Overview Features Coding ApolloOS Performance Forum Downloads Products Order Contact

Welcome to the Apollo Forum

This forum is for people interested in the APOLLO CPU.
Please read the forum usage manual.
Please visit our Apollo-Discord Server for support.



All TopicsNewsPerformanceGamesDemosApolloVampireAROSWorkbenchATARIReleases
Performance and Benchmark Results!

2mb Chipram Barrierpage  1 2 3 

Edro Ferreira

Posts 21
25 Aug 2016 12:25


I just don't understand that 500 euros/700Cad dollars thing.68xxx accelerators are expensive, I think the Point of FPGA is to get lower  prices for accelerators. What would you do with a 5ghz 68999 processor on Amiga? It will be possible of course, but like Mr. Gunnar said, it's just an evolution of the same. I personally wouldn't pay more than 250euros for an A600 accelerators.
Thierry Atheist wrote:

Can't tell me THAT'S not worth 500 Euro!!!!!!




Gunnar von Boehn
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 6207
25 Aug 2016 13:42


Edro Ferreira wrote:

  I just don't understand that 500 euros/700Cad dollars thing.68xxx accelerators are expensive, I think the Point of FPGA is to get lower  prices for accelerators.
 

 
This is misunderstanding.
 
The FPGA cost us not less to buy - they cost much more than a real 68030 CPU.
 
Producing the Vampire is more work and cost us more than doing an 68030 accelerator.

The cool think about that FPGA is that we can show that we can design a CPU which is technically better than all the CPUs which were invented by Motorola.




Alan Haynes

Posts 140
25 Aug 2016 14:59


Gunnar von Boehn wrote:

  If you for example use an Cyclone5 device than you can reach 100 MHz.
  This means in this example the 68080 will execute the code 50 times faster than a 68030 @ 50 Mhz.
  This means in the Cyclone 5 - this code performance would be equivalent to a 68030@2500 MHz !
 
  If you for example use an ARRIA 10 device than you can reach 200 MHz.
  This means in this example the 68080 will execute the code 100 times faster than a 68030 @ 50 Mhz.
  This means in the ARRIA 10 - this code performance would be equivalent to a 68030@5000 MHz !
 
  I hope this example helps to understand the different of the internal structure and the FPGA.

Sorry Gunnar; I realise that I got mixed up between core speed and clock speed. It is clock speed that means we have to get a faster FPGA. That fits in with what I was saying except that I said core speed. To me this demonstrates that on the Standalone board it would be a good idea to have the FPGA on a plug in card to plug into a slot on the main Stand Alone board so that when a faster FPGA is available we can upgrade to the new and faster FPGA relatively easy. Sort of similar to the Processor slot on an Amiga 2,000; 3,000 & 4,000 which allows  a person to upgrade to a faster accelerator when it becomes available.

Cheers from Oz


Alan Haynes

Posts 140
25 Aug 2016 15:01


And I agree with Thierry.
Definitely worth 500 euros!

Cheers from Oz



Edro Ferreira

Posts 21
25 Aug 2016 23:46


We can have FPGAs that can go really very expensive, I understand that. But is it worth for the software we actually have? Developping for 68K architecture is not so viable right now. As I said before, I think it's a good study for the 68K family, the improvements that Gunnar and others can do, shows what can be done. But if you put it in a level of price that high, it will not be viable for most of the people. If you make such hardware, will it worth 500 or 700 GBP? Yes it probably will, but you won't sell to many people, if that's the main objective of producing this, it will be a very restricted hardware.


Edro Ferreira

Posts 21
25 Aug 2016 23:56


Latest aca with 030 are being sold for more than 300 euros, 040/060 accelerators are sold between 800 and 2500 euros, if they include PPC cpus. I had one of those and got rid of it. It was a good for nothing piece of hardware. Good for demos and tracker music. What i would like was this apollo thing to keep "simple" and not too expensive. 2 main reason i like this vampire thing are the lower price and we have new hardware with newer components.
  cheers!
 
Gunnar von Boehn wrote:

 
Edro Ferreira wrote:

    I just don't understand that 500 euros/700Cad dollars thing.68xxx accelerators are expensive, I think the Point of FPGA is to get lower  prices for accelerators.
   

   
  This is misunderstanding.
   
  The FPGA cost us not less to buy - they cost much more than a real 68030 CPU.
   
  Producing the Vampire is more work and cost us more than doing an 68030 accelerator.
 
 
  The cool think about that FPGA is that we can show that we can design a CPU which is technically better than all the CPUs which were invented by Motorola.
 
 
 

 


Gunnar von Boehn
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 6207
26 Aug 2016 08:02


Edro Ferreira wrote:

We can have FPGAs that can go really very expensive, I understand that. But is it worth for the software we actually have?

I think the Vampires are interesting for 2 types of people:

a) People that want a fast CPU card.
The Vampires are fast and offer nice extra features like TRUE COLOR GFX Card.

b) People that want the fastest possible 68k System.
For usages like playing DIVx or want to run NEO-GEO games in emulation etc. By offering a high end card with uses a more expensive FPGA we could offer all this with APOLLO 68080.

So maybe in the future / next year we should offer 2 lines of cards.




Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
26 Aug 2016 09:03


Edro Ferreira wrote:
But is it worth for the software we actually have? Developping for 68K architecture is not so viable right now.

Hi Edro,

Don't make the FAST computer(s) and no one will EVER code the software that would run on them....
Edro Ferreira wrote:
As I said before, I think it's a good study for the 68K family, the improvements that Gunnar and others can do, shows what can be done.

But it WON'T BE done, if the FASTER computers don't come out.
Edro Ferreira wrote:
But if you put it in a level of price that high, it will not be viable for most of the people. If you make such hardware, will it worth 500 or 700 GBP? Yes it probably will, but you won't sell to many people, if that's the main objective of producing this, it will be a very restricted hardware.

But they ARE making the "lowest common denominator" merchandise TOO!

You're arguing against a non-issue!

The stand-alone won't be just "razzle-dazzle"... but a REAL "workhorse".... You'll see soon enough.

I talk to many people, and the other OS's... They REALLY REALLY SUCK!

AMIGA is the only sane system available!


Henryk Richter
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 128/ 1
26 Aug 2016 10:02


I certainly don't mind the option of a faster FPGA for future Vampires (and would put myself in the waiting line). On the other hand - Emulation stuff alone should IMHO not be a main target. There is other interesting hardware available for Emulation, especially the inexpensive hobby boards like RasPi et al.

As it stands, the Vampires offer a tremendous upgrade for small Amigas - at bargain prices. CPU speed aside: CF/SD/IDE and fast RTG graphics (including 54 kHz HQ sound out of Paula as side effect, even with OCS Denise) are a welcome quantum leap for the small Amiga models.

I'd like to think that the fast Vampire line would be more suited for the standalone implementation.


Alan Haynes

Posts 140
26 Aug 2016 11:18


Henryk Richter wrote:

I certainly don't mind the option of a faster FPGA for future Vampires (and would put myself in the waiting line). On the other hand - Emulation stuff alone should IMHO not be a main target. There is other interesting hardware available for Emulation, especially the inexpensive hobby boards like RasPi et al.
 
  As it stands, the Vampires offer a tremendous upgrade for small Amigas - at bargain prices. CPU speed aside: CF/SD/IDE and fast RTG graphics (including 54 kHz HQ sound out of Paula as side effect, even with OCS Denise) are a welcome quantum leap for the small Amiga models.
 
  I'd like to think that the fast Vampire line would be more suited for the standalone implementation.

That is what the Stand Alone Vampire will be. It will use the Arria 10. The current add-on Vampire 2 cards for a600, a500 and so on are using the Cyclone III.
So those that just want to play get what they want at a very good price. Those who have a vision of what the Amiga really has to offer can get that next year with the Stand Alone Apollo Vampire board with Arria 10 FPGA

Cheers from Downunder


Captain Zalo

Posts 71
26 Aug 2016 12:06


Alan Haynes wrote:

  That is what the Stand Alone Vampire will be. It will use the Arria 10. The current add-on Vampire 2 cards for a600, a500 and so on are using the Cyclone III.
  So those that just want to play get what they want at a very good price. Those who have a vision of what the Amiga really has to offer can get that next year with the Stand Alone Apollo Vampire board with Arria 10 FPGA
 
  Cheers from Downunder

Do you have a source for this from an Apollo Team member?
I'm asking because a lot of the discussions of late have consisted of "facts" that have been pulled from fantasy with a dash of dreams or straight out of the nether regions of subjective rants.
Sorry for being a party pooper.


Michal Warzecha

Posts 209
26 Aug 2016 16:03


Not need "source person". All informations are here on forum. Gunnar said is not a secret they think or mayby even work on standalone system. It's natural progress way of this whole project. If CPU core will be tested and bugfree, and current FPGA will be too small/slow for it, everything will be moved to probably Arria10. Arria is too big for classic amigas, but for standalone system- it's great hardware.


Captain Zalo

Posts 71
26 Aug 2016 16:22


All I ask for is a source post which confirms this and not something pulled out of a rectum. (Rest removed due to excess toxicity.)
  There are no posts I can find saying there has even been released info on a standalone yet, other than it being a future plan with a wishlist. The Arria 10 has been mentioned, but not confirmed as actual fpga. Maybe the rants should quiet down until there are actual design posts from the team? I assume Majsta will post info once there's a prototype closer to testing or a feature list when the product is closer to manufacturing.


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
26 Aug 2016 16:46


Captain Zalo wrote:

All I ask for is a source post which confirms this and not something pulled out of a rectum.

There are no posts I can find saying there has even been released info on a standalone yet, other than it being a future plan with a wishlist.


Hi Captain Zalo,

7 posts up, Gunnar says that he would like to have the standalone available next year...

If they did a kickstarter, maybe it could be done by the first half of 2017!!!!!!


Captain Zalo

Posts 71
26 Aug 2016 16:53


Thierry Atheist wrote:

 
Captain Zalo wrote:

  All I ask for is a source post which confirms this and not something pulled out of a rectum.
 
  There are no posts I can find saying there has even been released info on a standalone yet, other than it being a future plan with a wishlist.

  Hi Captain Zalo,
 
  7 posts up, Gunnar says that he would like to have the standalone available next year...
 
  If they did a kickstarter, maybe it could be done by the first half of 2017!!!!!!
 

 
  No. He writes that there are two different people wanting vampire boards. This is exactly why I want the facts from the team and not fantasy. (Edited.)
 
  Also, I've mentioned a Patreon earlier, and the offer still stands. A kickstarter would probably burn out the team members as they will be flooded by the filth from people not understanding the kickstarter concept.


John William

Posts 563
26 Aug 2016 18:47


Andrew Copland wrote:

Thierry Atheist wrote:

    and then there's
    C:\Program Files\NVIDIA Corporation
    2 GIGABYTES and 40 Megabytes (2,196,819,943 bytes to be exact), of I don't know, CRAP?
   
    win-dos is ABSOLUTE DEPLORABLE WRETCHED GARBAGE!
 

 
  And it's the same with nVidia's OSX and Linux proprietary drivers, not just Windows.
 
  The problem there is pre-baked data. Specifically pre-optimised and compiled binary version of shaders for a large number of modern games/software. Along with the PhysX binaries which are sadly huge - a new full binary plus supporting library for every revision :(
 
  If you wanted nVidia GPU's on an Amiga, with everything they offer, it'd take up the same amount of space.
 
  Not-Windows fault: nVidia's (And AMD's/Intels/whoever-makes the GPU).
 
  Also we do have other GPU options on big box amiga's, mine only has 2MiB in it but can take 4MiB. If development had continued we'd have seen 8/16/32/etc/2048MiB cards just like PC has.

$700? PPfft i will pay $1,000 without hesitation!



Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
27 Aug 2016 17:14


Captain Zalo wrote:
All I ask for is a source post which confirms this and not something pulled out of a ...

How about here? EXTERNAL LINK 
Minutes 14:45 to 16:30!!!!

Captain Zalo wrote:
There are no posts I can find saying there has even been released info on a standalone yet, other than it being a future plan with a wishlist. The Arria 10 has been mentioned, but not confirmed as actual fpga.



Gunnar von Boehn
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 6207
27 Aug 2016 17:54


To answer some questions:

Yes, the team gets stand alone boards.
No customer sales date yet for them.

The current Vampire and the stand alone boards use Cyclones.
Arria 10 boards are considered as performance alternative for power users for next year. They will be faster but also more expensive.


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
27 Aug 2016 18:05


!! YOU GUYS ARE AWESOME !!

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

(i'm a power user)


Amiga 4Life

Posts 101
27 Aug 2016 18:06


thank you, Arria 10 is for highend users...although not for the masses, these boards are necessary....
this is your bigbox Amiga user...your work involes some type of video/audio editing or you just like pimped
out Amiga boxes...


posts 44page  1 2 3