Quote:
Originally Posted by idrougge
One of the biggest mistakes with the Falcon was that the RAM could be either 1, 4 or 14 megabytes.
At the time of its release, 4 MB was extremely expensive, yet 1 MB was laughably useless on a machine with high colour graphics and VGA resolutions, not to mention MultiTOS.
2 MB, as used on the Amiga, was in the "Goldilocks zone", but out of reach for the Falcon.
|
Agree.
Rodolphe Czuba (designer and manufacture of CT60 - 68060 accelerator for Atari Falcon) argue that this was exactly reason
why Falcon030 have 16bit bus:
"To have a 32 bit wide DATA bus for the CPU and to keep same performances using interleaving, Atari would have to provide RAM configurations of 2 or 8 MBytes. 2 is not enought, and 8, at the time the machine was done, was too expensive."
http://powerphenix.exxoshost.co.uk/r...h/technic.html
end result is that stock Falcon030 have same RAM access performance as Amiga1200 if you accessing 32 bit data but if you use 16bit data Falcon should be twice as fast as Amiga 1200. link:
http://www.atari-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=25185 (please add your own thoughts/data!)
This post by Jack Burton really show that Atari Falcon030 DESTROY Amiga 1200 in EVERY technical aspect:
http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=13 - at the end: Amiga 1200 is merrily Amiga 1000 with double bus width and double frequency while Falcon is huge leap over ST.
You could argue that Amiga 1200 was "more balanced and rounded product" (?!?) but I do not see how; what was Amiga 1200 advantages over Falcon? Is it software? Atari Falcon had great graphics, music, DTP, CAD, database... software. What is exactly better on Amiga 1200 except LOVE 