3D - F030 vs Amiga 1200

[dml]

DMA->CPU coupling operates via system memory (STRAM) so there's no way to improve the CPU's performance by involving that.

You can have the DMA do 'other things' e.g. clearing/filling a buffer in the background, or you can use it to decouple transmission between one device and another, but you can't increase bandwidth to the CPU.

I did briefly look at trying to use the PMMU to turn the d-cache into 'fastram' by preventing writes to the system bus, writing to the cache only - but there seems to be no way to do it on the 030 PMMU without generating berr exceptions (well maybe its possible but I was lazy to try all the tests). It would have been nice to be able to absorb unmapped writes too with a special page flag


For 3D performance at least, Falcon >>= Amiga at approx the same clockrate... at least, if you work hard enough

[dml]

so every read (move.w (a0),(a1)+) will automatically bring new (next) value to DSP host port?
does MC68030 need to check somehow if next value is prepared in host port register? (or need to wait between two move.w (a0),(a1)+ ?)

DSP can execute a handful of instructions in the time the move (a0),(a1)+ completes, just enough to do texturemapping or something of equiv complexity.

If the problem requires more DSP instructions it takes too long and the CPU's move will beat/overtake it - then you need to pad out with dummy cycles or synchronize (check the port status, as you say). The cost of checking port status is very high though compared with padding out with cycles. However in some cases the DSP time can vary (complex algorithms) and a sync is required.

There are lots of 'rules of thumb' for when and how to sync to get best performance - a lot of time can be saved by doing it right.

[calimero]

DSP can execute a handful of instructions in the time the move (a0),(a1)+ completes, just enough to do texturemapping or something of equiv complexity.

ok. so when MC68030 read complete ( move (a0),(a1)+ ) do you need, from DSP side, manually (with some kind of "move" instruction) to put new value in host port register?

[dml]

Yes, DSP must sync and move, in addition to whatever else its calculating.

[Flash951]

I think this compare about 3D is very narrow and a little useless, but I want to point something out.

68030 is faster than 68020 and pure 3D graphics has to be done with CPU as both systems misses pure 3D hardware (Falcon got DSP, but some limitations for practical use and speed).

Both A500, A500+, A600 and A1200 has only Chip RAM on mainboard when stock, but those computers got an expansion bay underneath that made RAM update very cheap and common (less than 100$), almost standard, many game producers excepted RAM expansion. The stock A1200 is a fully 32 bit computer with many many DMA-s and at least 3 co-processors with DMA to chip "memory". The co-processors and architecture hardware in the Amiga is very complex and made together with a fully multitasking OS, which already from the start took use of example the "copper" to make independent screens drag-able in the OS. One program could use 640x256 and 16 colors, and another program could use 320x256 32 colours, and the computer could display both screens, both with correct colors at the same time, example the bottom half with 320x200 and the upper half with 640x256, and without CPU load. The mouse pointer is a hardware sprite, so 4 different colour and separate resolution for that one. Pretty unique.

Why not compare "F030?" with "A4000/040", or "A4000t/060"?

Also don't forget that Amiga's got great and easy expand-ability, the "productivity" models A2000, A2500, A3000, A4000 all got a lot of expansion slots internally, with it's own Zorro III 32 bit slots, that seems to be missing generally on the Atari ST series.

Don't take me wrong, I'v got an Atari ST and I believe it was a bargain for it's price. But Atari ST it's a simpler system "all-in-one" compared to the Amiga line.

[EvilFranky]

I think this compare about 3D is very narrow and a little useless, but I want to point something out.

68030 is faster than 68020 and pure 3D graphics has to be done with CPU as both systems misses pure 3D hardware (Falcon got DSP, but some limitations for practical use and speed).

Both A500, A500+, A600 and A1200 has only Chip RAM on mainboard when stock, but those computers got an expansion bay underneath that made RAM update very cheap and common (less than 100$), almost standard, many game producers excepted RAM expansion. The stock A1200 is a fully 32 bit computer with many many DMA-s and at least 3 co-processors with DMA to chip "memory". The co-processors and architecture hardware in the Amiga is very complex and made together with a fully multitasking OS, which already from the start took use of example the "copper" to make independent screens drag-able in the OS. One program could use 640x256 and 16 colors, and another program could use 320x256 32 colours, and the computer could display both screens, both with correct colors at the same time, example the bottom half with 320x200 and the upper half with 640x256, and without CPU load. The mouse pointer is a hardware sprite, so 4 different colour and separate resolution for that one. Pretty unique.

Why not compare "F030?" with "A4000/040", or "A4000t/060"?

Also don't forget that Amiga's got great and easy expand-ability, the "productivity" models A2000, A2500, A3000, A4000 all got a lot of expansion slots internally, with it's own Zorro III 32 bit slots, that seems to be missing generally on the Atari ST series.

Don't take me wrong, I'v got an Atari ST and I believe it was a bargain for it's price. But Atari ST it's a simpler system "all-in-one" compared to the Amiga line.

It's not narrow minded, other arguments have been done to death. Basically Amiga 'guys' don't like to talk about 3D on the Falcon vs other Amigas (standard) because it is so much better at it

This topic is very specifically about Falcon030 vs its main competitor the A1200, when it comes to producing 3D calculations. Why would we compare a Falcon030 against a MUCH more expensive A4000? And a modified A4000(060)?? We are talking about stock machines. We could compare Falcon060 vs A4000 060...but we all know the Falcon has a superior 060 accelerator

[shoggoth]

We either compare stock machines, or non-stock machines. The A1200 was the direct competitor of the Falcon 030, just like the A500 was the direct competitor of the ST - despite the price difference in *both* cases.

[EvilFranky]

We either compare stock machines, or non-stock machines. The A1200 was the direct competitor of the Falcon 030, just like the A500 was the direct competitor of the ST - despite the price difference in *both* cases.

Exactly. Wasn't the A1000 about twice as much as the original ST at launch

[DarkLord]

It was in my area. I got the 520ST, floppy drive, SC1224 color monitor, and some
software bundled in, for considerably less than I could have got the A1000 for,
by itself.

[Flash951]

The first Amiga model, Amiga 1000 retailed at about twice the price of an Atari 520 ST, that's why I said the Atari ST seems like a very good bargain initially. The Amiga 4000 tower model was sold with 060@50MHz as an option, at least the ones produced by Escom Amitec Produced, no third party accelerator involved, that's why I mentioned it. As both platforms are designed as 2D platforms, the one with fastest CPU will win the realtime 3D graphics battle. (Amiga has third party RTG graphics card with 3D hardware on it, but that another story.)

Back then I played Quake in full screen on my A4000 tower (060@75 fitted with RTG graphic card).

I don't understand the meaning of comparing real time 3D graphics on stock F030 versus a stock A1200, the 030@16 will beat the 020@14 of course, but this is very narrow and says nothing about what is the better machine. Both machines are slow and almost useless for 3D as they are 2D platforms.

[Flash951]

The Amiga 1000 was the direct competitor to Atari ST 520, they both got re-least in -85, the Amiga 500 didn't came out before -87. When the Amiga 500 came out, the Amiga was also affordable. Before the A500, the Amiga was about twice the price. If you didn't had the money, the Atari ST 520 was a bargain.

[ctirad]

Why would we compare a Falcon030 against a MUCH more expensive A4000? And a modified A4000(060)??

The same question is why to compare A1200 against a much more expensive Falcon? I think the A4000/30 is the right machine to compare with the Falcon and the Falcon still outperforms it in most of the aspects, because it was really a new machine while the A4000 was just A1000 on steroids. I used to be an very happy Amiga user back in first half of 1900s. A500 was awesome computer for games and multimedia, but the AGA was big disappointment for me. I expected much much more from the new Amiga.

[EvilFranky]

Sorry the base model Falcon was £499 on release and the A1200 was £399.

[EvilFranky]

The first Amiga model, Amiga 1000 retailed at about twice the price of an Atari 520 ST, that's why I said the Atari ST seems like a very good bargain initially. The Amiga 4000 tower model was sold with 060@50MHz as an option, at least the ones produced by Escom Amitec Produced, no third party accelerator involved, that's why I mentioned it. As both platforms are designed as 2D platforms, the one with fastest CPU will win the realtime 3D graphics battle. (Amiga has third party RTG graphics card with 3D hardware on it, but that another story.)

Back then I played Quake in full screen on my A4000 tower (060@75 fitted with RTG graphic card).

I don't understand the meaning of comparing real time 3D graphics on stock F030 versus a stock A1200, the 030@16 will beat the 020@14 of course, but this is very narrow and says nothing about what is the better machine. Both machines are slow and almost useless for 3D as they are 2D platforms.

A quick look at the coding section on this site would suggest the Falcon is better at 3D processing than you give it credit for. It is not just about out performing, but being able to out present it also. Best 3D performance on the Falcon comes from using its high colour chunky mode which the AGA chipset does not possess. This alone provides far superior lighting effects. 65k colours vs 256 is a non contest. And some of these 3D calculations can be offloaded to the DSP also, a good use of coprocessor that every Amiga lacks.

[calimero]

We either compare stock machines, or non-stock machines. The A1200 was the direct competitor of the Falcon 030, just like the A500 was the direct competitor of the ST - despite the price difference in *both* cases.

Exactly. Wasn't the A1000 about twice as much as the original ST at launch

if you compare $$$ price of machine than it is fair to compare A1200 with additional fast RAM board (around 100 pounds back in '90) cos it would fill gap between F030 and A1200 price! (obviously somebody communicate between engineering and marketing stuff inside company!)

but when I look at Andromeda - Nexus 7 I still have a feeling that Amiga is unbelievable!
I would like to know how they made such a fast sode?! in "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jdi3I3Ep6k"

btw
@Flash951 I am aware of this Amigas advanced capabilities.

I don't understand the meaning of comparing real time 3D graphics on stock F030 versus a stock A1200, the 030@16 will beat the 020@14 of course, but this is very narrow and says nothing about what is the better machine. Both machines are slow and almost useless for 3D as they are 2D platforms.

If you look only MIPS tha Falcon have clear advantage.
But if you look demos, I am not sure how Amiga coders manage something like this:

[EvilFranky]

Then it would still lack a DSP, SCSI and a 'real' usable high colour mode. So for the extra £100 pounds you are getting these hardware features.

[Frank B]

16 bit high colour and 16 bit sound. The falcon is more powerful. The 1200 was cheaper and has some nice play field and sprite hardware. They are both nice machines but the Amiga should have launched with aaa and not aa chipset

[Frank B]

Aga is ugly in some ways competed to the original Amiga chipset. Bank switched colour registers, alignment restrictions and really limited chip ram. On the falcon virtually every feature was improved over the ste. The 1200 used the same sound chip, blitter etc.

[Flash951]

Then it would still lack a DSP, SCSI and a 'real' usable high colour mode. So for the extra £100 pounds you are getting these hardware features.

I agree, F030 seems like a powerful computer with lots of useful features for the price. But if you only "count" number of features you get, the the Amiga 1200 also has it features, like custom co-processors like Alice and Lisa (copper, blitter), denise, paula, that takes the CPU load off, that's why demos like Nexus 7 and others looks so good, hardware sprites and scrolling in hires. It can display 262 144 colors (18-bit) in HAM-8. The graphics has 32 bit DMA to chip RAM, and would not "slow" the CPU bandwith down like on the F030. The core of the Amiga OS in a 512 Kb ROM (Kickstart 3.0 or 3.1), fully multitasking system.

[EvilFranky]

Listen, we've heard all of this pro-Amiga guff on here before...many many times. If you want a discussion about Falcon030 and Amiga 1200 beyond just 3D graphics, then it would be best to make a new thread and keep this one about it's original topic.

[shoggoth]

I agree, F030 seems like a powerful computer with lots of useful features for the price. But if you only "count" number of features you get, the the Amiga 1200 also has it features, like custom co-processors like Alice and Lisa (copper, blitter), denise, paula, that takes the CPU load off, that's why demos like Nexus 7 and others looks so good, hardware sprites and scrolling in hires. It can display 262 144 colors (18-bit) in HAM-8. The graphics has 32 bit DMA to chip RAM, and would not "slow" the CPU bandwith down like on the F030. The core of the Amiga OS in a 512 Kb ROM (Kickstart 3.0 or 3.1), fully multitasking system.

If we were to compare the features you mention in this particular context, we'd easily conclude that those nifty features of the Amiga chipset becomes fairly useless when it comes to *3D*. Contrary to what you state, AGA DMA does affect the CPU bandwidth, and the blitter is still 16-bit. While the Falcon may have half the CPU bus width of the 1200, the Falcon bus frequency is twice that of the 1200, which means bus width doesn't really matter unless we take fastram into the equation - which we don't. HAM is honestly crap for anything but still images (unlike the hicolor mode in the falcon), sprites are useless in the context of 3D, scrolling of individual bitplanes/playfields is also not very useful for 3D, copper is nice but again I can't see a good use for it when it comes to 3D, and I doubt you could do 3D with the paula.

Most of the users on this forum have a fair amount of knowledge of what an Amiga actually is. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy both these machines, and they both have their pros and cons depending on the usage scenario, and this thread deals with one specific scenarion - namely "3D - F030 vs Amiga 1200". Ironically, if you *do* put an accellerator/fastram board on these machines, their differences quickly becomes irrelevant, since they actually share the same bottle necks - with the Falcon having the edge over the 1200 due to faster STRAM bandwidth.

[Anima]

But if you only "count" number of features you get, the the Amiga 1200 also has it features, like custom co-processors like Alice and Lisa (copper, blitter), denise, paula, that takes the CPU load off, that's why demos like Nexus 7 and others looks so good, hardware sprites and scrolling in hires. It can display 262 144 colors (18-bit) in HAM-8. The graphics has 32 bit DMA to chip RAM, and would not "slow" the CPU bandwith down like on the F030. The core of the Amiga OS in a 512 Kb ROM (Kickstart 3.0 or 3.1), fully multitasking system.

The custom chips in the Amiga 1200 were only implemented for compatibility reasons. Technically (feature- and speed-wise) there's no improvement compared to the original Amigas except for the AGA graphic modes and these were doomed by the fact of being organised in planes again. Sprites were only used as a parallax layer replacement and the Blitter is almost completely useless for real world applications. The Amiga has a technical edge over the original Atari ST design but everyone's expectation of what the Amiga is capable of are simply too high.

Well, to be honest, the DSP coprocessor approach of the Atari Falcon was also a dead-end invention but it's the more flexible and therefore better overall design in comparison with the Amiga 1200. OTOH, the Sony Playstation was successful just because having a powerful DSP alike GPU (and the fact that the 3D gaming era started with it). Of course the hardware subsidising game prices helped Sony a lot to offer the console at a moderate price. But that strategy would never work with a computer design.

Sascha

[Frank B]

Then it would still lack a DSP, SCSI and a 'real' usable high colour mode. So for the extra £100 pounds you are getting these hardware features.

I agree, F030 seems like a powerful computer with lots of useful features for the price. But if you only "count" number of features you get, the the Amiga 1200 also has it features, like custom co-processors like Alice and Lisa (copper, blitter), denise, paula, that takes the CPU load off, that's why demos like Nexus 7 and others looks so good, hardware sprites and scrolling in hires. It can display 262 144 colors (18-bit) in HAM-8. The graphics has 32 bit DMA to chip RAM, and would not "slow" the CPU bandwith down like on the F030. The core of the Amiga OS in a 512 Kb ROM (Kickstart 3.0 or 3.1), fully multitasking system.

Ham 8 can only modify the upper 6 bits of each colour component btw. It's also horrible for real time graphics. 16 bpp is far more powerful. The Falcon has a dedicated graphics blitter at 16 mhz, a dedicated sound CPU (DSP) and hardware scrolling too. The only thing it lacks is sprites and a copper. I'd take 16 bpp over either of those

[calimero]

ops. I did not post link!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jdi3I3Ep6k

[EvilFranky]

Capture source looks like emulator to me...no doubt ran with an emulated 50Mhz 030