25 vs. 486-50 ???
35 messages in this thread
I have been hearing mention made of the new VT4000 coming out and the term
4000/040-25Mhz coming up when describing the new Amiga it is designed to work
in. Being a PC-head (Heh! You go where the money is…), I am used to seeing
any 25Mhz micro as middle-of-the-road as far as performance, which means DOG
SLOW when used for processor-intensive stuff like rendering. Would someone
please assure me that a 68040-25Mhz really IS fast enough when I'm used to
considering a 80486-50Mhz as being just about 'comfortable'.
There's only one cure for ignorance, and that's someone beating you over the
head with facts. Any help (read "Amiga evangalizing") will help.
Gordon Durnell
When comparing an Amiga (especially an A3000 or A4000) to a PC please remember
the following:
1) The Amiga Zorro III bus is a full 32-bit bus, like EISA or MCA. It blows
away ISA bus machines in anything that depends on bus rates (such as drive
data transfer, etc.)
2) The Amiga has custom co-processors for handling such items like sound,
graphics, etc. It is comparable to local-bus accelerated video on the
PC — actually faster unless you get a TIGA board for the PC.
A 25-MHz 68040 is comparable to a 33-MHz 80486 DX2 when doing rendering, math,
etc. Comparing an Amiga 4000 to a PC would require that you have the following
on a PC (33-MHz or 50-MHz 80486 DX2; EISA or MCA motherboard with 24-bit,
accelerated local-bus SVGA/XGA video; dual-floppy [Amiga can handle 4
floppies]; IDE hard drive controller (SCSI with A3000/A4000T/A2000);
Soundblaster Pro; joystick; mouse; parallel port; DOS; Windows 3.1)
Amiga multitasking is inherent (built in since 1985) and can be done
with as little as 1 Mb RAM (actually 512k, but you'd be hard pressed
for RAM on *every* app). It has a flat memory model (just under 2 Gb
RAM limit; 18 Mb on the motherboard) and no reasonable drive
partition limits (2 Gb per partition). You have to try *NOT* to
multitask. Build in IPC (inter process communication) and IPC
programming language (ARexx, souped up version of Rexx on OS/2);
limited DDE (universal clipboard support, limited HotLinks). Third
party Virtual Memory is available.
Any questions?
Oh, yes. Very powerful (the best on a PC) video and 3D software
(Toaster, Lightwave, etc.)
Well said. "You'll have to pry my AMIGA from my Cold Dead fingers"
040 Toaster and all….:^) Just thought we needed alittle Fanatisism.
Thanks for the comparison. This will really help. — Nobody will
need more than 640K – B Gates, 1981
Don't forget the shared library structure of the Amiga OS, which is what
Windows would-be multitaskers call DLLs (dynamic link libraries).
Gordon,
I tend to answer most questions like yours, like this…
My original Amiga, a 500, used a 7.something mhz 68000, and its GUI was
just as snappy as the fastest 386 running Windows. My accelerated 2000,
an "old style" machine, with a 28 Mhz '030, eats the lunch of the '486 I
use at work. This is in terms of GUI "snappiness".
The custom chips are what's responsible for this. Animations, even on
"old style" Amigas, commonly run at 30 fps with no jerkiness. On my
friend's 4000, he is able to run HAM8 animations at this rate…in
256,000+ colors. This is something you should see!
Don't forget that '040's are "clock doubled". I believe that their FPU
performance exceeds that of a '486, so things render pretty quickly.
The Amiga OS is very fast, and it multitasks. I can't say enough about
how well it enhances productivity. If you have used either Unix or OS/2,
you are in for a pleasant surprise with AmigaDos. If you have used
Windows, you are in for a revelation.
You say that a '486-50 is just about 'comfortable'. Well, don't forget
the old proverb about Windows being the best solution for turning a '386
into an XT 🙂
Well, let's get quantitative. I have two platforms, an Amiga 2000HD
with a 33 mhz 68040 and a PC clone 386 25. The '040 cranks out about
25 MIPS and about 4.5 mflops. It is faster at raytracing than my 386
is at crude shading. I created a scene of 16 lightbulbs, each
consisting of 3000 polys. The bulbs were reflecting each other in
shadowless raytracing and the scene renders in about seven minutes of
1504×960 resolution. I did a 360 frame animation in less than two
days.
If you are into 3D stuff, I believe that this is one area where the
Amiga has good development. Lightwave is now a part of Spielberg's
arsenal and the future is bright for good things to happen with this
product. IMHO the only other alternative is spend big bucks and go
SGI.
Jim Roof
PS. Actually, some raytracing can get horrendously difficult. But
that 386 just really gets bogged down (and yes, I do have a
co-processor).
Jonathan,
Ohhh.. So a 4000/040 is something akin to a 486DX-50, which is
really more a 25Mhz machine with doubling. Ouch. Yer right about
Windows. If I didn't need the multitasking (which is "iffy" at best),
I wouldn't even touch it. Thanks again for the info.
mmmmhh, I hate to do this and I know 2,500 people here are gonna rip
out my throat but……: I use (i) a 486/33 Clone with 20 Mb Ram,
PAS 16, Ati Ultra Pro, 17" Monitor, 200Mb IDE, 200Mb SCSI, CDROM.
Total Cost was $4,000 (several mths ago). (ii) an Amiga 2000 with
040/33Mhz Zeus, SCSI II, 300Mb HD, CD-ROM, 2Mb Agnus, Flicker Free
Video, 20Mb Ram. Total Cost was $4,200.
On the Amiga I run a Toaster (Lightwave) and Imagine. On the PC I
run The Editizer, 3D Studio, Windows, Autodesk Animator and hordes of
Graphics programs (Windows based). and the winner is…….. see
next message….!!
well, it's horses for courses : The PC ====== 3D Studio is
absolutely amazing….it is incredibly fast at rendering..incredibly
powerful at modelling and tremendously versatile at building
animations. It's only drawback is a lack of raytracing..which for
*some* applications is important. It's reflection abilities and shadow
mapping is however excellent, it's add-ons (camera flares,
explosions, glows, tornados, trees etc..) are also staggering. Oh
yeah, it's very expensive too! The Windows environment is inuitive,
powerful and win based applications are *by and large* far superior
to their amiga counterparts. Word Processing, drawing, DTP,
retouching is all impressive and integrated in Windows. Speed (so
long as you have buckets of RAM) is great. "Snappiness" is graphics
card dependant..and the ATI Ultra beats the AMiga hands down (in
hi-res i.e 800X600X256 and better).
The Amiga ========= Is great at any composite video related task. The
Toaster is a great product and lightwave is a powerful 3D program
with tremendous raytracing abilities. Compared to 3DS
(756*482*24bit) with shadows on..it is *slower*. It's modeller is
less powerful than 3DS but hey, for $2,000 it's the most impressive
software/hardware bundle I've ever come across.
WARNING ======= MIPS and other CPU measurers are totally useless at
cross-platform comparisons. (GO AMIGATECH for details!).
CONCLUSION ========== The PC, with higher quality software and faster
and broader applications wins in a straight shoot-out. For video
related work, however, the toaster puts the Amiga back in the frame.
(P.S. 640*480*256 anims at near 30fps have been possible on the PC for
quite a while).
A few minor points.
What what the price of the PC after you purchased AdutoDesk Animator &
3D Studio? What was the price of the Amiga after Imagine (lightwave
comes with the Toaster). Dollars should be a *bit* more disparate
now. 🙂
Really an unfair comparison. Sticking an accelerator in an A2000 is
like sticking a 486 card in an 8086/80286 machine. Better to try an
A300 or A4000.
I'm curious about prices now. The 486 should be just over 3k with all
the stuff you mentioned (higher with an EISA/MCA bus) while the A2000
would be closer to $2500. Both plus software.
Window's software is better, by far, in general applications than
Amiga software. Still, (and I have a 486 as well as a few Amigas),
unless you're a professional writer, you'll never use the bazillion
features on WP6 or the new WOrd. For personal use, as well as most
small business use, most Amiga WPs do fine.
SuperBase on an Amiga can compete with the best on the PC. I know,
that's what I do professionally and have beaten out bids (that are
based on PERFORMANCE not price) against multiuser Mac, PC and Unix
systems with my Amiga setup. Corporate and government work.
Amiga spreadsheets suck. No two ways about it. (Sorry, guys. 🙂
Autodesk & 3D Studio are VERY nice. I still prefer Lightwave and the
new Lightwave (which I *have* used) can render faster (as longs as
the reflections are kept down) WITH shadows on an A4000 than 3D
Studio can on a 33 MHz 486. Better quality pix if you require
reflection, refraction & true shadows. Still, this'll probably change
with the next incarnation of 3D Studio. They're so close in speed
it's a negligable point.
Animation on Lightwave is (in my opinion) superior, by far.
Quality output on a Toaster is much easier than on a PC.
What're you using to get 30 fps 640x480x256 on your PC. My 486 w/8 Mb
RAM, superVGA can only get that speed in a 1/4 window (DOS, not
Windows). My A1200 (14 MHz system) blows it away.
Finally, if you use an A1200 or A4000 (AGA chipset) you'll find that
they can match the PC on hires (800x600x256+) on speed. Beat it if
you want 800x600x256,000.
To each their own. (I have 'em both…and then some!) 🙂
-Chas
Hey, BUD! Just wait until you see how fast Lightwave is going to be
in it's next release! I got my grubby paws on an early beta version
and it has already TRIPLED and in some cases QUINTUPLED my rendering
speed. And this is an old version w/o antialiasing control. Does 3D
Studio have bones?
Your Zeus '040 simply isn't coming close to it's potential with LW
2.0. Not even close.
Told you I was gonna get my ear chewed off by 2,500 Amigoids!
Hey! Garbage In – Garbage Out… *8)
One thing that should be mentioned in your comparison of #D Studio VS
LightWave. You are comparing what sounds like a new version of 3DS to
an old version of LW.
To be fair, I would like to see your comments after trying out LW 3.0.
It's 040 optimized, has a great Modeler and the image quality blows away
almost all other platforms in the same basic price range (up to $20K, I'd
say)
JG
You had to say that didn't you? Here I had myself all psyched up for a
SGI R3000 for using Electrogig's 3DGO and you tell me LW3d 3.0 blows
away all competiton in the lowen range upto $20,000 ARRRRGHHHHH
heheheheheheheehe
Thanx for the info John Just Kidding.
BTW I just saw issue 1 of Videographix Today. I enjoyed yer segment
and missed it in the issues that came later. Tis a Shame that they
decided not to go for a second year of publication. I guess not enuff
folks Subscribed.
I am surprised that you have such glowing accolades for 3D studio. We
have three people here who use nothing but 3D studio all day long to
generate cad walk throughs and such. Without fail the biggest
complaint is the horrendous modeling abilities of the package. They
dislike it so much that they prefer to create objects in Acad 12, or
wavefront, and export them to 3d studio. Hopefully this will be
solved in 3D Studio version 3.0.
3D studio does need raytracing, a serious limitation for some of the
work we do, and the shadow maps leave something to be desired. The
IPAS modules are nice add ins though. Better than lightwave… I
dunno…
Windoz is great for generic tasks, it's not stable enough for anything
mission critical though. Even with 3.1 there are still too many lock
ups and crashes. We dumped windows in favor of OS/2 2.1, and yes we
had a beta of NT. I have often heard people say that windows is
intuitive… Why ? There is a definite learning curve associated
with windows, just like with any other gui. As for speed, the fact
that you need a graphics accelerator to outperform a standard amiga
is ludicrous. Heck even a vw bug will run fast if you put a porsche
engine in it.
If you have some way to run hi color 640×480 animations at 30fps on a
pc, I would be interested in the hardware or software you are using.
That would save us much time in dropping to tape.
Oh dear, I guess I started this thing…so I'd better see it
through…
First off, while it's apparantly hard for us to be impartial in our
comments, PC bashing, Amiga bashing etc… don't really achieve
anything.
Let's start off with some constructive comparisons : (1) Speed.
Real world speed is obviously a function of both Software and
Hardware. For most of us, our real-world tasks fall into several
categories : Painting (PhotoRetouching). IMHO – Photoshop for
features, PSTyler for speed win on the PC. Multi-Image Processing –
Animator on the PC if 256 colors is enough. Imagemaster on the Amiga
if it ain't (yukky interface tho'). 3D modelling and rendering –
it's tough, I use 3D Studio and Lightwave equally. I prefer the
layout of 3D Studio (and screen res etc..) but for metal thingies
Lightwave wins. General Business Software (WP/Spreadsheets/PIM's
etc..)..Windows wins hands down.
anyhow……see the note titled 3D challenge.
As long as you're rating 3D programs, within the Amiga realm which of
the late-model 3-D software packages would you say is easiest to
master? I've a friend who has given up on Turbo Silver. He's mainly
interested in animating 3D titles for TV productions. He needs a good
manual, tutorial, and interface. I thought to steer him to Caligari
24, but I don't use any of these packages, only read about them. Any
help would be appreciated. — Ron Legro, Milwaukee
Imagine sin't THAT difficult, Heck it's easier to use than Turbo Silver
anyway.
Ron,
Sorry to jump in here, but I would say that if your friend can afford it,
LightWave is definitely the easiest to master. Nothing can beat it for 3D
titles with the new postscript support in Modeler. And for SUPER easy 3D
titles, he can purchase a program called Wave Maker (not out yet) which
makes animating logos in LW a breeze!
JG
Thanks, John, I'll pass that along. I don't know if my friend will be able
to convince his shop to approve a purchase order for a Toaster, even
though they should, when there are stand-alone packages for a few hundred
bucks. But maybe he'll get lucky.
— Ron Legro, Milwaukee
via AUTOPILOT (the only way to fly)
I would steer your friend towards Imagine 2.0 (or 3.0 if it ever
comes out B^) and the book "Understanding Imagine 2.0" (or 3.0 if it
ever comes out B^))) by Steve Worley. Imagine looks a bit dated now,
but the newer version should stand tall among recent arrivals such as
Real-3D 2.0. There is a wealth of third-party Imagine add-ons, such
as books, tutorial videotapes, slide-show tutorials (Map Master,
Surface Master) and algorithmic texture packages (Essence I and II
are a MUST!)
I'm a bit leery of all the features touted in Real-3D ads; users
complain they could be better documented, need a lot of work to use
properly, and result in ludicrous rendering times. Hopefully some
Real-3D users will jump in with better-researched opinions.
Imagine 2.0 + Steve Worley's book + Essence I would cost around $320
street price, and would give your friend enough to play for a year.
In AmigaArts I posted a fairly extensive description of Imagine this
week; look for that message.
Charles, I thought I would comment on Real 3D 2.0 since you asked users to
respond. I have tried most of the advanced features and they all have worked
for me. The manual is quite extensive with numerous tutorials and a complete
reference section. The index needs more detail, however. Rendering times can
be slow if detailed B-Spline objects are used, but I don't find them
exceedingly slow on my '040. And the rendering of these objects is stunning.
The smoothest, non-faceted stuff you ever saw. Much better than Phong shaded
objects, but slower to render. The interface is weird at first but it can be
customized to absolutely anything you want, once you figure it out. I now find
it reasonably intuitive but not a Lightwave in GUI. It is not overly difficult
to achieve the advanced features but the manual has to be followed very
closely. It is a complex program with stratospheric potential. I think most of
the people having difficulty with the advanced stuff tried to do too much too
fast with out learning the program basics. The program has already been updated
twice on their BBS (the only advantage of having a dongle). Glad to answer any
more questions.
John
Glad to see another User of Real3D. Have you tried any object conversions
either way to other s/w yet. I'm dieing to wrap a b-spline mesh around the
Triceritops and let it go to town :^)
I'm about half way through the docs so far. R3D2 is Great s/w IMHO….
….John
Suresh,
I didn't mean to come off as PC bashing, I was just stating that the modeler in
3d studio leaves much to be desired, as does the modeler in Lightwave. If I had
a choice of any machines in the office to design 3d objects on it would
certainly be the SGI machines and the wavefront software. Now there's some
speed for ya!
As for photoshop and photostyler, I agreee with you 100%, both are great
programs that we would be hard pressed to do without. We only recently ordered
any Amiga image processing software.
Well, Spielberg had a choice and he went with a bunch of Toaster systems
instead of the famed SGI. $$$ talks. *8)
-= Vance =- Image Master
using Black Belt Systems' Imagemaster!
I agree with you, money does indeed talk. For the money I don't think
anything beats the toaster, of course I am still awaiting the arrival
of my new toaster. There is no doubt that for practical purposes the
toaster beats the SGI machines. Perhaps I should have made it more
clear that what I preffered was the modelling software that they are
using on the sgi boxes, not the sgi boxes themselves (though they are
very fast). I would love to have a crimson at home but hey… who
needs two or three mortgages ?
No no no, don't get me wrong, I wasn't p'oed at all…I knew I'd get an earful
if I shot my mouth off !! Your comments were welcomed..tho' not neccessarily
agreed with..hey ain't that what CI$ is about..!! Beat me up some more !!!!
(normally I have to pay for this level of pain!!)
Just kidding..
SK.
You were right. Looks like you are getting a a major chewing out
from the Amigoids in this forum. Trouble is, we are really comparing
apples and oranges here. For me the best solution is to use the
Amiga/VT for composite graphics and the IBM for the more mundane
tasks like spreadsheets, etc.
Gordon,
Well, a 4000/040 is (as far as I know, corrections welcome) closer to
a 486DX2/50, which is the clock doubled version. I would get a demo
if I were you. Lose the emphasis on clock speed, and find out what
total system throughput is really about 🙂
Jonathan,
I will definitely get a demo, hopefully this weekend. Throughput, especially
when rendering, is really what I am looking for. Thanks again.
Gordon
Why worry which is best…
I use my PC for business (expensive) software
My AMIGA (1200) is FUN!!
Phil
Phil,
I agree wholeheartedly. There never has been a truly general purpose personal
computer.
Gordon