Hardware close to an Amiga - after the Atari ST
 

Hi guys,
after the atari st which hardware is the more near of the amiga ????
Off course with the goal to port games. ;)
edited : 1st mac 68000 generation ???

Some SAM Coupe games may be mistaken with Amiga but of course Commodore machine is superior. http://gamesdbase.com/Media/SYSTEM/M...our_-_1993.jpg

In relation to the Amiga 500:

Sharp X68000 (better than the Amiga, IMO)
Apple Macintosh Plus
Acorn Archimedes A3000 (though a 32/32bit RISC instead of a 16/32 CISC, the final product - in terms of gaming software - was pretty equivalent to an Amiga.)
IBM PC Compatible 386 (also different in terms of architecture, but also somewhat comparable to the Amiga in terms of gaming software if it was equipped with a sound card)

In terms of 8bit proximity, both the C64 (natch) and the Atari 800 are noticeable ancestors of the Amiga.

Sega Genesis/Mega Drive? Also 68K

Naturally. But I was focusing on computers. I was never a console-boy...

Also extremely unlike any Amiga.

BTW, can an admin change the thread title to something more sensible?

In what way? Physically? We were talking about hardware similarity as well as software (especially games). Both have a Motorola 68000 processor, the Amiga clocked at 7.09MHz, the X68000 at 10MHz, the Amiga came with 512kb RAM that was usually expanded to 1MB. The X68000 came with 1MB. Both had custom chips (though different, were similar in terms of output, both in graphics and sound). Both used DB9 joystick ports... Personally they're much more similar between then than with the aforementioned IBM PC (x86 architecture) or the Archimedes (ARM RISC architecture).

Well that is quite a different architecture as it's based on a 6MHz Z80! Still, bloody fantastic machine though, but I am biased - been developing for the SAM Coupe for over 22 years ->
www.samcoupe.com

Although Amiga assets have been used for some games, such as the Amiga graphics of Lemmings being used for the SAM version.

Speaking of Lemmings, if you know anyone willing to sell Lemmings or Oh No! on the Sam Coupe let me know!

your idea of comparison here is awkwardly superficial, try reading some architectural descriptions before you continue.

I have to agree with you here idrougge.

Thread title changed to something more appropriate; hope this is ok turrican3?

It is meant to be superficial. We are talking about similarities based on software and games and on broad hardware features. We're basically comparing late 1980's and mid 1990's computers. Despite whatever differences they have, they're far more similar to each other than to a 1960's computer, an early 2000 console or a late 2010's smart phone. Some of your focus on more intricate details is actually being detrimental to what was asked in this thread and with your line of thinking - stretched to the limit - there is no thread, because NOTHING is actually similar enough and that's counter-productive.

The Atari ST is similar because it uses a 68000 clocked at the same speed and a bitmapped screen using bitplanes. The Amiga can be regarded as a superset of the ST.

The X68000 has lots of sprites, a tile mode for background graphics, a text mode and multiple bitmap playfields that can all be superimposed. It's not even a superset of an Amiga, it's just alien.

By comparison, the Archimedes is much more similar.

Well, then... you're basically saying the same thing I did, no? I did reinforce the notion that the X68000 was better than the Amiga, something that I didn't do to any of the others, including the 386 because, honestly, I don't think they were better (despite the Intel 80386 being, theoretically, a more powerful and able processor than the Motorola 68000. The processor, by itself, does not define the computer's gaming prowess). The Archimedes has a full 32/32bit processor (as is the i80386) while the others have a 16/32bit. Even so, the X68000 would be my pick in 1987 (release year of both the X68000 and the Amiga 500. By this time, the usual Mac was the 512kb and the best PC - if you were lucky/rich - was a 1MB 386@20MHz with a VGA board and an AdLib sound card). The X68000 was a spectacular machine for its time, something really earth-shattering that we, westerners, unfortunately were barred from. In the west, the X68000 "equivalent" was the Amiga (hence the aforementioned similarities and the whole reason of this thread). The Amiga has custom ships that the Atari ST, being based on off-the-shelf components, lacks. By your logic I could dismiss your metaphor of the Amiga as a superset Atari ST.

In reality, though, and despite the supremacy of the X68000, they are - as I have being saying all along - more similar than different and I would always include the X68000 in the same league as the OCS Amiga, the ST (and STe), the 386 PC, the Archimedes and the first gen Macintosh, just as we tend to group all the early to mid 1980's 8bits into the same pool, despite huge differences as seen between the ZX81 or the ZX Spectrum 48k and the Turbo-R, the Sam Coupé or even the MSX2+. Basically they're still similar and comparable, even though they are far more different amongst themselves than the Amiga and the X68000 are between them.

The question that started this thread was about which platform was the closest one to the Amiga. The X68000 is about as far removed from the Amiga as possible. End of discussion.

Oh, and what off-the-shelf components have you found in the ST? The processor? The sound chip? In that case, the X68000 is also based on off-the-shelf components.

Aside from the Atari ST, right?

LOL! I honestly fail to see your... erm... logic there. But, alas, let's agree to disagree. There's no need to take this further. The worse kind of blindness is the one that springs from the refusal to see.

You for real? The WD1772 floppy disk controller, the HD6301 keyboard, mouse and joystick handler, the YM-2149 "PSG" sound chip, MC68901 MFP, the DMA, the GLU, the MMU, the video shifter, etc... All previously available off-the-shelf components of the Atari ST, mate.
Technically, you could say that the X68000 has off-the-shelf components, yes, but the GPU was fully custom and - together with the whole smartness of its technical design - made it the powerhouse that it was.

Draco cube

If I had £3000 spare in 1987 the yeah I'd 'pick up' a X68000, and if money no object a Neo-Geo AES too ;-)

Apart from the ST, exactly.

As far as I can tell, this is your logic: Both use the same CPU and both use custom chips to run games with more than 16 colours, hence they must be similar.

However, that kind of logic is about as relevant as judging architectural similarity based on if a computer was delivered in an all-in-one wedge shape or with a separate keyboard.

Let's compare that to the X68000:
NEC 72065 floppy disk controller, YM2151 FM sound chip, the same MC68901 MFP as in the Atari ST, Hitachi 63450 DMA, YM 3012 DAC, Oki 6258 PCM, Fujitsu 89352 SCSI, Zilog Z85C30 serial, NEC 8255 PIO…

You had it right with the ST until you reached the DMA. DMA, GLUE, MMU, shifter and blitter are not off-the-shelf things. They're designed by Atari and made for Atari. They're just not as ambitious as the Amiga's custom chips. More like customs shits.

But never mind, the question is what hardware is closest to the Amiga. The X68000 is about as close to the Amiga as a Sega Megadrive.

In terms of game porting, the closest to Amiga after Atari ST is the Mac 68k (on which the complicated OS is the problem). Then come Sega Megadrive and X68000, which both have "alien" hardware making game conversions extremely unfriendly to do (at least for me). Then comes everything not 68k related.