@matthey

Quote:

Let's not forget about the Intel i860. The 2nd gen came out in 1991 but they may have been working on a 3rd generation before cancellation and switching to ARM XScale. Intel did seem to be more persistent with the x86 but the PC boom had turned it into a cash cow for them. All they had to do was make a moderately higher performance x86 compatible processor and it was pretty much guaranteed of market success even if Intel management had doubts about the architecture in the long run.

The i860 influenced the MMX functionality later added to Intel's Pentium processors. Intel i860 was terminated in the mid-1990s. ​Again, most of Intel's focus is on X86. i860 and Itanium were attempts to get rid of X86 competitors e.g. AMD, Cyrix.

For December 1986's Intel i750, Intel’s 82750PB graphics processor runs at 25 MHz and contains 57 instruction set, eight entries 64-bit vector registers (same MM0~MM7 register naming as used on the x86, the only difference being that i750 has dedicated registers while the x86 MMX CPU does not).

Itanium was a fork with IA32 compatibility with IA-64 not being licensed to AMD or Cyrix/VIA.
IA-64 removes IBM imposed second source contract on Intel.

StrongARM biz was obtained via DEC's dismantlement in 1997 and Xscale was released in February 2002 which is too late for the classic Pentium transition phase from the 486.

1996 Pentium Pro was the CISC-RISC hybrid and it's nothing like the classic Pentium. Pentium Pro was the basis for Pentium II.

Intel's Xe DG2 is another attempt to enter the PC gaming dGPU race.


Quote:

The first PPC development started in 1992 and was half funded and staffed by IBM. The 88k development likely seemed like more of a duplication of resources with the PPC development especially after PPC adopted the 88k bus and considering the 88k was struggling to gain market share. The 68k market was still healthy and there was reason to believe the 68060 would be profitable which I have heard it was. There were parts of the 68060 which seem unfinished and unpolished but then it was the first of a new generation (microarchitecture) of 68k processors with a well design foundation to build on. The lack of a fully pipelined FPU could have been because of a transistor budget or cost benefit analysis revealing it was not worthwhile considering the performance goals which appear to be focused on integer performance.

68K was NOT healthy in 1994. I can list down major platform vendors who dumped 68K for alternative solutions e.g. Sharp (reach 68030 and PowerPC based successor canceled), Sega (SuperH), Sun (SPARC), HP (PA-RISC), Atari (Jaguar's MIPS), Commodore (PA-RISC), Apple (PowerPC), Capcom (SuperH).

Facts: Motorola killed 68K based desktop PC and workstation industry.

Quote:

The Sega is not very impressive. My 68060@75MHz Amiga with Voodoo gfx has a higher frame rate and looks much better at 512x384x16. Consoles are generally not the highest performance hardware available and the Sega Saturn had some rather poor 3D hardware and has low memory for 3D games.

Saturn's main central processing units are two Hitachi SH-2 microprocessors clocked at 28.6 MHz and capable of 56 theoretical MIPS.

68060 has ~110 MIPS theoretical @ 75 MHz single thread.


"One very fast central processor would be preferable. I don't think all programmers have the ability to program two CPUs—most can only get about one-and-a-half times the speed you can get from one SH-2. I think that only 1 in 100 programmers are good enough to get this kind of speed [nearly double] out of the Saturn."
—Yu Suzuki reflecting on Saturn Virtua Fighter development


3DFX Voodoo graphics comes from the x86 PC world and has less cost-constrained when compared to game consoles.


Sega had a 2D console that did a good job with 3D objects but wasn't optimized for the 3D environment. Saturn was complicated to program when compared to Playstation.


Amiga Technologies didn't release A1200 with 68060 SKU that target gaming use cases.


Quote:

Maybe if the price could have dropped with mass production and if the hardware could have beat the Sony Playstation to market. The CD32 aimed for a lower console price with just 2D. Actually, the 2D Sega Genesis was still selling well when the Saturn came out and Sega ran out of Genesis units. Most Sega Genesis games look better than those early pseudo 3D games too.

Sega has Genesis X32 and Saturn (1994) confusion.

Sony Playstation was released in December 1994 and Sony has been buying game studios i.e. exclusive game titles sells the hardware. Learn from Xbox mistakes and correction (e.g. buying major game studios) vs Nintendo's survival and success.

Sony Playstation has obliterated Sega.

Last edited by Hammer on 15-Jun-2021 at 09:30 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 15-Jun-2021 at 09:28 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 14-Jun-2021 at 10:43 PM.
Last edited by Hammer on 14-Jun-2021 at 10:36 PM.

_________________
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)

@NutsAboutAmiga

"There won’t be any AmigaOS3.3 if Cloanto is able to bankrupt Hyperion Entertainment,..."

Nonsense. Cloanto is not getting Amiga.

Have you met mr Battilana ?
I have. He is a good guy, true Amigan, with a warm heart.
He will do what ever he can for ALL Amigans to benefit.

He might even be able to build co-operation with the blue side.

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

@KimmoK

I agree, the coders who work on AmigaOS would work with ANYONE who allow them to tinker however blue they are! Maybe he's a closet MorphOS fan



Who would you rather work with?



... look at that! Mike showing off his guns!

I guess he'll be needing them if he can't settle with Ben "The Suit" Hermans

I mean I like Italian emulation experts but I also like IP lawyers but which is better? There's only one way to find out...

Last edited by BigD on 15-Jun-2021 at 08:17 PM.

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