TT vs Falcon

No topic. Everything you want to speak about. Please just stay courteous.

Moderators: Mug UK, Silver Surfer, Moderator Team

ryo
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 8:01 pm

TT vs Falcon

Postby ryo » Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:46 pm

Hello,

What are the main differences between TT and the Falcon? 2 which is the most powerful? Most technologically successful?

Thanks.

User avatar
Omikronman
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby Omikronman » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:58 pm

The main difference is that the Atari TT is a real 32 bit computer including 32 bit RAM and a maths coporcessor. The Falcon is 16 bit only, has half of the CPU clock compared to the TT and it was sold without FPU. In fact of this, the Atari TT was the most powerful TOS compatible computer Atari has ever made. But the Falcon has much better graphics and sound abilities and a DSP chip. The Atari TT uses 8 bit stereo sound, but the Falcon ones is 16 bit stereo up to 50 khz what means it is able to work with sound in compact disc quality. There are so many differences between Falcon and TT that I can´t tell them all here. It would be too much.

User avatar
Saviour
Atari User
Atari User
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:46 pm
Location: Schwarzenbach/Saale (Germany)
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby Saviour » Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:39 pm

The Falcon is a 16bit Computer?!?
- /|\ ATARI Falcon030 - PhantomS 25MHz CPU+Bus, 50MHz DSP Accelerator - TOS 4.04 - 68882 FPU - 14 MB RAM - 800 MB internal IDE Harddisk - External CD-ROM - MagiC 6.2 - Jinnee 2.01 - NVDI 5.01 - HD Driver 8.13
- /|\ ATARI 1040 STE - 4 MB RAM
- /|\ ATARI Jaguar + Jaguar CD

User avatar
Omikronman
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby Omikronman » Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:45 pm

Yes. It is. I know the original package said "32 Bit Computer" but the Falcon isn´t. The ST RAM for example isn´t. And the bus system isn´t. And it is not possible to easy fit 32 Bit RAM into the Falcon - as in the TT it is.

To make the Falcon to a real 32 bit computer it needs additional hardware. The Afterburner040 for example, but that accelerator was very expensive in the late 90´s. I paid 2000 DM in 1996 for it. That´s a lot, as the Falcon itself had cost 2300 DM in 1993.

User avatar
Cyprian
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1507
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002 11:23 am
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby Cyprian » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:33 am

Saviour wrote:The Falcon is a 16bit Computer?!?

yes and no:
CPU has 16-bit access to the ram
Video (VIDEL) - 32-bit access to the ram

and in TT you can find that:
CPU has 32-bit access to the ram
Video (Shifter) - 64-bit access to the ram

Very interesting thing is that Falcon030 with 16-bit bus has better memory performance than Amiga1200 with true 32bit bus.
Jaugar / TT030 / Mega STe / 800 XL / 1040 STe / Falcon030 / 65 XE / 520 STm / SM124 / SC1435
SDrive / PAK68/3 / CosmosEx / SatanDisk / UltraSatan / USB Floppy Drive Emulator / Eiffel / SIO2PC / Crazy Dots / PAM Net
Hatari / Steem SSE / Aranym / Saint
http://260ste.appspot.com/

ryo
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 8:01 pm

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby ryo » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:36 pm

Falcon is it a computer developed on a corner table?

User avatar
christos
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2391
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby christos » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:07 pm

Actually there is an explanation on the 16-bit bus thing.. something to do with RAM having to be either 2 or 8 MB and that the high colour resolutions are faster but I can't find it now..
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
My Atari blog

STOT Email address: stot(NoSPAM)atari(DOT)org

User avatar
Omikronman
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby Omikronman » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:33 pm

What are you speaking of?

User avatar
earx
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:09 am

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby earx » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:36 pm

falcon has the same 68030 CPU as the TT but at half speed and only 16 bit access on the bus. however, it's fully 32 bit inside, including the cache and such. no FPU is mostly no problem. not many apps use it, and the 68882 is slow too. especially compared to the internal FPU of the 040/060 and intel thingies of that day.

Atari could indeed have used a full 32 bit data bus for the falcon, but that would have indeed made the base model 2 MB intead of 1MB (a useless model to begin with ;)). this is due to using two "banked" RAM chips (like the TT and A1200). they decided against that, maybe out of cost consideration. the fact remains, the 16 bit data bus was the bottleneck of the design. Especially in terms of moving large chunks of graphics the Falcon would have been faster.

Christos: would high colour really be slower with 32 bit CPU data bus? I can imagine when doing a lot of (loose) single pixel writes that the CPU would need to read RAM place the 16 bit pixel in there and then write it back, making it twice as slow.. (sounds logical, doesn't it?) But that case is mostly quite easy to optimise :)

I own 1 TT and 4 Falcons. For using the desktop and lots of clean-written applications (DTP, for instance), the TT is better. The Falcon is better for games (a handful of games were made) and especially for demos and multi-media apps (Apex, Cubase Audio, Logic Audio, mp3 playing with aniplayer or falcamp).

User avatar
christos
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2391
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby christos » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:04 pm

Earx, like I said I remember reading about it, with some math in it (that made sense) that the bandwidth to screen would fall in high colour mode. Can't remember where though. The second thing (that I am pretty sure came Rodolphe) was that not only the useless base model would need 2 MB's but also the second model would need 8 which was the bigger problem since it would cost too much. We all agree that a 256 colour chunky mode would rule though...
My experience with the falcon as an all around computer (that's how I use it.. it's actually running a simulation as we speak, putting a 2GHz pc with matlab to shame (but I am pretty sure I should blame matlab for that, lol)), is that it's pretty good. It could use some speed ups in some places but if you take advantage of it's strengths then it still feels fresh.
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
My Atari blog

STOT Email address: stot(NoSPAM)atari(DOT)org

User avatar
Saviour
Atari User
Atari User
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:46 pm
Location: Schwarzenbach/Saale (Germany)
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby Saviour » Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:54 pm

Thanks for the useful infos about the Falcon. I didn´t know that before. :)
- /|\ ATARI Falcon030 - PhantomS 25MHz CPU+Bus, 50MHz DSP Accelerator - TOS 4.04 - 68882 FPU - 14 MB RAM - 800 MB internal IDE Harddisk - External CD-ROM - MagiC 6.2 - Jinnee 2.01 - NVDI 5.01 - HD Driver 8.13
- /|\ ATARI 1040 STE - 4 MB RAM
- /|\ ATARI Jaguar + Jaguar CD

User avatar
FatRakoon
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:27 am
Location: Behind the grassy knoll
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby FatRakoon » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:39 am

I would just like to add a little spanner into this.

I am on my Second TT ( Sodl the first and thatwas a serious mistake cos it had loads of RAM - I need that now )
I am on my third Falcon ( First being 1MB, the second being 4 but with an Eclipse PCI adapter and ATI Rage ) and now my 3rd and I have bought a CT63 for it.

Naturally, I stopped using the TT and went to the Falcon to await the arrival of the CT63 and its quite stunning just how slow the Falcon feels against the TT... Everything from The display to Disk accesses is much snappier on the TT ( Although Flacon owners will argue that one )

Now, I got the CT63 and its absolutely astounding at just how much quicker the Falcon is with it... Words cannot describe it.

Now, My Falcon and/or the CT63 has some issues that I am still tryign to iron out and recently it got the better of me and I decided that the TT must be brought back into play, and so I hooked the TT back up and stripped the Falcon down to do some soldering work on it ( To try to get the CT63 stable ) and when using the TT I noticed somehting... Its a lot quicker than I htought it was.

Disk access is noticably quicker, and moving windows about in Magic was fairly smooth ( While displaying the contents that is, not just the rubber-band thingy ) and the system felt nice.

So, I have doen a few real-world comparisons, and I am tryign to work out whether I can be bothered with the Falcon at all, or just go back to my TT, and I was surprised to find, that for me, the TT is a better option.

I mostly use CuBase, and the Ct63 really shines in this, and its far quicker than the TT for doing things like copying, moving, Deleting large chunks of data etc, but for all other times, its unnoticeable.

Browsing HTML Pages is no different, except for the actual convertions, which are obviously better on the Falcon as its both quicker and of course you get 256 colours as opposed to the TT's 16

But when it comes to Disk acces, again the TT is double the speed of the Falcon, even with the CT63.

My honest opinion, is that as stock machines the only thing that the Falcon is better at, is displaying more colours. Other than that ,its awful, and as for the ability to play an MP3, then yes, the falcon can do this... But in a stock machine, dont try getting it to do much while its playing an MP3 cos its not going to do a good job of doing the 2 things at once.

Put things another way, if someone offered me a TT with a good ammount of RAM and a Graphics card for it as a swap for my Falcon-CT63-256MB, then the falcon will be gone like a shot.
MSTE @ 16Mhz : 4MB+8MB : Magic & Jinnee
TT030 @ 32Mhz : 10+16MB : Magic & Jinnee
Falcon060 @ 95Mhz : 16+512MB : MiNT & Jinnee
More PCs than PC World has... Probably

ryo
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 8:01 pm

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby ryo » Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:50 pm

The falcon 's microprocessor is a 68030 or a 68EC030 ?

User avatar
Omikronman
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby Omikronman » Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:53 pm

It´s a 68030.

Telstar5
Atari User
Atari User
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby Telstar5 » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:44 pm

What's a 68EC030? I know about all the others in the 68k series but I've never seen 68EC0x0..
Hello!

User avatar
FatRakoon
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:27 am
Location: Behind the grassy knoll
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby FatRakoon » Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:03 pm

AHA! somethign I do know...

The difference between the 68030 and the 68E030 is that the E model which can be taken as Economy and it has no MMU built in.

There is also these "E" versions of the 68000, 68020, and the 68040...

Although if this "E" version means it has no MMU, what about the 68000 which has no MMU anyway?

I know the 020 version is only 24Bit and the 040 has no FPU or MMU

So, they are all lower end versions of the normal CPUs.

Someone please back me up here... Dont make me look a tit.
MSTE @ 16Mhz : 4MB+8MB : Magic & Jinnee
TT030 @ 32Mhz : 10+16MB : Magic & Jinnee
Falcon060 @ 95Mhz : 16+512MB : MiNT & Jinnee
More PCs than PC World has... Probably

User avatar
unseenmenace
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1961
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: Margate, Kent, UK
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby unseenmenace » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:07 pm

UNSEEN MENACE
Several STFM's, 4MB STE, 2MB TT with 1.2GB Hard Drive and 14MB Falcon with 540MB Hard Drive,
Lynx 2 and Jaguar with JagCD
Member of GamebaseST and AtariLegend team
Check out my website at http://unseenmenace.110mb.com

ryo
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 8:01 pm

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby ryo » Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:02 pm

at the architecture which is the most powerful computer amiga between 1200/4000, the TT and the falcon?

User avatar
FatRakoon
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:27 am
Location: Behind the grassy knoll
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby FatRakoon » Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:17 am

At stock, the A4000 uses an 030 and even a 040 CPU so thats the most powerful CPU. The 1200 had an 020, so thats the lower of the list while both Ataris had an 030

Speed-wise I think they are the A1200(14Mhz) then Falcon (16 Mhz ) then the A4000 ( 25 ) and then the TT with a whopping 32Mhz

In terms of technical gubbins, the Falcon is superior I feel, then the Both Amigas, with possibly the 4000 being superior to the 1200 if only for that expansion port... Zorro it was called... Other than that the Amiga 1200 and 4000 are very much exactly capable of the same thing.

I hate to admit it, but both Amigas blow the Falcon out of the water at absolutely everything except Audio
The TT is by far the fastest option for office work
and both amigas have graphics that most atari users can only dream of... 1280x512 for example, and with the basic 256 colours on screen, or 262 thousand colours with that HAM mode.
MSTE @ 16Mhz : 4MB+8MB : Magic & Jinnee
TT030 @ 32Mhz : 10+16MB : Magic & Jinnee
Falcon060 @ 95Mhz : 16+512MB : MiNT & Jinnee
More PCs than PC World has... Probably

jd
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:38 pm
Location: Ruislip, UK

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby jd » Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:09 am

Yeh but they're amiga's, nuff said.

Atari's are always better :)

User avatar
FatRakoon
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:27 am
Location: Behind the grassy knoll
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby FatRakoon » Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:49 am

I seriously think that the time of Amiga v Atari has long gone.

Personally I hated Amigas, I was very lucky enough to own both an ST and Amiga right at the start, and I went for Atari over Amiga, purely because of GEM - It was so much faster than Wokbench, even though WB was definitely prettier... I think that also owning an Amstrad PC1640 that was also running GEM paid a big part in this.

Later on, I had my doubts when I started to get into SoundTrackers, but then SeqOne, BreakThru, and later CuBase kept my feet firmly planted on Atari soil.

As for saying that Amigas are bad, is however wrong... So wrong.

There is NOTHING on Atari machines that the Amigas cannot do, but there is so much that Amigas do, that us Atari users can only really dream of!

We have to face the truth and Amigas are better machines... I feel however, that the quality of our software is vastly superior, from the low end PD stuff, all the way up to the high end pro software, when you compare like for like, the Atari version just seems better in every aspect... 2 Examples spring to my mind, but I know I could go on with more, but HiSoft Basic and BreakThru... If anyone has access to both Atari and Amiga and have access to those programs on both, then have a play and just tell me which is the better and nicer to use? - The Amiga version sucks eggs.

So, on that score, the atari wins out every time, but you should not knock the hardware because I really do wish that my Ct60 Falcon could do half the stuff my mates Amigas can do... It just quite simply pales in comparison most of the time!
MSTE @ 16Mhz : 4MB+8MB : Magic & Jinnee
TT030 @ 32Mhz : 10+16MB : Magic & Jinnee
Falcon060 @ 95Mhz : 16+512MB : MiNT & Jinnee
More PCs than PC World has... Probably

User avatar
christos
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2391
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby christos » Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:51 am

OK, that's just... ahem.. Fatrakoon, how much do you want for your falcon?
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
My Atari blog

STOT Email address: stot(NoSPAM)atari(DOT)org

User avatar
cb
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 7:03 pm
Location: somewhere in time

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby cb » Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:58 am

christos wrote:OK, that's just... ahem.. Fatrakoon, how much do you want for your falcon?


Probably not too much, since it's such a crap computer. :lol:
AL-FGC
Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam!
Image

User avatar
christos
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2391
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby christos » Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:10 am

cb wrote:
christos wrote:OK, that's just... ahem.. Fatrakoon, how much do you want for your falcon?


Probably not too much, since it's such a crap computer. :lol:


Exactement! It's also ct60 accelerated. I guess I could cover some of his investement losses.
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
My Atari blog

STOT Email address: stot(NoSPAM)atari(DOT)org

User avatar
cb
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 7:03 pm
Location: somewhere in time

Re: TT vs Falcon

Postby cb » Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:36 am

The CT60/CT63 is a very good addon. :)
AL-FGC
Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam!
Image


Social Media

     

Return to “Chat forum [ENG]”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests