Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: blakespot on August 13, 2012, 01:15:12 AM
-
So, I am wanting to grab an A3000 w/ RTG card. But ... I have an A2000. If I added a Blizzard 060 board to it and a RTG card - either Picasso II or some higher board that supports Zorro II --- how much weaker in performance for RTG tasks would the unit be than an A3000?
Dramatically slower? Or just a bit? Maybe it makes sense to expand the A2000.
Right now I have a 68020 in the A2000, but an 060 would be far faster obv. For WHDload stuff, which I use a lot, the A2000 020 I have now is really no less solid than a bog standard 030 A3000.
Opinions wanted!
bp
-
So, I am wanting to grab an A3000 w/ RTG card. But ... I have an A2000. If I added a Blizzard 060 board to it and a RTG card - either Picasso II or some higher board that supports Zorro II --- how much weaker in performance for RTG tasks would the unit be than an A3000?
Dramatically slower? Or just a bit? Maybe it makes sense to expand the A2000.
Right now I have a 68020 in the A2000, but an 060 would be far faster obv. For WHDload stuff, which I use a lot, the A2000 020 I have now is really no less solid than a bog standard 030 A3000.
Opinions wanted!
Hi i have a Amiga 2000 with 030 and 9 mb ram, i find it quite fast and very good at running whdload games, much much faster than my stock amiga 2000 i have trouble running whdload games on that one...
-
It's the RTG high res stuff I am more concerned about.
bp
-
In general, the difference isn't noticeable. A 2000 with an '060 and Picasso IV is a very nice classic system to use.
Quake benchmarks between my 2000 and 3000/4000 with the same CPU and a Picasso IV were identical. Web browsing in 1024x768x16-bit feels about the same.
However, if you load up something that exceeds the graphics card memory, the Z2 bus will show itself. For example, loading a huge JPEG into a viewer and scrolling the image around is a bit slower on the 2000. We're talking 3.5 MB/s here vs about 9 MB/s (writes to the Picasso IV over the zorro bus). Also, beyond a screenmode of 1024x768x16-bit, while both begin to slow down noticeably, it's a bit more noticeable on the 2000.
I had both machines setup next to each other for a while (with '060's and PIV's), and was pretty surprised at how well the 2000 held up. PIP on the PIV was also just as fast and impressive on the 2000. :)
-
You would be limited by the Zorro II bus, both in bus speed and the cards available for it. The bus speed is not that big an issue in most cases. I really don't notice a big difference in the graphics speed between the EGS Spectrum in my 030 A2500 and the Cybervision 64 in my 060 A4000 when running Workbench but the difference is dramatic whan I'm running CPU intensive operations like painting with complicated brushes at high resolutions. The faster CPU is the main factor but the 32 bit bus helps when there is lots of graphics data being moved.
The best RTG cards--Picasso IV, Retina Z3, Cybervision 64 and Cybervision 3d, are Zorro III, and you won't be able to work in 24 bit beyond 800x600 SVGA with a Zorro II graphics card. Even with my Zorro III Cybervision 64, 24 bit 1024x768 is a bit touchy and works much better in some monitors than others.
I don't think you would complain very much about the performance of a Picasso II in an A2000 with a Blizzard 060. Until last year, I had a Picasso II in my A4000/040 and the Zorro II bus speed would be the same in both setups. Now I have a Zorro III Cybervision 64 and the graphics speed doesn't seem faster on a perceptual level but I now have 24 bit XGA and 16 bit SXGA which I didn't have before. I recently replaced the stock 3640 CPU with a Cyberstorm 060/PPC board. I'm just beginning to play around with software that uses the PPC processor but the 060 has made a huge improvement in what I've already had installed in it. I'm especially noticing the difference with the image processing and rendering functions of ImageFX.
-
I'd want to run at 1280x960 pixels on this 19" CRT, ideally. So, any vidcard that will function in a Zorro II slot will need to do so at 16-bit, not 24-bit? I ran at 16-bit on my 468 PC at similar rez for a few years in Win 95 days -- it didn't seem a problem or noticeable. Is it similarly not a big deal, here?
What vidcards will run in a Zorro II slot and will can do a pass thru of video? I have a Indavision ECS in my A2000 btw.
Thanks.
bp
-
I'd want to run at 1280x960 pixels on this 19" CRT, ideally. So, any vidcard that will function in a Zorro II slot will need to do so at 16-bit, not 24-bit? I ran at 16-bit on my 468 PC at similar rez for a few years in Win 95 days -- it didn't seem a problem or noticeable. Is it similarly not a big deal, here?
What vidcards will run in a Zorro II slot and will can do a pass thru of video? I have a Indavision ECS in my A2000 btw.
Thanks.
bp
Just looking at specs, a Picasso II would do something close to that interlaced and the only Zorro II RTG card in http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/gfx that supports the 4mb memory neccessary to do this resolution non-interlaced is the Piccolo SD64 which is in the extremely rare catagory. Just to illustrate the comparitive rareness there's a Picasso II on eBay right now and I've never seen a Piccolo SD64 for sale ever--on ebay or elsewhere.
A Picasso II does have the video pass through too. If not the final solution, it's a good starting point for what you want to do.
-
The best RTG cards--Picasso IV, Retina Z3, Cybervision 64 and Cybervision 3d, are Zorro III
The Picasso IV supports Zorro II.
-
For WHDload stuff your A2000 020 is going to have the best compatibility.
Going 060 and RTG isn't really going to do much for you if you are WHDLoading games.
A2000 graphics will be the bottleneck. The bigger the screen gets the slower the UI.
An A2000 with 020 and around 4MB 32bit Memory is the Bees knees for WHDLoad.
-
What vidcards will run in a Zorro II slot and will can do a pass thru of video? I have a Indavision ECS in my A2000 btw.
Spectrum 28/24, Picasso II, and the Piccolo SD64 are the main 3. The latter is the fastest, but not so easy to find. The Picasso IV has it's own scandoubler, so it doesn't require a passthrough. (Keep in mind the PIV might require slight modification for using the scandoubler in an A2000.) I've used the Spectrum and liked it, works well with the later P96 drivers. But we're talking good 800x600x16-bit performance here. For 1280x960 non-laced on the 2000, you'll want a Picasso IV and an '060.
Good list of all the cards and their specs here. (http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/gfx)
-
I dont think guys are listening as this guy is primarily concerned with WHDload gaming. And as stated 020/030 with 8mb plus ram should be sufficient to run 90 per cent of games afaik.
-
The Picasso IV supports Zorro II.
CV64 3D supports Zorro II. Not sure about the regular CV64
I know I had one in my A2000 with 040/28 and it worked really well...
Not slow at all running workbench in 256 colors.
-
In terms of quality, I would stick with the Amiga 2000, with a German-made 060 board and a GVP Spectrum or Picasso II graphics board. As far as the bus speed, there is not that much difference between 24-bit and 32-bit. If you want speed and high resolution graphics, get yourself an AmigaOne. Why mess around with the poorly designed and lower quality Amiga 3000 and 4000 computers. You can get an AmigaOne computer for less money then you would pay for an Amiga 3000 with 060 board and Picasso IV crap. Let me think: Picasso IV or ATI Radeon? 68060 or a powerful PPC processor? Amiga OS 3.9 or Amiga OS 4.1? NO BRAINER FOR ME.
Let me clear things up for you guys: The highest quality and best Amiga model ever produced is the Amiga 2000, this is a fact not my opinion. So, if you have an Amiga 2000, keep it. Never trade it for an Amiga 3000, 4000, or 1200. Also, keep in mind that the Amiga 500 (the Amiga 2000's little brother) is the most popular and number one selling Amiga model of all time. Never trade an Amiga 500 for an Amiga 600 or 1200. If you are puffed up with ego, and you want an Amiga that is really fast and has high resolution graphics, buy an AmigaOne with OS 4.1. It is just that easy boys and girls.
-
In terms of quality, I would stick with the Amiga 2000, with a German-made 060 board and a GVP Spectrum or Picasso II graphics board. As far as the bus speed, there is not that much difference between 24-bit and 32-bit. If you want speed and high resolution graphics, get yourself an AmigaOne. Why mess around with the poorly designed and lower quality Amiga 3000 and 4000 computers. You can get an AmigaOne computer for less money then you would pay for an Amiga 3000 with 060 board and Picasso IV crap. Let me think: Picasso IV or ATI Radeon? 68060 or a powerful PPC processor? Amiga OS 3.9 or Amiga OS 4.1? NO BRAINER FOR ME.
Let me clear things up for you guys: The highest quality and best Amiga model ever produced is the Amiga 2000, this is a fact not my opinion. So, if you have an Amiga 2000, keep it. Never trade it for an Amiga 3000, 4000, or 1200. Also, keep in mind that the Amiga 500 (the Amiga 2000's little brother) is the most popular and number one selling Amiga model of all time. Never trade an Amiga 500 for an Amiga 600 or 1200. If you are puffed up with ego, and you want an Amiga that is really fast and has high resolution graphics, buy an AmigaOne with OS 4.1. It is just that easy boys and girls.
Hi i have 3 Amiga 2000 and i must say that they keeps going strong even if they are over 20 years old, even the floppy works in all of them :-) i also have amiga 4000 and amiga 600, but i always seem to have some problems with my amiga 600
-
Hi i have 3 Amiga 2000 and i must say that they keeps going strong even if they are over 20 years old, even the floppy works in all of them :-) i also have amiga 4000 and amiga 600, but i always seem to have some problems with my amiga 600
That's right, because they are poorly designed and are lower quality. The Amiga 2000s are built like German tanks. :D
-
That's right, because they are poorly designed and are lower quality. The Amiga 2000s are built like German tanks. :D
Yes when i take it apart its says made in germany all over :-) i will always keep them, even if they are big. right now i have one connected to my 43 plasma screen and it works flawless without change anything on the amiga :)
-
I have both a decked out 3000 and a 2000. I would recommend a 3000. Overall the 3000 is faster and is more usable from a speed standpoint. From boot time to IO a 3000 is a really nice upgrade. I love my 2000s but the 3000's are what I prefer. I haven't had any trouble with whdload for the games I play and for productivity when the z3 bus kicks in the difference is pronounced.
There is a reason the 3000s are valued higher than a 2000.
I would say a 3000 built in West Chester PA is one of the best Amigas to own and would put on the same level as the wonderful German built 2000.
As far as a ng Amiga... I own a pb with mos 3.1 and it is an awesome os and extremely fast but I prefer the 3000 for many functions. Although browsing on the PB is stellar compared to the classics.
These are my opinions and observations from the stuff I own... Good luck.
-
I have both a decked out 3000 and a 2000. I would recommend a 3000. Overall the 3000 is faster a more is more usable. From boot time to io a 3000 is a really nice upgrade. I love my 2000s but the 3000's are what I prefer. I haven't had any trouble with whdload and when the z3 bus kicks in the difference is pronounced.
There is a reason the 3000s are valued higher than a 2000.
I would say a 3000 built in west chester is the best Amiga to own.
As far as a ng Amiga... I own a pb with mos 3.1 and it is an awesome os and extremely fast but I prefer the 3000 for many functions.
These are my opinions and observations good luck...
Okay i have never seen a amiga 3000 before. Is it 030 cpu in them and how many ram do you have :)
-
Hi Lassie,
Both of them are accelerated. A stock 2000 vs a stock 3000 wouldn't be pretty :)...
Both have 040's between 33 and 40 Mhz. Both have memory on the accelerator (8- 64 megs).
Don't get me wrong I love the 2000 but, the 3000 is faster and is the same build quality...
-
So, I am wanting to grab an A3000 w/ RTG card. But ... I have an A2000. If I added a Blizzard 060 board to it and a RTG card - either Picasso II or some higher board that supports Zorro II --- how much weaker in performance for RTG tasks would the unit be than an A3000?
Dramatically slower? Or just a bit? Maybe it makes sense to expand the A2000.
Right now I have a 68020 in the A2000, but an 060 would be far faster obv. For WHDload stuff, which I use a lot, the A2000 020 I have now is really no less solid than a bog standard 030 A3000.
I would put that 060 and RTG in your A3000.
PicassoII blitter is quite slow in 800x600 in 16bits or higher, at least compared to cv64, cv3d or picasso4. It's quite noticeable displaying menus. It's still better than AGA but doesn't feel fast.
For things that require bus bandwitch like videos or fast gfx ZorroII is also noticeably slower, just try out Voxel example done by Sam Jordan included with WarpOS. It's a fat binary that runs in both 680x0&PPC and displays a nice voxel, you can move using mouse, check out FPS at the top of the screen. ZorroII is quite slow compared to ZorroIII.
A3000 has 32bit access to chipram so even OCS stuff can run faster than A2000.
If you buy a gfx card for your 2000 try to buy one that takes advantage of ZorroIII bus too just in case you switch gfx cards.
For your Amiga3000 I would install a CV64: it's fast, it includes a monitor switcher and isn't as expensive as CV3D/PicassoIV. The disadvantage is that it's zorroIII only but is one of the fastest ZorroIII cards (from a ZorroIII bandwitch POV)
A WarpEngine+CV64 would be a great combo for that A3000. A2000 is nice and of course you'll enjoy it with a 060 but A3000 is simply better and a better investment IMHO since you can use the accelerator&gfx card in an A4000 if you later upgrade to the ultimate miggy :-)
-
Hi Lassie,
Both of them are accelerated. A stock 2000 vs a stock 3000 wouldn't be pretty :)...
Both have 040's between 33 and 40 Mhz. Both have memory on the accelerator (8- 64 megs).
Don't get me wrong I love the 2000 but, the 3000 is faster and is the same build quality...
Hi again will it say if you had an Amiga 2000 And Amiga 3000, both with the same cpu and the same ram the 3000 will be faster?
-
Yes a 3000 will always be faster.
One caviot is that if you have 3640 against a higher clock gvp with locals memory it would be much closer. But if the 3000 has a warp engine or as cyberstorm mkIII it's pretty much game over for the 2000.
-
CV64 3D supports Zorro II. Not sure about the regular CV64
I know I had one in my A2000 with 040/28 and it worked really well...
Not slow at all running workbench in 256 colors.
Sorry, didn't check specs close enough. Except for the lack of pass through, the Cybervision 643D would be the best RTG card that you could use in an A2000 that isn't that hard to find. The GVP Spectrum has real limited resolution--it can't even do 800x600 in 24 bit. Otherwise it is a great card.
The A2000 is solid but I've had hardware fail in them--to the point of replacing a motherboard. My A4000 was used for years in a technical college before I got it and I've had the CPU card go bad on it but never any MB issues. A4000s also take up a lot less space and are much more ergonomic. In performance and upgrade options, they are the best Amiga. AGA is a vast improvment over ECS. There are no PPC accelerators for the A2000. That being said, Winuae in even a moderately fast PC beats even the fastest PPC accelerated Amiga by far. I wouldn't say the A4000 is poorly designed at all. Ergonomic and practical is how I would describe it's exterior design and it's internal electronic design is good and solid.
-
Hi again will it say if you had an Amiga 2000 And Amiga 3000, both with the same cpu and the same ram the 3000 will be faster?
It's not automatically faster at everything, no. (I'm talking an A2000 and A3000, both with '060 and PIV.) But when the Zorro bus becomes a factor, there will be a noticeable difference. The best way to describe it is that in those cases, the Z3 machine will appear less slow. I ran Quake, RTG scenedemos, IBrowse, and played with the PIV PIP, there was essentially no difference. A video that's slow on the 2000 might be slightly less of a slideshow on the 3000, if it's truly the Zorro bus and not the CPU that's choking. With the Picasso IV, you *will* notice the Z2 limitations with screenmodes above 1024x768x16. After that is where the benchmarks start showing the difference as well.
There are other factors to consider, too. Like I'd rather have the 2000 with a TekMagic, PIV, and awesome NCR SCSI, than a 3000 with the faster bus, but stuck with a Cyberstorm MK2 and motherboard SCSI.
If a guy had both computers, and was only going to upgrade one, absolutely it would make more sense to use the 3000. No doubt. Just don't be too scared off by the Z2 bus in the 2000. Since the OP already has an Indivision in his A2K, it might make more sense to add a Picasso II/Spectrum and an '030 , use it for OCS gaming... and spend a little more money upgrading the 3000 instead.
-
There are no PPC accelerators for the A2000.
In all practicality true, but there are at least two intances where A2000 is upgraded with PPC.
This is one of those projects using PPC developer board on top of Phase5 060 accelerator:
http://www.8bit.dk/pictures/Project/Amiga%202000%20-%20Custom%20Project%20-%20060/index.html
-
Let me clear things up for you guys: The highest quality and best Amiga model ever produced is the Amiga 2000, this is a fact not my opinion. So, if you have an Amiga 2000, keep it. Never trade it for an Amiga 3000, 4000, or 1200.
As a good will gesture, I'm willing to trade my A2000 for an A4000 or I would also reluctantly accept an A4000T.
-
I have a 2000 with a PicassoII and a Phase5 2060 '060 and it runs super fast in 800x600x16 for workbench and productivity.
The 2000 wins for me as favorite because its built like a tank and has the most expandability.
Upgraded my 8-bit ISA slots to 16-bit and have every slot in my A2000 full using a bridge board.
I can easily run Windows 3.11 w/SVGA ISA & Soundblaster card, Use the Amiga and run MacOS8 all at the same time.
Even I am surprised at what you can get an A2000 to accomplish.
A3000/4000 will be faster when the bus is taxed, but I have more fun on the A2000 since it has the ability to be so many more machines.
A3000 is the best looking, but horrible cooling, few 060 options and limited Zorro/ISA slots
A4000 is the fastest, but both of mine are cranky, so I am bad judge of them as I find leaking caps in all that I cross.
-
I have a 2000 with a PicassoII and a Phase5 2060 '060 and it runs super fast in 800x600x16 for workbench and productivity.
Hmm... So, can a PII do 1024x768 or 1152x900 in 8-bit color, non-interlaced?
bp
-
Hmm... So, can a PII do 1024x768 or 1152x900 in 8-bit color, non-interlaced?
bp
1024x768 for sure, it's a standard resolution. 1152x900 more than likely at 8 bit non interlaced. It's not a standard VESA resolution so you will have to program it yourself. I like the Picasso II a lot. It might not be the best RTG card, but it's inexpensive and reliable and will keep you happy until you find a better one. Here is one at auction for not too much money yet:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/180949536392?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
-
I have a 2000 with a PicassoII and a Phase5 2060 '060 and it runs super fast in 800x600x16 for workbench and productivity.
I have used A2000 with Blizzard2060 and PicassoIV, CV3D, EGS Spectrum and PicassoII and PicassoII feels slower in 16bit, just move the mouse between the different menus and you´ll notice how it redraws, it´s not instantaneus.
The 2000 wins for me as favorite because its built like a tank and has the most expandability.
I have a Micronik A4000 with 7 ZorroIII slots right here. On desktop models with Mediator you can fit 4 PCIs and 3 zorro cards.
Upgraded my 8-bit ISA slots to 16-bit and have every slot in my A2000 full using a bridge board.
I see little use for bridgeboard apart of using an Ethernet card. I used to have a 286 cbm bridgeboard and the sandwitch eats 2 slots.
I can easily run Windows 3.11 w/SVGA ISA & Soundblaster card, Use the Amiga and run MacOS8 all at the same time.
I can run MacOS 9 with iFusion on an A3000/A4000 :-) And I could run PC-Task with Windows3.1 too, although I see little interest in doing that.
A3000/4000 will be faster when the bus is taxed, but I have more fun on the A2000 since it has the ability to be so many more machines.
A3000/A4000 also can have faster USB2.0, can have PCI cards, have AGA, faster chipmem... and you have exactly the same posibilities of fitting a bridgeboard. Both A4000 and A3000 come with ISA slots as standard.
If "ability to be so many more machines" means fitting a PC inside the same case I can install an industrial peecee in one of the isa or pci slots way faster than old bridgeboards and interchange data using network for example.
A3000 is the best looking, but horrible cooling, few 060 options and limited Zorro/ISA slots
"few"? what do you mean by few? A3000 can use almost all A4000 060 cards, the only ones that would be problematic I remember are CyberstormMK1 (doesn´t fit on standard case) and Quickpak 060 board (only fits well on A4000T). You can fit CS MK2, CS MK3, CS PPC, GVP 060... enough for me.
ISA slots are quite useless for me :-) I prefer to use ZorroIII cards at full speed or fit PCI cards. The only use I could give to a bridgeboard would be driving an ethernet card but I can have that with Deneb for example, and enjoy relatively high in Amiga terms usb2.0 speeds with DMA.
A4000 is the fastest, but both of mine are cranky, so I am bad judge of them as I find leaking caps in all that I cross.
I have also seen dead A2000 rotten by bad batteries but that doesn´t mean A2000 are cranky. A2000 are also more unstable with those 2MB chip sandwitch like expansions.
Don´t get me wrong, I love all my miggies but A4000 is simply more powerful, just like A3000. that doesn´t mean you can´t have fun using your expanded A2000 but it will feel slower than similar A3000&A4000. And in the case of A3000 vs A4000 I prefer the later too as it has AGA and a more modern design that saves me headaches.
-
Between the 2000 and 3000, I think it's a tougher call for reasons all mentioned. A lot of those 4000 accelerators don't fit in the 3000 without modifying the drive cage, not to mention the MK2 SCSI add-on doesn't fit, Fastlane doesn't work... (been trying to find a WarpEngine 3040 for my 3000 on the good advice of matt3k for ages with no dice!), That 3000 is likely to require hunting down some chip upgrades and possibly more fiddling to get the best out of it, too. A 2000 with an '060, SCSI-2, and good graphics board is a pretty damn nice classic miggy!
My favorites for upgrading are the 2000 and 4000...
-
Amiga 2000 with 68060 Blizzard (or TekMagic) + RTG card is pretty much faster by at least 3-4 times imho than A3000+68030. I think the speed won't be utilized fully by WHDload... though the SCSI controller on those accel boards is better than the A3000 WD chip. Also the Blizzard board will give you more memory. If you have flicker fixer board in a2000 then you're settled. A3000 is still nice machine though. Advantage of A3000 is it has flicker fixer, scsi all build in, which way back in a day was themed: amiga done the way it should have been. (compared to A1000 noscsi/flickerfixer and partly because A2000 2091 scsi board was a bit slow).
Having both of them is ok, but if you must choose do A2000+68060+RTG as its great for other tasks than gaming as well. Assuming your A3000 has full memory 16mb, flicker fixer build in, its not a bad choice to run WhdloADgames. I THINK your decision should be driven by cost. Cost of 68060 is likely the same or close to cost of A3000???
I noticed everything redrawing faster on my WB with my 68060 than with 68030.
Lastly, Amiga 4000T (tower one) is the best one of them all. Too bad its hard to find and costs quite a bit more than A3000 or A2000 with accelboard.
-
while on topic of a2000...
Only rev 4 board is german made and it had issues.
rev 4.x and 6 were designed in westchester, pa and produced in hong kong / taiwan etc.
All my Amiga 2000s don't say Made in germany so maybe you have something you picked up in europe?
I also have rev 4.3 A2000 board and thats cr*p compared to rev 6.x which has all the changes and fixes. of all of them 6.2 and 6.3 and 6.4 are more desirable obviously.
I think A2000 was build at time when Commodore was doing ok, ok enough not to be cheap etc. A3000 came in 1990 and I think by then Amiga/Apple were losign their edge to IBM Clones so some corners might have been cut (the case is very small similar to PC-ii or PC-iii that commodore was selling)
-
while on topic of a2000...
Only rev 4 board is german made and it had issues.
rev 4.x and 6 were designed in westchester, pa and produced in hong kong / taiwan etc.
All my Amiga 2000s don't say Made in germany so maybe you have something you picked up in europe?
I also have rev 4.3 A2000 board and thats cr*p compared to rev 6.x which has all the changes and fixes. of all of them 6.2 and 6.3 and 6.4 are more desirable obviously.
I think A2000 was build at time when Commodore was doing ok, ok enough not to be cheap etc. A3000 came in 1990 and I think by then Amiga/Apple were losign their edge to IBM Clones so some corners might have been cut (the case is very small similar to PC-ii or PC-iii that commodore was selling)
Hi yes my 3 amigas i have purchased in Denmark and Germany
-
Ok. Going to expand the A2000 vs. getting an A3000 or A4000. Going to keep it at OS 3.1.
I just grabbed the Phase5 060 on eBay that came w/ a ext SCSI CD-ROM drive and a 9GB SCSI HD all for $540 USD or so. Not too bad, it seems.
Should be fun. Now need a vidcard. I have some leads...
Thanks for all the info.
bp
-
Ok. Going to expand the A2000 vs. getting an A3000 or A4000. Going to keep it at OS 3.1.
I just grabbed the Phase5 060 on eBay that came w/ a ext SCSI CD-ROM drive and a 9GB SCSI HD all for $540 USD or so. Not too bad, it seems.
Should be fun. Now need a vidcard. I have some leads...
Thanks for all the info.
bp
Congratulations on the 060!
if you run WHDload games for the most part then maybe you should get a Indivision ECS if they are still available. It will probably be of more use to you than a GFX board. It can also do some GFX board like modes, but I don't know all of the details because I don't have an ECS. I'm guessing it can do the same modes as my AGA (1024x768, 1280x768)
check this link...
http://mfilos.blogspot.com/2012/04/a600-picasso96-via-indivision-ecs.html
Also if you later wanted to add a GFX board you could get one without a scandoubler because your VGA output would be compatible with any LCD - unlike old scandoublers which dont look very good (or work at all in PAL) on a modern monitor.
-
Congratulations on the 060!
if you run WHDload games for the most part then maybe you should get a Indivision ECS...
Got one in already. :-)
bp
-
Won the Picasso II that was on eBay, to go along with the 060. Should be interesting.
bp
-
Won the Picasso II that was on eBay, to go along with the 060. Should be interesting.
bp
Could you fix the link?
-
I heard that GVP-M is going to run new patch of Spectrum 16/24
http://www.softhut.com/cgi-bin/test/Web_store/web_store.cgi?page=catalog/hardware/accelerators/gvp_spectrum.html&cart_id=3626924_596807
It is slighly better than Picasso II because it has a Zorro III support, otherwise it is indentical product.
-
I heard that GVP-M is going to run new patch of Spectrum 16/24
http://www.softhut.com/cgi-bin/test/Web_store/web_store.cgi?page=catalog/hardware/accelerators/gvp_spectrum.html&cart_id=3626924_596807
It is slighly better than Picasso II because it has a Zorro III support, otherwise it is indentical product.
The Picasso II is a little better in terms of the resolutions it can do. I could do 800x600 in 24 bit with a Picasso II. I can only get to 16 bit 800x600 with my EGS Spectrum. For an A2000 with Zorro II, it is the better card.
Won the Picasso II that was on eBay, to go along with the 060. Should be interesting.
Should be a great system.
-
Hmm might it be that your card is only 1mb card?? I don't have any poblems with 800x600 24bit and certainly Spectrum supports it.
http://www.amiga-hardware.com/showhardware.cgi?HARDID=451
http://www.amiga-hardware.com/showhardware.cgi?HARDID=467
They have a same chipset and identical specs, execpt GVP has a Zorro 3 support
-
Between the 2000 and 3000, I think it's a tougher call for reasons all mentioned. A lot of those 4000 accelerators don't fit in the 3000 without modifying the drive cage, not to mention the MK2 SCSI add-on doesn't fit, Fastlane doesn't work... (been trying to find a WarpEngine 3040 for my 3000 on the good advice of matt3k for ages with no dice!),
WarpEngine4040 & CSPPC seem to fit in my Desktop A3000 cutting the metal to leave space for capacitors. FastLane will probably require at least buster9. Do you have Buster 11?
A 2000 with an '060, SCSI-2, and good graphics board is a pretty damn nice classic miggy!
Indeed :-) Although ZorroII isn't fast for gfx it's ok for WB usage if you don't open many memory hungry screens
-
Hmm might it be that your card is only 1mb card?? I don't have any poblems with 800x600 24bit and certainly Spectrum supports it.
http://www.amiga-hardware.com/showhardware.cgi?HARDID=451
http://www.amiga-hardware.com/showhardware.cgi?HARDID=467
They have a same chipset and identical specs, execpt GVP has a Zorro 3 support
It could be. I haven't taken it out and looked at it since a few years ago. I just recently noticed because I got a new monitor and had to adjust the video frequencies a bit. My A2500 is in a tight cabinet space and I have to move a lot of stuff to get it out so I only pull it out and open it up if I really have to.
There are 1mb Picasso IIs too but it looks like the chips are socketed and the upgrade is easy. We forget how much those memory chips cost in the 90s.
-
Can anyone tell how much RAM is on this Picasso II I just grabbed?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180949536392&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:US:3160#ht_648wt_922
bp
-
old board, either 1 or 2 (2megs with expansion). new board had 2megs I believe.
I once had a picasso IV (picIV is also ZII compat.) running on an A1200T/060 w/ a micronik ZII bus-extender. It was pretty quick at moving windows around, items refreshing, but if you had many 1280x1024 screens open you could notice that when switching screens, it was choking due to the ZII bus speed. If you keep it at a few screens or have a decently sized Workbench screen to hold apps (things like ImageFX can be made to run on the WB), it should be reasonably fast.
I haven't used a Pic II on a ZII bus, but it was designed for it, so it should be a similar experience to the above.
-
Can anyone tell how much RAM is on this Picasso II I just grabbed?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180949536392&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:US:3160#ht_648wt_922
2 megabytes (16 x 128 kB).
-
Picasso II is clearly slower than Picasso IV, only on 8bit they are comparable. 24bit pics take llooong time to load on PII and longish on PIV - I mostly used 16bit as it's a good compromise.
-
Here's a question for the experts: Isn't Z2 on an A2000 just a bit faster than Z2 compatibility mode on a Z3 Amiga?
Being that the Picasso II is Z2 only, doesn't that mean the '060 and PII combo may actually be a bit faster in the 2000 than if it were in the 3000? :P
-
Here's a question for the experts: Isn't Z2 on an A2000 just a bit faster than Z2 compatibility mode on a Z3 Amiga?
Being that the Picasso II is Z2 only, doesn't that mean the '060 and PII combo may actually be a bit faster in the 2000 than if it were in the 3000? :P
Nobody would use a crap zorroII gfx card on a ZorroIII Amiga, it would be like putting square wheels to a Lamborghini :-P
I doubt very much speed difference is noticeable, anyway as soon as you loaded chipmem bus with anything heavy A2000 would slow down and A3000 would keep multitasking better thanks to its twice faster chipmem access ;-P
PS: Amiga 3000 accelerators have faster SCSI and you could even use a Permedia2, try that on an A2000 ;-)
-
Nobody would use a crap zorroII gfx card on a ZorroIII Amiga, it would be like putting square wheels to a Lamborghini :-P
I doubt very much speed difference is noticeable, anyway as soon as you loaded chipmem bus with anything heavy A2000 would slow down and A3000 would keep multitasking better thanks to its twice faster chipmem access ;-P
PS: Amiga 3000 accelerators have faster SCSI and you could even use a Permedia2, try that on an A2000 ;-)
LOL, all very true. :-) I suppose the best you could hope for on the 2000 would be the WildFire/Inferno combination (DMA ethernet!), but I've never seen a WildFire for sale, and IIRC the Inferno only had a limited release of a few units for developers. The TekMagic has just as fast onboard memory performance as the Cyberstorm MK3/PPC, but of course only 10MB/s SCSI, no Z3, no PCI, etc..
-
Hey Damion,
You still haven't found a Warp Engine 3040? Chfriend scored one a month back off this website, look harder my friend. :)
If you can find a Cyberstorm MK III, that would be nice also.
-
Hey Damion,
You still haven't found a Warp Engine 3040? Chfriend scored one a month back off this website, look harder my friend. :)
If you can find a Cyberstorm MK III, that would be nice also.
Not yet, though I have to admit I haven't been trying too hard! An MKIII would be icing on the cake, but admittedly a 3040 WE would be more than enough. Have everything else for it ready to go, kind of itching to finish the project since it's my last Amiga still in pieces. My goal was to get them all back together and working this year. :P
-
hard to say whether A3000 and greater is slower in ZII compatibility mode. Dave Haynie described it as an "emulated" ZII, so whether that theoretically should be slower - I'm not sure. Probably is "at speed"
...
Of course 8 bit modes on the Pic II would be faster than the 16 or 24 bit modes. I had a Pic IV on a ZII busboard and it was quite spiffy, didn't notice problems "loading" 24 bit images. It was AOS screen swaps that hogged the bus.
-
The warp engines were the best accelerator for the Amiga 3000 IMVHO, yes I know that the CS MK III is a better card. But the build quaility and speed of the warp engine was faster then an 50MHz 060 MK II except for math. For daily use an older, 'slower', card was faster. Even thought the CPU was faster, memory access and SCSI IO were slower. Macrosystems hit a home run right out of the gate, where phase five released 2 under developed units until they hit their home run... Phase 5 won the battle in video cards to be fair...
This was corrected with the MK III.
Warp Engines install perfectly and are extremely stable.
Keep looking a WE or CS will transform your 3000 into a productivity machine. A PIV 4, Cybervision 64, Retina BLT Z3, or CV64 3d will complete the package.
I still enjoy using my 3000 after 20 plus years... The best system to me that commodore ever released.
my 20000000 cents (2 cents adjusted for inflation)
-
@matt3k
WarpEngines are sexy! and very hot :-)
-
while on topic of a2000...
Only rev 4 board is german made and it had issues.
rev 4.x and 6 were designed in westchester, pa and produced in hong kong / taiwan etc.
All my Amiga 2000s don't say Made in germany so maybe you have something you picked up in europe?
I also have rev 4.3 A2000 board and thats cr*p compared to rev 6.x which has all the changes and fixes. of all of them 6.2 and 6.3 and 6.4 are more desirable obviously.
I think A2000 was build at time when Commodore was doing ok, ok enough not to be cheap etc. A3000 came in 1990 and I think by then Amiga/Apple were losign their edge to IBM Clones so some corners might have been cut (the case is very small similar to PC-ii or PC-iii that commodore was selling)
WRONG! All Amiga 2000 motherboards were made in Germany, and most of the Amiga 2000 computers were assembled in Germany. Some of the parts were made in Hong Kong and other countries, but the parts were shipped to Germany for final assembly. Many Amiga 500 computers were also made in Germany.
-
The warp engines were the best accelerator for the Amiga 3000 IMVHO, yes I know that the CS MK III is a better card. But the build quaility and speed of the warp engine was faster then an 50MHz 060 MK II except for math. For daily use an older, 'slower', card was faster. Even thought the CPU was faster, memory access and SCSI IO were slower. Macrosystems hit a home run right out of the gate, where phase five released 2 under developed units until they hit their home run... Phase 5 won the battle in video cards to be fair...
This was corrected with the MK III.
Warp Engines install perfectly and are extremely stable.
Keep looking a WE or CS will transform your 3000 into a productivity machine. A PIV 4, Cybervision 64, Retina BLT Z3, or CV64 3d will complete the package.
I still enjoy using my 3000 after 20 plus years... The best system to me that commodore ever released.
my 20000000 cents (2 cents adjusted for inflation)
I fully agree, and I eventually decided to hold out only for a WarpEngine. I did consider a Mercury since I like the looks of the board, but I know it's slower and lacks the awesome SCSI of the former.
I had an MKII in the 3000 for a bit, and the card felt so much slower than the TekMagic in my A2000. Fastram performance was some 15MB/s slower than the TekMagic, and of course the MKII SCSI module doesn't fit in the 3000 (TekMagic has the same awesome SCSI as the WE). I ended up overclocking the MKII to 66MHz and put it in the 4000 where it works great, and finally feels a bit more responsive. Next project there is to try to get the Fastlane going so the 4000 has some decent form of SCSI.
I agree Phase5 finally surpassed everything with the MKIII. Only major fly in the ointment was the reliability problems those cards were often known for. I'd rather stick a WE or modified GVP 4060 in there and forget about it. (IMHO, the GVP 4060 was probably closest to what the WE '060 would have been, NCR SCSI, good memory performance, etc.)
-
Just got my Blizzard 2060 w/ 50MHz 68060. My god -- the speed increase on this Amiga 2000 over my old '020 is *insane*.
Got the Picasso II installed -- no drivers setup yet. Later tonight...
bp