A1200 and A4000

[kirk_m]

This may sound really dumb, but, I'll ask anyway.  Is there anything different in the architecture of an A1200 versus that of an A4000 that makes the 4000 a FASTER machine?  Of course, the stock CPUs are different, and, the A4000 has more expandability, but, if all else is equal, with both machines having the identical CPUs and amounts of RAM on an add-on processor card, does either machine have a performance edge when used in regular AGA modes (no RTG card on the 4000)?

[SACC-guy]

Since the only way to do a compare is to upgrade the 1200..

The 4000 is superior and when you add faster add-ons directly to the built in bus.
Those add-ons have less bottlenecks..

[klx300r]

guess it would depend on the accelerator cards then to compare the two

[midway]

I felt the csppc and cvppc was feeling faster than the bvppc combo. Look also at framerates achieved with wipeout. Thats the only direct comparison i was able to experience.

[PPC]

I felt the csppc and cvppc was feeling faster than the bvppc combo. Look also at framerates achieved with wipeout. Thats the only direct comparison i was able to experience.

True, csppc+cvppc is a lot faster then Bliz PCC+Bvsion.

-CSPPC has faster memory bus
-Faster ppc then BPPC
-SCSI 3 UW controller

Only advantage with Blizz PPC is that you can fit 256 MB on it.

[paul1981]

This may sound really dumb, but, I'll ask anyway.  Is there anything different in the architecture of an A1200 versus that of an A4000 that makes the 4000 a FASTER machine?  Of course, the stock CPUs are different, and, the A4000 has more expandability, but, if all else is equal, with both machines having the identical CPUs and amounts of RAM on an add-on processor card, does either machine have a performance edge when used in regular AGA modes (no RTG card on the 4000)?

I don't know. Over the years I've heard that AGA is a bit quicker on an A4000, but on the other hand I've heard the A1200 is quicker in some other respect. Whatever the pros and cons are I'm sure they're too miniscule to bother mentioning, unless someone here knows differently? I think if they both have equal CPU cards with Fast RAM on the card, then they're the same.

I know that the A3000 has superior ECS speed compared with A1000/A500/A2000 and A600.

[scuzzb494]

Difficult to get a comparison but here goes...

4000/030
CPU 68030 - 51.80
FPU 68882
Dhrystones 4851  
Mips 5.06 Mflops 1.43  
Chip SpeedvsA600 6.75  
Comment Cowabunga
12mb RAM
DMA/GF AGA |Alice 2mg  
ACID but not scientific
Load 330K IFF: Instant :  
Load and play 1633540 Anim: Instant:

                                 
1200/Tower Blizzard1230IV
CPU 68030 55-80
FPU: None
Dhrystones 8479
Mips 8.85 Mflops NA
Chip SpeedvsA600 6.35
Comment Acceleration
32mb RAM
DMA/GF AGA |Alice 2mg
Load 330K IFF: Not instant easily 1 second drag
Load and play 1633540 Anim: Not instant easily 1 second drag

There is always a delay on the 1200 when playing files. Both were loaded from RAM
It gets even more noticable on the 4000/040 with the PicassoIV. The reason I
say that is cus I can run an 040 out of the tin with a 4000 as standard and easily
fit my PicassoIV and play on a big monitor without any newfangled kit. So hardly
scientific but for me the 4000 , even a humble 030 works faster for me.

Saying all that this 1200 is more useful cus with the buffered interface I have the
ZIP, CD and two hard drives in the tin.