NatAmi 68070 design draft

[amigadave]

bloodline wrote:

Crumb wrote:

Something as complex as a 68k CPU is never going to get even 20Hmz real speed on an FPGA... I'd be surprised if that to be honest...

Tobiflex m68k core is faster than a 20Mhz 68000 with a DE-1 board.

Yeah, and really how fast does it actually run?

Well with all that positive energy, it is sure to do well!

I am hoping that the NatAmi team does not give up when they come across a few tough obstacles and is able to prove the "Nay Sayer's" all wrong and come out with an improved Amiga 68k design that does indeed run faster than any existing Classic Amiga.

Why spend so much energy telling people that their plans are impossible when such a project would be a benefit to the Amiga community?  

And, for the person who wrote that no one in the Amiga community wants a super 68k and super AGA, WRONG!  That is exactly what I would like to have.  A 200-400mHz 68040/68060 with Super AGA or AAA that is fully backward compatible with AGA and ECS, OCS software.

You can have your PPC AmigaOne and OS4.0, I would rather spend my time working on and with OS3.x and what might be possible with the NatAmi.

As a commercial project, it may not succeed as there are not enough people that will purchase it, or enough developers that will write programs for it.

I'm too tired to rant any further.

[amigadave]

amigaksi wrote:
>Although there is more I'd like to discuss about the Natami, I think it's best I bow out of this discussion to avoid further damage to the Natami project.

His speculations won't damage anyone's Amiga projects.  He speaks of the scientific method but he himself just makes claims that are obviously wrong (perhaps random Googling is superior for him than the scientific method).  I state that it's a good choice to pick the Amiga @7.16 Mhz over the Atari ST @8Mhz and look at this argument:

>I doubt even 1% of the people who bought computers in the 80s even know what speed their CPU was... or even that CPUs had speed ratings.

WRONG.

>You bought the computer that had the most software, or the one that had the better software...

WRONG.

Who in their right minds would accept such false claims?  I bought the Amiga because of it's hardware not because of the software.  

If you are going to dispute some one else's generalized statements with "WRONG", at least pick ones that you can prove are false.  I don't happen to agree with the 1% statement, but doubt that anyone can prove it right or wrong.  You are making it a big deal and implying that since you believe that those two statements are false, then all of his other assertions must also be false.  That is not a logical assertion either, you are just making yourself look equally weak minded to make those kind of statements, so stick to disputing things that you can actually prove to be false or incorrect, not general statements that don't really matter anyway.

I happen to agree that the majority of people that buy computers today buy based on the software they want to run, or just buy any computer with MS Windows because they don't know the difference, or they know nothing about the alternatives.  The people that visit this forum are not part of the majority, they are exceptional.