What spec Amiga to match the Gameboy Advance?

[khph_re]

The graphics system cannae cope captain!

I guess what I'm saying, is i see an 030 doing GBA
Style stuff but in less colours. Doom style games, shadow of the 3rd moon, mario kart style racers,semi polygon racers like flyin' high, tfx,it's done them already.

Tiny teams with small resources, often with a demo scene background and no prior games experience. What could an 030 Have achieved with larger teams and more money?
Stuff not far off GBA i would think. And if your trying to match the GBA at its own resolution, you have more cycles to play with, and less screen to update.

[Gilbert]

Originally Posted by frank_b

It's been awhile since I've programmed one but the GBAs sprite and playfield hardware is amazing for 2d. 128 sprites up to 64 pixels tall and wide. 32 custom rotation and zoom levels which can be assigned per sprite. 256 colours (one transparent) or 16 palettes of 16. 4 playfields with zooming on two of them. 15 bit Paulette. Separate pallets for sprites and playfields. 16 16 colour tiles or 256 colours per playfield. Can feely mix and match 16 colour modes with 256 ones. Additive blending per sprite. Wrap around tile mapped scrolling which the programer can set the orientation per page. ie 2 high or 2 wide. The Amiga ins't in the same league for 2d IMHO.

It is great hardware in absolute terms - but I think for the time it was released - 2001 -it wasn't anything special. Possibly even underpowered. If we had that at the same time as the SNES/Megadrive/Amiga 500 then it would have been amazing.

Commodore would have released the Amiga CD-64 a couple of years previous to the GBA if it hadn't gone bust so that would have destroyed the GBA in terms of specs and it would have pushed the Atari Mountain Puma 128 out of the market

[frank_b]

Originally Posted by Gilbert

It is great hardware in absolute terms - but I think for the time it was released - 2001 -it wasn't anything special. Possibly even underpowered. If we had that at the same time as the SNES/Megadrive/Amiga 500 then it would have been amazing.

Commodore would have released the Amiga CD-64 a couple of years previous to the GBA if it hadn't gone bust so that would have destroyed the GBA in terms of specs and it would have pushed the Atari Mountain Puma 128 out of the market

Commodore had been gone for 5 or 6 years before the GBA launched. When I worked with the console we had prototype boards and emulators. The machine hadn't launched yet. At the time I thought I'd have to learn Thumb assembler to get the most out of it. There was no need as the CPU was very fast using C. It was probably the last pure 2d machine. It reminded me of the Amiga. Very elegant.

[utri007]

It is not about hardware, it is about a programmer, willing to do that.

There are Extreme Racing [ Show youtube player ]

GBA's small screen is very forgiving, those games would not look that good in 22" screen.

There are sever lack of car games for a Amiga. If target would Amiga with accelerator many kind of games would be possible.

[roondar]

Most Amiga games don't look that good on a 22" (or bigger) screen. They were kind of designed for smaller screens than that

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by frank_b

It's been awhile since I've programmed one but the GBAs sprite and playfield hardware is amazing for 2d. 128 sprites up to 64 pixels tall and wide. 32 custom rotation and zoom levels which can be assigned per sprite. 256 colours (one transparent) or 16 palettes of 16. 4 playfields with zooming on two of them. 15 bit Paulette. Separate pallets for sprites and playfields. 16 16 colour tiles or 256 colours per playfield. Can feely mix and match 16 colour modes with 256 ones. Additive blending per sprite. Wrap around tile mapped scrolling which the programer can set the orientation per page. ie 2 high or 2 wide. The Amiga ins't in the same league for 2d IMHO.

This. The GBA curbstomps the AGA Amiga in 2D capabilities.
But it released almost 8 years later, so that's expected.

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by Steril707

This. The GBA curbstomps the AGA Amiga in 2D capabilities.
But it released almost 8 years later, so that's expected.

The release date of the GBA is a well known fact as is the technological advancement in graphics over the years.

But the topic here is pretty simple, what spec Amiga does it take to perform (roughly) equally as a GBA. We don't need to feel bad about the older tech in the Amiga or come up with excuses for why it would be unfair to compare (its always tricky to compare tech that has no exact equivalent). ;-) Because I believe a high specced Amiga can for all intents and purposes match the performance of an GBA in overall look, feel and playability. (We can ignore other barely noticeable details)
And yes, its fair to say Amiga would only need to run a (e.g.) chunky pixel display equivalent at 1x2 (double Y-pixels) so that the output resolution as roughly equal.

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

The release date of the GBA is a well known fact as is the technological advancement in graphics over the years.

But the topic here is pretty simple, what spec Amiga does it take to perform (roughly) equally as a GBA. We don't need to feel bad about the older tech in the Amiga or come up with excuses for why it would be unfair to compare (its always tricky to compare tech that has no exact equivalent). ;-) Because I believe a high specced Amiga can for all intents and purposes match the performance of an GBA in overall look, feel and playability. (We can ignore other barely noticeable details)
And yes, its fair to say Amiga would only need to run a (e.g.) chunky pixel display equivalent at 1x2 (double Y-pixels) so that the output resolution as roughly equal.

You'd need simply enough CPU grunt to map ALL of these abilities, plus RTG for those 512 colors.

Since no one has any idea here how much CPU grunt those sprite transformation functions would take on 128 sprites of that size, I'd say this discussion of which 68k CPU is capable is a bit pointless unless joined by a demo coder who had done something in that vein.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Gilbert

It is great hardware in absolute terms - but I think for the time it was released - 2001 -it wasn't anything special. Possibly even underpowered. If we had that at the same time as the SNES/Megadrive/Amiga 500 then it would have been amazing.

There seems to be one small detail missing: GBA is a handheld Considering that, I think its designers have done rather well, seeing as you could play SNES - level games on it.

If you want to compare full-size hardware, then in 2001 you could buy an Xbox, Gamecube or Pentium 4 PC. Handhelds are always step behind such raw power, for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by roondar

Most Amiga games don't look that good on a 22" (or bigger) screen. They were kind of designed for smaller screens than that

Blasphemer 21" CRTs are doing just fine, especially in NTSC mode, and they were already a standard back then.

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by Steril707

You'd need simply enough CPU grunt to map ALL of these abilities, plus RTG for those 512 colors.

Since no one has any idea here how much CPU grunt those sprite transformation functions would take on 128 sprites of that size, I'd say this discussion of which 68k CPU is capable is a bit pointless unless joined by a demo coder who had done something in that vein.

512 colors is IMO one of those details we can ignore. there's not a whole lot of difference between a 256 color AGA game vs 512 colors.. But if RTG could make other things possible in order to further close the gap to the GBA then fine.
So maybe there would be two specs for Amiga.. One with AGA+powerful CPU (040/060) and a second spec with RTG + a lesser CPU. (e.g. towerised Amiga with appropriate GFX card card +030) but if we start throwing in stuff like Voodoo 3 cards, then we are crossing a line here with "modern hardware that didnt really exist when Amiga was "still alive")

[roondar]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Blasphemer 21" CRTs are doing just fine, especially in NTSC mode, and they were already a standard back then.

Nah mate, they definitely weren't. A 21" monitor cost a fortune back then. Commodore's own monitors were around 14"-15". That was the standard.

Unless you're talking about using a NTSC 21" TV, in which case you clearly didn't care about image quality to begin with

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by roondar

Nah mate, they definitely weren't. A 21" monitor cost a fortune back then. Commodore's own monitors were around 14"-15". That was the standard.

Unless you're talking about using a NTSC 21" TV, in which case you clearly didn't care about image quality to begin with

Well, obviously I'm talking about TVs, which is what most people used for microcomputers. Saying that TVs from that era couldn't have high IQ (the RGB socket is not just for decoration) just continues your blasphemous train of thought. That aside from the fact that games have actually benefitted from the TVs' softer image, as opposed to monitors, which were better for productivity.

But, as usual, that's probably material for another topic

[roondar]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Well, obviously I'm talking about TVs, which is what most people used for microcomputers. Saying that TVs from that era couldn't have high IQ (the RGB socket is not just for decoration) just continues your blasphemous train of thought. That aside from the fact that games have actually benefitted from the TVs' softer image, as opposed to monitors, which were better for productivity.

NTSC TV's did not have RGB in. Nor did most PAL TV's until the mid 1990's

Anyway, there's no blasphemy here - all people I know/knew did not use big screens for their computers, even if they had no monitor. Plenty (including me) used a TV, but usually a fairly small one.

But, as usual, that's probably material for another topic

Yup, but I couldn't resist. I promise to not keep going on about it

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

512 colors is IMO one of those details we can ignore. there's not a whole lot of difference between a 256 color AGA game vs 512 colors.. But if RTG could make other things possible in order to further close the gap to the GBA then fine.

But then I don't get the point of this whole thought experiment.

What's the goal then? To have something that looks like any GBA game?
I am certain there are GBA games that look worse enough that they can be done with a stock A500. Problem solved.

Or do you want to perfectly recreate the GBA's capabilities. Then you'd need to go to for 512 colors, 128 sprites, all of its sprite tricks, and everything else, and not just "oh, this will do to look somehow alike".

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by Steril707

But then I don't get the point of this whole thought experiment.

What's the goal then? To have something that looks like any GBA game?
I am certain there are GBA games that look worse enough that they can be done with a stock A500. Problem solved.

Or do you want to perfectly recreate the GBA's capabilities. Then you'd need to go to for 512 colors, 128 sprites, all of its sprite tricks, and everything else, and not just "oh, this will do to look somehow alike".

We don't have to send a report to the autistic association (no offence to any autistic ppl) ;-)
If you saw a Doom port run on a console back in the day (rather than a DOS PC).. What parameters were you judging it by? If it looked like Doom, played like Doom at a decent resolution and framerate then it was Doom, right? We didn't compare if samples were 44kHz or 22kHz etc..
For example I think we now all agree you can play Doom on a 50MHz 030 Amiga.

So.. I saw some pretty impressive 3D GBA titles on YouTube and it got me thinking what Amiga it would actually take to actually run such a game at a decent framerate. GBA wasn't even supposed to be a 3d gaming console. It was good at 2d and it had some neat hardware for that. So just like the Amiga it lacks dedicated 3d hardware..

So I'll make this easy: what Amiga set-up could run Vrally3 or Need For Speed Most Wanted (as they look on GBA) at 1x2 (chunky res) at lets say 20fps? Basically if you would see a side by side comparison with the GBA you'd think "yea, this game is just as good on the Amiga as on the GBA":

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

So I'll make this easy: what Amiga set-up could run Vrally3 or Need For Speed Most Wanted (as they look on GBA) at 1x2 (chunky res) at lets say 20fps?

Amiga 500
If you give code to KK/Altair.

Joke aside, I think 030/50Mhz would be enough for something like that.
I think 040 can definitely do everything GBA can, and even much more.

[lmimmfn]

I think it needs a 040 and gfx card, even that may be enough depending on the title. Tech advanced and in a short period of time that a high powered amiga is needed.

[Tigerskunk]

[QUOTE=eXeler0;1449197]We don't have to send a report to the autistic association (no offence to any autistic ppl) ;-)
You start a technical discussion, but when tech savvy people ask you about what exactly your parameters are for it they get called autistic.

Originally Posted by eXeler0

So I'll make this easy: what Amiga set-up could run Vrally3 or Need For Speed Most Wanted (as they look on GBA) at 1x2 (chunky res) at lets say 20fps? Basically if you would see a side by side comparison with the GBA you'd think "yea, this game is just as good on the Amiga as on the GBA":

These games don't even use any GBA specific capabilities except colors + chunky mode, and are just heavy on CPU grunt.
If this is what you are asking about this thread's title is misleading.

You don't want to know what kind of Amiga matches the GBA, you are asking about what kind of Amiga is needed to do that kind of low poly textured 3D.

[eXeler0]

[QUOTE=Steril707;1449217]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

We don't have to send a report to the autistic association (no offence to any autistic ppl) ;-)
You start a technical discussion, but when tech savvy people ask you about what exactly your parameters are for it they get called autistic.

The very first line in the original post reads like this:
"Saw this top 6 list of GBA racing games the other day and it made me wonder what spec Amiga it would take to run these games at similar framerates."
Not everyone is still stuck on interpreting the exact meaning of the thread, but feel free to explore / interpret it further if you wish. As the systems have different strengths there could be several meaningful answers. The one that interested me was what I mention in the first paragraph of the thread.
If "whatever spec needed" to run those games also makes it possible to run demanding 2d titles then that's all good.

Originally Posted by Steril707

These games don't even use any GBA specific capabilities except colors + chunky mode, and are just heavy on CPU grunt.
If this is what you are asking about this thread's title is misleading.

You don't want to know what kind of Amiga matches the GBA, you are asking about what kind of Amiga is needed to do that kind of low poly textured 3D.

Feel free to explore the question as you like. I'm sure some will find it nice to have a definitive spec that checks all the boxes. ;-)

[VladR]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

Any guesses? What spec Amiga could run say "Need for Speed: Most wanted at 1x2 at a playable framerate? If I was to guess, I'd say at least an AGA+ (a fast) 040.

That's actually a pretty close guess.

I'm going to ignore the 2D sprite part of GBA, as to me that's not important at all (though it might provide technology useable in scaling vertical/horizontal slices of the texture).

I'm also going to ignore the 256 vs 512 colors, as this is 3D. At this resolution, the gfx is so pixelated, that even if we had 65,536 colors, it still would look grossly pixelated. Of course, for 2D games, additional 256 colors can make a huge difference (just not really for pixelated 3D).


I wasn't aware of NFS on GBA. It does look and move very well, indeed. While it's hard to guess exactly from the youtube interpolation, it would appear that NFS runs at 15+ fps.

Majority of the NFS 3D scene consists of Doom-style Horizontal and Vertical Slices. At the end of the vid, there's a more generic terrain polygon, but that might use some pre-processed texturing coefficients (hence the texturing can happen at horizontal runs) as it doesn't appear to be slowed down at all (though, it is possible that's due to a framerate lock).


Now, I've done something like that on Jaguar (it was for a Road Rash style demo). I implemented both pure SW version and Blitter-assisted one.
The GPU+Blitter version was capable of sustained 60 fps at around 67% screen coverage (road+building walls). The screen was 320x200x256.

I now don't recall the performance results of the GPU-only version. I will see if I can dig it out somewhere.

Obviously, with CPU doing all the rendering, every single MIPS and pixel count. The difference between 320x240 and GBA's (240x160, I believe?)res is exactly 2:1, that means that we need only 50% of the CPU frequency to fill the GBA resolution (compared to filling 320x240).

If we used the 67% screen coverage estimate (it does get to 100% in tunnels, though), that's around 0.67*240*160 = ~25,800 px.

I do, however, recall very clearly, that the outer loop overhead (vertical and horizontal stripes+coefficients interpolation) was almost non-existent (less than < 3% of frame time), so we can disregard that one.

So, now it comes down to efficiency of Jaguar's RISC GPU vs GBA's ARM.
GPU in Jag was clocked at 26.6 MHz and you could reach around ~15-17 MIPS (IIRC) in inner loops after a very careful clusterf*ckerful reordering of the inner loop ops (to avoid any RISC pipeline stalls).

We don't have that [RISC pipeline] problem on Amiga. Each op has fixed cost.


Also, because this is Amiga, we don't really have to do run-time scaling of horiz./vertical stripes. Just throw the memory at the problem and pre-scale all stripes (say, at loading time) at which point the texturing just becomes a simple RAM copy issue and no fixed-point math (or integer, if you have a lot of time on your hands) would be needed to scale the stripes. This could be quickly computed, how many such prescaled textures would fit into 4 MB.