An unbiased comparison of Megadrive vs A1200 graphics?

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by AnimaInCorpore

It seems that someone is trying to discredit a certain system and tries to convince others that including a DSP is a flawed design.

Definitely having DSP on board as standard is very good choice - there is no doubt on this. Amiga as a system lost a lot not having standard DSP on board but cost of DSP's was always very high as for many decades DSP's was considered as high end semiconductor devices and development environment was always very expensive one.
Today DSP's cost peanuts but in 90's it was probably around 40..50$ on top of the BOM and cheap development environment probably not exist - GNU C probably started to support DSP's somewhere around 2000 or later and even today supported DSP's architectures are very limited.

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by TCD

I'll get my robes.

It's for the greater good.

[pixie]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Definitely having DSP on board as standard is very good choice - there is no doubt on this. Amiga as a system lost a lot not having standard DSP on board but cost of DSP's was always very high as for many decades DSP's was considered as high end semiconductor devices and development environment was always very expensive one.
Today DSP's cost peanuts but in 90's it was probably around 40..50$ on top of the BOM and cheap development environment probably not exist - GNU C probably started to support DSP's somewhere around 2000 or later and even today supported DSP's architectures are very limited.

Well that's not what I heard for the DSP being used on A3000+

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by pixie

Well that's not what I heard for the DSP being used on A3000+

There is many stories in Amiga world so it is hard for me to address your concerns...
I know only one example of consumer computers where DSP3210 was used - Macintosh Quadra series use those DSP's (particularly models 840AV and 860AV). But they was introduced on market way later than AGA based Amiga systems.

[Cyprian]

Originally Posted by pandy71

As i wrote earlier - this is official Atari Corp Falcon schematics - internet provide information about possible replacement for those 8KB to 32KB - i can fully understand that some people may do such upgrade - fully justified.
...
Once again official Atari Corp Falcon schematics says 3x MCM6264 i.e. 24KB - i know some people replaced them for 32KB devices thus quadrupling size - wise move, i would do the same but i have no Falcon so not my circus and not my monkeys.

ok, I see MCM6264NJ on that schematic: https://archive.org/details/Atari_Fa...e/n11/mode/2up
My guess is that it could be an early schematic.

In the end, Atari equipped the Falcon and also the Sparrow (pre-prod early developer machine) with 96Kb SRAM, and there is no any evidence that it could be otherwise.

Originally Posted by pandy71

I know but this is same as AAA or Hombre or other prototypes - even worse as 3210 was never popular DSP and seem to be not even present nowadays in any incarnation so probably it can be only emulated or FPGA recreated...

I see that DSP3210 was used in some devices:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/colins...nd/5841494811/

[lmimmfn]

Originally Posted by AnimaInCorpore

In fact, there‘s no „ridiculously low“ amount of RAM. It was quite a generous amount back in those times.

It seems that you don’t understand the purpose of a DSP?!

You know the Atari HW well, I presume you know the Falcon DSP capabilities? It was brought up in this thread that a DSP(low cost DSP not $1000s) for an A1200 could allow it to compete with a PS1 but I think the Falcon has proved that incorrect(and thats including Falcon having a chunky mode vs A1209), what's your insightful view?

[Cyprian]

Originally Posted by lmimmfn

You know the Atari HW well, I presume you know the Falcon DSP capabilities? It was brought up in this thread that a DSP(low cost DSP not $1000s) for an A1200 could allow it to compete with a PS1 but I think the Falcon has proved that incorrect(and thats including Falcon having a chunky mode vs A1209), what's your insightful view?

PS1 had 'a bit' better memory performance than A1200: 132MB/s vs 4.5MB/s (6.9MB/s write)
Even Jaguar with its 106MB/s wasn't able to compete with PS1

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Cyprian

ok, I see MCM6264NJ on that schematic: https://archive.org/details/Atari_Fa...e/n11/mode/2up
My guess is that it could be an early schematic.

In the end, Atari equipped the Falcon and also the Sparrow (pre-prod early developer machine) with 96Kb SRAM, and there is no any evidence that it could be otherwise.

I know that some people have MCM6264 other has bigger RAM size in their Falcons - not sure about Atari policy in this area, i can imagine that with time 6264 IC was EOL components and 32K SRAM due their popularity as CACHE RAM in PC cheaper so easily replaceable without significant BOM cost change but still at some point you have 2 different RAM size in field, in one you can render whole frame (320x200) where in other not. Of course there is another question how quickly you can transfer frame into proper video memory area but for sure DSP even due high arithmetic speed would be substantial benefit for all machines having them on board (if used).

Originally Posted by Cyprian

I see that DSP3210 was used in some devices:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/colins...nd/5841494811/

oh, for sure, and Hobbit if i recall was RISC and with DSP's probably this was some number crunching card - perhaps for multimedia acceleration but DSP was not standard part of any Amiga except some prototypes - sad as nowadays DSP is a absolute must for modern CPU's. Equally you could try to add instead 3210 to Amiga a Intel 860 - it was also beast capable to do lot of number crunching, NextDimension use i860 as accelerator... Commodore was capable to do simple RISC in CSG and use it in Amiga as accelerator but Commodore was dead end anyway.

[Cyprian]

Originally Posted by pandy71

I know that some people have MCM6264 other has bigger RAM size in their Falcons - not sure about Atari policy in this area, i can imagine

Obviously anyone can add more than 96kbytes ram to their Falcon's DSP.

Please post a photo of that MCM6264 Falcon motherboard or stop spreading fake information.

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by Cyprian

Obviously anyone can add more than 96kbytes ram to their Falcon's DSP.

Please post a photo of that MCM6264 Falcon motherboard or stop spreading fake information.

lol - you are hilarious - there is official Atari Corp schematics of Falcon where 8Kx8 SRAM is listed, also i was able to find at least one thread about replacing in Falcon faulty MCM6264 on other devices (and it was suggested IDT 32kx8 SRAM), now you attacking me and request or to provide picture of Falcon motherboard (despite knowing that i have no Falcon) or that i should stop spreading fake information...

Firstly - why are you blaming me for false information in official Atari documentation, secondly why i should care about Atari Falcon problems especially not owning Falcon? Perhaps you should straighten up this on Atari forum?

I don't want to discuss what can be added or not to Falcon - as i said earlier - not my circus and not my monkeys...

Relax and don't be so tense about Atari Falcon - i didn't attacked Falcon, just said having DSP local memory large enough to accommodate data and frame can be beneficial as it allow DSP to operate with maximum speed, lower amount of RAM require frequent data exchange and this is bottleneck for max DSP speed (with 3D graphics on mind).

[DanScott]

Can a MOD please remove all this DSP chat from this thread please. It's totally off topic.

Thanks in advance!

[TEG]

If it can help, the "Atari Falcon030 Hardware Reference Guide" say:

DSP: 32MHz Motorola 56K Digital Signal Processor with 32Kx24 zero wait-state SRAM.

https://archive.org/details/Atari_Fa...p?view=theater

And some pages after:

The Atari Falcon030 contains a sophisticated digital
processing and audio sub-system...

32 MHz 56001 Digital Signal Processor with 96K bytes of zero wait-state SRAM

[pandy71]

Originally Posted by TEG

If it can help, the "Atari Falcon030 Hardware Reference Guide" say:

Schematics rev G also mention 32k x8 - no clue about different HW revisions of Falcon, if there was many with 8k x8 chips or not.
But if they exist then you need use them as lowest common denominator or create different graphics engines.
But still don't see point of this discussion, DSP is OK but even with DSP capable to do 30..80MIPS is not enough to beat PS1 in 3D - to beat PS1 you probably need fancy system at least 10 times faster than 30..80MIPS.

[Cris1997XX]

Originally Posted by DanScott

Can a MOD please remove all this DSP chat from this thread please. It's totally off topic.

Thanks in advance!

I don't think the mods will bother, but anyway...

[TEG]

Originally Posted by pandy71

Schematics rev G also mention 32k x8 - no clue about different HW revisions of Falcon, if there was many with 8k x8 chips or not.
But if they exist then you need use them as lowest common denominator or create different graphics engines.
But still don't see point of this discussion, DSP is OK but even with DSP capable to do 30..80MIPS is not enough to beat PS1 in 3D - to beat PS1 you probably need fancy system at least 10 times faster than 30..80MIPS.

Yeah, not impossible they changed according availability or the BOM was modified at some point. In the non critical industry, when you have to deliver, some accommodations can be made. If someone complain you exchange the hardware.
We have to dessicated a bunch of Falcons to be sure

On top of the DSP power, the other point about PS1 vs Falcon is the integration. In the PS1 the raw power was easy to use I guess. They started the design from a blank page.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Dunny

Same as with his Sinclair vs Commodore thread elsewhere - to assert his own biases and beliefs as facts regardless of the truth.

It was a serious question.

Originally Posted by DanScott

In the right hands definitely, or at least something exceptionally close. I think I could if I had the time and motivation to

This is what we want to hear. Both Thunderforce III and Castle of Illusion look quite doable to me, though they are both rather boring games.

[sokolovic]

Still waiting for someone to say that it is impossible to do on the Amiga unless you use a 68040 or, better a 68060.

[Cris1997XX]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

It was a serious question.


This is what we want to hear. Both Thunderforce III and Castle of Illusion look quite doable to me, though they are both rather boring games.

You find them boring? What is the reason, not enough Europe-style music or graphical effects?

[redblade]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

This is what we want to hear. Both Thunderforce III and Castle of Illusion look quite doable to me, though they are both rather boring games.

Castle of Illusion must be an early game as they use a status panel at the bottom instead of sprites overlay, Also does not look like a high amount of colours on the castle level with rotating gears.

[ Show youtube player ] 17m35s

[AestheticDebris]

Castle of Illusion is a nice game, but I'm not sure it strikes me as particularly pushing the mega drive hard. Thunderforce 3 is throwing a lot of sprites around though as well as all the parallax effects so might be more of a stretch.

But when you look at things like SF2 or the full screen rotation effects in Red Zone, for example, then the MegaDrive's hardware starts to look a bit more out of reach for the Amiga, even an AGA one.