A1200 should've had an '030 from the get-go. Or at least some fast ram. But meh, hindsight is 20-20, another example of Commodore shortsightedness, etc., blahblahblah. 
More like an 040. The 68020 was released in 1984, and the 68030 in 1987. The Amiga 1000 could have used a 68020 in 1985...
I know I know... these CPU's were terribly, terribly expensive back then, and the A1000 was mostly designed before the 68020 was released, but really, the A2000 released with yet another 1979 68000 CPU? What was Commodore thinking? This was 1987, the 68000 was 8 years old by this time, it should have been 68020 as standard. And let's not mention the A600 from 1992 with a 1979 68000 CPU... Oops, I just did.
In an ideal world where cost doesn't matter, the A1200 like the A4000 should have been 68040 driven, so should the A3000. The 68040 was released in 1990 and at 25 MHz does 20 MIPS (4x faster per clock than the 68030). When the A1200 was released in 1992, it sported a CPU that was already 8 years out of date, and then they decided to cripple it by starving it of full speed RAM in its stock configuration. Of course, you could always purchase CPU/RAM upgrades at a price, but it's sad that people never realised the potential of an Amiga with a greater CPU than the 68000 or even the 68020. A 68040 equipped Amiga goes like sh*t off a shovel, especially a 40MHz one!
Just imagine it today, a shiny new computer from your favourite company being released with a CPU that is 8 or 13 years out of date! I know... things were different back then in the 80's and 90's....but it makes you think doesn't it?
Some people say Doom killed the Amiga. By the end of 1992, the 68040 was available at 40 MHz. A 68040 at 40 MHz eats Doom for breakfast! A 68030 at 50 MHz can also pull it off.... so it certainly wasn't Doom that killed the Amiga - it was definitely something else (or shall we say someone else?).
