68060 vs 68040

[dougal]

Depends on what you want. A 68040, even at 28Mhz makes a huge difference over a 68030 at any speed.

Jumping from 68040 to 68060 you will also notice a speed difference. Also the 68060 is more ideal for desktop A1200s as it works on a lower voltage and has no issues with heat. You don't even need a heatsink / fan with an 68060.

Also there are quite a lot of games (even WhdLoad games) which don't run or don't run properly with a 68040. With a 68060 nearly (if not all) all games run fine in WhdLoad.

Then there is price to consider. A 68040 is considerably cheaper and still a very good processor.

I would go for a 68060 if you can but don't be put off. An 040 is brilliant and very very fast too.

[dougal]

I dont know where this whole "'040 has trouble with whdload" thing comes from. Ive had no more problems with an '040 than I even did with an '030.
If your main interest is in running whdload though there's no need to go beyond an '030 anyway.

The '040 is missing some instructions that are found in '030 CPU's which is what cause some incompatibilities with whdload. I had an Apollo 1240 and I can confirm that about 20-25% of the games (which worked fine with an '030) i tried gave me problems.

'060 CPU's seem to have most if not all of these instructions not found in the '040. In fact every whdload game i threw at my '060 works fine.

As you said though, if all you care about is whdload then a 68030 is the way to go. Cheap, cheerful and ultra compatible.

[dougal]

And '060 is missing even more isntructions than '040.
The difference in your experiences may be due to the '060 being set up properly and the '040 not.
I currently use a 40mhz '040 and 9 out of 10 whdload games work just fine. Pretty much the same level of compatibility as an '030 when I used to use one.

That explains why my Apollo 1240 only like 7/10 games worked. I used the 68040.library which came with Workbench 3.1.

[dougal]

I use a program called Rivo or something that even on a 68030 it is able to play the movie with sound and the picture is so slow though but it have a great potential of running the movie on 15 fps on a 68060 which is great experience for me.

I am going to get the Blizzard 1260 and I am going to enjoy the Amiga 1200 to the maximum.

I did not realize however that the Amiga 1200 is extremely different than the A4000, I did not know that the Amiga 4000 AGA is faster than the Amiga 1200 AGA's that I will be able to watch movies and do everything better on an Amiga 4000 than an Amiga 1200.

I really thought that the Amiga 1200 and Amiga 4000 are the same in everything.

AGA is slow regardless of it being a 1200 or a 4000. The advantage of a 'big box' Amiga such as the 2000/3000/4000 is that they can accept Zorro RTG graphics cards like the the Picasso IV. These graphic cards make all the difference.

When i had my A4000T which had a MKII Cyberstorm 68060 @ 50 Mhz i thought it was pretty fast until i bought a Picasso IV graphics card. Everything was sooo much faster, browsing the web, loading jpegs etc and looked a hell of a lot nicer too because it supported high resolutions (think 1024x768 and higher) with no flicker and true 24 bit color (16 million colors on screen at once) as opposed to AGA which only supports 256 colors and with any resolution higher than 640x256 @ 256 colors AGA slows things down and eats at your chipmem. Even with an '060.