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
0 crawler(s) on-line.
 102 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 retrofaza:  8 mins ago
 A1200:  23 mins ago
 pixie:  56 mins ago
 ktadd:  1 hr 3 mins ago
 matthey:  1 hr 7 mins ago
 zipper:  1 hr 15 mins ago
 kolla:  1 hr 25 mins ago
 AMIGASYSTEM:  1 hr 26 mins ago
 VooDoo:  1 hr 59 mins ago
 Bugala:  2 hrs 10 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
Karlos 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 23-Jan-2023 10:28:29
#561 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4415
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@thread

As I said somewhere way back in this thread, objectivity and subjectivity make this a problematic question.

Objectively, AGA should be judged against ECS and OCS, not VGA, SVGA etc. In that context, AGA was OK. You could now paint in hundreds of thousands of colours, you had more colours on screen for gaming purposes and higher resolutions available for serious use. And if you were a professional user for whom display was key work factor already, you'd probably put an RTG card in your machine of some form by then anyway.

While there is no doubt that video hardware on competing platforms was starting to outperform it (and would soon totally outclass it), this that was true of every other component too. Sound, networking, even basic IO like serial and parallel were getting better (buffering etc) elsewhere.

However since little Amiga software ran on these competing systems to some extent, it's mostly a moot point.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
OlafS25 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 23-Jan-2023 10:45:06
#562 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 12-May-2010
Posts: 6369
From: Unknown

@Karlos

AGA certainly was not the big game changer but still important. Most games were using VGA (256 colors) already (and harddiscs) and first developed for PC (MSDOS), later ported to amiga (if at all). Xou needed completely new graphics for amiga if using ECS. Additionally A1200 had more resources (processor speed and RAM) and were mostly including harddiscs. But A1200 came too late and were comprable to PC at highest. Too little too late.

"Professional users" at that time did not need AGA, they certainly used A2000/A3000 or A4000 with graphic cards. AGA was important for games.

Last edited by OlafS25 on 23-Jan-2023 at 10:47 AM.
Last edited by OlafS25 on 23-Jan-2023 at 10:47 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Oscar12 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 11:35:22
#563 ]
New Member
Joined: 18-Jan-2023
Posts: 7
From: Unknown

@OlafS25

It was a grave mistake to release it without 68030 and fast memory. 68020 cpu was too weak for 1992 which was a cpu from the year 1984. Most PCs at that time used 386 as a baseline which is equivalent to 68030 cpu. Except the static games like adventure and pinball games no game could use 256 colors in A1200 because of the slow memory bandwidth.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 11:40:59
#564 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4415
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@Oscar12

You do realise that at the same clock speed the 030 has almost no real world performance gain over 020, right? The datacache is tiny and except for carefully crafted code, doesn't make a large difference. The benefit comes with higher clockspeed.

The 68020 was adequate for the A1200, what it truly lacked was fast ram.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 12:24:39
#565 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4415
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@agami

Quote:

agami wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:
What do you mean with "machine"?

Something in the same category. The Commodore Amiga 1200 is a personal computer. Primarily a gaming focused SKU, but nevertheless a personal computer.

Gaming consoles are a separate category.


I agree on the technicality of the point but the reality is very different. I know of many users that only ever used their Amigas to play games, directly on unexpanded machines, straight from floppy that never once booted workbench except perhaps to deal with coverdisks. Regardless of the intention of the machine, it was a games console to many. And as soon as it wasn't as good as X, Y or Z for that purpose, it was replaced.

Last edited by Karlos on 28-Jan-2023 at 12:39 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 13:42:27
#566 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 7329
From: UK

@Karlos

A reason why the A1200 should have had a hard drive by default out of the box! If it booted straight into Workbench then people would have been forced to use it, grow to love it and try out other programs other than cracked floppy games!

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 14:43:33
#567 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4415
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@BigD

I think that would've been a much larger production cost increase than 1MB of on-board fast ram.

The "AGA spec should've included 1MB fast ram" is a hill I will die on.

Last edited by Karlos on 28-Jan-2023 at 06:10 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 19:39:29
#568 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 2956
From: Trondheim, Norway

@Karlos

1MB? Geh…

So, we have this 32bit 68020 that in principle can address 4GB of RAM, but we only get the cheaper ec020 that is limited to 16MB of RAM, which for Amiga translates to 8MB… of which one can only add 4MB to the A1200 to not crash with PCMCIA… yes, it would totally make sense (CBM wise) to add just 1MB of Fast RAM on board, preferably in a way that would make third party ram expansion impossible :)

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 20:29:43
#569 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4415
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@kolla

I did not say that it should be added in a way that would make expansion impossible. I'm saying that the base specification should have mandated that the minimum amount of fast ram in any AGA machine is 1MB such that the intended minimum CPU pairing that came with it doesn't embarrass itself. I'm sure it's not beyond the realms of possibility to design it such that fitting 4MB via the trapdoor simply supercedes the on board memory.

You only have to look at the empty FPU area on the motherboard and wonder what was being thought about in the minds of those controlling where the money was spent. An FPU was next to useless for the vast majority of users at that time.

I'm sure a full 020 would've been nice but I can see the extra address lanes making the motherboard layout more complicated and I'm sure my suggestion which would probably require 4 additional DRAM chips would be complication enough already.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Oscar12 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 20:31:22
#570 ]
New Member
Joined: 18-Jan-2023
Posts: 7
From: Unknown

@kolla

Time was coming with great 3d fps and real time strategy games. Command and conquer, doom, tie fighter, tekken, Diablo, etc. Amiga 1200 was too weak for the upcoming nice games carnage

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 20:45:06
#571 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4415
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@Oscar12

Yeah everyone had that crystal ball by the end of the 80s except commodore, right?

Games followed the capabilities of the hardware. It wasn't until doom set the PC world on fire that people really started upgrading their machines because of a game and not because their terrible OS and applications ran as fluidly as the output of a terminally constipated rhino on their machines.

Last edited by Karlos on 28-Jan-2023 at 08:45 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Oscar12 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 22:30:36
#572 ]
New Member
Joined: 18-Jan-2023
Posts: 7
From: Unknown

@Karlos

Well we know the Mehdi Ali and his gang were definitely deaf and blind to see their toes.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 22:50:14
#573 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12835
From: Norway

@Oscar12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZndVuimYWY

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 28-Jan-2023 22:51:59
#574 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 2956
From: Trondheim, Norway

There’s too much emphasis on Doom, let’s not forget that Doom (which actually was developed on a 68k system to begin with) was ported to a whole range of systems that also vanished. I’m one of those who supposedly shouldn’t have bought Amiga, since I bought my first computer in January 1994 - clearly I should have bought a PC, right? But PCs costed a heck lot more (3-4 times as much), required more space. And were quirky as f… with their 640k issues, irqs, highmem blabla crap, not to mention different games and software requiring a variety of different sound cards and whatnot. I had both family and friends with PCs and it was tedious! The A1200 was plug-and-play, and option of using the TV you already got. And most importantly, for me, it did the job - I could write all my home assignments on it, save on a msdos floppy and bring it to univ, where it could be read from any available system. And when I got the hang of DPaint, I even managed to earn money with the A1200.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Oscar12 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 29-Jan-2023 6:35:54
#575 ]
New Member
Joined: 18-Jan-2023
Posts: 7
From: Unknown

@kolla

Doom was designed on a monster Nextstation with 68040 not 14 mhz 68020

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
agami 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 29-Jan-2023 9:12:32
#576 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jun-2008
Posts: 1679
From: Melbourne, Australia

@Karlos

Quote:
I agree on the technicality of the point but the reality is very different. I know of many users that only ever used their Amigas to play games...

And I knew many people back then who only ever used their DOS/Windows PC to play games.
Even today, there are many people who have an exclusively gaming PC, and do all their other work on some other equipment, usually a more portable computing device.



Last edited by agami on 29-Jan-2023 at 09:13 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 29-Jan-2023 9:18:38
#577 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4415
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@agami

That really only took off once the PC didn't completely suck at it. Primary with VGA and beyond. There were some notable exceptions that were great even on older kit but the only dedicated PC gamers I recall from that era was post VGA/386.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 29-Jan-2023 9:57:41
#578 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 790
From: Unknown

AGA was not good enough.
Amiga need chunky pixel in 1992.
Amiga developers will made playable DOOM even on 020
if only don't have to waste time on c2p.
Commodore bankrupt because AGA has not chunky pixel.
Rest is history.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
pixie 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 29-Jan-2023 17:51:16
#579 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 10-Mar-2003
Posts: 3166
From: Figueira da Foz - Portugal

@ppcamiga1

So does it mean that if we put an RTG board on a 020 Amiga we can now run Doom? LoL

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Karlos 
Re: How good or bad was the AGA chipset in 1992/1993.
Posted on 29-Jan-2023 18:08:40
#580 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 24-Aug-2003
Posts: 4415
From: As-sassin-aaate! As-sassin-aaate! Ooh! We forgot the ammunition!

@pixie

Don't feed the troll. The fact is, like everyone else that bought an A1200 in 1992/3, it was a sweet machine. The only real criticism I have is the lack of fast ram by default since that's what games developers would've targeted. People are full of suggestions on how AGA should've been better but they forget that it was designed quickly and was never intended to be more than an incremental improvements over ECS.

Even with the bare minimum of 1MB fast, it would've been 4x faster than the A500/500+/600 it was intended to replace.

Sure, Chunky pixels would've been nice, but that is not what we had and I doubt a redesign on that scale would've been ready by 1992.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

 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