A2000 w/ 060 speed?

[blakespot]

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

[lassie]

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...

[blakespot]

It's the RTG high res stuff I am more concerned about.



bp

[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.

[Ami_GFX]

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.

[blakespot]

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

[Ami_GFX]

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.

[LoadWB]

The best RTG cards--Picasso IV, Retina Z3, Cybervision 64 and Cybervision 3d, are Zorro III

The Picasso IV supports Zorro II.

[gertsy]

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.

[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.

[magnetic]

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.

[bbond007]

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.

[nscaleworld]

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.

[lassie]

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

[nscaleworld]

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.