Talk:Advanced Graphics Architecture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Contents |
[edit] AA versus AGA?
Do you have a source for saying that AA was a different version of AGA? I've always heard them as being different names for the same chipset - e.g., see [1]. Mdwh 02:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's the same chipset. AA and AGA are just different acronyms for it.
[edit] Source for AA/AGA
To all those who want to revert my creation of 'AA chipset' as a separate article from AGA:
AA is different to AGA. The CD32 had the AGA chipset. The A1200, A4000 and A4000/030 had AA. I quote from Amiga Format Annual 1993, page 29: "For starters, we would expect the 'double-A' chip set, which has just appeared in Commodore's new Amiga 4000, to filter down to the base model... The new chip set is, in theory, just as cheap as the current one to fit."
From Amiga Format Annual '94 page 74: "The Future Entertainment Show in November 1992 sees the UK launch of the new 32-bit Amiga A1200. It looks like an A600 with the numeric keypad restored. Inside it's a different story altogether. It's faster, more colourful and marks the move into a new era of Amiga technology with the Double-A chipset... The graphics have been considerably advanced with the inclusion of the new Double-A chipset. These add a 256-colour mode and a Super-HAM mode with over a quarter of a million colours on screen. The palette of available colours has moved up from 4,096 to an amazing 16.7 million."
People who say that the A1200 had an 'AGA' chipset are correct if they use the acronym 'AGA' to refer to certain extra capabilities, which represented a clear cutoff between 'old school' and 'new school' around 1993. AA included the AGA capabilities. But it was *not* the same silicon as found in the A600, it had extra modes, and it had twice the bandwidth. If you want to put 'AA chipset' under 'AGA', then I can accept that, but don't just revert it - Richardcavell 05:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there is a typo in what you are saying about the A600, but the A600 had nothing to do with the AA/AGA chipset, it used ECS. As Mdwh mentioned above, AA was renamed AGA to avoid references to other famous "AAs". — Pixel8 11:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Pixel8. In the first quote, it's not clear what they mean by "base model" - if this was just when the A4000 had been released, it may have been the A600. In the second quote, it clearly says that the A1200 had AA. I'm confused as to what you're saying - firstly you said that A1200 had AGA not AA, now you say it has AA and not AGA.
- As for the CD32, it did have a slightly different chipset, but this was more advanced, not less, due to the addition of a new chip (Akiko) for chunky to planar conversion. So not only was this distinction not marked by AA versus AGA, but also it is incorrect to say that the CD32's chipset was less advanced.
- The timescales are all wrong here too. The A1200 was released in 1992, not 1994 as you say in AA chipset. The CD32 came out in 1993, so it's rather confusing if a "4th generation" chipset came out before the 3rd generation! Mdwh 16:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I'm wrong
Hi, guys.
I'm wrong, you're right. I did some further research. The Amiga Format magazines were using the terms interchangeably and I got confused. Someone give me a 'moron' barnstar. Someone else please undo all the separation of AA/AGA that I've been up to. (But keep the technical details of AA, that's all correct). - Richardcavell 02:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
The problem with this article is that it does not take a neutral tone in this paragraph:
- Unfortunately many opportunities to add further improvements, which would have made the chipset more competitive, were missed. Apart from the graphics data fetches the chipset still operates on 16-bit data only, meaning that a lot of bandwidth is wasted during register accesses and copper and blitter operations. Also the lack of a chunky graphics mode was a speed impediment to graphics operations not tailored for planar modes. Over all the AGA chipset was a basic evolutionary upgrade that could not compensate for years of technical progress that the Commodore Amiga took little part of.
Certainly, the above opinion is true, but it's the fact that it's written as an opinion that is the problem. It needs to be worded neutrally. As it stands, the above is not factual. If you can find a significant person saying the above as their opinion, that could be cited.
[edit] Technical leadership
It's a fact that the Amiga lost its technical leadership (obviously this happened at some point, since clearly no Amiga compares to today's computers, for example). I was saying it's POV/speculation to say that this happened when AGA was released, or due to its release (even if AGA was revolutionary for its time, the Amiga would still have ultimately lost its technical leadership due to Commodore going bust and the end of Amiga development).
Also on this note, I think it would be worthwhile to say how AGA compared to PC graphics of its time, rather than just saying it was or wasn't as good? (Was SVGA out in 1992? If so was it standard in all PCs or was VGA still common? Did even VGA have advantages over AGA?) Mdwh 00:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
