Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: A6000 on April 25, 2008, 12:16:15 AM
-
We have 020's at 14 mhz w/FastRam, 030's at 25 to 50 mhz, 040's at 25 to 40 mhz, and 060's at 50 to 90 mhz,
Now, putting aside the view that a computer can never be "too fast", what would be the minimum useable processor and speed.
-
A6000 wrote:
We have 020's at 14 mhz w/FastRam, 030's at 25 to 50 mhz, 040's at 25 to 40 mhz, and 060's at 50 to 90 mhz,
Now, putting aside the view that a computer can never be "too fast", what would be the minimum useable processor and speed.
For me the minimum is currently 2.33Ghz... and even that is starting to become a limitation as I need to push my creative abilities.
-
Fast enough?
3d Studio Max spitting out realtime images with Final Render with Global Illumination on and caustics, while rendering at HD Full resolution :-D
Oh and with AA ofcourse and plenty of polygons :lol:
-
A 17.5Mhz 68010 is just about right.
-
Any new G3, G4 accelerator for my 4000T.
-
It depends on what you are using your Amiga for. For mostly older Amiga software and games a faster 68030 works great. For more modern computer needs a fast 68040 or 68060 will allow you to do 90% of what most people use modern computers for. For some CPU intensive tasks the classic Amigas are just not up to par. A G4 PowerPC Amiga is probably fast enough for 98% of what modern computers are used for. The lack of good modern stable Amiga software becomes more of a concern with the faster processors IMHO.
-
If you have a couple quad core processors then 2 GHz for each core should be enough.
(http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~zeigleem/dancing%20smiley.gif)
-
060 at 50 does most of what I need to do on my A4000 except for watching DVD's. So I guess it would be nice to have it run a little faster. But if I need something really fast I just use my clone. If I want to have fun and enjoy myself I use the Amiga :)
Dan
-
How fast is fast enough? Let me put it to you this way:
I'm using the 768 Kbps DSL which is the slower speed and I think I'm using a 802.11 G modem/router.
If you want DVD quality video then you would either need FIOS (I haven't figured out the speed) or 802.11 N which is about 74 Mebabits a second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11
I've been reading the following link on PC chips to try to determine how efficient and fast a processor should be because the Pentium 4 lost speed to the AMD Athlon:
http://www.emulators.com/docs/pentium_1.htm
This article talks about keeping the pipeline to a chip full because if you don't then useful work is not being done and it is called a "Stall". Another thing is that the old Machine Language programming was written serially and now the programming is written on a schedule where you can get two instructions in instead of one so in order for a computer to be efficient, you have to keep the processor efficient and reduce bottlenecks:
CLOCK SPEED IS NOT EVERYTHING! So many people stupidly go out and buy a new computer every year expecting faster clock speed to solve their problems, when the main problem is not clock speed. The problem is poorly written code, uneducated programmers, and out of date compilers (that's YOU Microsoft) that target obsolete processors. How many people still run Microsoft Office 95? Ok, do a DUMPBIN on WINWORD.EXE or EXCEL.EXE to get the version number of the compiler tools. That product was written in an old version of Visual C++ which targets now obsolete 486 processors. Do the same thing with Office 97 or Office 2000. Newer tools that target P6. Wonder why your Office 97 runs faster than your Office 95 on the same Pentium III computer? Ditto for Windows 98 over Windows 95. Windows 2000 over Windows 98. Etc. etc. The newer the compiler tools, the better optimized the code is for today's processors.
-Ibid.
-
My 68040 Amiga is generally "fast enough" for most of my needs, including using effects in ImageFX (so I have to wait 30 seconds for an effect to render, no big deal). It's also fine for desktop publishing using Pagestream, CD-burning and 99% of the games out there (I don't do much gaming though).
However...."how fast is fast enough"? Well, I do a lot of music on my Amiga (MIDI stuff and 2-track stereo editing). The one thing I would like to be able to do is run a full multi-track suite (like HD-REC or Audio Evolution) on my Amiga (8-tracks minimum, but preferrably 16-tracks). If my Amiga could handle this, I wouldn't have to rely on a PC for this sort of stuff. I think at minimum an 060 is required to run any of the current Amiga multitrack software.
So an 060 would probably be enough for me (I'm hoping Natami actually is produced for this reason). An 060 Amiga would probably make me happy for a LOOOONG time.
However, talking entirely no-limits. The any Amiga that could handle doing multitrack audio, plus non-linear digital video editing would be the ultimate computer for me (probably not even the top of the line PPC would fulfill my needs). Even an older PC can handle this nowadays, so I do not require cutting edge technology, just something that can get the job done.
-
A6000 wrote:
We have 020's at 14 mhz w/FastRam, 030's at 25 to 50 mhz, 040's at 25 to 40 mhz, and 060's at 50 to 90 mhz,
Now, putting aside the view that a computer can never be "too fast", what would be the minimum useable processor and speed.
I don't necessarily see it as a CPU speed problem.
I see what the programmers did on the old C=64 with a
1 mhz 6502 processor and what they are doing on a 2 gig PC.
As I see it, its the programmers that have gotten LAZY.
They don't optimize their code for speed, if it works its
good enough (the processor will take care of speed).
Mel
-
One Billion Gigahertz...
I dunno, I thought my C64 was fast enough.
Why did I even post?
-
How long are pieces of string?
-
Thanks for all the replies so far.
My question was related to running the sort of AMIGA software you are still running now, most of this was written for a base machine at 7 or 14 mhz and should run on that machine but a little extra speed is usually good, so I was wondering which speed is usable, I know PC's are faster but most of that speed is wasted running windows, and even that machine will be OBSOLETE in 18 months if not sooner.
A lot of people are trying to find 060 accelerators, but could they be satisfied with an 030 or 040 if they dont want to play DVD's, I can buy a brand new DVD player in my local supermarket for under £15 which is better and more economical than trying to make the amiga do it.
-
when it comes to Amigas, I also think 040 is good enough for most things.
of course PCs will never be "fast enough". Sooner or later 3D monitors will be mass produced, and demand for speed will increase dramatically.
-
I think that most Amiga software will run well with an 030/50mHz CPU, but there are several Amiga programs (such as all 3D rendering programs) that need all the speed you can give them. I have also read that the 030 breaks less games than the 040 and 060, but with WHDLoad and the like, games can be run with almost anything.
-
i would like a system that could emulate the fastest amiga and be at least a modern multimedia computer.
-
monami wrote:
i would like a system that could emulate the fastest amiga and be at least a modern multimedia computer.
What is stopping you? AmiKit, AmigaForever, WinUAE, AmigaSys
-
ermm. real world amiga please. (i was thinking new amiga with 68kemulation. i guess we don't say ppc anymore?)
somebody in the thread mentioned hd-rec. what are the requirements for that program? thanks.
-
Fast enough to play the games that I still want to play :-D 030 at 50Mhz for all those that need a little more! I never wanted to play Gloom3D etc so it doesn't need the extra ooomph of an 060.
For tinkering and just for the sheer geeky hell of it I'd like to get a PPC with 040 working but I don't really need it.
Andy
-
For my amiga use a 040@40mhz is ok for most things my 060 is all i need for my classic amiga ..
On my main coumputer i am running a quad cpu overclocked to 3.4Ghz "it does the trick" . Why would i need a faster amiga `?
-
030@50 runs every game and music app I need just great :-D
-
monami wrote:
somebody in the thread mentioned hd-rec. what are the requirements for that program? thanks.
The author says that an 060 is the minimum requirement with the current version (can do most things with some limitations). However, the next version will be PPC only.
-
I have a WarpEngine 040 @ 40 mhz running OS 3.9
in my A3000 and it does all I want it to just fine.
IMHO Lazy and inefficent programmers are the problem.
I'm not refering to the hobbiests who dabble and write
some small util or something like that. I'm refering to
the Pro's who write for a living.
Look what was done with a 1 mhz C=64. No room for garbage
on that machine, they wrote good tight code.
The faster the CPU's get the sloppier the coder will be.
Mel
-
melott wrote:
The faster the CPU's get the sloppier the coder will be.
...and the more pretty things and "expected functionality" you'll be asked to shoehorn in all whilst trying not to shoot yourself in the foot and make something unmaintainable :-P
Not _all_ our fault :-D
Andy
-
bloodline wrote:
A6000 wrote:
We have 020's at 14 mhz w/FastRam, 030's at 25 to 50 mhz, 040's at 25 to 40 mhz, and 060's at 50 to 90 mhz,
Now, putting aside the view that a computer can never be "too fast", what would be the minimum useable processor and speed.
For me the minimum is currently 2.33Ghz... and even that is starting to become a limitation as I need to push my creative abilities.
And I bet a vanilla A1200 with HD can boot the OS and load applications quicker.
-
melott wrote:
I have a WarpEngine 040 @ 40 mhz running OS 3.9
in my A3000 and it does all I want it to just fine.
IMHO Lazy and inefficent programmers are the problem.
I'm not refering to the hobbiests who dabble and write
some small util or something like that. I'm refering to
the Pro's who write for a living.
Look what was done with a 1 mhz C=64. No room for garbage
on that machine, they wrote good tight code.
The faster the CPU's get the sloppier the coder will be.
Mel
Agreed. People don't seem to care about efficiency any more. The power is that high that efficiency goes right out of the window.
-
p3 800mhz,768mb ram,ata133 hd 8mb cache,gfx card gf4 mx.... is the minimum for winxp sp1... window is so bloated today its insane..
-
what would be the minimum useable processor and speed.
It depends heavily on the intended usage. But generally, a 68030 at 40mhz should be considered the lowest configuration for a just about usable setup these days.
-
@melott
I have a WarpEngine 040 @ 40 mhz running OS 3.9in my A3000 and it does all I want it to just fine.
I agree. I have the same setup. Although when you use apps such as IBrowse & Yam they are a little sluggish. Performance difference with these and other apps is quite noticeable in my other machine which has an '060. '060 is much snappier. For me, an '040 equipped machine would be the minimum standard.
-
Core, I gotta have lot's of 'em. The more cores the better.
(http://collectingtokens.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/apple_clear.jpg)
-
I jumped to 68060 to play Mp3s through Paula and it still was lacking. Paula can do 14 bit audio, max. When I finally found a MasPlayer, the 060 was inconsequential (I still like it, though).
The Amiga was designed around co-processing. If you can run retargetable graphics and audio through improved hardware, then an 030 is very usable and the most compatible.
-
I don't necessarily see it as a CPU speed problem.
I see what the programmers did on the old C=64 with a
1 mhz 6502 processor and what they are doing on a 2 gig PC.
As I see it, its the programmers that have gotten LAZY.
They don't optimize their code for speed, if it works its
good enough (the processor will take care of speed).
Mel
Thats it in a nutshell. In the semester of computer science I took at University, we managed to cut down the search time from 4 minutes to 2 and a half in a database we were writing in Pascal on a B and W Mac just by optimizing our search routines and code structure.
Currently we have ludicrous situation where we need quad-core multi ghz cpu's in PC's to multitask properly.
I remember going from a 40 mHz 68030 to 40 mhz 68040 to a 50 mhz 68060 and at each step there was huge difference in performance for all tasks. Imagine, I thought, what i could do with clock speeds in the hundreds of mHZ? Now days you go from 1000 mhz to 2000 mhz and you think "Oh boot up time is the same, I can do a render/mp3 faster and...thats it"
-
Tenacious wrote:
I jumped to 68060 to play Mp3s through Paula and it still was lacking. Paula can do 14 bit audio, max. .
Really? I can play back all mp3's on an 40 mhz 68040 A1200 in a dblscan screen at 48 khz 14-bit paula sound without skipping with 40% cpu usage and they sound great too. I use a small arexx script which opens a file requestor to select the mp3 I want and it leaves a small cli window open. I run executive, so that i can happily multitask at the same time.
-
A 030/50MHz is quite sufficient for me, as it can play the majority of Amiga games through WHDload and, of course, Doom! In case I need more CPU power I'll turn to a 40MHz 68040 as I haven't found anything that could run on my 50MHz 68060 and couldn't run on my 40MHz 68040! So, pricewise I'd say the 68040. These days I'm using mostly my 68000 A500+ and my 25MHz 68030 A2000 so I've got the feeling that anything above the 68030 can be tooooooo fast! :-D
-
A6000 wrote:
And I bet a vanilla A1200 with HD can boot the OS and load applications quicker.
hows 6 seconds to boot my 1200 with 030@50 compared to bloody 5 minutes for my P4-2 Ghz HP notebook :lol:
-
@ stefcep2
Thats pretty good! It seems others have posted questions to get the same results with 68040s.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased that Amigas can play Mp3s. I'm simply impressed with the MasPlayer. They are available again, have excellent quality, low CPU usage, work with popular software, are reasonably priced.
-
I won't go below my 1GHz G4. It suits my needs for the moment, but e.g. with the latest version of Milkytracker, some of the available resamplers even require a faster CPU.
Varthall