Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Marketplace => Topic started by: runequester on February 08, 2011, 12:35:59 AM
-
in an attempt to explore the best options for my amigas, i am also wondering if someone has a 060 card for a 1200 theyd be willing to part with in a few weeks?
-
I have one, but I really prefer not to part with it. I would need to be compensated heavily. :-) (Blizzard 1260)
-
What constitutes "heavily" for you? :)
-
There is this one on evilbay uk, hasn't reached a crazy price yet but that doesn't usually happen until the last 15 minutes... :)
BLIZZARD060 32MB RAM (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Amiga-A1200-Accelerator-Blizzard-1260-50Mhz-32mb-RAM-/260732975382?pt=UK_VintageComputing_RL&hash=item3cb4e57916#ht_566wt_1141)
(actually bidding on it myself... :))
-
Trying to avoid ebay really. Thanks though.
A few conditions:
Card should obviously be work. If it needs repairs, I'll pass, as I can't fix it myself.
Not too too fussed with the amount of memory on it, but would prefer 32 megs or above.
The pain point might be that my budget here is 300 bucks. Hope that turns out realistic for a decent card.
-
You might be better off with a brand new (http://www.alinea-computer.de/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=468&language=en) card instead.
Personally, that's what I decided to do as the last time I tried to shoe-horn a 1260 into my desktop it all got a bit painful.
-
If you check his sig, that's what he's already got. ;)
There's no comparison, 1260 would make any '030 look like chopped liver. My 1260 fit better into my desktop A1200 than a couple of '030 cards I've had, too.
-
Nope... nowt here either... :)
-
Why don't you ask Stan (Stachu100)? I believe he'll have one in a couple of weeks. With him you buy with confidence, and he uses to give them with a couple of cristals, latest mask, right fan... But it will be more than 300 (not much more, I believe).
-
Good luck. There's one on Ebay right now and with over 4 hours left to go its already over $300.
I've stashed the components needed to upgrade a 1240 to a 1260, but its a grueling task and finding a decent 1240 isn't much easier.
-
Yeah, I know its a long shot. I am still a little bit on the fence about what to do in the long run. I may settle myself with my 030 for a while, and just work on other bits and pieces instead.
-
Yeah, I know its a long shot. I am still a little bit on the fence about what to do in the long run. I may settle myself with my 030 for a while, and just work on other bits and pieces instead.
I have doubts about the claimed huge lead the '60 would have anyway.
There are limits to how far you can push an Amiga, and when you're funneling all that power down through a much slower chipset the losses get pretty significant.
Besides, you invest a crap load of money in this and someone with a Cyberstorm '060 running at 66Mhz in a 4000 is going to tell you his computer is faster than yours (or someone with an overclocked PPC board etc.).
Why not just be satisfied that you already have one seriously fast Amiga and leave it at that?
-
I have doubts about the claimed huge lead the '60 would have anyway.
There are limits to how far you can push an Amiga, and when you're funneling all that power down through a much slower chipset the losses get pretty significant.
Besides, you invest a crap load of money in this and someone with a Cyberstorm '060 running at 66Mhz in a 4000 is going to tell you his computer is faster than yours (or someone with an overclocked PPC board etc.).
Why not just be satisfied that you already have one seriously fast Amiga and leave it at that?
Hah, you know, you are probably entirely right :)
I dont't have any intention of running Quake, and as it turns out, Alien Breed 3D 2 is actually playable (when the damn thing decides to run, that is) on my card.
Web browsing is pokey but thats what it is. After I set it to use RAM disk as cache instead of the hard drive, it increased the speed by a bit, and for what I use it for, its quite workable.
So yeah, I think I'll focus my efforts on adding a few missing bits to this machine (printer and subway mainly) and eventually an Indivision to replace my external scan doubler instead.
The scan doubler I have works pretty good, but it doesn't like the interlace screen modes.
-
I would keep the desktop 1200 an '030 and leave it at that. Not worth it for the $300-600 you'd be spending on a 1260 card. The speed gain, especially with AGA, will probably not be what you're expecting, either. I'm downgrading my 1200D to an '030 because I get tired of the WHDLoad access fault kicking me back to WB 30 minutes into a game. :P
If you must, pick up a nice 2000/3000/4000 for major upgrades. A 2000 with an '040 and Spectrum can be loads of fun.
-
@Runequester
To be honest unless your going to be doing things other than playing games on the miggie then an 030 is your best bet, but then again things like AB3D, Breathless etc... do run a hell of a lot better with a properly set up 060 system... :)
Only ever came across one game using WHDLoad that wouldn't work properly on an 060 board and that was Pinball Fantasies AGA, never heard or came across the problem Damion speaks of when using WHDload & an 060 and I've tested and play thousands of them... :)
Only thing I would say if your still not sure about getting an 060 is if your going to use a lot of productivity software like PageStream, Final Writer, PPaint etc... then the difference is night & day when comparing an 30 & an 060... :)
The SubWay board is one of the handiest boards to add to an Amiga especially if you need to transfer a lot of file between the Amiga and a PC or MAC, but don't expect it to be of any use with a CD or DVD USB burner as it's way too slow to be used with one of those... :)
One of the best things to add to an 030 board for productivity software is an FPU but I'm not sure if you can do this on your board, but the speed increase with an FPU on an 030 can really make most productivity software come alive... :)
-
I have doubts about the claimed huge lead the '60 would have anyway.
There are no doubts. A 500% speedup is impressive.
There are limits to how far you can push an Amiga, and when you're funneling all that power down through a much slower chipset the losses get pretty significant.
Luckily for him, the CPU does not funnel its power thru the chipset.
It funnels its power from FASTram through its L1 cache and into itself.
Why not just be satisfied that you already have one seriously fast Amiga and leave it at that?
Because his CPU is extremely seriously slow. A 56Mhz 040 is 3x the speed of a crippled 030 from 1987. An 060 is even faster than 040.
The 030 tries to run a 56Mhz cpu on 256 bytes of L1 instruction cache. That is just silly.
-
>There are no doubts. A 500% speedup is impressive.
5 times? No way. I doubt it. Prove that one with a benchmark. I'll even take a relatively invalid one like a mips figure.
And the chipset? All access to sound, graphics, hard drives? Still just as slow with either processor.
Not that any of this really matters because even a 66Mhz '060 in a 4000 is still a really slow processor.
66Mhz? The PCI bus in my G4 Mac runs at that.
-
well, comparisons to modern computers is a bit pointless :)
As far as my uses, Im pretty comfortable with how Final Writer and Dpaint V runs currently so not too much fuss
-
And the chipset? All access to sound, graphics, hard drives? Still just as slow with either processor.
Exactly, in typical cases regarding the 1200 it's even *slower* with an '060 than an '030.
It makes sense if you're going to towerize it and go RTG, or must watch '060 AGA demos. Otherwise, leave it be and expand something with Zorro slots. Web browsing with AGA won't be $500 better with an '060... I had an 80MHz '060 in mine, the difference isn't what you would expect.
@Franko
Strange, no problem here with the 060 and Pinball Fantasies AGA. Overall WHDLoad has worked well for me on all processors, but the '030 presented the fewest issues.
-
"Exactly, in typical cases regarding the 1200 it's even *slower* with an '060 than an '030."
What's wrong with the 060 that makes it *slower* than this 030? Please explain.
-
well, comparisons to modern computers is a bit pointless :)
As far as my uses, Im pretty comfortable with how Final Writer and Dpaint V runs currently so not too much fuss
Comparisons between anything are pointless as long as the system you're using is up to the task of running the software you intend to use on it.
What would this mythical increase is speed give you that you don't already have?
And if its really bugging you, sit and wait for the Natami.
-
Exactly, in typical cases regarding the 1200 it's even *slower* with an '060 than an '030.
It makes sense if you're going to towerize it and go RTG, or must watch '060 AGA demos. Otherwise, leave it be and expand something with Zorro slots. Web browsing with AGA won't be $500 better with an '060... I had an 80MHz '060 in mine, the difference isn't what you would expect.
@Franko
Strange, no problem here with the 060 and Pinball Fantasies AGA. Overall WHDLoad has worked well for me on all processors, but the '030 presented the fewest issues.
Having both type of processors sitting right here & up and running I'd say your claim that an 060 is slower "in typical cases" than an 030 in an A1200 is just totally WRONG... :)
Never actually seen an "060 AGA demo" but reckon it would be pretty weird purchasing an 060 just to watch one... :)
Gotta agree though that an 030 is a bit more compatible than the 060 for WHDLoad games but not by much... :)
-
I have no doubt an '060 can outperform an '030, but 500%? Pure hyperbole.
-
Drat... just missed out on this Blizzard060 from the states was at $340 (£212) for most of the day, and I forgot about it until a few minutes ago and ended up too slow in bidding... :(
went for $407.47 (£254.65) almost a hundred quid cheaper that you can get one here in the UK, wonder why they go so cheaply in the USA... :(
Blizzard060 64MB RAM (USA) sold for $407.47 (£254.65) (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320653051326#ht_500wt_1156)
@Iggy
Yeah 500% increase is wee bit of an exaggeration... :)
-
I have no doubt an '060 can outperform an '030, but 500%? Pure hyperbole.
What percent would you say then? 479%? 466%? ???
-
Drat... just missed out on this Blizzard060 from the states was at $340 (£212) for most of the day, and I forgot about it until a few minutes ago and ended up too slow in bidding... :(
went for $407.47 (£254.65) almost a hundred quid cheaper that you can get one here in the UK, wonder why they go so cheaply in the USA... :(
Blizzard060 64MB RAM (USA) sold for $407.47 (£254.65) (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320653051326#ht_500wt_1156)
@Iggy
Yeah 500% increase is wee bit of an exaggeration... :)
Nah, not if you're Irish or Scottish, but Americans don't know how to keep a straight face when they're burying you with BS.
And you're right, I stopped looking at that part over four hours ago when it topped $300. Hmm, I really thought that would go for more
-
>There are no doubts. A 500% speedup is impressive.
5 times? No way. I doubt it. Prove that one with a benchmark. I'll even take a relatively invalid one like a mips figure.
And the chipset? All access to sound, graphics, hard drives? Still just as slow with either processor.
Not that any of this really matters because even a 66Mhz '060 in a 4000 is still a really slow processor.
66Mhz? The PCI bus in my G4 Mac runs at that.
A 66mhz '060 is roughly 85-90mips. A 50mhz '030 is about 12. Are these the sorts of figures you was after ? An '060 really is something like the 500% faster figure that was quoted, even more in some cases. Sure AGA can become a bottleneck with heavily graphics intensive stuff, but that's a pretty small portion of the overall picture. How is this hard to believe? There's something like a decade between the cpus. Yes, by modern standards its a slow cpu, but it's the best experience avialable to a classic amiga, so good luck to anyone who trying to get ahold of one.
Even your 4140mips g4 is about 30x slower than current high end cpus (core i7-980x is rated as over 150,000 mips), but as you seem to understand when it's your hobby, raw speed isnt everything. It's about getting the best possible experience for your hobby.
-
To deviate ever-so-slightly from the subject at hand, does anyone know how an A4000 with 25MHz 040 compares with 50MHz 060 of the later A4000?
-
A 66mhz '060 is roughly 85-90mips. A 50mhz '030 is about 12. Are these the sorts of figures you was after ? An '060 really is something like the 500% faster figure that was quoted, even more in some cases. Sure AGA can become a bottleneck with heavily graphics intensive stuff, but that's a pretty small portion of the overall picture. How is this hard to believe? There's something like a decade between the cpus. Yes, by modern standards its a slow cpu, but it's the best experience avialable to a classic amiga, so good luck to anyone who trying to get ahold of one.
Even your 4140mips g4 is about 30x slower than current high end cpus (core i7-980x is rated as over 150,000 mips), but as you seem to understand when it's your hobby, raw speed isnt everything. It's about getting the best possible experience for your hobby.
That's what I was kind of information I was hoping someone would quote me. This is why the difference between real performance gains and figures based solely on CPU performance data are so varied.
OK, now when say you run a video game, what's the increase in FPS when moving from an '030 to an '60? It's certainly not on the order of 5 times, is it?
And my G4 based Powermac, its not really 42 times more powerful than your '60 is it? Not really anymore than an i7 is 30 times more powerful than my G4.
We're completely outside any reasonable comparisons at this point.
The best way to look at this is the same as its always been, via application benchmarks.
So we all are clear on this, a 5 times higher CPU mips rating does not make a system five time "faster". Its a measurement of the CPU alone. And the Amiga relies on a lot of custom chips that gain little from a faster CPU.
The irritating thing is, Chaos knows this. That's why so much of the Natami's design features updated components. Even if you could recreate the original Amiga chipset, would you want to?
-
Time to add 2 IEEE Floating Point Numbers:
68060 = 3 cycles
68030 = around 150 cycles
150/3 = 50x speed = 5000% (That is 5 thousand % not 5 hundred %)
68030 fail
68060 win!
-
Yeah, no sh!t the '060 is a faster processor. :P
I was responding specifically to Iggy's comment about chipset access, which is generally better with the '030 cards.
Blizzard 1260/50:
chip $000F0000 readw 1328.7 ns normal 1.5 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readl 1329.4 ns normal 3.0 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readm 1332.9 ns normal 3.0 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writew 1119.2 ns normal 1.8 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writel 1118.9 ns normal 3.6 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writem 1121.8 ns normal 3.6 * 10^6 byte/s
Blizzard 1230/50:
chip $000F0000 readw 903.4 ns norm 2.2 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readl 903.7 ns norm 4.4 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readm 636.4 ns norm 6.3 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writew 575.6 ns norm 3.5 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writel 574.8 ns norm 6.9 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writem 575.3 ns norm 7.0 * 10^6 byte/s
@Franko
Never actually seen an "060 AGA demo" but reckon it would be pretty weird purchasing an 060 just to watch one...
Never heard of the demoscene (http://ada.untergrund.net/)?
-
Time to add 2 IEEE Floating Point Numbers:
68060 = 3 cycles
68030 = around 150 cycles
150/3 = 50x speed = 5000% (That is 5 thousand % not 5 hundred %)
68030 fail
68060 win!
Pointless unless you know of a program that executes instruction that solely affect the CPU and as in the example above do nothing but floating number calculations.
Now we're at 3000x and counting. I'm not even getting baited into further discussions along these lines.
What's it do for the average Amiga software package?
-
Exactly. We all know the 060 is faster, but is it worth $500 to play Lethal Weapon and Superfrog. Especially when you already have what's probably the best '030 card ever made.
-
@Franko
Never heard of the demoscene (http://ada.untergrund.net/)?
Yup, but why would I want to watch "demos"... :)
-
Pointless unless you know of a program that executes instruction that solely affect the CPU and as in the example above do nothing but floating number calculations.
Now we're at 3000x and counting. I'm not even getting baited into further discussions along these lines.
What's it do for the average Amiga software package?
The 060 version of PPaint uses 060 specific code for example that solely effect the CPU and not the FPU... :)
-
Yeah, no sh!t the '060 is a faster processor. :P
I was responding specifically to Iggy's comment about chipset access, which is generally better with the '030 cards.
Blizzard 1260/50:
chip $000F0000 readw 1328.7 ns normal 1.5 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readl 1329.4 ns normal 3.0 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readm 1332.9 ns normal 3.0 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writew 1119.2 ns normal 1.8 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writel 1118.9 ns normal 3.6 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writem 1121.8 ns normal 3.6 * 10^6 byte/s
Blizzard 1230/50:
chip $000F0000 readw 903.4 ns norm 2.2 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readl 903.7 ns norm 4.4 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readm 636.4 ns norm 6.3 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writew 575.6 ns norm 3.5 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writel 574.8 ns norm 6.9 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writem 575.3 ns norm 7.0 * 10^6 byte/s
@Franko
Never heard of the demoscene (http://ada.untergrund.net/)?
Actually, we're back to that word again - faster.
Those two processors are operating at the same speed.
The '60 is undoubtedly the more powerful of the two, but how much faster the system is is more subjective.
-
To deviate ever-so-slightly from the subject at hand, does anyone know how an A4000 with 25MHz 040 compares with 50MHz 060 of the later A4000?
I've had both, and the 68060 is so much quicker in everything-particularly if you have an A3640 with its crippled memory bus.
And YES AGA draw functions are faster on the 68060 too, I once knew why, but not now, sorry. And i'm not talking about C2P, i mean even things like scala and dpaint which bang the AGA chipset directly are smoother and faster with graphical functions.
it really is a new order of performance when you go from the '040 to the '060.
-
That's what I was kind of information I was hoping someone would quote me. This is why the difference between real performance gains and figures based solely on CPU performance data are so varied.
OK, now when say you run a video game, what's the increase in FPS when moving from an '030 to an '60? It's certainly not on the order of 5 times, is it?
And my G4 based Powermac, its not really 42 times more powerful than your '60 is it? Not really anymore than an i7 is 30 times more powerful than my G4.
We're completely outside any reasonable comparisons at this point.
The best way to look at this is the same as its always been, via application benchmarks.
So we all are clear on this, a 5 times higher CPU mips rating does not make a system five time "faster". Its a measurement of the CPU alone. And the Amiga relies on a lot of custom chips that gain little from a faster CPU.
The irritating thing is, Chaos knows this. That's why so much of the Natami's design features updated components. Even if you could recreate the original Amiga chipset, would you want to?
Sure, the comparisons are silly, but that was the point. It's all old outdated, redundant technology in the current scheme of things, to point out that a pci bus can run at the same frequency as an '060 was ridiculous, so I responded as such. What does matter is if a user is happy with thier old computer gear, be it a g4 mac or an '060 based amiga.
As for the speed comparisons between an '030 and an '060, the comparisons are real. The cpus themselves are that much slower/faster than each other, but throw a custom chipset based amiga into the equation and things arent often that cut and dry. AGA has a bandwidth of about 14MBps, no cpu in the world is going to change that, and beyond a low end '040 the improvements in terms of gfx throughput arent going to scale the same as the cpu. This however doesnt mean its not a much more pleasant experience with the '060. Things like image decoding on an '030 you have to wait for, and you can see the image draw as it decodes. This sort of thing is massively better on an '060. Any sort of compressions (archives, mp3s, video files,etc.) is going to be a massively superior experience on an '060. Harddrive access, fast ram read/write (which also has a side effect of speeding up thing like fblit, etc.). When dealing with such limited resources an '060 really makes a lot of difference, even if its not going to increase framerates that scale with the cpu (unless using rtg). Gaming is still a better experience though, even with aga maxed out due to better response times from input. Id hazzard a guess at things being maybe 2x as fast in terms of gfx updates vs. '030 in games that arent cpu bound.
-
Actually, we're back to that word again - faster.
Those two processors are operating at the same speed.
The '60 is undoubtedly the more powerful of the two, but how much faster the system is is more subjective.
Nothing "subjective" about it an 060 set up with the likes of 060 specific math libraries, Fblit, Move16, etc... etc... runs rings around the best 030 for almost anything you do on an A1200... :)
-
Yeah, no sh!t the '060 is a faster processor. :P
I was responding specifically to Iggy's comment about chipset access, which is generally better with the '030 cards.
Blizzard 1260/50:
chip $000F0000 readw 1328.7 ns normal 1.5 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readl 1329.4 ns normal 3.0 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readm 1332.9 ns normal 3.0 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writew 1119.2 ns normal 1.8 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writel 1118.9 ns normal 3.6 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writem 1121.8 ns normal 3.6 * 10^6 byte/s
Blizzard 1230/50:
chip $000F0000 readw 903.4 ns norm 2.2 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readl 903.7 ns norm 4.4 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 readm 636.4 ns norm 6.3 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writew 575.6 ns norm 3.5 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writel 574.8 ns norm 6.9 * 10^6 byte/s
chip $000F0000 writem 575.3 ns norm 7.0 * 10^6 byte/s
@Franko
Never heard of the demoscene (http://ada.untergrund.net/)?
Nor sure if we're talking about the same thing, but I know I read a review of various '60 boards in one of the mags back in the day which did some benchmarks that proved the '060 did improve AGA functions over all other processors, and the weird thing was that which functions were improved and by how much depended on the exact card in question.
-
Sure, the comparisons are silly, but that was the point. It's all old outdated, redundant technology in the current scheme of things, to point out that a pci bus can run at the same frequency as an '060 was ridiculous, so I responded as such. What does matter is if a user is happy with thier old computer gear, be it a g4 mac or an '060 based amiga.
As for the speed comparisons between an '030 and an '060, the comparisons are real. The cpus themselves are that much slower/faster than each other, but throw a custom chipset based amiga into the equation and things arent often that cut and dry. AGA has a bandwidth of about 14MBps, no cpu in the world is going to change that, and beyond a low end '040 the improvements in terms of gfx throughput arent going to scale the same as the cpu. This however doesnt mean its not a much more pleasant experience with the '060. Things like image decoding on an '030 you have to wait for, and you can see the image draw as it decodes. This sort of thing is massively better on an '060. Any sort of compressions (archives, mp3s, video files,etc.) is going to be a massively superior experience on an '060. Harddrive access, fast ram read/write (which also has a side effect of speeding up thing like fblit, etc.). When dealing with such limited resources an '060 really makes a lot of difference, even if its not going to increase framerates that scale with the cpu (unless using rtg). Gaming is still a better experience though, even with aga maxed out due to better response times from input. Id hazzard a guess at things being maybe 2x as fast in terms of gfx updates vs. '030 in games that arent cpu bound.
That, 2X, I could see. And I'll leave it to you guys if you want to use mp3s or video files on an Amiga.
While I take mp3s for granted, I can barely push 720p video through what I'm running (and don't think I'll see 1080p until G5 support is introduced - no video card assisted coding/decoding).
But I can see your point. Even if you're only seeing 25 to 50% improvements in some packages, at the speed legacy hardware operates at you're going to notice a drastic improvement.
-
What's it do for the average Amiga software package?
It makes the average Amiga software package run a lot faster.
-
It makes the average Amiga software package run a lot faster.
That would have been a much easier to agree to statement.
And who doesn't want a more powerful processor?
I've always wondered about the economics of that purchase though.
I've never bought top of the line CPUs (always one or two step down) because in the X86 world that's about a third of the cost.
I still wonder how stupid the people that bought the $1000 Pentium EE processors feel right now.
Of course, while we've all been hashing this out, as Franko has pointed out a 1260 went for little more than the cost of a 56Mhz '030.
-
I still wonder how stupid the people that bought the $1000 Pentium EE processors feel right now.
Lol :roflmao:
Actually I was that stupid yeah, I have a 975 EE, but as Franko said like a Blizzard 1260 it runs rings around most processors.
My 975 EE is running @ 4GHz on air cooling, no need for insane cooling upgrades, just a Prolimatech Megahalems Rev B with a push pull fan config at low rpm's.
But like any 060 card I also have a Cyberstorm 060/PPC 50/200 with 128MB, but this thing leaves a dust cloud when compared to it's SCSI performance on a Blizzard 1260 with SCSI kit.
Nothing beats a good powerful setup, but the question is, are you really going to use it ?
In the Amiga world, if you only do games, it's useless, your better off with a good 030.
Lesson learned already.
So then what ? it's not like your going to use it for video work, your pc is about 1000 times faster in that area.
Music ? well no need for a 060 there.
Demos ? yeah could be, but you have to be pretty good at it.
It's that I got the Cyberstorm and Blizzard 2060 / 1260 for reasonable prices, but at what they sell now, NO FREAKING WAY!
-
There is this one on evilbay uk, hasn't reached a crazy price yet but that doesn't usually happen until the last 15 minutes... :)
BLIZZARD060 32MB RAM (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Amiga-A1200-Accelerator-Blizzard-1260-50Mhz-32mb-RAM-/260732975382?pt=UK_VintageComputing_RL&hash=item3cb4e57916#ht_566wt_1141)
(actually bidding on it myself... :))
Hmmm... It is unusual for someone to point others in the direction of something they are bidding on themselves. Looks like you were are throwing down a gauntlet to me, matey ;)
-
I've had both, and the 68060 is so much quicker in everything-particularly if you have an A3640 with its crippled memory bus.
And YES AGA draw functions are faster on the 68060 too, I once knew why, but not now, sorry. And i'm not talking about C2P, i mean even things like scala and dpaint which bang the AGA chipset directly are smoother and faster with graphical functions.
it really is a new order of performance when you go from the '040 to the '060.
What's the issue with the memory bus? It's not also 25 MHz??
-
Lol :roflmao:
Actually I was that stupid yeah, I have a 975 EE, but as Franko said like a Blizzard 1260 it runs rings around most processors.
My 975 EE is running @ 4GHz on air cooling, no need for insane cooling upgrades, just a Prolimatech Megahalems Rev B with a push pull fan config at low rpm's.
But like any 060 card I also have a Cyberstorm 060/PPC 50/200 with 128MB, but this thing leaves a dust cloud when compared to it's SCSI performance on a Blizzard 1260 with SCSI kit.
Nothing beats a good powerful setup, but the question is, are you really going to use it ?
In the Amiga world, if you only do games, it's useless, your better off with a good 030.
Lesson learned already.
So then what ? it's not like your going to use it for video work, your pc is about 1000 times faster in that area.
Music ? well no need for a 060 there.
Demos ? yeah could be, but you have to be pretty good at it.
It's that I got the Cyberstorm and Blizzard 2060 / 1260 for reasonable prices, but at what they sell now, NO FREAKING WAY!
...but at what they sell now, NO FREAKING WAY!
And you bought a Pentium 975EE?
It's a phenomenal example of market pricing, isn't it?
Although not as extreme, similar conditions played a role in my having to pay over $150 for a 1.8Ghz upgrade for my Powermac.
-
...but at what they sell now, NO FREAKING WAY!
And you bought a Pentium 975EE?
It's a phenomenal example of market pricing, isn't it?
Although not as extreme, similar conditions played a role in my having to pay over $150 for a 1.8Ghz upgrade for my Powermac.
A 975EE at 900 dollars or so is a bit more usefull than a 1200 dollar Cyberstorm PPC, wouldn't you agree ? :)
Same as 400 dollar Blizzard 1260 vs 950 Core I7.
In both cases I would chose the I7 anyday.
-
A 975EE at 900 dollars or so is a bit more usefull than a 1200 dollar Cyberstorm PPC, wouldn't you agree ? :)
Same as 400 dollar Blizzard 1260 vs 950 Core I7.
In both cases I would chose the I7 anyday.
If it was a matter of having 1200 dollars burning a hole in my pocket, I'd buy the 1260 and an X86 processor (and probably have money left over).
The last X86 processor I bought was a Phenom X3 740 at $69.95 (not exactly a high end processor).
-
A 975EE at 900 dollars or so is a bit more usefull than a 1200 dollar Cyberstorm PPC, wouldn't you agree ? :)
Same as 400 dollar Blizzard 1260 vs 950 Core I7.
In both cases I would chose the I7 anyday.
Wouldn't pay 1200 for a cyberstorm for sure, but Im not sure if the choice between a 1260 and an I7 is really comparable, even if the price is for insane reasons.
The fastest I7 in the world isn't going to make my amiga any happier :)
-
What's the issue with the memory bus? It's not also 25 MHz??
The A3640+A4000 motherboard combination results in very slow ram access to the motherboard fast ram. Check out the Aminet AIBB modules for RAM speeds for A4000's with the A3640 compared to any other 68040 accelerator, all of which have their own on-card RAM sockets. Outside of benchmarking software, you really feel the slow ram access, from hard drive loading times, to screen re-draws on graphics cards.
-
I've got a B1260 and I like that I can do things like playing this video I have just done in HAM (do you like it?) while booting (I beg you pardon as I'm waiting my birthday to change this shit of Tv.... all dark in it, with the contrast and light at max... and the camera will have to wait...):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bReHpamElzA
Ah, it takes more time to boot because I've taked off the internal Cd for some days, and I have to make Click later in the window that opens... but that's not a problem :) . BTW: Have you seen before an Amiga playing a video while booting?
-
To deviate ever-so-slightly from the subject at hand, does anyone know how an A4000 with 25MHz 040 compares with 50MHz 060 of the later A4000?
I took these a while ago........
Commodore 040/25
(http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o164/Cyberstorm604e/040.jpg)
Cyberstorm 060/50
(http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o164/Cyberstorm604e/060.jpg)
:)
-
I took these a while ago........
Commodore 040/25
(http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o164/Cyberstorm604e/040.jpg)
Cyberstorm 060/50
(http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o164/Cyberstorm604e/060.jpg)
:)
Are you sure that sysinfo is benchmarking 060 correctly?
As you can see 060 was recognized as 040 - are you still trust this software????? :laughing:
I have 66,40 MIPS for CS MK II 060@50MHz (060@50MHz):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtT_5D_LhGY
Almost double result just by using different benchmarking software???
-
High end (relatively speaking) cpus have always been disproportionally expensive. In fact this is true of nearly all hardware. A 1 gig ddr1 stick for example is more expensive than a 2 gig ddr2-1066 stick, which in turn is more expensive than a 4 gig ddr3-1600 stick. Core2quads are very expensive compared to socket1156/1366/1155 hardware, even though theyre slower. Socket 754 3700+ and especially 4000+ cpus are more expensive tha some new, much more powerful quad core cpus, etc, etc. Simple fact is it's often more expensive to keep an old platform and expand that with the greatest options for that system. It has always been like this, and it always will. Amiga gear even moreso these days, due both to the retro/rare value, and also the fact they offer some things that the "replacement" "NG" systems don't. Sure those things arent really attractive to everyone, but to some they are.
I have to second runequesters sentiment here though too, in that no matter how fast or well priced an x86/ppc cpu is, it still does nothing to enhance my amiga. That said though there's no way Id spend more than $350ish on an classic amiga accelerator, especially a csppc/bppc. Theyre of minimal use to os3.x and too weak to be of much use with a "modern" os (os4.x/mos) (unless you want to do nothing other than tinker with the OS or use existing 68k software).
-
Are you sure that sysinfo is benchmarking 060 correctly?
As you can see 060 was recognized as 040 - are you still trust this software????? :laughing:
I thought everyone knows that Sysinfo uses only one of the two integer units in 060 so giving just half of the possible performance figure. :lol:
-
I thought everyone knows that Sysinfo uses only one of the two integer units in 060 so giving just half of the possible performance figure. :lol:
39.48MIPSx2=78,96MIPS
Sysspeed showing 66,40MIPS
Still 16% difference. :)
-
You get interesting figures when running sysinfo on RTG screens as it takes the reference from vblank so I could get somewhere between 50 and 60 depending on the refresh rate with my 060/50. And not to speak about the MHz figures, they can be way off, too!
-
Im probably more of a sysspeed fan than sysinfo. That said however Id be interested in something new that's maybe a little more accurate for emulation too. My amithlon box for example can show somewhere between 4500 and 6000 mips when I do a cpu test with sysspeed (although I guess this is partly due to the nature of how the jit emulation works and what's in the translation buffer). Something like a more modest futuremark test could be fun and in some ways more representative of overall system performance (albiet less informative) :)
-
1260's are great chip BUT they are very limited by the speed of the bus and the 1200's CHIPRAM so you don't get the kind of speed boost that the MIPS benchmarks suggest you will for most apps/games.
-
Sysinfo shows a lowly old-fashioned 68040 getting almost 400% the speed of a 68030. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that 68060=500%.
-
I took these a while ago........
Commodore 040/25
(http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o164/Cyberstorm604e/040.jpg)
Cyberstorm 060/50
(http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o164/Cyberstorm604e/060.jpg)
:)
Very nice, but with my B1260 and Sysinfo I've got the red bar at top right with a + over it :). And with Sysspeed I've got Mips: 105,70; Mflops: 42,17.
-
Pointless unless you know of a program that executes instruction that solely affect the CPU and as in the example above do nothing but floating number calculations.
Now we're at 3000x and counting. I'm not even getting baited into further discussions along these lines.
What's it do for the average Amiga software package?
Well Vista Pro and Lightwave sure as hell run better than the rubbish 030 of any speed description. The 030 is a terrible CPU, not worth the extra expense over an 020. Simple as that.
Games rarely improve (which is why PC won and Amiga lost in the days of AGA) and without a Bvision card on an accelerator like the PPC A1200 ones don't expect Workbench based stuff to go faster :)