Overview Features Instructions Performance Forum Downloads Products OrderV4 Reseller Contact

Welcome to the Apollo Forum

This forum is for people interested in the APOLLO CPU.
Please read the forum usage manual.



All TopicsNewsPerformanceGamesDemosApolloVampireAROSWorkbenchATARIReleases
Documentation about the Vampire hardware

V500 / V600 Gold 3 AGApage  1 2 3 4 

Renee Cousins
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 142
10 Sep 2020 00:39


The V2 should have all the bells and whistles of the core. It should be a nice fast and clean cut of the core. No AGA. Basic RTG. But full FPU. Maximum cache size. Focus on speed.


Herbert Markart

Posts 42
10 Sep 2020 06:33


As far as I have now seen everywhere, the case is, that there is too less space to make all the features happen.
That is why dicussions support FPU or AGA arised.
My question would be, how much space would be cleared up when removing Emutos.
I think that is one of the least used features and from my perspective not neccessary.
Don't get me wrong: I do not understand everything about programming FPGA's. It is just a thought and a suggestion.
Would it clear enough to make more happen?
Is it even removeable? (Maybe it is needed for other functions).


Eric Gus

Posts 429
10 Sep 2020 07:07


Renee Cousins wrote:

  The V2 should have all the bells and whistles of the core. It should be a nice fast and clean cut of the core. No AGA. Basic RTG. But full FPU. Maximum cache size. Focus on speed.
 

 
  Ironically I would be happy WITHOUT FPU and RTG and having AGA (which implies my 512k chip ram restricted NTSC mode only Amiga 500) would now be free of those shackles .. worth it for me .. IMHO having only 512kb chip ram and no PAL display support is far more restricting..


Renee Cousins
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 142
10 Sep 2020 17:15


AGA can't work from the CPU side with the existing hardware so the V2 is no different than the V4SA -- you're just using the Amiga as a case and power supply.
 
I think the V4SA satisfies the need for a completely new and separate Amiga in one board and the V2 satisfies the need for a great accelerator within an existing Amiga.


Renee Cousins
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 142
10 Sep 2020 17:23


Herbert Markart wrote:

As far as I have now seen everywhere, the case is, that there is too less space to make all the features happen.
  That is why dicussions support FPU or AGA arised.
  My question would be, how much space would be cleared up when removing Emutos.
  I think that is one of the least used features and from my perspective not neccessary.
  Don't get me wrong: I do not understand everything about programming FPGA's. It is just a thought and a suggestion.
  Would it clear enough to make more happen?
  Is it even removeable? (Maybe it is needed for other functions).

Emutos would save almost no space, it's something like 256KB on the Flash chip and the addition of the Atari graphics modes on the FPGA. Similarly, RTG would also save almost no space, I think Gunnar has said that it's only ~300 LUTs?

AMMX might save some space, but would fragment development even more and that would be bad. So we have three huge chunks: the core, FPU and AGA.

To me, the V4 has AGA and if you want AGA, then either get the V4 or grab your A1200 out of the attic and pick up a V1200. The clear model thus far is that the V2 is a CPU accelerator and the V4 is standalone. This should get cemented -- the vestigial 64-pin DIP connector and level shifters ought to be removed on the V4 and the Team should stop talking about native Amiga graphics in the V2.


Rollef 2000

Posts 13
10 Sep 2020 18:55


I am of the exact opinion like Renee.


Eric Gus

Posts 429
11 Sep 2020 04:45


Renee Cousins wrote:

          you're just using the Amiga as a case and power supply.
           

           
            So be it then .. Im ok with this really I am .. I don't see why this is a problem, its just replacing the old limited hardware with new hardware with expanded capability, I don't really have some lingering pangs over "it must use the original commodore made silicon graphics chips" stuff, and yep it would be an all in the FPGA or not situation (I fully appreciate and grasp that) .. personally this doesn't really bother me in anyway.. if I really want, I can just remove the card and my A500 is back to normal.
           
            As I see it, people stuff their A1200s with all kinds of 3rd party BORG technology, rtg cards, 16 bit audio boards, flicker fixers, CPU accelerators, USB host cards .. its not much different just perhaps going a bit further in a more radical way in a unified package .. At the end of the day not much of the original amiga is being used in a meaningful way in those cases.
     
      And honestly whats worse, being restricted to say 256kb or 512kb chip ram on an amiga or not having RTG graphics.. I would argue that not having at least 1mb chip (preferably 2mb+ chip ram) (in all the Amiga models ...A1000, A500/2000 ) is far more crippling that not having RTG capability .. with more chip ram you can run WHDLOAD etc.. sure RTG is fantastic but if you are hamstrung on your A1000 with 256kb chip you are kinda screwed to do anything useful or interesting RTG or otherwise it will be a crippling problem.. Not all Amigas have 1mb+ chip ram, and the vampire is in a sigularly unique position to once and for all kill that problem permanently in one fellswoop.. To me thats the bigger "bang for the buck" fixing the really hampering hamstringing problems present across ALL AMIGAs not just adding a non essential bells and whistles to the later and more capable models but bringing up the entire Amiga range of machines to a better base standard.. And not everyone has the ability to just go to ebay and drop $500 bucks on an A1200 to "fix" the issue that can be easily fixed by moving all the chips on the bus to the FPGA.


Peter Heginbotham

Posts 187
11 Sep 2020 09:35


eric gus wrote:

Renee Cousins wrote:

            you're just using the Amiga as a case and power supply.
             

             
              So be it then .. Im ok with this really I am .. I don't see why this is a problem, its just replacing the old limited hardware with new hardware with expanded capability, I don't really have some lingering pangs over "it must use the original commodore made silicon graphics chips" stuff, and yep it would be an all in the FPGA or not situation (I fully appreciate and grasp that) .. personally this doesn't really bother me in anyway.. if I really want, I can just remove the card and my A500 is back to normal.
             
              As I see it, people stuff their A1200s with all kinds of 3rd party BORG technology, rtg cards, 16 bit audio boards, flicker fixers, CPU accelerators, USB host cards .. its not much different just perhaps going a bit further in a more radical way in a unified package .. At the end of the day not much of the original amiga is being used in a meaningful way in those cases.
       
        And honestly whats worse, being restricted to say 256kb or 512kb chip ram on an amiga or not having RTG graphics.. I would argue that not having at least 1mb chip (preferably 2mb+ chip ram) (in all the Amiga models ...A1000, A500/2000 ) is far more crippling that not having RTG capability .. with more chip ram you can run WHDLOAD etc.. sure RTG is fantastic but if you are hamstrung on your A1000 with 256kb chip you are kinda screwed to do anything useful or interesting RTG or otherwise it will be a crippling problem.. Not all Amigas have 1mb+ chip ram, and the vampire is in a sigularly unique position to once and for all kill that problem permanently in one fellswoop.. To me thats the bigger "bang for the buck" fixing the really hampering hamstringing problems present across ALL AMIGAs not just adding a non essential bells and whistles to the later and more capable models but bringing up the entire Amiga range of machines to a better base standard.. And not everyone has the ability to just go to ebay and drop $500 bucks on an A1200 to "fix" the issue that can be easily fixed by moving all the chips on the bus to the FPGA.

I think you are asking for the "Moon on a Stick" here, and not on the teams radar of things to look at.



Herbert Markart

Posts 42
11 Sep 2020 11:12


Renee Cousins wrote:

To me, the V4 has AGA and if you want AGA, then either get the V4 or grab your A1200 out of the attic and pick up a V1200.

Is the V4 AGA Core faster than the original one from an 1200?
I think so or am I in the wrong here?
Well, as it is also not the same chipdesign, i think a comparison is difficult here.


Antony Coello

Posts 48
11 Sep 2020 20:25


I think Eric Gus makes a really good argument for AGA here.

I am at a loss as to which way to 'vote': AGA-FPU-RTG

Perhaps an autobooting menu driven core flasher is the solution! lol




Eric Gus

Posts 429
12 Sep 2020 06:58


Herbert Markart wrote:

 
  Is the V4 AGA Core faster than the original one from an 1200?
 
 

 
  Yes.. because its no longer limited to the original amiga chip bus restrictions as the entire thing is now in the FPGA so it can fly .. so any "limits" imposed on it with the V4SA are artificial and there for compatibility reasons if at all .. I think even Gunnar himself might have made some technical commentary somewhere about how much faster stuff runs now being fully inside the FPGA and not using the old bus.. I dont know where it was but its out there somewhere.


Eric Gus

Posts 429
12 Sep 2020 07:01


Peter Heginbotham wrote:

   
    I think you are asking for the "Moon on a Stick" here, and not on the teams radar of things to look at.
   
   

   
    No not really as this is more or less exactly what the V4SA core is doing now and in line with what they have said on occasion about migrating anything to the V2 core, I guess the only real "difference" would be what Manuel posted initially about no RTG no FPU in the core, and thats more a "subtraction" of existing V4SA features then adding anything "new" .. so its entirely do-able assuming there is room in the V2 FPGA for a "feature reduced" V4SA core .. and it makes logical sense if you are starting with the polished V4SA core and just dropping features {as they have stated multiple times they dont want to even think about back ports till they work out all the issues in the V4SA version} .. it makes perfect sense and in theory is less work since the base for all cores would be the 4VSA polished "gold" core and just remove features to fit the V2 series.


Adam A

Posts 106
12 Sep 2020 16:19


Why not have both, when the aga core matures on the V4SA? I think porting the aga core to v2 will not be a big problem, and will satisfy most people, isn't it?


Roy Gillotti

Posts 440
12 Sep 2020 16:27


Adam  A wrote:

Why not have both, when the aga core matures on the V4SA? I think porting the aga core to v2 will not be a big problem, and will satisfy most people, isn't it?

Cyclone III FPGA in the V2 has limitations, so something will need to be sacrificed. Implementing AGA also requires disabling most of the actual original Amiga Chipset on the A500/A600, so it will likely cripple some functionality of the Amiga. If you're fine with that it's all good,It just should be understood what you're getting into when going down this path.


Carlos Milán

Posts 78
12 Sep 2020 22:39


Renee Cousins wrote:

  To me, the V4 has AGA and if you want AGA, then either get the V4 or grab your A1200 out of the attic and pick up a V1200. The clear model thus far is that the V2 is a CPU accelerator and the V4 is standalone. This should get cemented -- the vestigial 64-pin DIP connector and level shifters ought to be removed on the V4 and the Team should stop talking about native Amiga graphics in the V2.

I couldn't agree more with this :)


Myzar Alcor

Posts 26
13 Sep 2020 01:13


eric gus wrote:

 
Peter Heginbotham wrote:

       
        I think you are asking for the "Moon on a Stick" here, and not on the teams radar of things to look at.
       
     

     
      No not really as this is more or less exactly what the V4SA core is doing now and in line with what they have said on occasion about migrating anything to the V2 core, I guess the only real "difference" would be what Manuel posted initially about no RTG no FPU in the core, and thats more a "subtraction" of existing V4SA features then adding anything "new" .. so its entirely do-able assuming there is room in the V2 FPGA for a "feature reduced" V4SA core .. and it makes logical sense if you are starting with the polished V4SA core and just dropping features {as they have stated multiple times they dont want to even think about back ports till they work out all the issues in the V4SA version} .. it makes perfect sense and in theory is less work since the base for all cores would be the 4VSA polished "gold" core and just remove features to fit the V2 series.
 

 
  Luckily is not going to happen the v2 will still be the accelerator card that we enjoy and love with the custom chips that makes the amiga working and kicking , you are getting a v4 where you can get and enjoy your uae experience ;)
 


Eric Gus

Posts 429
13 Sep 2020 07:38


Roy Gillotti wrote:

   
      Cyclone III FPGA in the V2 has limitations, so something will need to be sacrificed. Implementing AGA also requires disabling most of the actual original Amiga Chipset on the A500/A600, so it will likely cripple some functionality of the Amiga. If you're fine with that it's all good,It just should be understood what you're getting into when going down this path.
   

   
    Well if it means disabling some of the old restricted original hardware limitations inherent in the motherboard like being restricted to only 256kb or 512kb chip and/or no PAL or NTSC display mode/resolutions and gaining those things in return making your amiga significantly more useful and capable .. then yes thats an acceptable trade for a significant "upgrade" in capability and functionality even if it means no FPG or RTG in the process to make room in the Cyclone III in the V2, and perhaps this trade off is even more significant for people who say own much older Amiga models.


Antony Coello

Posts 48
13 Sep 2020 09:59


Losing something like the floppy is also acceptable if there is HD.
 
  I cant remember what was cut out in the v500 Gold 3 prerelease.
 
  From my point of view, I was looking for AGA, because, unfortunately, I do NOT have an A1200 lying around in the loft and I did have to sell mine to afford the V500 card for my A500 (which is still sat not working incidentally! :/).


Adam A

Posts 106
13 Sep 2020 12:07


@Roy Gillotti
 
  I meant two different cores:
 
  one that has 68080 CPU with AMMX and aga chipset without RTG and FPU, I think it will be easier to port the v4 aga core to v2 later this year when its more stable?
 
  The other core will have no AGA but RTG and FPU and future updates will be more focused towrd this core.
 


Vojin Vidanovic

Posts 1719
13 Sep 2020 12:33


Adam  A wrote:
 
  one that has 68080 CPU with AMMX and aga chipset without RTG and FPU, I think it will be easier to port the v4 aga core to v2 later this year when its more stable?
 
  The other core will have no AGA but RTG and FPU and future updates will be more focused towrd this core.
 

While I personally believe also these two options would (interchangebly) satisfy all users needs (AGA games vs FPU RTG pro)
I do understand these:

- v2 core is full even with current soft FPU solution and current RTG implementation, so full FPU and even enhanced precision FPU like V4 one is to remain V4 feat only

- Squeezing AGA or better to say SAGA replacement is possible only with sacrificing current FPU and RTG V2 options. Simply FPGA is not big enough

- Lesson learned could be to put as big FPGA on future vamps even it would increase Vamp price. Its only way "to secure the future"

- Having more then GOLD2 current and one GOLD3 solution for V2 would be hard to maintain in development, this the team polls and discussion what to leave out

posts 69page  1 2 3 4