You can get a feeling for where the performance level is if you compare many games that are written to run fast by using the respective hardware, typically action games where framerate matters. For others, you can't tell the difference between 5 fps and 6 fps, even though more than double the performance of chips is required to cut the time down from 1/5 to 1/6 second.
Using video as here also makes viewers unable to tell between 50, 25, and 16 fps even for these action games that run more directly off the hardware.
Frontier dips to 1 FPS and beyond, and it wasn't designed to run fast on stock machines, either. It was written for accelerated machines, and doesn't use the Blitter. It has 16 colors and just replaced sound and a few lines fo code changed to patch it up. It's another ST port.
The term "port" used in a negative way is actually pretty dumb, because it's a fuzzy definition: of course games become better if you write them for the target machine from the start, but a very skillful port is almost as good at using the hardware. Ports are what we want if the game is good - in either direction
The usual direction was one-way tho :S and to design it from the start to never use the Amiga hardware, so you could just replace the sound/music and release it, so you'd have to change as few lines of code as possible. It's this "design the game for the worse computer, release a quickie Amiga version with no improvements" that let us Amiga users down. And cherish the games that were Amigatastic.
It would be fun to see ST fans try to show off ST games that would impress Amiga fans, but all they do is try to get equal to Amiga. That's an important point. If they really were equal, there would be a bunch of games that had the upper hand in performance. If they can't find some, maybe it's time to stop insisting?
Not that I know why we're going back to 500 vs ST, isn't that off topic?
Maybe compare Frontier on A1200 and Falcon030?
And wasn't the A1200 cheaper than the Falcon?