember the limitation for RAM on the A1200 any more, but if you can't use the RAM during boot time, some games will not be able using it.

@OneTimer1

I know that a Blizzard card + scsi daughter can allow 256Mb, but I dont know if thats the limit.

_________________
Live Long and keep Amigaing!

A1200, Power Tower, TF1260 128MB RAM, 68060 Rev 6, OS3.9 BB2, HD-Floppy, Mediator TX+ PCI, Voodoo 3 3000, Soundblaster 4.1, TV Card, Spider USB, 100MBit Ethernet, 16GB CF HD, 52xCDRom.

https://www.amigaforever.com/kb/13-111

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@bennymee

Apart from the 68ec020, all 68k processors from the 020 up have had 2GB address space.

I doubt many people bothered with one 128MB simm, let alone two, until sometime in the 2000's. If you wanted 32MB for your Blizzard 1260 for Christmas 1996 it would have cost you around £200. Even by 2001 Power Computing were selling 128MB simms for £200, making it still hard to justify for most people with cards that could take it.

Since DCE stopped producing Amiga hardware there had only really been 020 and 030 cards so there has been much point including more RAM.

Dan Wood/Kookytech with a Vampire 2 600 review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S3B8a8N83k

@OneTimer1

that hardware limitations become irrelevant when they implement everything on the card like planned

@OlafS25

Does anyone know if FPU matters for a speed of raytracing? I have made some test using my A2000 with 060/60 MHz with fpu version of Cinema4D 4 and Lightwave 3.5 and compare it with non-fpu version of above two on my Vampire II. The difference is quite big, especially with Lightwave: http://www.amigapodcast.com/2016/07/vampire-ii-amiga-600-vs-amiga-2000-with.html.
The guy from Apollo Forum says that FPU doesn't matter and showed his test: http://www.apollo-core.com/knowledge.php?b=2¬e=71&z=qsjUKT, Quote:

Cinema 4D FPU exe will makes the calculation more accurate not faster.

I always thought that FPU is very important for raytracing. Can someone can repeat tests on full 060 of course?

@radzik

fpu 68k raytracer are not very much optmyzed for 68040/60 fpu, so you have to use Cyberpatcher or Oxypatcher (better this one) for 5 to 20 times faster rendering (depend what software you are using and what and how instruction are emulated)

FPGA core are not real 68k processor. They have removed slow instruction, low compatibile and add some others.
So i think it is impossible to compare with real 68k processor.
The best way to compare FPGA with 68060 is to use Cyberpatcher/Oxypatcher on 68060

Last edited by Seiya on 26-Jul-2016 at 01:26 PM.

_________________

@radzik

I seem to remember using the FPU version on my Blizzard 1260 for reasons of speed and I'm pretty sure that the integer version was much slower. I seem to recall that it ran worse on my friends Apollo 1260 with the mouse jerking around but I'm not sure that it was significantly slower.

I only have X1000 to run it here now but the same scene with the settings in the link results in the FPU version taking 3 minutes and the integer version taking 16m25s.

I 'm not sure what's up with Simo's results.

I noticed that in the thread you linked, that Gunnar claimed that the screen mode used for the editor would affect the result. I was sceptical about this so I tested this out using the FPU version only.
It certainly does affect the time taken but not in the way you'd expect. The above times were done using 1920x1200 and I found that dropping down to 640x480 result in a time of 3m50s and a 1440x900 screen results in a time of 3m20s. I don't know if this is some strange quirk of Petunia JIT emulation.

@radzik

About 1997 or so I was able to add a Cyberstorm 233mhz/ 060 50mhz to my A4000T at work. Using Lightwave 4.0's Texture Examples scene I got the following results:

Stock A4000T with 25mhz 040 & 16mb fast ram exactly 2000 seconds.

I initially mis-installed the ram on the accelerator. Soooo…

50mhz 060 with the motherboard's ram a bit over 1600 seconds.

50mhz 060 with 128mb ram on the accelerator about 475 seconds.

Added Oxyron Patcher about 425 seconds.

(Did not use Oxyron for long. Turned out not to be compatible with some things. (ImageFX?))

As you can see, by far the biggest difference came with the faster/wider ram. If the Vampire does all the work on its own card things should really fly.

i'm gonna hijack the thread a little and say that I mailed my order several weeks ago and I still hasn't got an answer. I understand that the line is long but a reply would be nice nevertheless

_________________
Amiga Forum - Sweden's best Amiga Magazine

My MorphOS Blog

"Free speech includes other peoples right to offend you."

@Yasu

i dont think this forum is the best way to reach them.

the demand is too high. i dont think everybody needs now to go in circles because he doesnt get their vampire dream fixed immediately. we have waited years for such developments. we can wait a bit longer. let them do their part and its most important qualified people get their boards first.

i for my part, have seen a vampire just one time for real. i think i can go along and support this project without one for the time being;)