Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Amiga Kit Amiga Store Iridium Banner AMIStore App Store A1200/A600 4xIDE Interface

AuthorTopic: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?  (Read 11853 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline shoggoth

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #225 on: January 28, 2009, 12:51:38 PM »
Quote

amigaksi wrote:
>by shoggoth on 2009/1/27 6:39:12

>>You are being vague. I have stuck to my position for many years now although in the process HPET got introduced and Vista came out.

>No. I entered this discussion because:
>A: You make claims about how emulators work.
>B: Those claims are completely wrong.

You haven't shown any of my claims to be wrong.  You just have a different definition of cycle-accuracy and emulation.  All of my statements are proven.

>I've got a question for you, Amigaski:
>A: You know how emulators work internally, and therefore your statements about emulators are true.
>B: You don't know how emulators work internally, but you do know for a fact that your statements are true anyway.

>Which one is it, Amigaski? A or B?

I already answered this.  It's C-- I know how the PC works and Amiga works so I know whether some Amiga function can be emulated on the PC.  It's called deductive logic-- not straw man argument or insult like you use.  Here's a simpler example, I know for a fact that Gameport joystick on PC takes 1 ms to read using port 201h (directly read port).  I know Amiga joystick read takes, a few microseconds.  Thus, you cannot emulate an Amiga joystick on PC using PC joystick.  It'll never EQUAL OR EXCEL it.

Same claims I made using timers with 1.19Mhz timer vs. 7.16Mhz cycle accuracy and other claims.


Sorry for the long quote.

Amigaski, you're twisting the truth. You invent your own definitions - none of which are in line with that of the rest of the world. You deliberately use definitions intended for completely different contexts. You simply do whatever to support your claims rather than accepting the fact that you're wrong. This is especially retarded considering that we're discussing an area of which you yourself admit that you have no real knowledge. You're simply amazing on your own very special way.
 

Offline AmiKit

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #226 on: January 28, 2009, 02:14:53 PM »
@shoggoth

Quote
Amigaski, you're twisting the truth. You invent your own definitions - none of which are in line with that of the rest of the world. You deliberately use definitions intended for completely different contexts. You simply do whatever to support your claims rather than accepting the fact that you're wrong. This is especially retarded considering that we're discussing an area of which you yourself admit that you have no real knowledge. You're simply amazing on your own very special way.

Give up. There cannot be any constructive outcome from a discussion with someone with such an approach...

Offline amigaksi

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #227 on: January 28, 2009, 07:16:19 PM »
>>You need to calculate this out and you'll see that modern graphics cards cannot redraw an entire screen (repaint). If they have built-in similar hardware sprite-type stuff, they can probably keep up.

>Sorry amigaski, I hate to use the phrase "you're wrong", but you really are... The weakest gfx card I own is able to push 3.4Gigabytes per second... The amiga struggles to keep up with 2megabytes per second and this is using AGA!!! The Amiga is Very Old technology, it is very slow and lacks the resolution and colour depth of modern hardware... It can't compare!

Latest NVidia card I used does about 200MB/second in repainting screens.  AGA machine like low-end 30Mhz A4000 does over 4MB/second easily.  But that wasn't the point-- the point was emulating sprite hardware not raw drawing capability.  If you have a sprite overlay on top of an image-- let's say a curtain of size 352*240 and you move the curtain, the Amiga does it in a few microseconds, whereas your graphics card will be repainting the screen and take much longer.  I can compute the exact figure for you if you need it...
--------
Use PC peripherals with your amiga: http://www.mpdos.com
 

Offline amigaksi

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #228 on: January 28, 2009, 07:18:27 PM »
>Give up. There cannot be any constructive outcome from a discussion with someone with such an approach...

Why do you blindly accept his false statements?  So far you have yet to prove the earth is round according to your subjective approach.  If you take it subjectively, most people would agree earth is flat according to their observations.  Unless you can find some people who have seen the earth as a WHOLE.
--------
Use PC peripherals with your amiga: http://www.mpdos.com
 

Offline amigaksi

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #229 on: January 28, 2009, 07:21:25 PM »
>by shoggoth on 2009/1/28 7:51:38

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


amigaksi wrote:
>by shoggoth on 2009/1/27 6:39:12

>>You are being vague. I have stuck to my position for many years now although in the process HPET got introduced and Vista came out.

>No. I entered this discussion because:
>A: You make claims about how emulators work.
>B: Those claims are completely wrong.

You haven't shown any of my claims to be wrong. You just have a different definition of cycle-accuracy and emulation. All of my statements are proven.

>I've got a question for you, Amigaski:
>A: You know how emulators work internally, and therefore your statements about emulators are true.
>B: You don't know how emulators work internally, but you do know for a fact that your statements are true anyway.

>Which one is it, Amigaski? A or B?

>>I already answered this. It's C-- I know how the PC works and Amiga works so I know whether some Amiga function can be emulated on the PC. It's called deductive logic-- not straw man argument or insult like you use. Here's a simpler example, I know for a fact that Gameport joystick on PC takes 1 ms to read using port 201h (directly read port). I know Amiga joystick read takes, a few microseconds. Thus, you cannot emulate an Amiga joystick on PC using PC joystick. It'll never EQUAL OR EXCEL it.

>>Same claims I made using timers with 1.19Mhz timer vs. 7.16Mhz cycle accuracy and other claims.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>Sorry for the long quote.

>Amigaski, you're twisting the truth. You invent your own definitions - none of which are in line with that of the rest of the world. You deliberately use definitions intended for completely different contexts. You simply do whatever to support your claims rather than accepting the fact that you're wrong. This is especially retarded considering that we're discussing an area of which you yourself admit that you have no real knowledge. You're simply amazing on your own very special way.

I did not invent the definition.  I didn't twist the truth-- I'm sticking to my definition.  It's retarded to say that Atari 800 can emulate P4-Quad core given time and memory.  I never said I have no knowledge of emulators-- I have written some emulators as well for joysticks, mice, keyboards, etc.
--------
Use PC peripherals with your amiga: http://www.mpdos.com
 

Offline amigaksi

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #230 on: January 28, 2009, 07:24:42 PM »
>by dammy on 2009/1/27 18:43:11

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry bloodline, I hate to use the phrase "you're wrong", but you really are... The weakest Amiga I own is able to push a lot more than 2 megabytes per second.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>I'll bite, how many MBPS in what slowest Amiga?

>Dammy
 
We're not talking raw memory to graphics memory update speed.  Even if you consider without sprites, there's blitter and then there's the scroll/graphics memory pointer registers which can be updated in a few microseconds and those things are non-standard in modern graphics cards so you end up repainting the screen which would be slower.

--------
Use PC peripherals with your amiga: http://www.mpdos.com
 

Offline bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12113
  • Total likes: 0
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #231 on: June 05, 2009, 12:53:40 AM »
Quote from: amigaksi;439906
>by dammy on 2009/1/27 18:43:11

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry bloodline, I hate to use the phrase "you're wrong", but you really are... The weakest Amiga I own is able to push a lot more than 2 megabytes per second.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>I'll bite, how many MBPS in what slowest Amiga?

>Dammy
 
We're not talking raw memory to graphics memory update speed.  Even if you consider without sprites, there's blitter and then there's the scroll/graphics memory pointer registers which can be updated in a few microseconds and those things are non-standard in modern graphics cards so you end up repainting the screen which would be slower.


But it isn't slower because of the faster memory bandwidth... in fact repainting the entire screen is faster.

Offline koaftder

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #232 on: June 05, 2009, 12:59:17 AM »
The thing is, PC's don't treat the video interface as just one chunk in memory that you spew data into like we used to using vga or vesa modes and haven't in a *long* time. The 2d acceleration on even old video cards is nuts. Check out a programmers manual for a matrox millennium for a good example.
 

Offline Karlos

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #233 on: June 05, 2009, 01:02:47 AM »
Quote from: bloodline;509284
But it isn't slower because of the faster memory bandwidth... in fact repainting the entire screen is faster.


Graphics memory bandwidth is measured in GB/s nowadays:

Code: [Select]
karlos@Megaburken-II:~/NVIDIA_CUDA_SDK/bin/linux/release$ ./bandwidthTest
Running on......
      device 0:GeForce GTX 260
Quick Mode
Host to Device Bandwidth for Pageable memory
.
Transfer Size (Bytes) Bandwidth(MB/s)
 33554432 2473.4

Quick Mode
Device to Host Bandwidth for Pageable memory
.
Transfer Size (Bytes) Bandwidth(MB/s)
 33554432 2264.0

Quick Mode
Device to Device Bandwidth
.
Transfer Size (Bytes) Bandwidth(MB/s)
 33554432 104592.3

&&&& Test PASSED
int p; // A
 

Offline Trev

Re: Is Amiga Emulation better than the real thing?
« Reply #234 on: June 05, 2009, 01:13:39 AM »
Quote from: amigaksi;439903

Latest NVidia card I used does about 200MB/second in repainting screens.  AGA machine like low-end 30Mhz A4000 does over 4MB/second easily.  But that wasn't the point-- the point was emulating sprite hardware not raw drawing capability.  If you have a sprite overlay on top of an image-- let's say a curtain of size 352*240 and you move the curtain, the Amiga does it in a few microseconds, whereas your graphics card will be repainting the screen and take much longer.  I can compute the exact figure for you if you need it...


You wouldn't use sprites on a modern graphics card. You'd use a 2D, texture-mapped polygon. I don't know if any current emulator does that, but it seems like a reasonable approach. Even relatively ancient 3D cards supported texture sizes in line with Amiga sprite sizes. (Or not. The 3dfx Voodoo supported 256x256.) Google pixel and polygon fill rates for your graphics card if you're curious. Anyhow, on a current card with maximum texture sizes that exceed screen sizes, you could probably fill the screen with more virtual sprites than there are working Amigas in the world--dependent on your implementation, of course. :-P