Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: 3246251196 on May 13, 2006, 07:09:41 PM
-
i need a 030. i see some good ones. i also see this:
GVP Amiga 1200 030 / 40 Accelerator + 4mb Ram & FPU
i have been told by a source that GVP is not the way to go for fears of it not being good to uprgrade.
how do you people feel?
-
GVP is not using regular SIMMs for memory, so the modules cost their weight in gold (or so).
If only you will never upgrade the memory (believe me you will want to upgrade some day), consider GVP.
-
okay. point taken
thanks for the help ;)
-
i would recoemnd the Blizzard cards, very reliable and doesnt need special ram...
Seach them up at amiga hardware base..
-
The GVP and Phase 5 (Blizzard) cards are both excellent choices. But, of course, as stated, those GVP SIMMS are rare and expensive. If I wanted buy two 16MB chips to max mine, it would cost me more than the board, 8MB, and SCSI module did, combined.
-
apollo is roughly equivalent to blizzard, also?
-
apollo is roughly equivalent to blizzard, also?
Memory access is a lot faster on Apollo cards than on Blizzards.
You will also notice a big increase of IDE HD transfer speeds (using either Idefix Express or Powerflyer) when using an Apollo over a Blizzard.
-
...But it should be pointed out that by doing so Apollo break some of the timing specs. Thus, Apollo is much more prone to have timing related issues. Also I am not that sure about the "a lot faster" bit. Faster perhaps, but not that much IMO.
Also Apollo has no real SCSI, which Blizzards do have (SCSI Kit).
Apollo can't take as much memory as Blizzards.
Blizzards can be disabled from keyboard and you can use the regular 68EC020 CPU if you need to (some really picky games/demos perhaps?). Apollo can't be disabled.
Blizzards are commonly considered much more robust and better designed.
I'm not saying Apollos are useless, I'm sure they are good cards in their own way. They sure are cheaper than Blizzard, that's a big plus.
-
I switched from an Apollo 1240 to a BPPC (040 at 25Mhz) and I must say that it "feels" a lot slower.
The main advantage is the PPC of course (although I use it less than I thought) and that I am no longer limited to just 32MB of RAM.
Using the Apollo however, FastMem access (tested using Sysspeed) was around 50% faster and transfer rates of my Idefix Express were about 2MB/s higher than with the BPPC.
I never had any stability issues with it.
-
That sounds weird, but I have to admit I only have experience of BPPC 060.
The Blizzard 1230 MK-III I had before was fast in IDE transfer at least.
-
When I had my A1200 with BPPC (040) Idefix Express never gave any advantage. Transfer rates were the same no matter were I using Express adapter or not.
IDE transfer rates were probably even slower than with Blizzard-VI 030/50MHz.
For fastmem access it also depends on memory configuration. I remember tuning up settings until my A1200 just crashed :-P
-
@All
I switched from an Apollo 1240 to a BPPC (040 at 25Mhz) and I must say that it "feels" a lot slower.
The main advantage is the PPC of course (although I use it less than I thought) and that I am no longer limited to just 32MB of RAM.
Using the Apollo however, FastMem access (tested using Sysspeed) was around 50% faster and transfer rates of my Idefix Express were about 2MB/s higher than with the BPPC.
That sounds weird, but I have to admit I only have experience of BPPC 060.
The Blizzard 1230 MK-III I had before was fast in IDE transfer at least.
When I had my A1200 with BPPC (040) Idefix Express never gave any advantage. Transfer rates were the same no matter were I using Express adapter or not.
IDE transfer rates were probably even slower than with Blizzard-VI 030/50MHz.
Hmmm... All of the above posts are suggesting that the slow memory/hd access concerns the BPPC specifically and not all of the Blizzard cards.
Also, look what i found in the readme of the idefix turbo patch:
This is a small patch for the great IDEfix97 software by Oliver Kastl
It patches some routines in the IDEfix executable to make it a bit faster.
Usually you should get a 100-300KB speedup on IDE HD drives.
This is very good since PPC Blizzard cards are realy slow with IDE HD's
So, what do you think?
-
@AmigaMance wrote:
I can't remember where it was, but I have read somewhere that the memory access speed on the BPPC is quite slow compaired to other blizzard cards.
-
Concerning memory access, also a Blizzard 1260 is slow compared to an Apollo 1260.
Check out this thread (http://tinyurl.com/rttx5) for example.
"On the overall ratings I got the following:
Integer Graphics FPU
Apollo 1260 15.71 3.62 46.20
Blizzard 1260 13.70 3.53 45.90
Apollo faster by 15% 2,5% 0,7%
The largest difference was on the MemTest test, where
Apollo was ~26 % faster than Blizzard.
Apollo was fastest on 17-18 of the 20 tests. However, most
tests gave approx. the same result. It seems like Apollo
has faster memory access which makes it faster on memory
intensive tests.
With SCSISpeed, Apollo got the best transfers from
the IDE drive: Up to 1,95 MB/sek, as opposed to 1,8 MB/
sec with Blizzard.
With Busspeed by Michael Van Elst (sp? - sorry if wrong),
the maximum for Apollo was 57 MB/sec as opposed to
50 MB/sec with Blizzard."
-
don't forget about the compatibility !
Yesterday, I tried to play "Lagaf - Les aventures de Moktar -Zou zou zou bi da" (a.k.a. "Titus the Fox" with Titus in place of Moktar) with the original floppy.
It often refused to work when the fastram was "on" with my BPPC 040RC/256mb and was slow to "decompress" each level.
When I replaced it with my BZ 1230-IV/FPU/196mb, it worked without any trick, and i could set the screenmode in 60hz in the "Early" !
So mind about what are you going to do with your card.
-
@srg86
Ah.. now i can explain some things. Like why the 68040/25 of my BPPC doesn't feel much faster than my Blizzard 1230IV and why various benchmark utilities like SysInfo report slower memory access on the BPPC.
I wonder if this deficiency has to do with the dual CPU design of the card.
-
I wonder if this deficiency has to do with the dual CPU design of the card.
No, since it also applies to a Blizzard 1240/40 compared to an Apollo 1240/40 and a Blizzard 1260 compared to an Apollo 1260.
-
Blizzard 1260 compared to an Apollo 1260.
Really? BPPC 060 wasn't that slow IMO, at least when I compared SysSpeed modules... Can't remember exactly but if it was slower, it was only couple of percent. It might also depend on the memory speed settings of the BPPC.
But it has been couple of years I last used the BPPC, so I might remember it being faster than it reallty was ;-)
-
hmm well, according to SysInfo, my BPPC is faster than an A4000/040 and definatly faster than the 1230IV. I also found that if you don't use the display, and so no chip RAM access, that the 040 on the BPPC is definatly faster than the 1230IV. This I have found on my little prime number program which I used to compare different configurations. It doesn't display each prime number which an older version did and is 10 seconds faster on the BPPC040 than the 1230IV
-
As an Apollo 030/50 and BlizzardPPC 060 owner I can confirm that the Apollo card has faster chipmem access than the BlizzardPPC card but fastmem access on my 060/50 603/200 with SCSI is at lest as fast as the Apollo 030 card.
As such for running AGA games the Apollo card is better but for everything else the BlizzardPPC is much better.
-
how about an Apollo 1220 board? anygood.
i know that the 1230 (030) is better to get. but what is this board like?
-
When I compare the SysSpeed results of a Blizzard 1260 VS an Apollo '040 the Apollo only beats the Blizzard on 11 of 31 memory tests.
Yes, I may be comparing the Blizzard '060 and the Apollo '040 but things aren't going to change much for memory - so the Blizzard appears the winner in this category.
With drive speed (particularly with DMA SCSI) you will be missing out with an Apollo as with ROM functions that are mapped to FastMem on a Blizzard board on bootup.
For raw power and reliability I don't think Apollo comes close to Blizzard cards, but as has been mentioned - the '040 and '060 boards cannot compete with '030 boards for compatibility...
... and compatibility is the ultimate test of reliability.
My reccomendation is the Blizzard 1230-IV with 32MB FPM and 50Mhz PGA FPU. (I have a Blizzard 1260 but as a keen gamer am not happy with it's level of compatibility with the ancient classics from A500). If AGA lessens compatibility then '060 will make things even more awkward for the 0ld Sk0ol!
-
there is one on amigakit. i would need to get the FPU too. i already have JUST enough memory for games and OS3.5/3.9
so the 1230 is nice and its recommended all over (the 1230 IV btw)
what about that 1220 i said (the apollo one)? no good?
-
@3246251196:
If you going to buy a 020/030-accelerator and your intention is to play games then skip the FPU, you will not gain anything by having one.
For playing games the Blizzard1230 is a very good accelerator as it is very compatible and you can easily expand it with enough memory to be able to preload even the largest games when using WHDLoad.
The Blizzard1220 isn't a bad accelerator, but it will not allow you to expand the memory very much. 4MB as standard and 8MB with a special and rather hard to get expansion-card for it. If you get one of those, don't pay very much for it.
/Patrik
-
what type of Amiga user needs an FPU then?
thanks for reply, Patrik
-
Hey - my GVP 1230 with 1291 SCSI and 8 meg ram has always treated me well. I bought the card along with the RAM though. How much RAM do you need for what you want to do?
If you find a GVP card with RAM and SCSI I'd say go for it ! Straightforward set-up and no crashing problems. I can't vouch for its speed vs Apillo vs Blizzard.
-
I would get the FPU... make it a 50Mhz PGA FPU if you have the Blizzard 1230-IV in mind.
The FPU will get used by games like Gloom, Alien Breed 3D, AB3D2: The Killing Grounds, Breathless, Doom, XTreme Racing, TFX and more.
It'll probably only cost 30 GBP/50 USD.
On the versus subject though, if you can get another make of board for less than half the price of a Blizzard you're onto a winner - but keep in mind why there is such demand for the Phase 5 boards.
-
The FPU will get used by games like Gloom, Alien Breed 3D, AB3D2: The Killing Grounds, Breathless, Doom, XTreme Racing, TFX and more.
These games are using the FPU? (except of TFX maybe)
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
I would get the FPU... make it a 50Mhz PGA FPU if you have the Blizzard 1230-IV in mind.
The FPU will get used by games like Gloom, Alien Breed 3D, AB3D2: The Killing Grounds, Breathless, Doom, XTreme Racing, TFX and more.
Not true I have all the games you listed, the only Amiga games that support or use the FPU are TFX and ClickBoom’s Quake port.
-
so essentially you just need a board which will hold more memory and increase proc' speed to at least 30Mhz
those are the two main things to run 3.5 (3.9) and play retro amiga games...?
-
I would go with an 030 with about 8MB of fast ram for playing games as that’s what I had connected to my Apollo 030 card and I could play all my classic games without problems. That includes playing WHDLoad versions with the preload into ram option turned on.
-
3246251196 wrote:
what type of Amiga user needs an FPU then?
thanks for reply, Patrik
If you want to run Vista, Lightwave or something like that then you need an FPU. But Today you would be beter of using a PC and winUAE with JIT as it is alot faster than any classic Amiga will ever be.
-
@3246251196:
The main reason for increasing the processor-speed is not the speed itself, but the ability to get more than 8MB of fastram, which will need a cpu with 32-bit external addressing and as far as I know, no card has been made with a cpu capable of that which isnt faster than the A1200's stock cpu.
The A1200's stock cpu which has 24-bit external addressing limits the amount of fastmem you can add to 8MB disregarding what you do (4MB if you also want to be able to use the PCMCIA-port for stuff like networking).
A card like the Blizzard1230 contains a cpu which can address more memory plus the accelerator itself supports more than 8MB without interfering with the PCMCIA-port.
There are actually a bunch of bad 020/030-accelerators which can only handle 8MB of memory even if the cpu on them are capable. If you see one of those you can be sure that it also interferes with the PCMCIA-port if more than 4MB is used - just like the stock A1200.
Nevertheless, you can get by with just a fastmem-expansion for your A1200, which also will increase the speed with about the double, but it is just handier to have more memory if say you want to play large games with WHDLoad and still use your network card.
Actually, you can play just about all games with say just 4MB fastmem, but if there is not enough memory to preload a game in WHDLoad (games over 3 disks generally), all disk-access will get very slow and make the computer flash the screen every time it needs to switch back to the OS to load more data which is _VERY_ annoying.
/Patrik
-
great reply patrik. clears a lot up for me
i am thinking - these 030 acc's are going for so much now. i might just get a memory expansion card. i have 2*4Mb modules for my amiga.
keep with the std 020 + 10Mb (2Mb Chip) memory
what you think?
would it do the job ?
-
If your aim is purely gaming then it's a valid point - is an '030 necessary...
Certainly 1MB+ but none of the classics required an '030 although Theme Park AGA did have an '040 mode or something if I remember correctly.
The reason I mentioned the games below is because they all use 3D engines and as far as I can work out, the FPU helps with the floating point calculations associated with 3D.
I'm not aware of specific commands to call the FPU into operation (the MMU yes but I don't know about the FPU). Alien Breed 3D2: The Killing Grounds must use the FPU if Quake does (Quake on '030 would be pretty ridiculous though!) and so may Genetic Species.
:-D
I suppose the software package 'WHDLoad' would be an essential as would a large hard disk and maybe an extra floppy drive... oh and a CD32 pad!
-
I think the Apollo 1220 had a full '020 instead of an EC '020 so it might speed thing up a little bit. Really the main reason for buying an accelerator card for an A1200 is not the speed so much as the memory addressing. 8 Megs of fast doesn't go very far but 32-64 megs does.
At one time I had 32 megs in my Blizzard 1230 (50MHz w/ FPU) with SCSI kit and was able to run ADoom without accessing the stinkin' hard drive all of the time by renaming the WAD file and creating a soft link to the RAM disk and copying the WAD file to the RAM disk every time I wanted to play. That speeded things up just enough to make them playable.
Memory is the issue more than speed.
-
i really want a 030 accelerator card. i am just searching like mad to find one. found a few on eBay. i just hope i dont have to pay like 90£+. i dont really have the money!
thanks
-
The reason I mentioned the games below is because they all use 3D engines and as far as I can work out, the FPU helps with the floating point calculations associated with 3D.
I'm not aware of specific commands to call the FPU into operation (the MMU yes but I don't know about the FPU). Alien Breed 3D2: The Killing Grounds must use the FPU if Quake does (Quake on '030 would be pretty ridiculous though!) and so may Genetic Species.
Actually older texture mapped 3d engines don't use FPU. The actual 3d calculations themselves are fixed point integer arithmetics, aswell as the texture mapping. The reason quake uses it is the perspective correction.
Out of these 3, only Quake uses FPU.
-
I was hoping you were reading this thread Piru!
When I used to read Amiga Format there was always a full page advert by a company called Gordon Harwood and it tried to sell the Blizzard 1230-IV, 1260 and later the 1240T-ERC.
They were giving away AB3D2:The Killing Grounds with captions like "This flies on a Blizzard" which made one assume that by buying the FPU you'd be getting that much more out of the game.
Since AB3D2:TKG is dead slow on '030 (like Quake), uses polygon weapons, light sourcing and a 3D editor how come it doesn't use the FPU at all when it was programmed with these boards in mind?
Likewise - Breathless and TFX?
... and what was that game that used a voxel engine...
-
Delux Paint IV and V use well the FPU ;-)
-
@Hyperspeed
Since AB3D2:TKG is dead slow on '030 (like Quake), uses polygon weapons, light sourcing and a 3D editor how come it doesn't use the FPU at all when it was programmed with these boards in mind?
Because FPU is even slower than using fixedpoint math.
AB3D2:TKG is rather poorly coded aswell. It could have been much faster.
TKGTurboPatch.lha (http://www.aminet.net/package.php?package=game/patch/TKGTurboPatch.lha)
AB3DII source code (http://www.aminet.net/search.php?query=a3dsrc)
...and what was that game that used a voxel engine...
Voxel engines don't use FPU.
-
by Piru:
AB3D2:TKG is rather poorly coded aswell. It could have been much faster.
No offence to the coders of AB3D2:TKG but I first tried this game on Blizzard 1230-IV, FPU & 16MB of FastMem and it wasn't very playable. I then tried it on Blizzard 1260 and I still wasn't impressed.
If you ask me, the king of Amiga first-person-shooters is Genetic Species as it works with the Amiga and not against it. I remember seeing this at WOA '97/'98 on an A4000/060/PIV and it blew Quake out of the water for gameplay and impressive weapons. GS was basically Doom crossed with Paradroid.
One thing in favour of the Blizzards that has already been mentioned is the ability to switch off the accelerator with key '2'. Who would want to pull out their trapdoor card when a game/app didn't run properly?