The AAA and AGA
The Amazing Crawling Worm - Kerry Hotopp
anything about it (other than its a new graphics chip). Plus, does anyone
know what resolutions the AGA can handle and how many bit planes they have?
--
Kerry Hotopp
kyh...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
People keep on braking in to my room and replacing everything with exact
duplicates.
Jonas S Green
>I have heard a lot about this new graphics chip (AAA), but does anyone know
>anything about it (other than its a new graphics chip). Plus, does anyone
>know what resolutions the AGA can handle and how many bit planes they have?
AAA is the still under development new chip set beyond the current top AGA.
(And of course, as soon as it comes out it will be what MNB calls what AGA
should have been.)
Scott Ashdown
Awhile back, Ben Hardy posted the following:
- Four VLSI integrated circuits.
- DRAM or VRAM support
- Up to 40 DMA channels with dynamic allocation
- 32 Blitter, 640x200 4 color screens scroll 6 time faster
or 640x400 16 color screens scroll 9 times faster than ECS.
It also supports "chunky pixel" modes of 2,4,8 or 16 bits as well
as hybrid combinations,such as 3 "8 bit chunky" (R,G,B) planes.
- 32 bit Copper
- Single system with DRAM can support 800x560 w/9 bitplanes, or
with 24 bit hybrid chunky with VRAM. A dual system (like having two
denise chips) will support 1280x1024 x 5 planes, or 1280x1024 x 8
planes and 1280x1024 24 bit (thats 16.8 million colors on screen)
with VRAM. (1280x1024 VRAM systems running 24 bit screens are as fast
as the current ECS is with 640x200 16 color screens as far as the
blitter is concerned!) There is host of other modes available
such as 640x400 w/16 planes.
- Supports video pixel bus reversal for a cheap frame grabber.
- 16 bit sound, with 8 voices. Samping rates over 50 KHz and
8 bit sampling.
- Standard 1,2 or 4 meg floppy support (such as IBM 720K,1.44M or 2.88M)
- Two hi-speed FIFO UARTS. (Two buffered serial ports)
Happy dreaming :)
--Scott
--
+---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Scott Ashdown | Carleton University Transputer Lab |
| Computer Systems | (I got a summer job! (Impressive, eh?) |
| Engineering Year IV | Still my opinions only!) |
Psigon Matrix....do you DOUBT us??
Yea, right....gimme a break...it will be (according to MNB) the biggest flop
yet from Commodore.
Jim Martin
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screeeemmmmmin fast 4000/040..YEEEEEEHA!! X-ASOCC (CBM Blew that one)
Jim Martin MATRIX -- If it's made, we sell it. Almost.
-----(612) 656-9693-- MAR...@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU
We're almost done with the Cray module for the EmPlanT. :) heh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephan_De...@cup.portal.com
I will just say that AAA should have been with the A3000...
The A1000 reputation is faded, AGA didn't do it, the A4000
didn't do it? Will AAA be really advance...
Sory but I cant stand blinded die hard amiga loyalist, you
only keep CBM thinking everything is "OK", and just denied
the move over of real user to other systems.
Anyway, CBM should do like Next and drop the amiga and
port amigados to other CPU...
S.Schaem
Tim Ciceran
> Anyway, CBM should do like Next and drop the amiga and
>port amigados to other CPU...
How to make friends and influence people.
--
Benjamin S. Yu
AGA Stephan_Derek_Schaem@cup (433)
And since when is Amigados "the most respected piece of software on
earth" (from Byte)?
ben
Justin Richards
--
NOT! no other CPU can do what the Amiga can do. The Amiga is more than
AmigaDos, you stupid piece of sh*t.
-----
---==*Justin Richards*==---
AUUCP1.16 Amiga500 3/120 9600baud UUCP: justin%hybris%mme...@tssi.com
misc modified hardware (what warranty???) (Use above for large mail/files)
INET: br...@cleveland.freenet.edu jus...@hybris.uucp
jwri...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Use above for small (8k) mail)
[NOTE: mail sent to INET addresses will be forwarded to my UUCP system]
LARS MARTINSEN
>From: Stephan_De...@cup.portal.com
>Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
>Subject: Re: The AAA and AGA
>Message-ID: <80...@cup.portal.com>
>Date: Sat, 24 Apr 93 18:29:38 PDT
>Organization: The Portal System (TM)
>Distribution: world
>References: <1993Apr21....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
> <1993Apr22.1...@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
>Lines: 11
AGA didn't do it????
The 256col-mode is about 5 times faster than the same on a 50MHz 486. And
the stills in HAM8 is truly great. (VERY close to 24bit) and takes up 25-35%
HDD-space. It isn't for nothing Digital Illusions couldn't get Pinball
Fantasies fast enough on a Clone (and it's too fast to play on my 4000/
040). EISA, VESA, VISA is fast graphs, bleach....
LM
Kurt Lichtner
References: <1993Apr21....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <80...@cup.portal.com>
<larsm.78....@dhhalden.no>
In <larsm.78....@dhhalden.no> LARS MARTINSEN writes:
>
>AGA didn't do it????
>
>The 256col-mode is about 5 times faster than the same on a 50MHz 486. And
>the stills in HAM8 is truly great. (VERY close to 24bit) and takes up 25-35%
>HDD-space. It isn't for nothing Digital Illusions couldn't get Pinball
>Fantasies fast enough on a Clone (and it's too fast to play on my 4000/
>040). EISA, VESA, VISA is fast graphs, bleach....
>
>LM
>
While this is a very subjective topic, I have trouble believing the
previous comments. I work on a 50Mhz 486 all day long. I use
OS/2 2.0, and a 1024 X 768 X 256 XGA screen. The Amiga 4000 that
I saw running a 256 color mode was in no way near OS/2 in terms
of GUI response time, let alone 5 times faster. Take another look ...
Kurt
Henri Tamminen
>AGA didn't do it????
>The 256col-mode is about 5 times faster than the same on a 50MHz 486. And
>the stills in HAM8 is truly great. (VERY close to 24bit) and takes up 25-35%
Please stay in facts. I've seen 50 MHz 486 with UNACCELERATED SVGA in 640x480
and its FAST! It's even ok at 800x600 and tolerable with 1024x768 mode.
Next time you could also say your A4000 RESOLUTION with that 256 color mode,
so you can compare them. I think you've seen some old Trident 8900c SHIT
with 1024x768/256 colors driving Win 3.1 and no wonder then, that it looks
slow even on a 50 MHz 486.
Put A4000 into 800x600 256 color mode and go then compare it to 800x600 256
color mode on 50 MHz 486 driving OS/2 2.0 with new updated graphic driver
and I rather doubt you, if you still claim that A4000 is 5!!! times faster
or even 2 times. I think they maybe even ...
And all this using standard NON ACCELERATED Diamond SpeedStar SVGA 1MB.
You can also try this on Win 3.1 results shouldn't change too much. Put
in Accelerated SVGA card and see the difference. Better yet, put Local
Bus or EISA card and then... well I think Amiga is then 4 times slower.
-
A3000 owner, AGA anti advocate
James McCoull
>> Anyway, CBM should do like Next and drop the amiga and
>>port amigados to other CPU...
>> S.Schaem
>--
>NOT! no other CPU can do what the Amiga can do. The Amiga is more than
>AmigaDos, you stupid piece of sh*t.
Really? CBM are doing there best to kill the amiga... first AGA comes out
... a shit chipset about 3 years off the pace, and then they have the gaul
not to allow hardware hitting - soon the amiga will only be AmigaDos at this
rate.
BTW. Before you go around calling people a piece of shit, work out what they
do. Schaem probably has more brain power in his little finger than youu
do in the whole of your head. Unless you want to prove otherwise with
the great ChunkyToPlanar competition going on at the moment :)
e_s...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
been ahead of the game. Hell, even if AGA never came out, any old
A3000 still kicks the cans out of your best mac or IBM. Learn your
facts.
KENNEDY JAMES SCOT
> In article <larsm.78....@dhhalden.no> la...@dhhalden.no (LARS MARTINSEN) writes:
>
>>AGA didn't do it????
>
>>The 256col-mode is about 5 times faster than the same on a 50MHz 486. And
>>the stills in HAM8 is truly great. (VERY close to 24bit) and takes up 25-35%
>
> Please stay in facts. I've seen 50 MHz 486 with UNACCELERATED SVGA in 640x480
> and its FAST! It's even ok at 800x600 and tolerable with 1024x768 mode.
>
> Next time you could also say your A4000 RESOLUTION with that 256 color mode,
> so you can compare them. I think you've seen some old Trident 8900c SHIT
> with 1024x768/256 colors driving Win 3.1 and no wonder then, that it looks
> slow even on a 50 MHz 486.
>
> Put A4000 into 800x600 256 color mode and go then compare it to 800x600 256
> color mode on 50 MHz 486 driving OS/2 2.0 with new updated graphic driver
> and I rather doubt you, if you still claim that A4000 is 5!!! times faster
> or even 2 times. I think they maybe even ...
No, I think the A4000's video would still be faster. I don't know how much
faster it would be though. Benchmarks anyone?
> And all this using standard NON ACCELERATED Diamond SpeedStar SVGA 1MB.
> You can also try this on Win 3.1 results shouldn't change too much. Put
> in Accelerated SVGA card and see the difference. Better yet, put Local
> Bus or EISA card and then... well I think Amiga is then 4 times slower.
Here's my two cents... Video on my 33 MHz 486DX with Diamond Speedstar
SVGA 1MB card is a *lot* slower than the video on my unexpanded A1200.
If I added some fast RAM and/or an accelerator board to my system, video
would be even faster. The total cost of this system, including hard drive
and monitor, would still be less than your typical 486 system. BTW, I
was using 800x600 with 256 colors on the A1200 and the 486. So, I was
making a valid comparison. If I upgraded to an accelerated video card,
say a S3-based board, the video speed on my 486 would probably be right
up there with my A1200. Of course it isn't exactly fair to compare an
A1200 with a 486 system that has a lot faster CPU and costs a lot more.
Lets bear in mind that a 33 MHz 486 is a lot faster CPU than a 14.3 MHz
68020. Imagine an A1200 with a 40 Mhz 68030 and four megs of fast RAM.
I bet a system like that could hold its own with about any 486 system---
even PeeCees with accelerated video boards.
On the other hand, a local bus 486 with a local bus video card with a
graphics coprocessor such as a S3, Mach8, or 8514A would definitely
blow away an A500, A1000, A2000, A3000, or an A1200. An A4000 would be
the only thing that C= makes that would come even close to the video speed
that a 486 system like this would have. A PeeCee with the hardware I
described above, but with a Pentium under the hood, would totally
destroy any Amiga system.
Here's what Commodore could do to make am Amiga with *really* fast video:
1) Double the clock speed of the AGA chips from 14.3 MHz to 28.6 MHz.
2) Instead of having the custom chips do something on every other clock
cycle of the CPU, have them execute instructions on *every* clock
cycle. The custom chips could then operate concurrently *all* the
time. Plus, the serial port, parallel port, floppy drive, and hard
drive could also operate *completely* concurrently with the CPU.
3) By doing these two things, video would be four times as fast as it is
now! You'd have an Amiga that would really burn then!
> e...@mits.mdata.fi
>
> -
> A3000 owner, AGA anti advocate
---Scott
Jerry Shekhel
:
: Sorry, you're wrong. AGA now *IS* the pace. Commodore has always
: A3000 still kicks the cans out of your best mac or IBM. Learn your
: facts.
This is laughable. An ancient 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics
than the A3000.
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | in my book of memories. |
| ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | -- Guns N' Roses |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
Glenn W. Wickman
The AGA chipset will simply give the Mac and IBM peopl a goal to
catch up to and surpass, just as the original Amiga chipset was back
in the 80's.
PS: That word up there is people not peopl.
C.P. Brown
But the A3000 has no 8 bit graphics mode. By the same logic, a 256K A1000 has
faster 4096 colour (Note, I did not say 12 bit) graphics than the vast majority
of PC's, since most PC's in use can't display more than 256 colours!
Chris Brown.
Jerry Shekhel
: |>
: |> This is laughable. An ancient 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics
: |> than the A3000.
: |>
:
: But the A3000 has no 8 bit graphics mode. By the same logic, a 256K A1000 has
: faster 4096 colour (Note, I did not say 12 bit) graphics than the vast
: majority of PC's, since most PC's in use can't display more than 256 colours!
Oops, I meant to say that a 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics than the
A3000's 4-bit graphics (and higher resolution, too).
: Chris Brown.
Jerry Shekhel
:
: The AGA chipset will simply give the Mac and IBM peopl a goal to
: catch up to and surpass, just as the original Amiga chipset was back
: in the 80's.
What a joke. The AGA chipset had been surpassed long before it was released.
Lars Hamre
Hahaha! My A4000/040 has slow AGA graphics in the 8 bitplane modes, and lots
of ugly interlace flickering in the high resolution modes.
Not much to catch up or surpass, except maybe for simple video work :(
---
Lars Hamre
lar...@lise.unit.no
C.P. Brown
|> : |> This is laughable. An ancient 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics
|> : |> than the A3000.
|> : |>
|> :
|> : But the A3000 has no 8 bit graphics mode. By the same logic, a 256K A1000 has
|> : faster 4096 colour (Note, I did not say 12 bit) graphics than the vast
|> : majority of PC's, since most PC's in use can't display more than 256 colours!
|> :
|>
|> Oops, I meant to say that a 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics than the
|> A3000's 4-bit graphics (and higher resolution, too).
Probably true. Because of PC's using chunky pixels, the 8 bit mode tends to be a
special case, If you drop the number of colours, then the Amiga has the
advantage. There have been a lot of posts about Workbench being slow in 256
colours on AGA Amigas. If you drop to 128 or 64 colours however, the processor
gets more access to the CHIP RAM bus and this tends to result in a dramatic
speedup. For example, DPaint 4.5 is slow in 1280*512*8 bpl on my 1200, but if you
drop down to 7 bpl (or even HAM-6) it speeds up considerably. Also, because of
the Amigas screens system, there is very little point to running Workbench in
lots of colours anyway, it just wastes memory. I run mine in 64 colours, which
allows a decent backdrop picture, and a few colours for multiview to play with.
It also provides very fast windowing performance.
Chris Brown
Raw Shark
>This is laughable. An ancient 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics
>than the A3000.
Given that the A3000 never had 8 bit graphics, that isn't very
surprising :-)
Raw Shark
--
! Raw Shark of the Net.Trenchcoat.Brigade !
!"This is a work of fiction. Any resemblence to any real people (living,!
! dead or stolen by fairies) or to any real animals, gods, witches, !
! countries and events (magical or otherwise) is just blind luck, or so !
! we hope." Disclaimer courtesy of The Books of Magic !
Glenn C. Lyons
: Glenn W. Wickman (isy...@cabell.vcu.edu) wrote:
: :
: : The AGA chipset will simply give the Mac and IBM peopl a goal to
: : catch up to and surpass, just as the original Amiga chipset was back
: : in the 80's.
: :
: What a joke. The AGA chipset had been surpassed long before it was released.
Oh please. Thats why Quadra owners I know are amazed at what can be done on my 68020 "keyboard". Their lucky if they can do a 256 color realtime animation let alone 262,000+ in realtime.
: +-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
: | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
: | Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | in my book of memories. |
: | ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | -- Guns N' Roses |
: +-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Glenn Lyons % It's understanding that makes it possible %% McDonnell Douglas Aerospace % for people like us to tolerate people %% Houston, TX % like yourself. %% ly...@us17501.mdc.com % -Ferris Bueller %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Robert M Cosby
"It is!"
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!
...etc, etc, etc...
Most educational.
Coz
Gregory G Greene
'>Here's my two cents... Video on my 33 MHz 486DX with Diamond Speedstar
'>SVGA 1MB card is a *lot* slower than the video on my unexpanded A1200.
'>If I added some fast RAM and/or an accelerator board to my system, video
'>would be even faster. The total cost of this system, including hard drive
'>and monitor, would still be less than your typical 486 system. BTW, I
'>was using 800x600 with 256 colors on the A1200 and the 486. So, I was
'>making a valid comparison.
Depends on what you mean by video. If you mean doing full motion video
type work, then you're probably right. If you're talking about GUI performance
though, I think you're nuts. I have a 33/486DX with Diamond Speedstar Plus
graphics board running OS2's WPS, and there's no way an unexpanded A1200 is
faster at running a 256 color WB. Hell, I have used an A1200 with 2meg of
fastram and WB is still slower. Plus, at 800x600 on the Amiga you have to put
up with flicker.
Greg Greene
g...@kepler.unh.edu
Gerald G. Washington
>:
>: Sorry, you're wrong. AGA now *IS* the pace. Commodore has always
>: been ahead of the game. Hell, even if AGA never came out, any old
>: A3000 still kicks the cans out of your best mac or IBM. Learn your
>: facts.
>
>than the A3000.
Hah, that is laughable. "An ancient 386 (with blah blah...)" is faster
than an ancient A3000 with nothing. My A500 with monitor can display
better graphics than any 486.
-- Gerald
Michael Cianflone
But the 3000 isn't even sold anymore. You've got to compare machines that
are currently being sold. No?
Henri Tamminen
>Jerry Shekhel (je...@msi.com) wrote:
>: Glenn W. Wickman (isy...@cabell.vcu.edu) wrote:
( Stuff deleted about AGA being surpassed before even released )
I agree on that BTW
>Oh please. Thats why Quadra owners I know are amazed at what can be done on my 68020 "keyboard". Their lucky if they can do a 256 color realtime animation let alone 262,000+ in realtime.
Ahem... why don't you people EVER mention resolutions you're comparing. Get the
facts first:
1) Most (?) Amiga Users in europe use PalHiresInterlaced ( if they have flicker
fixer ) with 8 to 16 colors and max. 64 colors. That's around 640x480. I use
PalHiresInterlaced with maximum overscan and 8 colors in my A3000 and with
CpuBlit it's reasonably fast. Fast ChipMem in A3000 helps thought.Same for
new AGA machines because of bigger bandwight.
2) Most (?) PC users are using 800x600 or 1024x768 with 16 to 256 colors, so
when you compare speed in screen refresh, think, how many pixels and how
much more color info (bits) they're moving around. Sure PC is fast, if I
put it in VGA 640x480 mode with 16 colors. Let's see Windows fly! But
seriously, PC users don't want to look crappy 640x480 screens when doing
productivity things, like painting, drawing, DTP, CAD etc.
Also you ( Amiga Users ) always forget to mention screenrefresh and flicker
'cause most PC users have 60Hz refresh even on a 1024x768. Yes, lets drop
it into not so comfortable 30 to 15 Hz FLICKER or is it Khz? Don't now so
well.... :-) See, how much screen refresh becomes faster while eyes begin
to strain. No thanks...
3) Most (?) MAC users ... ??? Don't know for sure. I think, that the new 832x
6?? is gaining ground fast ? Anyway...
And now to the point.
You said Quadra freezes when showing animation with many colors?
Have you ever looked one ? I have seen many Quicktime movies in new Centris
610, Mac II fx with unaccelerated Apple 8/24 card and with Quadra 700.
If I keep window size reasonably small, let's say 100x100, then it's fast but
for 320x200 you need Quadra. BUT !!! It's actually FASTER in 24 BIT MODE than
if I drop it to 8 BIT MODE !!! That's because Quadra must convert 24 bit
to 8 bit on the fly.
Funny?
There is no machine without good and bad points.
Gerald G. Washington
>Oops, I meant to say that a 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics than the
>A3000's 4-bit graphics (and higher resolution, too).
Another meaningless statement. It seems that the 386 always has a 'with'
phrase, while the A3000 has none.
How about this:
An Amiga with Vidi24 has faster 8/24-bit graphics than a 486 (and higher
resolution, too).
An Amiga with Resolver has faster 8-bit graphics than a 486 (and ...).
An Amiga with OpalVision has faster 24-bit graphics than a 486 (and ...).
...
-- Gerald
Richard Krehbiel
> The AGA chipset will simply give the Mac and IBM peopl a goal to
> catch up to and surpass, just as the original Amiga chipset was back
> in the 80's.
Mac and IBM people are generally unaware of the Amiga. AGA doesn't
phase them; the new AAA chipsets won't be worth noticing ("Only 114MHz
pixel clock? How archaic! The new Matrox 64-bit SVGA chip does
200MHz.") They wouldn't care if the Amiga understood human speech,
had arms and legs, and looked like Christy Brinkley.
--
Richard Krehbiel ri...@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Andrew Krenz
[deletia..]
>No, I think the A4000's video would still be faster. I don't know how much
>faster it would be though. Benchmarks anyone?
Not really, more to follow..
>Here's my two cents... Video on my 33 MHz 486DX with Diamond Speedstar
>SVGA 1MB card is a *lot* slower than the video on my unexpanded A1200.
>If I added some fast RAM and/or an accelerator board to my system, video
>would be even faster. The total cost of this system, including hard drive
>and monitor, would still be less than your typical 486 system. BTW, I
>was using 800x600 with 256 colors on the A1200 and the 486. So, I was
>making a valid comparison. If I upgraded to an accelerated video card,
>say a S3-based board, the video speed on my 486 would probably be right
>up there with my A1200. Of course it isn't exactly fair to compare an
>A1200 with a 486 system that has a lot faster CPU and costs a lot more.
I really don't know how you couls say that your A1200 has faster video. I've
spent about 1 hour playing on the A4000 at Creative Computers, and during that
time I changed the A4000's display to 800x600x256 under Workbench 3.0. I was
pretty shocked at how slow the window refreshing and bitmap painting was.
It was especially slow when you picked a wallpaper bitmap background. It would
take a couple of seconds for the whole screen to repaint and refresh when you
moved windows around. Needless to say, I had pretty high expectations of the
A4000 and I was dissapointed.
I'd best compare the A4000's video speed in 256 colors to that of my 386-DX40
with my old Trident 8900 SVGA card. Both had about the same response with
256 color graphics at 800x600. I find it hard to believe that your A1200 is
much faster than a 486-50 at graphics when I KNOW that an A4000 is NOT faster
than a 386-40 at graphics. Since that time I have replaced my Trident SVGA card
with a Paradise Graphics accelerator card (NOT local bus). The graphics of
Windoze in 800x600x256 with this new graphics card are MUCH faster than that
of an A4000 and there is no doubt about it. I have seen this with my own
eyes and this is undisputed as far as I'm concerned. My roomate here has a
486-33 with a VLB S3 accelerator, and the difference between my accelerator
and his accelerator is about the same as the difference between an A4000 and
mine. Therefore, it is impossible for an A1200 to have graphics speed
comparable to a local bus S3. Go ahead and flame me all you want, I know
this is the truth.
>On the other hand, a local bus 486 with a local bus video card with a
>graphics coprocessor such as a S3, Mach8, or 8514A would definitely
>blow away an A500, A1000, A2000, A3000, or an A1200. An A4000 would be
>the only thing that C= makes that would come even close to the video speed
>that a 486 system like this would have. A PeeCee with the hardware I
>described above, but with a Pentium under the hood, would totally
>destroy any Amiga system.
Whoops, I guess I was getting ahead of myself. Forget about the S3 to A1200
comparison; but the S3 is still much, much faster than the A4000.
>Here's what Commodore could do to make am Amiga with *really* fast video:
>1) Double the clock speed of the AGA chips from 14.3 MHz to 28.6 MHz.
>2) Instead of having the custom chips do something on every other clock
> cycle of the CPU, have them execute instructions on *every* clock
> cycle. The custom chips could then operate concurrently *all* the
> time. Plus, the serial port, parallel port, floppy drive, and hard
> drive could also operate *completely* concurrently with the CPU.
>3) By doing these two things, video would be four times as fast as it is
> now! You'd have an Amiga that would really burn then!
Sounds like a neat idea. I know that the only way an S3 falls short of an
A4000 (or A1200 for that matter) is in animation. If C= could combine the
two, they'd have a winner.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Krenz -- uzn...@mcl.ucsb.edu | kr...@engrhub.ucsb.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Just some weird dude
PC with a stock Amiga? How about the vivid 24 board for the 3000 which will
soon be out for the 4000? That can do up to 160Mflops!! Let's see a 486
or even the Pentium do that!! As far as the Pentium blowing all Amigas
away, that's not true. The 4000 will be able to use the DEC Alpha chip
which has been rated as 150% faster then the Pentium.
I ASKED MY BABY IF THERE'D BE SOME WAY |A wet dog swims in the rain
SHE SAID SHE'D SAVE HER LOVE FOR A RAINY DAY| But a dry martini laughs
I LOOK IN THE SKY BUT I LOOK IN VAIN | - Corey Gray
HEAVY CLOUD BUT NO RAIN - STING | IO0...@maine.maine.edu