bloodline wrote:
@SamuraiCrow,
I'm not sure if I follow your thinking here. The FPGA issues aside, since they have been covered by AlexH... I don't uderstand your left brain/right brain metaphore...
Lets look at my aged Althon64 PC (and contrast it with my one of my A1200s with 4meg FastRam)...
correcting a lot of mistakes here
The Athlon: It has a CPU on a bus with some memory, local and for the CPU only.
The A1200: It has a CPU on a bus with some memory, local and for the CPU only.
The Athlon has the memory controller built-into the CPU, requiring all system access to utilize the Athlon whenever they need memory. Is limited to an 8-bit DMA system.
By comparison, the Amiga has memory used exclusively for the CPU, and used for the rest of the system.
The Athlon: It has a separate main System bus for all support systems (GFX, Audio, I/O).
The A1200: It has a separate main System bus for all support systems (GFX, Audio, I/O).
No, the Athlon has all support systems running through the CPU bus, opposite of the Amiga which keeps them seperately
The Athlon: It has a GFX CoProcessor (a Nvidia 8600) with it'a own RAM (512Megs) that performs all gfx functions, and capible of massively parallel GP processing.
The 1200: It has a GFX CoProcessor (The Blitter, Copper and barrel shifter) with its own RAM (well shared with the Audio and I/O).
Here is the real difference. The Athlon has this the opposite of the Amiga, sharing the CPU memory while the Amiga shares the video memory. The advantage to this is in the fact that the CPU gets undivided memory access in the Amiga, unlike the Athlon[/quote]
The Athlon: It has a dedicated Audio DSP and its own RAM.
The A1200: It has a DMA fed DAC, and RAM shared with the GFX and I/O
[/quote]I don't see many Athlons with audio DSP's. In addition, you remain stuck with the 8-bit DMA system of the Athlon vs the 16-bit DMA of the Amigas.
I could go on... but my point is made, the Athlon is structurally rather similar to the A1200, but massively improved on the idea. Each of the various subsystems are powerful independant devices in their own right. I don't really see how this relates at all to your mataphore?
No, your example fails due to not understanding the underlying design.