14 Million new Amiga users!

[JetRacer]

There's just one tiny'ish problem...

The old PS1 had about the same performance we can expect from the A1. If we compare it with A1+Matrox 2D. And the PS2 have specs like x10 PS1.

Sorry, but they're better off with their current PS2.

[JetRacer]

> Although I don't know how much longer Microsoft is going to keep blowing their money on Xbox.

And admit defeat!?! ;-)

I wonder how long it will take until we see an anouncement like:

"Microsoft to concentrate on core buissness areas"

[JetRacer]

> The CPU of ps1 was around 20-40 mhz iirc.

25MHz infact. Two MIPS processors running at 25MHz with GFX integrated on one of the chips. If that doesn't ring a bell, then you really don't know anything. It's a multi-processor chip harbouring about eight processors each. The 250MHz PS2 Kicks the balls of both PPC and x86 so hard that the nuts will end up on the moon.

[JetRacer]

> The PS1 was comparable with a CD-32, exept for the 3D performance.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That was funny.

The PS1's only performance comes from a pair of MIPS CPU's. It doesn't have a 3D chip, only RAW POWER strait through. It's like having a Matrox board integrated on the same chip as a PPC with full parallel blast between them. And then you scare it up to 16x250MHz (16 processors, distributed over two chips), and do some finetunes to get the PS2.

Note: PS1 games looks like CD32 because it only have 5MB (unified) RAM available for games. Therefore most gfx is 8-bit with 32-bit (rgba) gfx effects ontop.

[JetRacer]

Yes and no. Think: "using my NVidia 3D board as a computer", and you'll get pretty close to reality. Note that all 3D boards are based on modified MIPS processors.

It's like the X-Box without the P3 and the bottleneck. It won't give you faster 3D graphics, but everything else runs MUCH faster (the extra load on the MIPS plugs is negible).

[JetRacer]

Lando: I don't think there's a single accurate statement in your post. I've actually opened and checked the contense of my PS1. And read information from both MIPS and Sony. Where did you get that faulty information from? MIPS does not make single processor chips. Multi-processor chips are sometimes refered to as a "X-stage pipeline". Multi-stage pipelines is what makes the processors work together in paralel. GPU's are modified MIPS processors (the geometry and blabla added). On the other hand you may be half right; the PS1 may be using one MIPS strictly as a CPU and the other strictly as a GPU. I'm not 100% shure about the MHz figure of PS2, but you wasn't right about the PS1. Both PS1 oscillator and chips are stamped with the 25MHz figure.

The terms CPU and processor are kind of misleading. It's no a big secret. There's a grey area when it comes to what's a multi-processor CPU and what's "paralell" processor (as in executing many instructions per cycle). In MIPS case it leans towards multi-processor simply because that's their original purpose (enpowering SGI monsters).

I wrote that the PS1 has about the same performance as an A1 without hardware 3D support. What I didn't wrote was: exactly the same performance of a 600MHz PPC A1 with the hottest 3D board.

[JetRacer]

Damn. You got me there (I'd nearly prefer suicide than to admit that to you 'proc ;-).

After checking around abit it seems like you are right (not only your links (before you say it)). It's only later MIPS CPU's that are designed the way I was talking about, and the PS1 and PS2 processors are basicly redundant crap licensed away cheaply.

Sorry folks, my mistake.

mips_proc wrote:
One note I'd like to make is that I own an SGI Octane dual R10K 250mhz machine... with a gig of ram... booting from a scsi drive... running IRIX (pretty lite unix) and it dosent come 'close' to beating even a P3 1ghz in terms of raw power..

Me:
How the h**l is that possib... ...no, wait, Both AMD and Intel x86 execute about four instructions per cycle, right? Which means the 250MHz R10K suck, even compared to my own x86.

...

I'll just blame it on temporary brain defunct.