Mike_Hoser_Schloh@cup.portal.com (09/04/89)
Alright, alright. Now what I'VE heard is that Commodore will release an Amiga 3000 in much the same manner as they did with the 2500... Just slap a CPU board in and call it the 3000 (and maybe a hard disk, etc.) No major changes, still the same old 2000 motherboard. This time the CPU board will be a 25 or 28 MHz '030 &'882. I would assume that at the same time, CBM will release the awesome 2630 <- notice the '30' not '20'. Just like they released the 2620 when the 2500 came out. That's nice to know for us 2000 users that our machines still hold the potential of becoming the true top of the line Amiga. Maybe someone can talk to Commodore and get some clarification? I am NOT guaranteeing this to be true at all, thank you. -HoserMike
ddave@pnet02.gryphon.com (David Donley) (09/05/89)
Mike_Hoser_Schloh@cup.portal.com writes: >Alright, alright. Now what I'VE heard is that Commodore will release an Amiga >3000 in much the same manner as they did with the 2500... Just slap a CPU >board in and call it the 3000 (and maybe a hard disk, etc.) No major changes, >still the same old 2000 motherboard. This time the CPU board will be a 25 or >28 MHz '030 &'882. I would assume that at the same time, CBM will release the >awesome 2630 <- notice the '30' not '20'. Just like they released the 2620 >when the 2500 came out. That's nice to know for us 2000 users that our >machines still hold the potential of becoming the true top of the line Amiga. >Maybe someone can talk to Commodore and get some clarification? I am NOT >guaranteeing this to be true at all, thank you. > > -HoserMike You see, everybody complained and complained about how they had to make three versions of all the hardware- 1000, 500, and 2000... So now C= is going to let them rot inside their old 2000's for a while. When people are on their knees and begging for a new hardware platform, than C= will come out with the 4500- complete with 64 bit bus... :-)
peg@psuecl.bitnet (09/05/89)
In article <21867@cup.portal.com>, Mike_Hoser_Schloh@cup.portal.com writes: > Alright, alright. Now what I'VE heard is that Commodore will release an Amiga > 3000 in much the same manner as they did with the 2500... Just slap a CPU > board in and call it the 3000 (and maybe a hard disk, etc.) No major changes, > still the same old 2000 motherboard. This time the CPU board will be a 25 or > 28 MHz '030 &'882. I would assume that at the same time, CBM will release the Well, I shouldn't participate in the rumor mill, but I will... I have seen (with my own eyes) a preliminary version of the 2630 card. I will not say where (as I probably wasn't supposed to see it). It worked very, very well and seemed to be at least as solid as the 2620. Thus, C-A probably will release this card in several months. The (supposed) story is that C-A is also working on a "true" 3000 using a new custom chip set, but that it will be a good while before i it is for sale. The 2630 board will almost certainly be out much sooner. This info came from the fella with the 2630 (he's got the card, so that says SOMETHING for his story!!). Paul Ganter Not affiliated with Commodore-Amiga. Darn!
swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) (09/06/89)
In article <21867@cup.portal.com> Mike_Hoser_Schloh@cup.portal.com writes: >Alright, alright. Now what I'VE heard is that Commodore will release an Amiga >3000 in much the same manner as they did with the 2500... Just slap a CPU [...] Maybe so. The article I read in Info Magazine (latest issue) said that the 3000 would have the 030 chip on the motherboard. It was also claimed that a prototype of some kind was selectively demoed for a specially chosen few at DevCon. --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
esker@abaa.uucp (Lawrence Esker) (09/06/89)
In article <21867@cup.portal.com> Mike_Hoser_Schloh@cup.portal.com writes: >Alright, alright. Now what I'VE heard is that Commodore will release an Amiga >3000 in much the same manner as they did with the 2500... This is what I thought until a developer told me otherwise. But I can't tell because he made me promise not to and of course I don't want to get him in trouble. I can only let you guess what the 3000 is. Lets stop these often repeated and publisized guesses and just wait until Comodore feels fit to tell us! We don't wish to influence the unwary, do we? > ... This time the CPU board will be a 25 or >28 MHz '030 &'882. I would assume that at the same time, CBM will release the >awesome 2630 <- notice the '30' not '20'. Just like they released the 2620 >when the 2500 came out... I've already seen a post here of the Commodore sales and marketing strategy until the end of the year. It had mentioned the A2630 but not the Amiga 3000 (if memory serves me correctly). Tended to make be believe the developer was not just blowing smoke and that I can understand Commodore's secrecy. -- ---------- Lawrence W. Esker ---------- Modern Amish: Thou shalt not need any computer that is not IBM compatible. UseNet Path: __!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!abaa!esker == esker@abaa.UUCP
dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (09/09/89)
Whatever it has, it had better have a 32 bit data bus or it's no
better than an A2000. Sometimes commodore can be so stupid and miss
the real obvious necessities.
-Mattdaveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (09/13/89)
in article <8909082318.AA08542@postgres.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) says: > Whatever it has, it had better have a 32 bit data bus or it's no > better than an A2000. Sometimes commodore can be so stupid and miss > the real obvious necessities. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something, Matt? -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
balzer@frambo.enet.dec.com (Christian Balzer) (09/13/89)
In article <7886@cbmvax.UUCP>, daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes... >in article <8909082318.AA08542@postgres.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) says: > >> Whatever it has, it had better have a 32 bit data bus or it's no >> better than an A2000. Sometimes commodore can be so stupid and miss >> the real obvious necessities. > >Wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something, Matt? > Probably, or he's still mad about not thinking about that interrupt in the parnet design. ;-) ;-) But to get this topic back on track, I would like get some of the load I have regarding the A3000 of my back. During my various conversations with Dave Haynie I avoided this topic, to be able to discuss it here without breaching any non-disclosure agreements. 1. I think we can safely assume that the A3000 will feature a 32 bit wide system bus. 2. A stoopid(tm) thing to do would be an A3000 without a 32 bit version of the custom chips. Enhancements that go beyond that of the ECS would be needed to place the A3000 succesfully in the upper PC/lower workstation range. 3. Another VERY stoopid(tm) thing would be the placement of the CPU on the motherboard. A violation of the OSA concept and even those PeeCee designers have learned this lesson. A really nice thing would be a 68000 as fallback CPU on the motherboard. Whilst giving utmost compatibility with all the "standard" Amigas, this feature could be implemented at very low costs... 4. A friend of mine (Martin Kopp of TurboBackup fame) has much more to say on this specific subject, but in nutshell his proposal goes like this: -An Amiga without compatible custom chipset is no longer an Amiga. -The chipset has certain limitations that are VERY expensive to overcome. -The solution is simple, supply the A3000 with a powerful chipset (like large screens [1024 by 1024 min.] more colors...) but don't try to do the (financially) impossible and have the whole system try to refresh these displays at flicker free rates (25Hz are sufficient for animations). Instead use an "extended" FlickerFixer approach that will allow the user to purchase "video cards" that will give him the display he needs and can afford. Like standard NTSC would be nearly for free, while HDTV with option to display 1280 by 800 pixels at 100Hz would drive you bankrupt... :-) 5. I could live with an A3000 that consists of an A2000 with ECS, A2630... But a quick'n dirty solution (and nothing else is possible in the time until the next CeBIT) 6. Don't let any hyperactive marketroids push the Amiga development too far too hasty...(This is for "insiders") Regards, <CB> -- _ _ / / | \ \ <CB> aka Christian Balzer - The Software Brewery - // < < |-< > decwrl!frambo.enet!CB -OR- unido!decum!frambo.dnet!CB // \ \_ |_/ / I-Net: CB@frambo.enet.dec.com | E-Net: FRAMBO::BALZER \\ // ------------ PMail: Im Wingertsberg 45, D-6108 Weiterstadt, F.R.G. \X/
swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) (09/13/89)
In article <4686@shlump.nac.dec.com> balzer@frambo.enet.dec.com (Christian Balzer) writes: [...] >2. A stoopid(tm) thing to do would be an A3000 without a 32 bit version of >the custom chips. Enhancements that go beyond that of the ECS would be [...] >designers have learned this lesson. A really nice thing would be a 68000 >as fallback CPU on the motherboard. Whilst giving utmost compatibility with >all the "standard" Amigas, this feature could be implemented at very low >costs... The motive being downward compatibility with the 68000 equipped Amigas. But is that (financially) possible with a 32 bit custom chip set? I mean, it would be possible to make the 32 bit custom chips appear to be standard 16 bit chips to the 68000, but how much extra would it cost to design them as dual mode chips? And if they can not emulate the standard 16 bit chip set, then why on earth would they put a 68000 in there if the result would still not be binary compatible? [...] >-The solution is simple, supply the A3000 with a powerful chipset (like large > screens [1024 by 1024 min.] more colors...) but don't try to do the > (financially) impossible and have the whole system try to refresh these > displays at flicker free rates (25Hz are sufficient for animations). [...] Faster DRAMs are beginning to appear in the market. In a year or two they will probably be much more available. So what is (financially) impossible today probably will not be (financially) impossible in a year or two. The 3000 is aimed at the higher end PC market anyway. It could be designed with a significantly faster display and it would be more expensive, but many people who are in the market for a machine like the 3000 would buy it anyway. And a year later the price would come down when faster chips drop in price. I think that the most affordable way to get the bandwidth is through dual interleaved banks with two ports, implemented using custom chips and standard 100 ns DRAMs. The full bandwidth of the chips is then available to the screen refresh through a dedicated port. Of course faster chips will increase the bandwidth proportionally, but having 100% of that bandwidth available to the screen is significant. But my guess (not knowing anything factual) is that they probably won't make it that radical. It might be an overly risky approach for Commodore right now. Then again, they could decide to just go for it :-). --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) (09/13/89)
You take advantage of the 100% bandwidth availability by running
the screen memory into a 1024 element FIFO. Then the display can
run faster than the absolute cycle of chip memory would normally
allow, because the display data is cycling into the FIFO during
retrace as well as during the actual display cycle.
--Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
{uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COMdaveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (09/14/89)
in article <1740@convex.UUCP>, swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) says: > Keywords: Bed, A3000, doing it "right" this time. > In article <4686@shlump.nac.dec.com> balzer@frambo.enet.dec.com (Christian Balzer) writes: >>designers have learned this lesson. A really nice thing would be a 68000 >>as fallback CPU on the motherboard. Whilst giving utmost compatibility with >>all the "standard" Amigas, this feature could be implemented at very low >>costs... > The motive being downward compatibility with the 68000 equipped Amigas. > But is that (financially) possible with a 32 bit custom chip set? It would be expensive to adapt a 68000 to an inherently 32 bit bus. And not really necessary. ALL Amiga compatible software will run on any 680x0 CPU available to date (programs that require something that's not there, such as an FPU or MMU should exit gracefully with a warning message; any Software Error action constitutes a bug here too). If a program crashes due to the CPU it's running on, that's a bug in the program, plain and simple. Don't let developers snooker you on this one -- most of the rules for general 680x0 compatibility were available in the V28 ROM Kernel Manual (July 1985), well before AmigaOS 1.0 was released. An extensive paper on this was presented a year and a half ago at the Developer's Conference in Washington D.C. AND, to top it all off, there's been a 68020 machine with a 68000 fallback, the A2500, available since the beginning of the year. > --Steve -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) (09/15/89)
Would anyone care to hear what I think should be in the A3000?
No?
Who cares, I'll tell you anyway!!!
Although I am FAR from being any sort of expert in computer hardware, it
seems to me that the following suggestion is something that Commodore should
be able to do for a reasonable (system) price.
First of all, make the custom chips 32-bit chips, and make them run at twice
the current clock rates (internal and external; I heard that they were
different). It seems to me that by doing this, Commodore should be able to
make it run four times as fast. (I'm not saying that it's all that simple...)
From this, Commodore should be able to design it to have new graphics modes with
- double the width and double the height
- double the number of bitplanes
and
- a combination of the above two options
From one I can tell, a 1280 x 800 screen (approx. 1408 x 1080 overscan) with
16 colors would be very nice to have built into the system, especially if
screen redraw and refresh ran at current Amiga speeds, even if it were
interlaced.
640 x 400 with 2048 (or would it be 4096?) colors with the current Amiga
graphics speed would be great, too.
How about the same for the new ECS modes?
1008 x 800 with 16 colors?
2016 x 1600 with 4 colors?
1280 x 400 (200 non-interlaced) with 16 colors?
2560 x 800 (400 non-interlaced) with 4 colors?
640 x 480 non-interlaced with 16 colors?
1280 x 1760 non-interlaced with 4 colors?
Of course, monitors to handle some of these wild resolutions would be quite
expensive, and either very fast and expensive standards drams or video drams
would have to be used for chip ram, but it should be feasible, and it needs to
be done to keep the Amigas place as a graphics computer intact. The Amiga 3000,
IMHO, needs higher resolution graphics and needs more colors (including a
24 bit pallete).
Sound:
Commodore, PLEASE don't ignore the sound capabilities. These should also
be "doubled-up", with 16 bit sound at double the sample rate.
Chip RAM:
Sit down. Are you ready? I think that Chip RAM should be expanded to...
at least 8 Megabytes.
With higher graphics resolutions, you will need more chip ram. Also, there is
no need to expand your chip ram to its maximum before you expand your fast ram.
So you should be able to have a system with, say, 4Mb of chip ram, and 4Mb of
fast ram, and be able to upgrade your chip ram anytime you want to (and can
afford to!)
In article <4686@shlump.nac.dec.com> balzer@frambo.enet.dec.com (Christian Balzer) writes:
>2. A stoopid(tm) thing to do would be an A3000 without a 32 bit version of
^^^^^^^
Hey, you can't say that!!! That's an IBM trademark!!! :-)
>the custom chips. Enhancements that go beyond that of the ECS would be
>needed to place the A3000 succesfully in the upper PC/lower workstation
>range.
>
>3. Another VERY stoopid(tm) thing would be the placement of the CPU on the
>motherboard.
I don't know if I really agree with that ... putting it on a seperate board
seems like it might raise the cost considerably.
I do think that the A3000 REALLY should have a scalable-speed asynchronous
design. By that, I mean that the user, by replacing the CPU and some other
(socketed) chips, should be able to upgrade their 25Mhz A3000 to a 33 Mhz
A3000 (unless you want to ship it as a 33Mhz machine ...). They should also
be able to upgrade it to a 50Mhz machine, and so on, when the CPU is available.
I have a feeling that this isn't exactly an easy thing to engineer, but if
it is done, it would have very interesting implications. Commodore could
sell several "versions" of the Amiga 3000, running at different clock rates,
which would actually be the same machine, except for a few chips!
> A really nice thing would be a 68000
>as fallback CPU on the motherboard.
No, I disagree. By this time, if it doesn't work on machines above the 68000,
I think the developers need a gentle push to make their programs work on the
newer chips. It would also add to the cost (how much, I don't know...), and
I'm already making enough cost-raising suggestions, so you don't need to add
any more to the cost!!! :-)
>4. A friend of mine (Martin Kopp of TurboBackup fame) has much more to say on
>this specific subject, but in nutshell his proposal goes like this:
>-An Amiga without compatible custom chipset is no longer an Amiga.
I agree.
>-The chipset has certain limitations that are VERY expensive to overcome.
Unless they are redesigned....
>-The solution is simple, supply the A3000 with a powerful chipset (like large
> screens [1024 by 1024 min.] more colors...) but don't try to do the
> (financially) impossible and have the whole system try to refresh these
> displays at flicker free rates (25Hz are sufficient for animations).
Would it be economically infeasible to have these higher resolutions, even
using my simple(-minded(???)) ideas?
><CB>
Ok, thanks for letting me shoot my mouth off. Now, it's time for you to
tell me why my ideas are ridiculous, unfeasible, etc.
Thanks.
[ Next: A cute disclaimer ]
Since I do not have any connections with Commodore (other than owning an Amiga,
and two Commodore 64's before it, and convincing several people to buy
Amigas and ... well, you get the point ) the above information is subject to
several abberations, like, for example, being completely wrong.
NO WARRANTY EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
Rodney Ricks,
Morehouse Software Group
--
"We may have come over here in different ships,
but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson
Rodney Ricks, Atlanta University Center Computation Centerswarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) (09/16/89)
In article <32275@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: [...] >Sit down. Are you ready? I think that Chip RAM should be expanded to... >at least 8 Megabytes. [...] I like this. With the enormous address space available to the 32-bit 680X0 family, it would be really nice to make optional chip ram expansion available to those who can afford it. [...] >I do think that the A3000 REALLY should have a scalable-speed asynchronous >design. By that, I mean that the user, by replacing the CPU and some other >(socketed) chips, should be able to upgrade their 25Mhz A3000 to a 33 Mhz >A3000 (unless you want to ship it as a 33Mhz machine ...). They should also >be able to upgrade it to a 50Mhz machine, and so on, when the CPU is available Well, the only hard part is that the 50 Mhz version is probably going to require a controlled impedance PC board (ie multiwire) and fully terminated nets, which will cause the size, complexity, and expense of the design to mushroom. Most likely a 50 Mhz uP chip would have to run asynchronously on a daughter card in the 3000, unless they are planning on pricing it out of reach of most of us. [...] >I have a feeling that this isn't exactly an easy thing to engineer, but if >it is done, it would have very interesting implications. Commodore could >sell several "versions" of the Amiga 3000, running at different clock rates, >which would actually be the same machine, except for a few chips! Except that the slower version would be *much* cheaper if it didn't have to be capable of running at the higher speeds also. The higher speeds bring in a whole new set of design considerations. That is why really fast systems cost so much more. --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (09/16/89)
:>I do think that the A3000 REALLY should have a scalable-speed asynchronous
:>design. By that, I mean that the user, by replacing the CPU and some other
:>(socketed) chips, should be able to upgrade their 25Mhz A3000 to a 33 Mhz
:>A3000 (unless you want to ship it as a 33Mhz machine ...). They should also
:>be able to upgrade it to a 50Mhz machine, and so on, when the CPU is available
:
:Well, the only hard part is that the 50 Mhz version is probably going
:to require a controlled impedance PC board (ie multiwire) and fully
:terminated nets, which will cause the size, complexity, and expense
:of the design to mushroom. Most likely a 50 Mhz uP chip would have
:to run asynchronously on a daughter card in the 3000, unless they are
:planning on pricing it out of reach of most of us.
If a large cache, say 16K+, were integral to the design (i.e.
the processor clock is restricted to the motherboard) you could
run the processor at 50 MHz through a high speed cache and run the
main bus at something more reasonable (10+ MHz), and still get great
performance out of the thing.
-Mattfgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) (09/17/89)
Has anyone looked at using multiple sets of the custom chips mapped to
different addresses in order to achieve (1) more CHIP RAM while (2)
retaining compatibility with the original Amiga design and (3) making the
CHIP RAM address space infinitely expandable? Would such an approach be
technical feasible? Would it be reasonable in cost? Could this technique
be used in the design of extended chip sets?
Hardware's not my line. These are questions, not veiled suggestions.
--Fabbian Dufoe
350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33705
813-823-2350
UUCP: ...uunet!pdn!jc3b21!fgd3