exxos's Atari, Amiga & retro forum

What's the read MB/s of A1200 fast ram? So we know where we stand between both machines with a realistic config, 4MB each.

yep, obviously fastram is faster than chipram.
Both machines can be extended with more ram, better cpu. e.g CT60 or Vampire.

According to my plain Amiga 1200 fast ram only card boxes (Hawk 8Mb and some 4Mb card),no cpus, they claim that just by adding the card performance jumped 2x to 2.5x
Adding 1 to a plain A1200 makes a huge difference.

Now about them PC card slot memory cards that used to be about... adding one of those slows the A1200 down, I presume because its a 16bit bus?

^ yep. PC Card slot only made sense for ethernet or squirrel scsi on 1200. though I briefly had a 600 with PC Card fastram and it did me no harm (accidentally wiring up the power connector in mirror image did though). A proper trapdoor fastram card releases an incredible amount of power.

Really Commodore should've made it 28Mhz, and heavily promoted fastram. EC020s cost next to nowt. But they were saving that for The Greatest Amiga Never Sold.

Cyprian wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:43 pm yep, obviously fastram is faster than chipram.

Lets say that "A1200 was a mess", then what we could say about slower falcon?

No point going into CPU upgrades, overclocks etc just stock vs stock with equal amount memory fitted, it's the only way. When you start going into CT60SUPERVIDEL or A1200 towers or whatever it no longer has anything to do with what Atari corp or CBM were trying to do.

KyleB wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:02 pmLets say that "A1200 was a mess", then what we could say about slower falcon?

KyleB wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:09 am I always imagined the falcon was a mess, but here we are...

well, maybe "falcon was a mess" but still stock 16bit Falcon is faster than stock 32bit A1200.

if you wish, we can also compare expanded machines.
and yep, till now, expanded Falcon (CT60/100) is still faster than expanded with A1200.

I think we getting a bit off topic now Thread was Falcon vs STE.. Please open a new thread if talking about other machines etc

exxos wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:28 am

Cyprian wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:22 am NVDI turns the BLiTTER off.

Wonder how it does it ?

Cyprian wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:22 am can pls you compare STE with NVDI vs Falcon with NVDI?

I only have floppy on my falcon at the moment, so not a simple task to setup

I'm not so sure it's actually disabled, think NVDI replaces its function. May be incorrectly using the term, it prolly intercepts when the COMBEL goes to use it.
Sure a much better explanation
EmuTOS can be compiled without Blitter too.

Since AES, GEMDOS and TOS are different versions in each machine, is this really a fair comparison?

quackmore wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 3:35 pm Since AES, GEMDOS and TOS are different versions in each machine, is this really a fair comparison?

It's fair for basic CPU arithmatic and RAM/ROM access. Those things would only effect graphics/window redraws, which are already massively different due to the Falcons far superior graphics hardware.

So that's my point. The results of the Falcon with caches turned of and at 8mhz, have CPU at 127%. But, Display is at 80%. Without knowing more, my suspicion would be first in the drawing routines for the slowdown on the Falcon. I would bypass all this and program my own tests in assembly if I wanted to compare the hardware of the STe vs. Falcon030.