A2000 w/ 060 speed?

[Damion]

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.

[Damion]

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.

[Damion]

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.

[Damion]

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...

[Damion]

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?

[Damion]

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..

[Damion]

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.

[Damion]

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.)