Does anyone know anything about the Rambrandt graphics card?

richardjdare · 02 June 2018, 21:34

Back in the 90s my UK newsagent used to sell the occasional American computer mag. One of these was the Amiga World Video and Animation Special issue which featured an ad for a very interesting looking graphics card; Rambrandt from Progressive Peripherals.

you can see the ad here:

On the basis of the ad, this looked like a very impressive piece of kit for the time, with what looked like a graphics processor, a maths co-processor and a 3d API.

This really got my imagination going - however, I never heard a thing about it again!

Does anyone know anything about this graphics card? It has a page on the Amiga Hardware Database, but I can't find anything else about it.

Zack · 03 June 2018, 08:08

When reading about PPS itself on Amiga Hardware Database, it says that a fire burned down their factory in mid 1992, and they never recovered from that http://amiga.resource.cx/company/company.pl#pps

richardjdare · 03 June 2018, 16:56

Ah, that's a shame. The mag is from early 1992, so I guess the fire happened just as they were in the process of releasing the card.

Foebane · 12 June 2018, 09:37

I suspect arson.

Gorf · 13 June 2018, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foebane

I suspect arson.

By Microsoft?

Retro1234 · 14 June 2018, 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorf

By Microsoft?

Bill Gates doused the factory in petrol?

Pyromania · 14 June 2018, 13:45

It was confirmed that M$ did it!

Gorf · 14 June 2018, 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyromania

It was confirmed that M$ did it!

Says "Pyromania" .... nomen est omen.

eXeler0 · 19 June 2018, 00:10

Some trivia about the graphics processor from Texas Instruments seen on the Rembrant card..
The TMS 34020 (and the 34010 before it) was actually a very early "APU" or combined CPU/GPU and was frquently used in arcade 3d games.
Aparently TI was even trying to convince Nintendo & SEGA to create a 3d capable console based on this chip. (Or maybe it was games for a console someone else would have built, this part is unclear to me.) Anyway it would have been interesting..
The 34010 was released in 1986 and the 34020 in 1988 so I guess Commodore could have chosen it somewhere along the road instead of developing AAA.
Would also have been interesting... ;-)

idrougge · 19 June 2018, 01:35

Commodore were well aware of the TMS34010. http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/a2410

Hewitson · 29 July 2018, 17:45

Wow... Why did they even bother with the AGA shit if that was available?

I had no idea Commodore had made graphics cards (apart from the onboard one in the A3000 obviously).

Gorf · 29 July 2018, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hewitson

Wow... Why did they even bother with the AGA shit if that was available?

I had no idea Commodore had made graphics cards (apart from the onboard one in the A3000 obviously).

Commodore also released the "Hedley"-Controller (390562) on a card, that hat the same logic as the A2024-Monitor did internally, allowing a 1024×1024 resolution derived from OCS/ECS.
(and a mix of Hedley and Amber should have been in the A3000 to compete with other workstations from that time...)

The problem with the TMS34010 card was of course the same as with any other RTG-Card for Amigas: it was not compatible to the old gfx-modes.

So sure: they just could have stayed with ECS and build in an additional gfx-card ... but that is of course much more expensive.

kolla · 29 July 2018, 20:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hewitson

the onboard one in the A3000 obviously

???

Amber? It was just a flicker fixer, nothing like a "graphics card".

Foebane · 29 July 2018, 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hewitson

Wow... Why did they even bother with the AGA shit if that was available?

Are you TRYING to troll? AGA is not "shit".

kolla · 29 July 2018, 22:10

Wasn't AGA "the shit"

Foebane · 29 July 2018, 22:47

At least AGA was following the same design principles of the Amiga chipset, but in 32 bits instead of just 16 bits. The things that make Amiga graphics unique is the use of bitplanes, overscan, blitter, copper and HAM.

Let me ask you this question: If all of this unique hardware design is ditched in favour of something entirely different, like a 24-bit frame buffer or a chunky display... is it still an Amiga?

Not to mention that so many graphics applications would have to be either completely rewritten or use some kind of conversion (c2p, for example). If the world of personal computers was headed for byte-per-pixel chunky graphics, then at least Commodore were headed in the right direction with the Akiko chip: keep the same hardware whilst moving to a future way of utilising graphics. And even though Akiko was not readily available everywhere, there are plenty of optimised software c2p routines in use.

Gorf · 29 July 2018, 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by kolla

???

Amber? It was just a flicker fixer, nothing like a "graphics card".

well - you can call it a farmebuffer. Many gfx-cards back than did not more.

redblade · 30 July 2018, 01:31

I like the adverts on the previous page for the PRO-RAM 3000, 64mb ram expansion in 1992 for the Amiga 3000. No prices mentioned. I'm guessing the studios would have been buying those up.

Hewitson · 30 July 2018, 02:24

Yeah ok, calling Amber a "graphics card" might be a bit of a stretch.

Honestly don't see how you can say AGA isn't shit though. Painfully slow, and pathetically low resolution screenmodes (unless you like flickering).

If AGA was half as good as what the PC's had to offer back then, the Amiga would have been far more usable and may have even stood a chance.

idrougge · 30 July 2018, 03:21

I agree that AGA was "shit" in some sense; the A1000 chipset was ahead of its time at introduction, while AGA was trailing behind even when it was first released.

CyberGraphX proved that chunky was perfectly usable in an Amiga environment, albeit not backwards compatible. It would have been up to Commodore to solve that.

02 June 2018, 21:34	#1
richardjdare Registered User Join Date: Jun 2018 Location: Warwickshire / UK Posts: 3	Does anyone know anything about the Rambrandt graphics card? Back in the 90s my UK newsagent used to sell the occasional American computer mag. One of these was the Amiga World Video and Animation Special issue which featured an ad for a very interesting looking graphics card; Rambrandt from Progressive Peripherals. you can see the ad here: On the basis of the ad, this looked like a very impressive piece of kit for the time, with what looked like a graphics processor, a maths co-processor and a 3d API. This really got my imagination going - however, I never heard a thing about it again! Does anyone know anything about this graphics card? It has a page on the Amiga Hardware Database, but I can't find anything else about it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Just curious; Graphics Card	Sim085	support.Hardware	31	12 October 2017 15:27
Merlin graphics card	ceaser	support.Hardware	10	20 May 2011 08:50
1084S to PC Graphics Card????	pepemama	support.Hardware	2	28 January 2006 08:27
Which Graphics Card ?	THX1138	support.Hardware	36	27 January 2003 16:39
New graphics card...New problems!	AdamSelene	support.WinUAE	13	20 July 2002 04:07

03 June 2018, 08:08	#2
Zack Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Valby, Denmark Age: 47 Posts: 90	When reading about PPS itself on Amiga Hardware Database, it says that a fire burned down their factory in mid 1992, and they never recovered from that http://amiga.resource.cx/company/company.pl#pps

03 June 2018, 16:56	#3
richardjdare Registered User Join Date: Jun 2018 Location: Warwickshire / UK Posts: 3	Ah, that's a shame. The mag is from early 1992, so I guess the fire happened just as they were in the process of releasing the card.

12 June 2018, 09:37	#4
Foebane Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Cardiff, UK Age: 51 Posts: 2,871	I suspect arson.

14 June 2018, 13:45	#7
Pyromania Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 3,375	It was confirmed that M$ did it!

19 June 2018, 00:10	#9
eXeler0 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Sweden Age: 50 Posts: 2,946	Some trivia about the graphics processor from Texas Instruments seen on the Rembrant card.. The TMS 34020 (and the 34010 before it) was actually a very early "APU" or combined CPU/GPU and was frquently used in arcade 3d games. Aparently TI was even trying to convince Nintendo & SEGA to create a 3d capable console based on this chip. (Or maybe it was games for a console someone else would have built, this part is unclear to me.) Anyway it would have been interesting.. The 34010 was released in 1986 and the 34020 in 1988 so I guess Commodore could have chosen it somewhere along the road instead of developing AAA. Would also have been interesting... ;-)

19 June 2018, 01:35	#10
idrougge Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Stockholm Posts: 4,332	Commodore were well aware of the TMS34010. http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/a2410

29 July 2018, 17:45	#11
Hewitson Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Age: 41 Posts: 3,772	Wow... Why did they even bother with the AGA shit if that was available? I had no idea Commodore had made graphics cards (apart from the onboard one in the A3000 obviously).

29 July 2018, 22:10	#15
kolla Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Trondheim, Norway Posts: 1,893	Wasn't AGA "the shit"

29 July 2018, 22:47	#16
Foebane Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Cardiff, UK Age: 51 Posts: 2,871	At least AGA was following the same design principles of the Amiga chipset, but in 32 bits instead of just 16 bits. The things that make Amiga graphics unique is the use of bitplanes, overscan, blitter, copper and HAM. Let me ask you this question: If all of this unique hardware design is ditched in favour of something entirely different, like a 24-bit frame buffer or a chunky display... is it still an Amiga? Not to mention that so many graphics applications would have to be either completely rewritten or use some kind of conversion (c2p, for example). If the world of personal computers was headed for byte-per-pixel chunky graphics, then at least Commodore were headed in the right direction with the Akiko chip: keep the same hardware whilst moving to a future way of utilising graphics. And even though Akiko was not readily available everywhere, there are plenty of optimised software c2p routines in use.

30 July 2018, 01:31	#18
redblade Zone Friend Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Middle Earth Age: 40 Posts: 2,127	I like the adverts on the previous page for the PRO-RAM 3000, 64mb ram expansion in 1992 for the Amiga 3000. No prices mentioned. I'm guessing the studios would have been buying those up.

30 July 2018, 02:24	#19
Hewitson Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Age: 41 Posts: 3,772	Yeah ok, calling Amber a "graphics card" might be a bit of a stretch. Honestly don't see how you can say AGA isn't shit though. Painfully slow, and pathetically low resolution screenmodes (unless you like flickering). If AGA was half as good as what the PC's had to offer back then, the Amiga would have been far more usable and may have even stood a chance.

30 July 2018, 03:21	#20
idrougge Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Stockholm Posts: 4,332	I agree that AGA was "shit" in some sense; the A1000 chipset was ahead of its time at introduction, while AGA was trailing behind even when it was first released. CyberGraphX proved that chunky was perfectly usable in an Amiga environment, albeit not backwards compatible. It would have been up to Commodore to solve that.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)