English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12 July 2019, 00:10   #381
Foebane
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 46
Posts: 1,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalus View Post
Now that's clearly a silly comparison to make, or is that the point? You're comparing machines and architectures, and specifically in this case, graphics chipsets, 25 years apart. Time-wise, the Amiga 1200 is closer to the dawn of home computing than it is to a present-day PC.

Still, fit a graphics card capable of those sorts of resolutions to your Amiga, and there's no reason it couldn't do demos of a similar class - my A1200 has a graphics card from 1999, and is perfectly capable of running a 1920x1080 screen. Of course, PPC-based Amigas will find it even easier. For example:

[ Show youtube player ]

While it might not compete with a demo for a present-day PC (the hardware's from around 2003), it shows that the limits of AGA and 68k can easily be overcome by using more modern hardware, just like the PC world.

The reason most Amiga demos tend to stick to the original chipset is because developers like having the exact hardware limits to push. It's far less impressive pushing more high resolution graphics around when all you have to do is fit a faster GPU.
Apologies, Daedalus, you're absolutely right. I'm speaking strictly from a viewpoint of using plain AGA only, with no RTG or even PPC stuff in consideration. It was just an observation, anyway.
Foebane is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 07:24   #382
Bruce Abbott
Registered User

Bruce Abbott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Hastings, New Zealand
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foebane View Post
I've never ever played Tomb Raider,
Yes, that's obvious.

Quote:
a game where wild animals are the targets to be killed is reprehensible, as they're endangered enough without having some crazy gung-ho daughter of rich people going around killing them almost for sport, like a fox hunt.
Many of the animals in Tomb Raider won't attack unless you shoot at them first, most can be avoided, and some can only be avoided (or not, if cuddling up to wild animals is your thing). Those that attack regardless are fair game of course, but killing them for sport is not the goal.

Quote:
just wasn't my cup of tea.
How do you know if you haven't tried it?

Tomb Raider 4 for the PC came with a level editor, and hundreds of stand-alone games have been created by users. Download them from Lara's Levelbase.

But don't bother with the later commercial games produced by Crystal Dynamics. While 'technically' far superior, they play like crap.

The original series was produced by Core Design, who had previously published many Amiga games. If the CD32 had been given PlayStation level performance then we might have gotten Tomb Raider on the Amiga!
Bruce Abbott is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 10:05   #383
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 3,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by grond View Post
And, of course, the best operating system is Linux.
Obviously you've never used a Mac.

I used Linux for nearly 20 years. Everything from Slackware, Gentoo, Arch, Debian, and the rest... It sucks. It's hundreds of different distributions and package management systems are a complete and utter fuck up, there's no standardisation between distros, all the X window managers suck (except twm), it takes hours just to configure the kernel for a custom build, KDE/GNOME are bloated pieces of shit... The list goes on and on.

Linux is so bad, that it should have been made by Microsoft.

Last edited by Hewitson; 12 July 2019 at 10:11.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 11:31   #384
grond
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 615
@Hewitson:

I thought that the way I had worded that sentence made it clear that what I really meant was that this shouldn't be the place to discuss present day operating systems.
grond is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 11:47   #385
activist
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: here
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott View Post
If the CD32 had been given PlayStation level performance then we might have gotten Tomb Raider on the Amiga!
that just makes no sense sorry..
activist is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 21:04   #386
Galahad/FLT
Going nowhere

Galahad/FLT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 45
Posts: 7,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by activist View Post
that just makes no sense sorry..
How does that statement not make sense?

At the time of the CD32's release, Core Design were still developing on Amiga, Tomb Raider was their title, not Sonys, and for sure if the CD32 had the power to do Tomb Raider, they would have released on it.

I don't even know how its a debate?!
Galahad/FLT is online now  
Old 12 July 2019, 21:10   #387
CrazyPepsi
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Sweden
Posts: 18
I was disappointed with the demos it was all the same spinning doughnuts not impressed at at all
CrazyPepsi is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 22:34   #388
Foebane
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 46
Posts: 1,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyPepsi View Post
I was disappointed with the demos it was all the same spinning doughnuts not impressed at at all
The Demoscene is the single greatest thing about the Amiga, even the games pale into utter insignificance. Don't diss it in front of me.
Foebane is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 23:56   #389
Antiriad_UK
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foebane View Post
The Demoscene is the single greatest thing about the Amiga, even the games pale into utter insignificance. Don't diss it in front of me.
Antiriad_UK is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 00:22   #390
mcgeezer
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Sunderland, England
Posts: 1,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyPepsi View Post
I was disappointed with the demos it was all the same spinning doughnuts not impressed at at all
You were probably given a neogeo for xmas, right?
Right!
mcgeezer is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 14:10   #391
swinkamor12
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Vienna/Austria
Posts: 48
At the end of 1992 386SX wtih 2 MB RAM cost as much as Amiga 1200.
Some here compare 386SX with Monitor and HD to Amiga 1200 with floppy only connected to TV
and get that 386SX cost 3 times more than Amiga 1200.
No, it is not comparable. It means only that some amiga fanatics have really big problems with themselves.

386SX should be not compared to Amiga 1200 how it work in 800x600 resolution.
AGA in Amiga 1200 has not 800x600 not interlaced resolution.

Maximum non interlaced resolution that AGA has is 640x512.
Without Fast RAM Amiga 1200 is too slow to work in more than 16 colors in 640x512.
Even with cheapest vga card windows 3.x fly on 386SX in 640x480 16 colors.

Fast RAM. On 386SX if one want more RAM then just buy it and insert into slot on motherboard.
Amiga 1200 has not slots for Fast RAM.
Amiga 1200 need additional hardware, which was availble half year later than Amiga 1200 and up to 1994 was very expensive.

3D. On 386SX on affordable SVGA cards Ultima Underworld run in acceptable framerate. Also Commanche.
386SX 25 MHz is fast enough to play DOOM in 1/4 screen.
386SX 25 MHz is almost two times slower in integer operations than 68020 14 MHz.
Games like Wolf clones and Commanche should run without any problems on Amiga 1200.
But this shit Amiga 1200 has not chunky pixels.
Wasting cpu power for c2p?
68030? In 1996 I sell my Amiga 1200 because blizzard 68030 50 MHz cost as much as change Amiga to Pentium 90 MHz.
68060? I will never buy it. In 1999 it cost as much as ppc card and bvsion to amiga 1200.
Amiga 1200 was released on end of 1992. At that time there were already Wolf clones and Commanche.
Amiga 1200 should have chunky pixels and blitter with texture mapping.

CD32? Yes, this crap was released only one year before first Playstation.
CD32 should have at least 1/2 of processing power of Playstation.
swinkamor12 is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 14:41   #392
daxb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,288
Hmm... I'm using my A1200 AGA with DBLPAL flickerfree monitor at 705x570 (standard Panasonic 17" PC monitor). With a better (support of lower sync rates) monitor you can use 800x600 or larger.

It would have been nice if the A1200 has a slot for fastram. On the other hand, the trapdoor slot can hold fastram cards if I'm not wrong what is kind of a such a slot replacement. Advantage is that you can have faster CPU + fastram.

The problem I had in the '90 years that I used/know AmigaOS and it was so much better compared to Windows (incl. nearly 10 years later) and linux. At least for non gaming stuff. It was much easier to use. Much faster pc hardware (noisy) doesn't change this magically.
daxb is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 14:45   #393
CrazyPepsi
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Sweden
Posts: 18
haha You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
CrazyPepsi is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 14:52   #394
CrazyPepsi
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Sweden
Posts: 18
A neogeo !! yea right
CrazyPepsi is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 15:13   #395
Daedalus
Registered User

Daedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin, then Glasgow
Posts: 4,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinkamor12 View Post
At the end of 1992 386SX wtih 2 MB RAM cost as much as Amiga 1200.
£750 in 1992 got you a 16MHz 386SX with 1MB of RAM, 256K Trident VGA card (yes, capable of 800x600, but that was next to useless because the card didn't have enough RAM to show all the pixels, so graphics had to traverse the ISA bus or else be limited to 16 colours), 42MB hard drive, monitor and DOS. No sound card, no Windows, no mouse...

Quote:
Some here compare 386SX with Monitor and HD to Amiga 1200 with floppy only connected to TV
and get that 386SX cost 3 times more than Amiga 1200.
No, it is not comparable. It means only that some amiga fanatics have really big problems with themselves.
386SX should be not compared to Amiga 1200 how it work in 800x600 resolution.
AGA in Amiga 1200 has not 800x600 not interlaced resolution.

Quote:
Maximum non interlaced resolution that AGA has is 640x512.
Without Fast RAM Amiga 1200 is too slow to work in more than 16 colors in 640x512.
Works just fine for me. Yes, it's slow, but probably no worse than that god awful 386SX with an ISA video card.

Quote:
Even with cheapest vga card windows 3.x fly on 386SX in 640x480 16 colors.
It seems like you're remembering your 386-class machines somewhat fondly. I remember watching window borders drawing at achingly slow speeds on 386s as dialog boxes were slowly built up in front of you.

Quote:
Fast RAM. On 386SX if one want more RAM then just buy it and insert into slot on motherboard.
Amiga 1200 has not slots for Fast RAM.
Amiga 1200 need additional hardware, which was availble half year later than Amiga 1200 and up to 1994 was very expensive.
True, being a base machine, some of the extra expense of having RAM slots and controllers was offloaded to expansion hardware. Such expansion capabilities were the domain of much more expensive machines, like an A4000, or a PC. And that's the point of the 1200, isn't it? A cheap, base-model machine that's still quite capable.

Quote:
3D. On 386SX on affordable SVGA cards Ultima Underworld run in acceptable framerate. Also Commanche.
386SX 25 MHz is fast enough to play DOOM in 1/4 screen.
386SX 25 MHz is almost two times slower in integer operations than 68020 14 MHz.
Games like Wolf clones and Commanche should run without any problems on Amiga 1200.
But this shit Amiga 1200 has not chunky pixels.
Wasting cpu power for c2p?
See below.

Quote:
68030? In 1996 I sell my Amiga 1200 because blizzard 68030 50 MHz cost as much as change Amiga to Pentium 90 MHz.
Seems like the accelerator salesman was having a laugh with you. Pentium-class PCs still cost over £1000 in 1996, '030 accelerators started around £130, and could take standard SIMM RAM. Maybe that's why you're so angry?

Quote:
68060? I will never buy it. In 1999 it cost as much as ppc card and bvsion to amiga 1200.
In 1999, the top 060 card for the A1200 cost £300. The cheapest PPC card was around £250, with the BVision another £150 over that. So around £100 more than the cost of the Blizzard 1260, and it would only have a 25MHz 040 and 160MHz PPC on it.

Quote:
Amiga 1200 was released on end of 1992. At that time there were already Wolf clones and Commanche.
Amiga 1200 should have chunky pixels and blitter with texture mapping.
Perhaps that would have changed things, but while it was released at the end of 1992, the chipset was designed in 1990 and 1991, when such ideas were far from certain.
Daedalus is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 15:17   #396
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinkamor12 View Post
At the end of 1992 386SX wtih 2 MB RAM cost as much as Amiga 1200.
This is 100% false.
Quote:
No, it is not comparable. It means only that some amiga fanatics have really big problems with themselves.
Yes it is, others and myself have shown that quite conclusively by now.

As for the rest of that comment, all I can say is:
Quote:
386SX should be not compared to Amiga 1200 how it work in 800x600 resolution.
AGA in Amiga 1200 has not 800x600 not interlaced resolution.
And on a 386SX the 800x600 resolution is effectively useless, unless you spend quite a bit on your graphics card. By which time you'd have been insane to choose a 386SX to begin with.
Quote:
Maximum non interlaced resolution that AGA has is 640x512.
Without Fast RAM Amiga 1200 is too slow to work in more than 16 colors in 640x512.
Even with cheapest vga card windows 3.x fly on 386SX in 640x480 16 colors.
All of the above is wrong.
The maximum standard supported non-interlaced resolution for AGA using just what the OS supplies is 720x550 (DBLPAL with overscan). If you don't mind patching the OS there's also this: http://aminet.net/package/driver/moni/DblPal_ME, which does 825x564. Both of these are without any interlace.

Non-fast RAM A1200 can do workbench in 64 colours without any real problems.

Cheapest VGA card in 1992 makes windows crawl, as I quoted before from a PC magazine review about one of those cheaper cards: "we have to mention again, that this chip and also the cards that make use of it, are ancient and suitable only for upgrading 286 systems graphics cards, for our kids to play PacMan. The limitation of the 8bit DAC to only 256 color doesn't bother us so much, as even in that case you have to wait for a century for a window to move".
Quote:
Fast RAM. On 386SX if one want more RAM then just buy it and insert into slot on motherboard.
Amiga 1200 has not slots for Fast RAM.
Amiga 1200 need additional hardware, which was availble half year later than Amiga 1200 and up to 1994 was very expensive.
Wrong again. The A1200 does have a slot supporting extra RAM. Two in fact (though one of them is rather slow). Pure RAM upgrade cards for the A1200 were not that expensive either.
Quote:
3D. On 386SX on affordable SVGA cards Ultima Underworld run in acceptable framerate. Also Commanche.
Unless you post a better video than the one I showed a few posts back the answer is: nope, I showed a video that conclusively proves it doesn't.

Comanche on a 386 requires minimum settings to run even remotely well and those are not as impressive as you seem to think. For one thing, the pixel size is doubled.
Quote:
386SX 25 MHz is fast enough to play DOOM in 1/4 screen.
No. It isn't. A 40MHz 386DX does about 15FPS when you do that. A 386SX@25MHz is several times slower.
Quote:
386SX 25 MHz is almost two times slower in integer operations than 68020 14 MHz.
No, it's about the same speed unless you add Fast RAM to the Amiga.
Quote:
Games like Wolf clones and Commanche should run without any problems on Amiga 1200.
But this shit Amiga 1200 has not chunky pixels.
Wasting cpu power for c2p?
Commanche doesn't run 'without any problems' on a 386SX unless you make it look, well, really bad. So I don't really buy into that. And looking at recent attempts here on EAB to replicate Wolfensteing for the A500, I can buy an A1200 doing a reasonable version of Wolfenstein.
Quote:
68030? In 1996 I sell my Amiga 1200 because blizzard 68030 50 MHz cost as much as change Amiga to Pentium 90 MHz.
That is nonsense, a Blizzard 68030 50MHz card cost about 350DM/250 pounds at that stage. Good luck finding a pentium at that price.
Quote:
68060? I will never buy it. In 1999 it cost as much as ppc card and bvsion to amiga 1200.
The PPC cards were much more expensive than the 68060 cards. Wrong again then.
Quote:
Amiga 1200 should have chunky pixels and blitter with texture mapping.
A blitter with texture mapping? In 1992?
Sorry, that was simply not realistic.

Last edited by roondar; 13 July 2019 at 15:37. Reason: Reworded a sentence or two, corrected Comanche parts.
roondar is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 15:40   #397
daxb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar View Post
That is nonsense, a Blizzard 68030 50MHz card cost about 350DM/250 pounds at that stage.
Really, I've paid in 05/1996 for a Blizzard 1230/50 IV with FPU 508,- DM in Germany. About 150,- DM difference. I'm sure I've checked different dealers back in the days.
daxb is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 15:48   #398
Retro1234
Boo

Retro1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 5150
Posts: 4,098
what year is this PC and price £ ?

Retro1234 is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 16:28   #399
Dunny
Registered User

Dunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scunthorpe/United Kingdom
Posts: 1,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro1234 View Post
what year is this PC and price £ ?

Seems to be a Pentium Pro 200MHz MMX (686) which was first manufactured in 1995. (going by the 512k cache and CPU speed).

The price in french francs translates to about £5500 using today's exchange rate.

Probably around 1996 or so? So would likely come in at about 6 francs to the pound so around £1100... But the exchange rate in the 90s fluctuated wildly.
Dunny is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 16:53   #400
grond
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 615
I think that price would have been about 600 £ or 2100 DM in 1996. Francs used to have a rate of 10 Francs = 3 DM and 1£ was about 3.30 DM around that time.

Oh, and the processor wasn't an Intel at all but a 6x86 by Cyrix, I think, which was a Pentium MMx-class CPU, not a (much, much more expensive) Pentium Pro.
grond is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (1 members and 2 guests)
sandruzzo
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A1200 RF module removal pics + A1200 chips overview eXeler0 Hardware pics 2 08 March 2017 00:09
Sale - 2 auctions: A1200 mobo + flickerfixer & A1200 tower case w/ kit blakespot MarketPlace 0 27 August 2015 18:50
For Sale - A1200/A1000/IndiAGA MkII/A1200 Trapdoor Ram & Other Goodies! fitzsteve MarketPlace 1 11 December 2012 10:32
Trading A1200 030 acc and A1200 indivision for Amiga stuff 8bitbubsy MarketPlace 17 14 December 2009 21:50
Trade Mac g3 300/400 or A1200 for an A1200 accellerator BiL0 MarketPlace 0 07 June 2006 17:41

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 22:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.10595 seconds with 16 queries