Vampire V4 Standalone

[grond]

Originally Posted by kamelito

The drawback with the Vampire accelerators is the memory bottleneck to access the chip ram. iIRC the Amiga Reloaded board do not have this limitation.

The Amiga Reloaded is vapourware, it doesn't exist as a product. IIRC Jens Schönfeld talked about how he wanted to use some additional memory time slots for boosting chipmem speed by a few percents. My personal conclusion would be to not care about that feature. If you want something without slow chip memory, then it would have to be something that doesn't use real Amiga custom chips.

[Valken]

I just remember an idea to the OP and that would be to actually slot a ITX or smaller FAST x86/x64 PC into an Amiga case with near original KB and Mouse. I was looking at this for my next PC build - see the Checkmate Case thread.

Something like an AMD Ryzen 3300 or 4xxx APU with FAST RAM and SSD running a stripped Linux or Windows Lite OS booting directly into WinUAE would be WAY faster than any classic Amiga, but for close to same price... plus you can boot into nearly any configuration you want and more. It is something to think about.

[nagares]

Originally Posted by grond

IIRC Jens Schönfeld talked about how he wanted to use some additional memory time slots for boosting chipmem speed by a few percents.

He speaks about 100% more speed.
But, you are right, pics or it did not happen.

http://wiki.icomp.de/wiki/Commodore_...loaded#Chipset

[kamelito]

Originally Posted by TuKo

Which is true on Vampire as accelerator but not on V4. On V4, ChipRAM is as fast as the FastRAM is.


By the way, where can I buy the Amiga Reloaded ?

That is why I wrote accelerators
As for the V4 at that price I would expect a product like the ZX Spectrum Next or the Mega65 (not sure about the final price on that one)

[kamelito]

Originally Posted by grond

The Amiga Reloaded is vapourware, it doesn't exist as a product. IIRC Jens Schönfeld talked about how he wanted to use some additional memory time slots for boosting chipmem speed by a few percents. My personal conclusion would be to not care about that feature. If you want something without slow chip memory, then it would have to be something that doesn't use real Amiga custom chips.

There so many people doing hardware for the Amiga these days, even open source that might have forced Jens to postpone it or canceled it who knows...It sure is not it’s priority.

[walkero]

I have a question about V4 standalone. I read at the apollo team website (https://wiki.apollo-accelerators.com...php/saga:video) that the SAGA can support up to 1920x1080, and the V4 uses 12MB as chip ram. If I am not wrong, and please correct me on that, the chip ram is used for the display, right?

1. If someone opens a 1080p 32bit screen on V4, how much chip memory remains available to open programs or more screens?
2. Is there a difference on that amount between AmigaOS 3 and ApolloOS?
3. Although I searched, I didn't find anywhere mentioned RTG capabilities. Does V4 support RTG screens? If yes, can someone install Picasso on that?
4. What is the highest resolution and color depth that someone need to use to have a responsive system?

Sorry for my many questions. Thanks for the clarification.

[Promilus]

Originally Posted by Chucky

THEN I would actually use the word "implementing" as when you have the original data and does it. it will behave exactly as the original thing.

Actually to mess with all that discussion further.
AMD do not emulate intel. It uses the same ISA. It doesn't use the same insides, nor claims to have something exactly like that. Bah, first AMD x86 were basically clones of intel made through intel own documentation. So different manufacturer of the very same design. After a while they took different routes. One might say AMD 486-Pentium era processors did emulate intel front side bus and that might be a valid argument. But the only x86 processor which actually did emulate intel ISA was transmeta crusoe (which was actually a VLIW and did translate on-the-fly to it's own, internal ISA)

Now then, we already know what emulation is - when one piece of hw or sw tries to act like a different piece of hw or sw. But it ain't really that simple.
There was something like 6502. That's MOS processor which debuted with Commodore PET and was later used (with variation) in C16/116, C+/4, C64, C128 etc.

Now then - if I hook up logic analyzer and grab readings I can describe how external interface works. I can also design logic which will process original 6502 ISA. And that logic is ISA implementation. But external interface and timings are emulation since I don't exactly know how it originally was achieved, only what final result is.

But... there's more to it. There actually is enough documentation to make per-transistor exact copy. And it's done! (but in big scale using discreet components https://monster6502.com/). So when you know how things are connected inside and you make something based on that design - that's reimplementation (hardware level).
There's also complete verilog netlist obtained through scanning of original chip. Problem with that is when you synthesize that logic - you are not bound to achieve per-transistor level accuracy as it depends heavily of synthesis options and tools versions. But it would still be reimplementation because it's based on original design.

Why Vampire is different? Well afaik apollo team doesn't have original netlist (how logic was implemented in original hardware) nor exact logic design. All they have is how it's supposed to work (some bits and pieces which works... most of the time, but not 100% accurate). That's why it cannot be reimplementation of AGA. That part of the SAGA which is used to make it work with AGA titles - well that's emulation. Everything beyond, new capabilities, RTG - that's implementation of new features.
AC68080 is also a different matter because it's not based on any other design, it's just ISA compatible - just like any x86 is compatible through ISA with 8086. . So it's implementation of original - apollo team's design, no emulation (apart from 68000/020 bus emulation of V2 necessary to make it work on A500, A600, A1200 mainboard). Minimig, MiST, Vampire - all of those share similarities and indeed use - some - emulation of original hardware. Raspberry or PC use software emulation of ALL original hardware. Neither of those solutions are bad, RPi is way cheaper and achieves better results cpu-wise. So it's up to the user which one prefers.

[flype]

It s indeed up to anyone to choose something what fits his preferences and budget. Many people even own different setups, each setup having its own taste and advantage(s). One thing i learnt last 5 years is there is no perfect Amiga setup so far (for my taste). I m still looking at the perfect 'one', and i hope it can be before i die, that would be nice

About emulation, some words if i can, nicely, this vocab is sometimes misleading. I agree there is no need to debate lot on this (we all are tired of this btw ) but since i never expressed myself on that topic i d like say emulation is a "software" process that translate machine code to another machine code. Fpga machines does not apply that software process but execute natively the machine code on the fpga transistors. There is no translation/transformation, but direct execution. With emulation, a host OS is needed and it better need to be relative powerful to achieve that. An fpga not need any underlying software layer running in background. Also an fpga does only need some little Watt power compared to emu. On v4 there is not even need for a fan. Physically and Logically, it s very different. However emulation is ok as casual wording, i recon myself, more and more. But simulation is probably closer. And reimplementation is eventually good wording depending the definition we give it. Still, real emu is cool too, it actually is more agile, much less constraints, much faster when jit can be used, also more mature at covering all amiga features, and all this for quite free. That s different bare metal feeling, tho.



@walkero

All vampire models (Accelerators and V4) offers 'RTG' . There are drivers for P96 on AmigaOS, and HIDD driver on Aros.

The 'RTG' modes NOT use chipram but fastram.
V4 have 512MB of fastram (minus some MB reserved for chipram, maprom, ...). The Audio/Video engine on the V4 can directely use all that fastram (by directely i mean no copy required from fastram to videoram for example). That s for RTG but also the 'AGA' can address directely the fastram (Paula can play from chip or fast, sprites can use chip or fast, etc.). Actually, chipram is there mostely to keep compatibility with legacy stuff but could eventually be not used, even for new 'planar' games. This is same on AmigaOS and ApolloOS.

About 1080p, the V4 not reach that at moment for various reasons but 1280x720@50hz (whatever depth from 8 to 32bits) or eventually 1024x768@50Hz. System stays very responsive on any resolutions/depth.

[walkero]

@flype
Thank you so much for the analytic reply.
One more question. About video decoding, if I am not wrong currently there is a need to convert videos to MPEG1 to play them in a good speed with AMMX. Is that still the situation, or more video formats are supported? Or it depends on the video player to support them? And what is the highest resolution for videos that are acceptable?

Thank you again for your help to clarify all the above.

[grond]

It may be worth mentioning that the high graphics resolutions mentioned are RTG resolutions and not available in the reimplementation of traditional OCS/AGA. AFAIK the final word on SuperHires (1280x256) hasn't been spoken but at least in some V4 cores this AGA PAL mode wasn't available. It found very little use back in the day so it wouldn't be much of a loss. The same goes for the freely programmable AGA screenmodes. These are superceded by corresponding RTG modes which, however, will ultimately be programmable via Amiga hardware registers just like the old Amiga screenmodes were.

Some of what I wrote may be inaccurate or plain wrong, there is a lot of work happening with regard to the video hardware section.

[grond]

Originally Posted by walkero

About video decoding, if I am not wrong currently there is a need to convert videos to MPEG1 to play them in a good speed with AMMX. Is that still the situation, or more video formats are supported? Or it depends on the video player to support them? And what is the highest resolution for videos that are acceptable?

The video format is a question of software. Currently there is RiVA which supports only MPEG1. To my knowledge there is no work on an MPEG2 or even MPEG4 video player for Amiga68k being done. It is quite doubtful whether these formats could be decoded in anything larger than a stamp with the processor speed the V4 offers. In any case a video player for these formats would have to be highly optimised for 68k which excludes any ports from open-source PC video players.

I think the highest viable resolution for MPEG1 videos in RiVA on the Vampires is something like 640x360.

[daxb]

In other/shorter words. Amiga or V4 is not for video playback. If you want this use a suitable device.

[EAUniW]

..

[manossg]

@EAUniW

I don't think that anybody has the expectation of playing HD movies or watching streaming YT videos on 060 or Vamps. It is nice ot see what these machines can do in these departments, but they will never be on par even with modern smartphones.

The Amiga joy of powerful machines is a bit different to the one that you describe. For example, for me, productivity software is a breeze on my Vamp, the Workbench experience is fantastic, I get to discover all these awesome latest demos and I have the chance to use Milkytracker in an Amiga (apart from Protracker and Octamed). Not to mention the kickass RTG gaming! This is realistic functionality that I could never achieve in my A500, which I reserve for classic gaming and old school Workbench.

For you, though, these might not be important and I completely understand your point of view.

[EAUniW]

..

[grond]

Originally Posted by EAUniW

Which is why I dislike seeing the modern Amiga iterations being pumped full of steroids in an attempt to be a more modern device.

The stock Amiga is near 40 year old hardware and you use it based on those limits. Nobody complains that the Spectrum Next can't play video or browse the internet because it's designed to expand on the stock 16/48K Spectrum, not transform into an eight-core, GPU equipped powerhouse like modern PCs.

Totally valid point of view but the major difference between computers like the Spectrum on the one hand and the Amiga on the other is that the Amiga was designed with the possibility of evolving both hardware and software while (mostly) keeping software compatibility. The Amiga could have become an eight-core GPU equipped powerhouse and it would have been even easier than doing the same to the DOS/8086 platform.

[Thomas Richter]

Not really. If it would, we wouldn't have Forbid()/Permit() SysBase->TDNestCount which prevents multi-core execution, and we wouldn't have struct BitMap which is a major annoyance for non-planar bitmaps to work around. AmigaOs lacks proper abstraction for multi-core operations, it lacks proper abstractions for anything that does not have copper, it lacks proper abstractions for non-planar bitmaps.

Actually, it is harder than on a PC. The PC platform evolved because MS threw at some point the legacy DOS away and replaced the unsuitable Bios layer by a more suitable hardware abstraction layer. That never happened with AmigaOs, and would have to happen in case you want to enable multi-core or GPU applications.

[EAUniW]

..

[YouKnowWho]

I know this Vampire thing is nice and fast, but for the price I could have 4 UNAMIGA computers and they run other cores as well.

Or I could have 3 DE10 NANO FPGAs - which are the ultimate chameleon in FPGA hardware - just imagine, having this DE10 in an original A1200 case (I'm working on it) and that single A1200 runs EVERYTHING retro! So many cores on DE10. That A1200 look-a-like would be the single best retro computer, emulating everything retro on the planet - including arcade cabinets, consoles - 486 Win95, 8.1 MacOS as well I think - you name it!

So...considering you can have a DE10 NANO for about a third of a stand alone Vampire, and by giving up the Vampire Amiga performance you gain CORES, CORES and more CORES...well, I'll give up the Vampire performance for all that retro computing goodness inside the DE10 ANYDAY!. And it looks like I'll save plenty of money doing it too.

[grond]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

Not really. If it would, we wouldn't have Forbid()/Permit() SysBase->TDNestCount which prevents multi-core execution, and we wouldn't have struct BitMap which is a major annoyance for non-planar bitmaps to work around. AmigaOs lacks proper abstraction for multi-core operations, it lacks proper abstractions for anything that does not have copper, it lacks proper abstractions for non-planar bitmaps.

And you seriously think there weren't similar problems on the DOS-side of things?

Actually, it is harder than on a PC. The PC platform evolved because MS threw at some point the legacy DOS away and replaced the unsuitable Bios layer by a more suitable hardware abstraction layer. That never happened with AmigaOs, and would have to happen in case you want to enable multi-core or GPU applications.

Yes, sure, that's exactly what I was talking about.