Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Gaming => Topic started by: DamageX on May 25, 2006, 05:18:05 AM
-
It's been claimed that the Graffiti card is supported by Gloom Deluxe and ADOOM, but how? ADOOM says it needs graffiti.library but I haven't been able to find it.
Also, is there a faster version of DOOM for an '030?
-
Don't know about graphiti but ADOOM and DoomAttack both are fine DOOM ports. It is just that the 030 is not powefull enough to do all the 3d stuff and covert chunky to planar. Get a PC or an 060.
-
ADoom runs full speed and full window on my 040 @ 33mhz
-
Back in the day, I used to play Doom using DoomAttack on my 030/50, as it seemed to run a lot smoother than any of the other ports. I ran it fine in full screen 1x2 pixels, and it still looked nice in 1x1, just ran slightly slower. Overall, it seemed to run smoother than other First Person Shooters, like Breathless, at the same resolution and screen size.
-
Have you contacted Individual Computers? :-)
-
Thanks, I guess will try doomattack and I will try asking Jens about the graffiti.library
The curious thing about ADOOM on my system is that shrinking the display window doesn't seem to speed it up much, so c2p must not be using that large a portion of CPU time. DOOM runs better on my 386DX with 32KB of external cache so I guess memory latency must weigh heavily. I wonder why Amiga CPU cards never had L2 cache.
-
Hi
DamageX wrote:
It's been claimed that the Graffiti card is supported by Gloom Deluxe and ADOOM, but how? ADOOM says it needs graffiti.library but I haven't been able to find it.
Also, is there a faster version of DOOM for an '030?
I just found this file on www.aminet.net.
http://main.aminet.net/gfx/board/pnmview_grf.lha
It's has the graffiti.library (version 1.0) included.
I hope this is the file you are looking for.
Best regards
Lumby
-
@DamageX, cachemem was/is really expensive and Commodore thought it was enough speed without. I read somewhere that atleast 68040 "looks" for cachemem before it starts up and I´ve seen pictures on the net of cachemem-modules that you put between the socket and the 68040. Perhaps someone has more info on this? :-)
-
really? cache is crucial... more info!
-
following the off topic tangent...
There was a Sonnet made card called a QuadDoubler, which was confirmed to have worked with the 3640 accellerator on the Amiga (from memory). The Quaddoubler was originally made for the quadra or centris macs. There were a few versions, I believe. At least some had L2 cache. I don't know if the L2 cached version worked with miggies or not. I believe all quaddoublers have pmmu, heat sink, and a faster clock. The card is a piggy-back style socket, which sits in the original '040 socket, and has it's own 040 socket for it's resident chip.
this page (http://cciinter.net/users/amigasource/ml/19.htm) is a miggy site, with a dead link to an article about the sonnet quaddoubler. There is an extraction from that article here (http://www.cucug.org/sr/sr9912.html), maybe half way down the page. The article doesn't mention L2 cache at all, so maybe it was the non cached adapter which was used successfully with the Amiga.
Anyone else have any info on L2 caches?
edit- some erroneous claims
-
Amiga OS doesn't simply support it.
-
@zipper: thought that might be the case. thanks.
-
I don't think AOS has to support L2 cache... if it's there, it will be used...
-
I found the article.
http://www.lowendmac.com/tech/l2cache.shtml
-
Crusher: is that article relavent to Amigas? I didn't see anything mentioned there.
-
Nah, just for 68040. But as I understand the 68040 uses L2 if there is any. :-)
-
so atleast the 040 looks and uses cache...
if it was easy to implement, I bet at least phase5 would use some cache at least on their bppc/csppc cards... who knows why they decided against it... :-?
-
Perhaps because the RAM is fast enough to provide the CPU with data. L2 Cache is only interesting when RAM is the main bottleneck. Since Fastram is not shared by any other processors L1 cache might be sufficient.
-
I bet at least phase5 would use some cache at least on their bppc/csppc cards... who knows why they decided against it... :-?
Because every time a context switch happens you may lose what's in that cache or something like that.
-
As long as the cache operates only on FASTMEM in the 32-bit
address space (where no other device can write, right?) then
it should be completely transparent to software.
I think an 020 or 030 would have much more to gain than an
040 or 060 since the cache on those chips is so much smaller
to begin with. The PPC should also have a lot to gain if my
experience with socket 5 PC motherboards is any indication.
On the original topic, I tried the graffiti.library from the
pnmview_grf archive and ADOOM runs but only with a blank
screen.
-
Have you checked with Snoopdos? Maybe there is something else missing. :-)
-
The curious thing about ADOOM on my system is that shrinking the display window doesn't seem to speed it up much, so c2p must not be using that large a portion of CPU time. DOOM runs better on my 386DX with 32KB of external cache so I guess memory latency must weigh heavily. I wonder why Amiga CPU cards never had L2 cache
because L2 cache on amiga was useless
-
It's not even a 68020, but doesn't the ICDAdSpeed card have a small 'cache' of very quick non-system memory on it for it's 14MHz 68000?