Could an Amiga with an 030 do Virtua Fighter?

[robinsonb5]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

Now let's try to salvage this thread by going back to the topic :-)

Is there much original topic left at this point?


I think we have a pretty clear "Hell, no!" as an answer to the original question, with a more interesting question of "Could an '030-equipped Amiga do some kind of 3D fighting game with a frame rate high enough that it's fun to play?". The answer to that, I think, is a very cautious "maybe?"!

[coder76]

Well, obviously we're not going to get to a level close to the original virtua fighter, a 68030/50 MHz has the performance of about a 486/25 MHz SX machine (no FPU). The external 68030 FPU is too slow to be usable. We would somehow need to get the performance of at least a 486/50 MHz or better to get somewhere.

The c2p idea was bad, when doing flatshaded polygons, it can be done efficiently with CPU directly to chip ram, with some predefined routines based on linelength. Then you can do fills with long writes, where possible or even movem's. This eliminates the c2p pass and you can also reduce filling by not using all planes. With 4 bitplanes, when only 2 is used for filling, then you still get 10 out of 16 colors and fill workload is reduced by around 50%. These are the optimizations that can be done with planar graphics.

Then, the blitter can be used to clear previous frame for free in parallell with CPU (even when CPU is accessing chip ram). With these sorts of optimizations we can get better performance than what the CPU speed alone would indicate.

I measured that my 68030/50 MHz does a memory read at 24 MB/sec to register and writes at around 32 MB/sec with cached code (a loop) in fast fam. Table lookup reads (long word) are around 3 times faster than doing a muls.w (around 25 cycles) and 6 times faster than divs.w.

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by coder76

Well, obviously we're not going to get to a level close to the original virtua fighter, a 68030/50 MHz has the performance of about a 486/25 MHz SX machine (no FPU). The external 68030 FPU is too slow to be usable. We would somehow need to get the performance of at least a 486/50 MHz or better to get somewhere.

The c2p idea was bad, when doing flatshaded polygons, it can be done efficiently with CPU directly to chip ram, with some predefined routines based on linelength. Then you can do fills with long writes, where possible or even movem's. This eliminates the c2p pass and you can also reduce filling by not using all planes. With 4 bitplanes, when only 2 is used for filling, then you still get 10 out of 16 colors and fill workload is reduced by around 50%. These are the optimizations that can be done with planar graphics.

Then, the blitter can be used to clear previous frame for free in parallell with CPU (even when CPU is accessing chip ram). With these sorts of optimizations we can get better performance than what the CPU speed alone would indicate.

I measured that my 68030/50 MHz does a memory read at 24 MB/sec to register and writes at around 32 MB/sec with cached code (a loop) in fast fam. Table lookup reads (long word) are around 3 times faster than doing a muls.w (around 25 cycles) and 6 times faster than divs.w.

It's time to start a new thread, "Could an Amiga with an 040 do Virtua Fighter?" ;-)

[Spoiler: No]

[roondar]

If coder76 is right about a 486/50MHz being enough to get somewhere then a 68040 Amiga should do as the 68040 is actually faster than a 486 at the same clockrate

Anyway, the answer to both questions is actually yes. Assuming you couple the 68030/040 with a nice beefy 3D graphics card

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by roondar

If coder76 is right about a 486/50MHz being enough to get somewhere then a 68040 Amiga should do as the 68040 is actually faster than a 486 at the same clockrate

Anyway, the answer to both questions is actually yes. Assuming you couple the 68030/040 with a nice beefy 3D graphics card

While a 040 + Graphics Card would give you a decent chance to do something that doesn't look terrible, we're still far from matching the power of the SEGA Model 1 board.

[VladR]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

While a 040 + Graphics Card would give you a decent chance to do something that doesn't look terrible, we're still far from matching the power of the SEGA Model 1 board.

Exactly my point from the very beginning.


That thing is a monster:
- 5x 16 MHz DSP (400 MIPS)
- 16 MHz Nec V60
- 36 MHz rasterizer
- 12 MHz 68000 (Audio)
- 3x 4 MHz Z80


For whatever inexplicable reason, people don't make these outrageous claims when comparing games between classic home systems.


But when it comes to Arcades, somehow, people keep ignoring the inherently brutal - asphalt tearing - specs of those machines.


I had a 1.79 MHz Atari 800 in 1992, when this board was released
Even 2 years later, I only had a 40 MHz 386DX, which is still ridiculous compared to the monster above.




But 68030 ?








It's like asking if you can tweak injectors in Skoda Fabia 1.9 SDI (47 kW) so it could come REAL close to Lamborghini 640LP

[VladR]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

While a 040 + Graphics Card would give you a decent chance to do something that doesn't look terrible, we're still far from matching the power of the SEGA Model 1 board.

I actually wonder - I haven't looked up the specs of 3dfx Voodoo 1.


But perhaps it has ~400 MIPS ? No idea, honestly.


Certainly, one would hope, that Voodoo3, which is commonly paired with Amigas, would have such base horsepower ? I mean, it ran games in 800x600 just fine, which requires quite a lot of ops...

[VladR]

I can't seem to find the 3dfx doc I used to reference in past, which described each chip inside and what it provided, so I can't now make a direct comparison, as I honestly don't recall the details after so long.

But it appears that the core horsepower was only around 50 MIPS, though it had a triangle set-up stage (which is quite a speedup in itself) and, obviously, TMU (texturing unit).


So, it doesn't look like even 1996's 3dfx could match Sega Model 1 from 1992.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

While a 040 + Graphics Card would give you a decent chance to do something that doesn't look terrible, we're still far from matching the power of the SEGA Model 1 board.

The smiley at the end of that statement should've been taken as an indication of my lack of seriousness

Anyway, you're wrong, coupling a 68040 with say an NVIDIA Geforce 1080 will let you run stuff that far exceeds anything a SEGA Model 1 can do

---

Originally Posted by VladR

For whatever inexplicable reason, people don't make these outrageous claims when comparing games between classic home systems.

On a more serious note, no one was seriously suggesting that a 486/50 or a 040+GFX card is identical or better than a SEGA Model 1 in terms of performance. The only thing claimed was that such levels of processing power might be enough to get you somewhere in terms of making a port of this game. Not in terms of perfection, merely as a starting point.

Remember: there are SEGA made ports of this game to vastly less powerful hardware, which means we don't need to equal the SEGA Model 1, but rather get close enough to the lowest specs the game was seen running on decently. In this case that is probably the 32X version. The 32X is nowhere near 400MIPS, yet does have a decent port. There was some discussion on the 32X version near the beginning of the thread that stopped before it got anywhere interesting. Assuming the 32X figures given in there are accurate, you're looking at 50MIPS machine running a decent enough version of the game.

That's actually interesting in terms of a hypothetical Amiga port as there definitely are Amiga's running around those speeds. Case in point: a 68040/40 does 44MIPS.

[dreadnought]

There was a PC port, based on the slightly buffed up VF Remix. Min requirement was P90+8MB RAm, recommended P133. Even so, the Gamespot review says it was "not as fast or graphically appealing as the Saturn version" (I don't think it used Glide though).

[Juz400]

If we are talking graphics cards now, are there any Amiga drivers for this one?
We may be onto something here!

[ Show youtube player ]

[roondar]

Setting aside whether it'd be 68030/68040/68060 for a while: if we want to consider an Amiga version, I'd suggest we look at the lowest spec port* rather than the higher specced PC port (itself a port from a remade Saturn version). Hence my suggestion to only look at the 32x version. Simply put, getting something on that level would already be quite the achievement on any 68K Amiga (assuming we don't go with my joke suggestion of coupling an NVIDIA 1080 to a 68040 of course ).

*) With this is I mean the 3D ports, not the 2D/tiger toy versions

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

There was a PC port, based on the slightly buffed up VF Remix. Min requirement was P90+8MB RAm, recommended P133. Even so, the Gamespot review says it was "not as fast or graphically appealing as the Saturn version" (I don't think it used Glide though).

The 96 PC port, I believe, was built on a software renderer so Glide (3dfx API would make no sense) it did however use the then new DirectX in Windows.

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by roondar

Setting aside whether it'd be 68030/68040/68060 for a while: if we want to consider an Amiga version, I'd suggest we look at the lowest spec port* rather than the higher specced PC port (itself a port from a remade Saturn version). Hence my suggestion to only look at the 32x version. Simply put, getting something on that level would already be quite the achievement on any 68K Amiga (assuming we don't go with my joke suggestion of coupling an NVIDIA 1080 to a 68040 of course ).

*) With this is I mean the 3D ports, not the 2D/tiger toy versions

A better question might be:
What Amiga spec could run something similar to the 32X version of Virtua Fighter?

Graphics cards joke aside, There are people pairing up their A1200s with Voodoo3 which would obviously help a lot.
Btw, Id pay a buck to see a 040 coupled with a 1080 see if the GPU utilization would ever go over 1% and 99% idle waiting for the CPU

[roondar]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

A better question might be:
What Amiga spec could run something similar to the 32X version of Virtua Fighter?

Graphics cards joke aside, There are people pairing up their A1200s with Voodoo3 which would obviously help a lot.

Well, exactly - what would it take. Personally I'd like to see how close a non-GFX card version could get, perhaps a 68060 might just do the trick - though no guarantees obviously.

But if a GFX card is needed that would still be interesting. Actually, we kind of know it should work with a suitably enhanced Amiga - there is a version of Wipeout 2097/XL available for PPC/3D card equipped Amiga's and as I understand it, that runs just fine.

Btw, Id pay a buck to see a 040 coupled with a 1080 see if the GPU utilization would ever go over 1% and 99% idle waiting for the CPU

That's actually something that ought to be quite possible (though you do need to "cheat") - "simply" code the whole thing in CUDA and run everything on the GPU

[VladR]

I'm probably still annoyed by past AtariAge's similar comparison threads, where 90% of people always ignored the fact that those Arcade machines were serious powerhouses.


But, 32x is indeed quite close to 68040/68060.

Still, 30 fps would be a challenge...

[ruinashiro]

I never saw my 060/66 push polys in demos anywhere near what you would need for Virtua Fighter. Look at late-release TBL demos to see what kind of 3D throughput they were able to accomplish.

[britelite]

Originally Posted by ruinashiro

Look at late-release TBL demos to see what kind of 3D throughput they were able to accomplish.

When it comes to measuring 3D throughput, TBL-demos aren't really the best example...

[ruinashiro]

Originally Posted by britelite

When it comes to measuring 3D throughput, TBL-demos aren't really the best example...

Honestly, what's a good example?

Without going to a graphics card, the only reasonably fast 3D I saw on amiga was when using my PPC board to play Quake or the few PPC-only demos. And I wouldn't doubt there are many more polygons in Virtua Fighter than on the average Quake screen.

[trixster]

quake is taxing not just because of polygons but because of the amount of texture data that needs to be pushed around