Haynie's Garage Sale

[Hammer]

Absolutely! While the AMD processor is no more powerful than the Intel processor (they are about on par), AMD's APUs have much better graphics than the chipsets currently offered for Atom.

And AMD processors now draw LESS power than Intel.

I'm all for any non-Intel product.

Let's all go ARM, AMD, or VIA!

Well, Intel has 17 watt Intel Core i5-2537M @1.4 GHz, but it's $250.

AMD's Radeon HD 6250M accelerates non-gaming workloads e.g. IE9 and FireFox 4.

I wasn't impress with my ASUS Eee PC T101MT Tablet PC's "Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3150".

[Iggy]

Well, Intel has 17 watt Intel Core i5-2537M @1.4 GHz, but it's $250.

That is amazing. I haven't heard of that one yet.
What do the supporting chipsets draw?

Max Turbo Frequency
2.3 GHz!

[dammy]

What type of comparisons?

You want AMD C-50(Bobcat) @ 1.0Ghz (9 watts) vs Intel Atom D525 (Pineview) @ 1.8Ghz (13 watts)?

That's the one I would love to see.

Simply amazing the tech jump from projects of C='s final days to what is now available for low end computing.  One can only ponder what we would have now had C= survive and competed against that upstart company, nVidia.

[Hammer]

That's the one I would love to see.

Simply amazing the tech jump from projects of C='s final days to what is now available for low end computing.  One can only ponder what we would have now had C= survive and competed against that upstart company, nVidia.

NVIDIA's co-founder Curtis Priem was a designer for IBM Professional Graphics Controller(PGC) and SUN GX graphics chip (1986-1993). NV1 was released sometime in ~1995.

NVIDIA was not the driving force for pre-1995 PC graphics. Also, Intel i860/i960 VLIW-RISC 3D chip was used in SGI machines.

In 1984, PGC has 640×480 with 256 colors and a refresh rate of 60 Hertz.

ATI Mach 8 was released sometime in 1991.
ATI Mach 32 was released sometime in 1992.
ATI Mach 64 was released sometime in 1994.
ATI Rage 3D was released sometime in 1995.

Can C= AGA compete against ATI Mach 32?

You then have S3 Graphics ...

[TheBilgeRat]

NVIDIA's co-founder Curtis Priem was a designer for IBM Professional Graphics Controller(PGC) and SUN GX graphics chip (1986-1993). NV1 was released sometime in ~1995.

NVIDIA was not the driving force for pre-1995 PC graphics. Also, Intel i860/i960 VLIW-RISC 3D chip was used in SGI machines.

In 1984, PGC has 640×480 with 256 colors and a refresh rate of 60 Hertz.

ATI Mach 8 was released sometime in 1991.
ATI Mach 32 was released sometime in 1992.
ATI Mach 64 was released sometime in 1994.

Can C= AGA compete against ATI Mach 32?

How much were those cards back then?  I'm guessing a bit out of the typical consumer range...

[pwermonger]

I've posted pics of the Multi FPU and other weird and wonderful Amiga boards I have obtained over the years on my Photobucket site:

http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k492/Mayhem_Mayhbe/

[Rob]

That's the one I would love to see.

There's a comparison of The D525+ION and the E-350.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-e-350-atom-d525-nvidia-ion-2,2905.html

[toRus]

In 1984, PGC has 640×480 with 256 colors and a refresh rate of 60 Hertz.

You don't remember things very well. It cost several thousand $s and it sucked. Nobody used it. What's your point ?

[sparkeyjames]

I was just taking a look at Dave's stuff on eBay and I remembered that I have one of those blank accel boards. Can't remember if it's an 020 or 030 variety. Some one way back in the day was selling them and I bought it as a conversation piece. This was well before C= when under. Heck for all I know it was Dave that was selling them back then.

Jim

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

I've posted pics of the Multi FPU and other weird and wonderful Amiga boards I have obtained over the years on my Photobucket site:

http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k492/Mayhem_Mayhbe/

Cool!  That A30000 is a beast, would love to hear any stories about it!

[runequester]

How much were those cards back then?  I'm guessing a bit out of the typical consumer range...

Onlky thing I could find is this, which is actually a card released the following year, but 199

http://books.google.com/books?id=IjsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=what+did+ati+mach+32+cost&source=bl&ots=iuUeENyWOF&sig=BC0fjILIZ5z75Hd5kgNwP3g7xSA&hl=en&ei=8J2oTaX7HoK70QHHpNz5CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

Its on the middle left side, under announcements.

Hammer is suffering from a lot of amiga guilt it seems. As I explained above, any amiga talk must be accompanied by immediate proof that the amiga sucked, even though today its 2011.

[mailman2]

 For one, you can claim real Amiga cred there -- doing things the Amiga way.

Doing everything by the processor is Amiga way.
For 20 years, since the time when some lazy morons from Commodore left a 16-bit access to the bliter.  So that the AGA blitter was slower in some operations, than 68020, and much slower than 68030.

You're not just a PC with a PowerPC CPU and some VGA chip trying to make the claim of being an Amiga.

  If you do not like the idea of the Amiga as a PC with a different processor than the x86, there was a time when you could change that.

Why, not in 1991 ?

You could add 16-bit (65536 colors) chunky mode to AGA, when you worked on AGA.

Since this was not done, the AGA chips were crap compared to what was in 1992 in PC, Mac, Atari.

Because the Aga chips were crap, the external graphics card based on pc chips were in Amiga absolutely necessary.

[drHirudo]

Do not blame others for your mistakes.

Don't forget about the 8-bit Paula in the later Amiga models, that was cool in 1985 but obsolete in 1989. WTF? The AppleIIGS had better sound by then.

[RMK305]

Mailman2,

Do you honestly think that the engineers at Commodore were in controll of their budgets and for authorising development and production? No point in attacking Dave, you twat.

[mailman2]

Yup. The only PPCs you'll ever be able to get are optimized for network switches, the sort of stuff that Motorola puts out.

Freescale still produces and sells G4 (E600).  

Now, if someone made a complete PPC Amiga system, complete with AmigaOS 4.x or whatever, and sold it for $300-$400, I don't think anyone could complain too much that it doesn't meet the performance specs of a $200 x86-based Netbook (which it won't).  

For $ 200 you can only get a x86 notebook based on the Atom, slower than G4.

The one exception is the traditional Amiga pro-market stuff: graphics and video. You need all the CPU cycles you can get for that.  

You need all the GPU cycles you can get for that.

My main machine at home is a six core AMD 1090T running at 3.2GHz. I ran an HD video render last night, something like six hours on that machine.  

You should buy the software, which would benefit from the GPU. Used to processing video my 3 year old graphics card is doing circles around my Athlon.

[Daedalus]

@mailman2

Where's all this hate and bitterness coming from? And why directed at Dave? Have you ever worked in a commercial R&D environment before? Do you know the constraints and pressure those guys were probably under? They had far less money and time than they needed, which ultimately means cutting corners, such as keeping Paula etc.