Why did 1mb RAM make such a big difference on Amiga games and not on x86 games?

[KingTutt]

If you ever owned an Amiga 500, you will probably recall buying that 512K memory expansion card, to play some real treats like most of the Cinemaware[/url] range of games (It came from the Desert, Wings!) and some others like the original and venerable SimCity.

It was probably more noticable when playing SimCity. I could never run the 512K version. It was aweful compared to the full color 1024K version. Of course both were shipped in the same box.

But my question is why did the 512K upgrade prove to be more worthwhile, than say upgrading the same RAM on the x86 series? Sure PeeCees back then were appalingly crude and horrible inefficient machines... much like today! lol! But really how did Amiga make use of every little bit of RAM that was thrown on it? It was like it squeezed out every last kilobyte it was handed. A truly efficient beast. This of course allowed for games to be run off 1 floppy disk, a true marvel of its time.

Will the same hold true with the next generation of Amigas? These days you can throw on 1gb of RAM and not see any difference from 256mb (Not unless you scan images with photoshop or do heavy video editing/capturing) Windows XP is a real resource hog. And it does absolutely nothing new or different than can't already be achieved on Windows 98. So whats going on there?

I think and hope, AOS4 will work on 64mb or 128mb the way XP works on 1gb ram. There's really no need for so much ram - or at least the inefficient use of it. The future shouldn't be about slapping on more memory, to hide inherent programming incompetencies.

[KennyR]

Early PCs were massively disadvantaged because of the wide range of hardware their software had to support. The Amiga only had one architecture and so supporting them didn't take much RAM or CPU power. Now things have changed and custom hardware is stone dead, this had turned to an advantage for PCs and a massive disadvantage for Amigas.

It didn't change one thing though: PC software didn't have to be efficient because most people had the hardware. That had been totally blown out of proportion now, and the Windows (and Linux) coding ethic is, "Who cares if it's slow and big? Just buy new hardware."

[KingTutt]

Didn't IBM have closed systems to begin with too?

Anyway I think bloated coding is not going to do much for x86 machines in the long run. Sooner or later there is going to be a point were all this bloatware will bite x86 computers in the ass. I think it may be sooner than later, as 64bit machines are just around the corner. As for whether m$ will try to make backwards compatibility native or emulated is another question altogether.

One thing is certain, all that sloppy coding will haunt bgates the day x86 users move forward to 64bit machines. I hear 64bit h/w is less forgiving to inefficient programming. You only need look at the woeful problems encountered by Intel with their 64bit desktop prototype chips, which is why a desktop solution seems far away. Microsoft are also holding off on a 64bit desktop OS for as long as they can.

[Dan]

I don´t know about AOS4 but the MOS users have made comments about not needing all their ram. 128MB is as much as will ever be needed when running MOS it seems.

[Lo]

Custom chips and hardware-banging assembly language?

[KapitanKlystron]

@KingTutt

The real reason for the 512 k upgrade was to play the Newtek demo and the walker demo.  No matter what OS4 does or don't do, There willnot be a huge performance gap between the A1 and a Wintel box. And thats the real shame.

[jeffimix]

A 600Mhz G3-SE from Eyetech should be fine for doing anything. Sheesh  my old Penitum 166Mhz I still run, and its fine doing everything.  I had a 16Mhz Machine (or was it 66)  a 486 chip, ran Windows 95 okey-dokey... considering I have windows 3.1 on the pentium, and even better running DR DOS... its very fast in actuality, only problems are slow CD and floppy drives. Anyone know if the Amiga Forever CD comes with a version for DOS? If it does I wanna buy it.

[Hammer]

Sooner or later there is going to be a point were all this bloatware will bite x86 computers in the ass. I think it may be sooner than later, as 64bit machines are just around the corner.

On what basis did you obtained this POV?

As for whether m$ will try to make backwards compatibility native or emulated is another question altogether.

On AMD64, the status quo will be extended to 64 bits i.e. yet another WOW (Windows on Windows) layer.

Beta edition of MS Windows 2003 Server AMD64 Edition will run existing MS Windows applications at  (except for applications who breaks MS’s API guidelines) without compromising the performance (unlike IA-64 Edition).

Note that the current Athlon K7 family decodes X86-32 instructions in to smaller RISC style instructions (i.e. modern X86 CPUs are just post-RISC chips with a fix function hardware emulator.)

Transmeta's X86 decoder is a combination of software and hardware.

Based on http://www.amdboard.com/hn03130301.html

1.8Ghz Athlon 64** was rated at 3200+
(refers to Athlon Thunderbird Rating)
 
1.8Ghz Athlon XP(Thoroughbred-A core) was rated at 2200+.

1.8Ghz Athlon XP(Barton core)was rated at 2500+.

PS; The last Athlon XP core would be Thorton core(FSB 400Mhz DDR).

Reference
============
http://www.dinoxpc.com/Guide/Processori/AMD_PR/pr.ASP

Notes:
============
**Athlon 64 comes in either 1MB L2 cache or 256Kb L2 cache (targeted for Celeron/Value type markets)

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=ja_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpc.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2F2003%2F0318%2Fkaigai01.htm

I hear 64bit h/w is less forgiving to inefficient programming.

On what basis did you obtained this information?

Unlike Intel's IA-64, the AMD64 platform is just the extension of K7 family.

You only need look at the woeful problems encountered by Intel with their 64bit desktop prototype chips,
 

IA-64 was designed differently to X86-32 CPUs i.e. more work on programmer side.

which is why a desktop solution seems far away. Microsoft are also holding off on a 64bit desktop OS for as long as they can.

How could you conclude that i.e. when both AMD64 edition and IA-64 edition is currently in beta edition?

In this year’s CeBIT, an AMD64 system was shown to run a beta version AMD64 Windows and a Direct3D game.

[Hammer]

 

But my question is why did the 512K upgrade prove to be more worthwhile, than say upgrading the same RAM on the x86 series? Sure PeeCees back then were appalingly crude and horrible inefficient machines... much like today! lol! But really how did Amiga make use of every little bit of RAM that was thrown on it? It was like it squeezed out every last kilobyte it was handed. A truly efficient beast. This of course allowed for games to be run off 1 floppy disk, a true marvel of its time.

Since the standard cloned X86 BIOS doesn’t have OS components (unlike the Amiga’s Kickstart ROM), part of first 1MB space (Upper memory and 640Kb region) would be allocated for Himem.sys, EMM386, CD-ROM drivers, MS serial mouse drivers, soundblaster variables (or soundblaser emulators on certain sound cards), Plug and Play DOS manager, setver command, Command.com and etc.

Ever since the IBM XT, hard disk comes in as standard, even on X86 based X-BOX. The existence of a hard disk may promote some sloppy programming during the early life of X86 PCs.  

This of course allowed for games to be run off 1 floppy disk, a true marvel of its time.

Note that X86 version of Lotus3 game comes in 1 disk (1.44MB).

[KingTutt]

Ok, thanks guys. I never took into account how early x86s poor performance was due to an OS that had to account for many configurations (thanks Kenny R), and the necessity of preloading memory resident tasks into RAM. (thanks Hammer)

I had an inkling of this being the reason. Just needed someone to reassert this.

Ok so its clear now to me that Amiga's tighly integrated architecture (OCS, ECS & AGA) gave it a tremendous edge over PCs since 85 and onwards. I guess you could liken Amiga to a highly specialised console with an OS and computer peripherals. But man what a machine eh!

Still I see it a real shame that we couldn't continue with Amiga's legacy of efficient coding. But is it really good practise to be resource wasteful with sloppy code?!?! I personally think it should be a crime punishable by death if that same approach is adopted for the Amiga OS4 platform. hehe.

BTW can't AOS4 boost say an A1@G4 800Mhz to feel like a A1@1600Mhz. I mean an Athlon 1800+ is really just running at 1533Mhz yet is comparable to a P4 1800Mhz. Can't the same hold true for the G4 running Altivec(sp?) specialised instructions sets and OS4 taking advantage of that?

[bloodline]

Well, back in the classic Amiga days, games (and software) didn't need much memory and the Amiga's OS was on a 512K rom chip (or two 256k chips). This means that very little RAM memory was required for the Operating system, Thus Games (and apps) had nearly the full 1meg to themselves.

Going back to games, the graphics were all 2D, low res and only 5bit planes deep, not much memory required for that!! Sound samples were 8bit and usually at about 8Khz, again not much memory needed for that...
Modern games are 3D, generally run at 1026*768 and 32bits deep, this requres a huge amount of memory (Mipmaps, bumpmaps, textures, the list is endless). Sound is at least Stereo, 16bit at 44.1KHz, which requres about 10meg for 1 minute!!! Some games have surround sound, at 24bit and 96Khz!!!!!

If you run AROS on a normal x86 PC, aside from the Memory required for the Kernel (AROS has to use RAM as the PC has no Kickstart ROM chip), it doesn't need any more memory than AmigaOS. The Whole AROS OS fits on a single floppy disk with room for some software too!!!!

Which shows that most of the inefficency with the Modern PC is due almost completely to Micro$oft, and their bloated OS (Linux is no dream either).

Also IA64, has nothing to do with x86. It is an EPIC (VLWI to normal people) CPU, it was designed when chip desigeners thought the CPU couldn't perform optimisation in hardware, and so it has to be done in software increasing code bloat. The P4 and Athlon have proven that Hardware is much more efficent than software at producing small and fast code.

The Athlon64 is a much more modern design than the IA64, and basicly gives the x86 an optimised 64 bit mode. The Long Mode (64bit) on the Athlon is like a new CPU, but keeps all the good points of the x86 (as Linus put it), best of all it can still run legacy code which makes it far more economically viable (thus cheaper CPU, with more proccessing power).

I hope that helps

[PhatBoiCollier]

I am not sure if you guys missed the point or me?  

The A500 came as standard with 512K of RAM.  But, and this is the crux of the matter, it was CHIP ram.  This memory was used both by the applications (i.e. the CPU) AND by the graphics and sound chips (Blitter etc).  This meant that each had to wait for the other to finish before it could access memory.

However, if you added another 512K, this was FAST memory and was only available by the CPU.  If you look at the difference in something like F/A18 Interceptor (anyone manage to sink the submarine?),  you will see that with 512K fast ram, the game is much faster/smoother as the cpu doesnt have to wait any more as it has direct access to a WHOLE 512k (FAST) memory, rather than having to SHARE 512K (CHIP) memory with all the other custom chips.

If you want a better explanation of this architecture and how it works, gimme a shout because there is better explanation in the "Amiga Hardware" book (blue Abacus book).
 :-)

[bloodline]

PhatBoiCollier wrote:
I am not sure if you guys missed the point or me?  

The A500 came as standard with 512K of RAM.  But, and this is the crux of the matter, it was CHIP ram.  This memory was used both by the applications (i.e. the CPU) AND by the graphics and sound chips (Blitter etc).  This meant that each had to wait for the other to finish before it could access memory.

However, if you added another 512K, this was FAST memory and was only available by the CPU.  If you look at the difference in something like F/A18 Interceptor (anyone manage to sink the submarine?),  you will see that with 512K fast ram, the game is much faster/smoother as the cpu doesnt have to wait any more as it has direct access to a WHOLE 512k (FAST) memory, rather than having to SHARE 512K (CHIP) memory with all the other custom chips.

If you want a better explanation of this architecture and how it works, gimme a shout because there is better explanation in the "Amiga Hardware" book (blue Abacus book).
 :-)

The A500... Hmmm IIRC that extra memory was bogo memory (or some such name), and actually fitted into the custom chip address space... um... maybe it did configure as fast ram, I wish I still had an A500 to test it with  :-(

[prowler]

The A500... Hmmm IIRC that extra memory was bogo memory (or some such name), and actually fitted into the custom chip address space... um... maybe it did configure as fast ram, I wish I still had an A500 to test it with  :-(

From what I can remember it was known as pseudo fast RAM. In that it ran the same speed as chip memory. I can't remember what memory range it sat in though but;

I remember doing a small HW hack with cutting and soldering a few lines on the motherboard which then converted the 512k expansion into an extra 512k of Chip (giving you a total of 1meg Chip) which was great if you had a HD attached to the side of the machine.

[Atheist]

KingTutt wrote:
Anyway I think bloated coding is not going to do much for x86 machines in the long run. Sooner or later there is going to be a point were all this bloatware will bite x86 computers in the ass. I think it may be sooner than later, as 64bit machines are just around the corner. As for whether m$ will try to make backwards compatibility native or emulated is another question altogether.

One thing is certain, all that sloppy coding will haunt bgates the day x86 users move forward to 64bit machines.

In Amiga OS Development
I posted
CPU Instructions Q.

in which I share the same sentiments.

AmigaOne! Irrisistable!