ADOOM on A600 running 22-35 FPS

[Linde]

it depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to use it for professional work and to browse the web including Youtube and so on 128 MB are of course not enough. If you want to run the newest ego-shooter 128 MB would not be enough either. If you want to beat standard PCs 128 MB are not enough either.

If you want to play the newest ego-shooter or watch youtube, 68K Amiga just isn't a viable alternative. I don't really mind people wanting this, but ChaosLord makes things up ("you need 2 GB to use IBrowse") and uses that as a basis to call the project "silly", and kolla outright calls the people that disagree with ChaosLord "dumbasses". That strikes me as damn rude, and there is an egotistical quality to ChaosLord's requests for more RAM. The project *needs* more RAM for what? To support his game (how does it even spend all that RAM?)? To support his obscure needs in general? That strikes me as silly, if anything.

[B00tDisk]

The problem with pc-task is that the timing is all sorts of wrong.
Even on my amithlon box (which reports to be running 68040@4800 mips (seems pretty close to actual speed)) the timing goes crazy, even when assigning 256Meg to the translation cache/buffer.
It's nice and fast, but it's inconsistent. Two seconds at about 100 fps for ms-dos quake, then 1 second at about 3 fps. Probably hasn't been noticed by many people as there's very few machines running 68k code as fast as my amithlon box (c2d@4.05ghz).

Win9x does work, but you're limited to vesa.
All in all it's probably the best possible option for 68k systems when it comes to pc emulation, but don't expect it to be a great option, regardless of speed for some tasks.
Considerably faster than Dosbox, but not as consistant, nor does it emulate particular hardware as Dosbox does (gfx is a simple vesa frame buffer in pc-task). Neither is ideal, but between the two you can get a pretty good experience if you have enough grunt.

Interesting.  I wonder if one can get away with an NT-based OS on it (3.51 or 4.x would be probably the best - I doubt very seriously if Win2000 would install on PC-Task!)

[kolla]

Well, I think it is pretty dumb to be loud and gloating about issues one have limited knowledge about, and when it is repeated and repeated, with a rudiculing and patrionizing tone too, yeah - dumbass is a pretty mild term I think.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Well, I think it is pretty dumb to be loud and gloating about issues one have limited knowledge about, and when it is repeated and repeated, with a rudiculing and patrionizing tone too, yeah - dumbass is a pretty mild term I think.

Dude, quit trolling.  You and ChaosLord have clearly been proven wrong.  You have not backed up one single claim with any sort of valid statistic.  Take your public shaming like a man, and kindly STFU and get off this thread, so it can return to the more civilized discussion it was becoming last night.  :whack:

[kolla]

For me, 64MB in an A1200 is a much unwanted downgrade, my aging A1200 already has 192MB and for the work the Amiga is actually usable for - simple 2D animation - 192MB is limiting. In my A4000 I can fill up the zorro bus with 1GB of RAM, but then I have no space for other cards. Only viable option for legacy software is really emulation.

In my view, to put 2GB on the card is well worth it. I would make a card that is essencially an FPGA computer, with a lot of RAM, some flash and I/O, and use that as base for all Amiga computers with different connection board for the various models.

64bit memory addressing for m68k has no use unless you have more RAM anyways.

[kolla]

Dude, quit trolling.  You and ChaosLord have clearly been proven wrong.  You have not backed up one single claim with any sort of valid statistic.  Take your public shaming like a man, and kindly STFU and get off this thread, so it can return to the more civilized discussion it was becoming last night.  :whack:

I am not trolling. Everything you have posted clearly says all the way that m68k is a 32bit architecture to run 32bit instructions, and for anything AmigaOS compatible - 32bit addressing - I cannot believe we must have this old stupid argument after all these years!!!

But - whatever - if it makes you happy to think 68000 is not 32bit enough for you, then keep believing, just stop the evangelizing of misinformation!

I have a Minimig, a so called A500 clone, with a 68SEC000 CPU - is it 32bit enough?

[kolla]

Is an A500 with a 68010 no longer an A500?

[biggun]

For me, 64MB in an A1200 is a much unwanted downgrade.

Why do you talk about this?
Did anyone ever say that A1200 Vampire cards would have 64 MB memory ?
No ...

The A600 card has 64 MB.
And 64 MB and 80 Mips is the best one could ever get for an A600.

[danbeaver]

Kind of makes you think twice about posting demos, doesn't it?

[kolla]

Niding said "I think the majority of the posters here would be more than happy to have their A1200 upgraded to 060 and 64 megs." which may very well be true, but I'm not one of them. 128MB would also be a downgrade, so what is the plan for Vampire1200?

As for 64bit addressing m68k and hacking AROS to support it - what ever for?! m68k supported adressing 2GB of RAM way back in early 90ies, if not before, and yet we are not even able to make use of _that_ today.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

I am not trolling. Everything you have posted clearly says all the way that m68k is a 32bit architecture to run 32bit instructions, and for anything AmigaOS compatible - 32bit addressing - I cannot believe we must have this old stupid argument after all these years!!!

But - whatever - if it makes you happy to think 68000 is not 32bit enough for you, then keep believing, just stop the evangelizing of misinformation!

I have a Minimig, a so called A500 clone, with a 68SEC000 CPU - is it 32bit enough?

Dude, you're a joke.  Motorola's own product literature states that the 68000 has a 16-bit data bus and a 24-bit address bus, and a maximum of 16MB of address space.  I've backed this up with links to Wikipedia and CPU-World.  Even Commodore's own product literature from the era calls the 68000-driven A500 a "16-bit computer" or a "16/32-bit computer".  All of this was to refute ChaosLord's absurd claims that (among other things) "a standard A600 is fully 32-bit and can support 4GB of memory".  Which it can't.  Sorry, it just can't.  Not in standard, unmodified form.  Sure, if you hack in some other kind of processor, you can increase its limits.  And many people have done this.  Not rocket science.  But a stock A600 is not a fully 32-bit computer and cannot support 4GB of RAM.  Sorry you got all butt-hurt about that.

This is really, pretty simple.  As you say, "I cannot believe we must have this old stupid argument after all these years!!!" and polluting this other guy's interesting thread with "Internet arguments".  Bye.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Niding said "I think the majority of the posters here would be more than happy to have their A1200 upgraded to 060 and 64 megs." which may very well be true, but I'm not one of them.

Then go away so @biggun can talk about his new card.

[kolla]

Then CD32 is also not a 32bit console, and no m68k Amiga ever, for that matter.

[AmigaOldskooler]

Wow! Just watched the video on YouTube of Doom running on Amiga 600 and it was surely very impressive! Thanks to the developers for creating such a powerful piece of hardware for us! If I lived near you, I'd buy you a -----> :drink:

[Dwyloc]

Why do you talk about this?
The A600 card has 64 MB.
And 64 MB and 80 Mips is the best one could ever get for an A600.

Seeing this video now leaves me with a slightly bad wish for a version that fits over my Minimig's 68000 CPU, just like an A600.

Yes I know its not likely to be technically feasible or very worth while as they are not that many minimig's out there and a newer FPGA clone Amiga is the a better solution, but for some odd reason adding a faster FPGA CPU to my FPGA clone A600 just sounds fun :-)

Anyway keep up the good work I really enjoyed the video and when your A600 board becomes available I may just need to add an A600 to my Computer collection.

[OlafS3]

For me, 64MB in an A1200 is a much unwanted downgrade, my aging A1200 already has 192MB and for the work the Amiga is actually usable for - simple 2D animation - 192MB is limiting. In my A4000 I can fill up the zorro bus with 1GB of RAM, but then I have no space for other cards. Only viable option for legacy software is really emulation.

In my view, to put 2GB on the card is well worth it. I would make a card that is essencially an FPGA computer, with a lot of RAM, some flash and I/O, and use that as base for all Amiga computers with different connection board for the various models.

64bit memory addressing for m68k has no use unless you have more RAM anyways.

for most Amiga users 64 MB and expecially 128 MB are a upgrade and we need to lift the average user hardware level and not the level of a few power users. Software (if commercial or as freeware or shareware) is alsways developed for the average user. Nobody is against more RAM, I would have no problem with 4 GB either but it is simply no option if you do not custom hardware. Custom hardware is too expensive. So if you see it as a "downgrade" you do not need to buy it. And there are good reasons for this strategy. If you have a reasonable how to deliver affordable hardware with 2GB RAM and FPGA just say it. We will certainly discuss it. As long as there is not a better plan we will stick to what we have.