What version of DX did the AGA compare to?

[methodman]

When you compare Aga to Direct x what version would it sit at. or did the beginning of Direct x dwarf the aga. It seems as if what people thought they wanted was photography related. But even the recent art programs on the PC with the exception of the photo plugIns seem as if the toolsets were more or less the same that Deluxe Paint and Brilliance had. just not as many presets at the time.

[NovaCoder]

AGA is a hardware platform, DirectX was/is a hardware extraction layer.

[coze]

I would say, apples and oranges, but this more sounds like an apple and a horse cart.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by NovaCoder

AGA is a hardware platform, DirectX was/is a hardware extraction layer.

Direct X is composed of an hardware asbtraction layer and a hardware EMULATION layer pal

[NovaCoder]

Hey I know that....I just got bored typing

[alexh]

I came into this thread thinking the question would be something like :

"What version of (486) DX (PC) did the AGA (A1200) compare to?"

As has already been said DirectX is a software API and AGA is hardware.

[dlfrsilver]

The A1200 would compared to a 386SX. The DX version for the FPU if i remember well.

[Paul_s]

On the otherhand an Amiga 1000 compares to a Core i7-975.

[pce_gamer]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

The A1200 would compared to a 386SX. The DX version for the FPU if i remember well.

A 386DX has no FPU. A 386DX is just a normal i386 processor with full 32bit data bus. i386SX as later released with a 16bit data bus (and intel named the normal 386 with the DX extension to avoid confusion). Only the i486DX had built in FPUs (i468SX had disabled FPUs).