Unfortunately not. Several Unix systems used it and some arcade boards. I suspect at the time that the cost vs benefit wasn't worth it. As for the CD-i, that was an SCC68070 which was 68010-like but had a bunch of extra things to make it more of a microcontroller.
You can sort of see in the intro that the 68000 gets a few frames behind (these were frame synched at the beginning of the video). But more importantly, in game Xenon II starts to slow the whole game down when there are lots of sprites on the screen, this doesn't happen with the 68010. This section of the first level shows it quite well due to the snake like enemies that use many sprites.
@@linuxjedivideo There's an small improvement for what i can see. However, the overall performance boost for the 010 was around a 9% due the cache inclusion. I'm not 100% sure about this statement though.
@@linuxjedivideo Oh, maybe longer videou would be better to see or notice the difference. I was playing Xenon on PI4 as set on A1200 performance, but I did not see any significant speedup.
@@MartinDurik the A1200 is about 2x faster than the CDTV, so it should run quite smoothly on that. When you are playing it makes a big difference. Main reason for a short video is I just didn't have time to capture a long one and I was asked about it. I'm sure many can reproduce this with their hardware.
@@davidv776 the performance boost due to the cache was about 50%, but only in code that could be cached, which are single instruction loops, like the kind to move memory around. These are used a lot in CPU heavy games such as the Bitmap Brothers games, due to Atari ST being targeted as the common denominator. On average it works out to a 9-10% performance increase in benchmarks, but benchmarks don't show the whole story.
![A.M.T. - Xenon.2.Meglablast [The.Bitmap.Brothers] [1989-1992]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/amEv2aJR91k/mqdefault.jpg)
Noticeably smoother.
...or just faster?
did amiga ever get 68010 properly? i recall taking my cdi apart and saw one but ive never seen one in an amiga
Unfortunately not. Several Unix systems used it and some arcade boards. I suspect at the time that the cost vs benefit wasn't worth it.
As for the CD-i, that was an SCC68070 which was 68010-like but had a bunch of extra things to make it more of a microcontroller.
Same with Interceptor e.g. when rolling
I am sorry, I do not see it somehow, maybe I am just blind
You can sort of see in the intro that the 68000 gets a few frames behind (these were frame synched at the beginning of the video).
But more importantly, in game Xenon II starts to slow the whole game down when there are lots of sprites on the screen, this doesn't happen with the 68010. This section of the first level shows it quite well due to the snake like enemies that use many sprites.
@@linuxjedivideo There's an small improvement for what i can see. However, the overall performance boost for the 010 was around a 9% due the cache inclusion. I'm not 100% sure about this statement though.
@@linuxjedivideo Oh, maybe longer videou would be better to see or notice the difference. I was playing Xenon on PI4 as set on A1200 performance, but I did not see any significant speedup.
@@MartinDurik the A1200 is about 2x faster than the CDTV, so it should run quite smoothly on that. When you are playing it makes a big difference. Main reason for a short video is I just didn't have time to capture a long one and I was asked about it. I'm sure many can reproduce this with their hardware.
@@davidv776 the performance boost due to the cache was about 50%, but only in code that could be cached, which are single instruction loops, like the kind to move memory around. These are used a lot in CPU heavy games such as the Bitmap Brothers games, due to Atari ST being targeted as the common denominator.
On average it works out to a 9-10% performance increase in benchmarks, but benchmarks don't show the whole story.