Hardware close to an Amiga - after the Atari ST

[turrican3]

what about the cd-i ???

[appiah4]

Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot

IBM PC Compatible 386 (also different in terms of architecture, but also somewhat comparable to the Amiga in terms of gaming software if it was equipped with a sound card)

Unfortunately the Amiga would wish it were a 386

[PortuguesePilot]

Originally Posted by appiah4

Unfortunately the Amiga would wish it were a 386

In terms of processing power? No doubt. But the Amiga had the custom chips that gave it an edge, though. For whatever reason (legacy, perhaps), the processing power of the 386 and the colour/chunky abilities of the VGA (though many early 386 still came with EGA) were not taken to its full extent when it came to games for the PC and the sound card options were still sub-par (usually Adlib, Sound Blaster at best) when compared to the Amiga (just visit an abandoware site and seek PC games from the era and compare). So, in terms of gaming, safe from very few exceptions, the Amiga was better than the 386 PCs, at least between 1989 and 1992, and by this time, the 486s were about (though still prohibitively expensive), maybe because the Amiga was initially intended to be a games console.

[plasmab]

Next station, kiwi, X68000 and mega drive are the ones I know of that are "sort of" like an Amiga...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by appiah4

Unfortunately the Amiga would wish it were a 386

Oh hell no. That would've been absolutely dreadful. Part of what makes Amigas awesome is the 68k CPU. Intel outside please.

[ruinashiro]

Originally Posted by appiah4

Unfortunately the Amiga would wish it were a 386

I can't in any way understand why someone would say something like that

Not even talking about how much nicer the 68k was to program for, with 32-bit instructions, 17 registers, etc... And not even getting into the amiga's ultra-tight-knit custom chipset or all the amazing amiga-only peripherals that came out at the time...

The 68020 beat the 386 in most benchmarks at the same clock rate.

Maybe you didn't live through that era? If I had to live through that period 500 times, I would choose even an A500 over the best 386 machine 500 times.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by ruinashiro

The 68020 beat the 386 in most benchmarks at the same clock rate.

To be fair we should compare 386 with 68030, not with 68020.

[Zetr0]

Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot

In relation to the Amiga 500:

Sharp X68000 (better than the Amiga, IMO)
Apple Macintosh Plus
Acorn Archimedes A3000 (though a 32/32bit RISC instead of a 16/32 CISC, the final product - in terms of gaming software - was pretty equivalent to an Amiga.)
IBM PC Compatible 386 (also different in terms of architecture, but also somewhat comparable to the Amiga in terms of gaming software if it was equipped with a sound card)

In terms of 8bit proximity, both the C64 (natch) and the Atari 800 are noticeable ancestors of the Amiga.

I felt the need for a QFT here =)

[appiah4]

Originally Posted by ruinashiro

I can't in any way understand why someone would say something like that

Not even talking about how much nicer the 68k was to program for, with 32-bit instructions, 17 registers, etc... And not even getting into the amiga's ultra-tight-knit custom chipset or all the amazing amiga-only peripherals that came out at the time...

The 68020 beat the 386 in most benchmarks at the same clock rate.

Maybe you didn't live through that era? If I had to live through that period 500 times, I would choose even an A500 over the best 386 machine 500 times.

Let's just agree to disagree. I think the 386 was vastly superior to the 020, and maybe even to the 030.

[Zetr0]

Originally Posted by meynaf

To be fair we should compare 386 with 68030, not with 68020.

If I maybe so bold my friend, is not the 030 only a minor revision of the 020 - with the inclusion of MMU an an additional instruction / register - arguably if one is not using either of these then Megahertz to Megahertz do they not perform identically?

I think its fair to point out that a lot of earlier motherboards for the 386, especially the cheap one's - didn't take full advantage of the 386 CPU and would more often than not limit the memory to 16MB - it wasn't until way after 1993 that the WinTel PC's Power to $$$ ratio became interesting and then slowly affordable.

And lets be honest, how spoilt were us Amigains in 1992 with our full 32 bit GUI operating system alongside a 32 bit DOS / CLI Shell... It would take WinTel PC's until 1999 (A stable Windows 98 ) to kinda catch up and even then, one could argue it was a hack (mumble mumble).

[Zetr0]

Originally Posted by appiah4

Let's just agree to disagree. I think the 386 was vastly superior to the 020, and maybe even to the 030.

Perhaps in a given employment I could agree that the 386 would be *technically* superior to the 68020/30 - however the use of the word vastly is a tad overkill, while both are quite comparable processors - neither is realy vastly better than the other.

would you be able to give me / us an example or instance as to where a 14Mhz 386 is vastly superior to a 14Mhz 020/030 in terms of CPU processing. I will be honest I doubt you could - but I love to be proved wrong (its how we learn).

[appiah4]

Originally Posted by Zetr0

Perhaps in a given employment I could agree that the 386 would be *technically* superior to the 68020/30 - however the use of the word vastly is a tad overkill, while both are quite comparable processors - neither is realy vastly better than the other.

would you be able to give me / us an example or instance as to where a 14Mhz 386 is vastly superior to a 14Mhz 020/030 in terms of CPU processing. I will be honest I doubt you could - but I love to be proved wrong (its how we learn).

I should clarify myself here in order to avoid confusion, I meant that it's vastly superior to the 020, maybe even superior to the 030. At similar clocks, I'd think the 386 is actually comparable to the 030 (say 33MHz vs 30Mhz).

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Zetr0

If I maybe so bold my friend, is not the 030 only a minor revision of the 020 - with the inclusion of MMU an an additional instruction / register - arguably if one is not using either of these then Megahertz to Megahertz do they not perform identically?

Minor revision yes, but the difference between 386 and 68020 is also minor (when the 386 wins).
It may be that the few clocks shaved off by the data cache and memory burst mode are enough to beat the 386 in all cases.

Originally Posted by appiah4

I should clarify myself here in order to avoid confusion, I meant that it's vastly superior to the 020, maybe even superior to the 030. At similar clocks, I'd think the 386 is actually comparable to the 030 (say 33MHz vs 30Mhz).

It's not vastly superior to the 020, only in few benchmarks and not by very much. Perhaps it has better mul & div timings but that's all. A few poorly ported games may give a false impression but really, in most cases 020/030 beats the crap out of 386.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by Zetr0

I think its fair to point out that a lot of earlier motherboards for the 386, especially the cheap one's - didn't take full advantage of the 386 CPU and would more often than not limit the memory to 16MB - it wasn't until way after 1993 that the WinTel PC's Power to $$$ ratio became interesting and then slowly affordable.

16 MB was no limit back then. Even 4 MB cost an arm and a leg.

[plasmab]

The Archimedes 3000 is an iPhone with a more useful OS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[newflesh1]

I don't really think comparing the Amiga to the Megadrive is fair.The Amiga was a multi use computer whereas the Megadrive was purely a gaming machine.Everything inside the Megadrive was geared towards games where the Amiga had to allow for different things.

[Zetr0]

Just to put the cat amongst the pigeon's here

Originally Posted by newflesh1

I don't really think comparing the Amiga to the Megadrive is fair.The Amiga was a multi use computer whereas the Megadrive was purely a gaming machine.Everything inside the Megadrive was geared towards games where the Amiga had to allow for different things.

Way back in Oct 1987 the A500 was released with a spanking price of $699, it was truly an astounding machine, offering most of what a $1500 Apple would offer!

Jumping forward a couple of years to 1989 - I always have felt that the Megadrive (Released in Sep. 1989 $190) was a cost reduced Amiga A500 in console form. with additional focus to (initially) a proprietary based solid state software platform.

The Megadrive has no Operating System (OS) nor input for a keyboard / mouse and while it might have a sprite engine that can display a good array of colours it doesn't have a copper (Co-Processor) - unless you consider the Zilog Z80 as such. The Megadrive doesn't have a Parallel port and it only has access to a few screen modes.

The Megadrive has no Floppy Disk (it did much later by a third party however). The Megadrive didn't have 8bit 4 channel stereo sound - in fact it was only the phono port (at the front of the console) that offered Stereo sound the rear RGB/AV port only offered mono sound - and this wasn't corrected until the Megadrive 2.

While the initial version of the Megadrive did have a rudimentary Serial Port driven by the sound generator - this was dropped way before the Megadrive 2 which was released in the latter half of 1990 (in Europe).

Now I love the Megadrive, it has some delightful games both definitive for the system and releases in general (including Flash Back *yes I said that!*). Yet the system is held back within Europe due to the fixation of 50Hz Video where as the Amiga is arguably agnostic for the most part and even an A500 can do twice as many screen modes including interlaced modes.

So if I may be so bold, I see the Megadrive as a Cost Reduced A500 - in fact so much so, its almost part of the family

[plasmab]

Agreed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[khph_re]

I think the Atari lynx was the closest thing hardware wise, and designed by Dave needle and R.J. mical. 4096 colours, 4 audio channels, and the ability to change palette's per scan line. It had feature's that a future Amiga might have had. Same with the 3do. Also with r.j and Dave's involvement.

[s2325]

Yes, Amiga was used to develop some Lynx games.