YES!

[Sinphaltimus]

Woohoo !

 

It seems Santa Claus is in the neighborhood: a Vampire card has been allocated to you !

 

Next steps are :

 

To continue the ordering process:

 

- Send payment using PayPal to ..............


: Vampire 500 V2+ order.


Payment Sent!

[+save2600]

Mine's on the way too. 'Course, no tracking number was provided, so have no idea when it'll show and these things always require a signature. After playing hide and seek with the post office, plan on putting it in my Phoenix equipped A1000, but want to be able to have access to the memory card slot. Just bought an extension off eBay, so should be able to hang out the side expansion port or rear of the machine maybe.

[oracle_jedi]

Is there any compatibility issues with the Vampire 500? I mean in the manner that the ACA500/500+ do not work on NTSC Rev 5 motherboards?

 

I have several Rev 5 NTSC Amiga 500s, and one Rev 6. I'd prefer to leave the Rev 6 stock with the ACA500+ plugged into it.

[Sinphaltimus]

None reported. AFAIK, you simply swap out the processor. Works with A500 and A500 plus. Not sure about any other models. Pretty sure it works on A1000 as well. But I've only ever focus on A500.

[JamesD]

None reported. AFAIK, you simply swap out the processor. Works with A500 and A500 plus. Not sure about any other models. Pretty sure it works on A1000 as well. But I've only ever focus on A500.

It's also supposed to work with the CDTV and A2000. But if you want to plug it into the processor upgrade slot, you'll have to wait for them to manufacture the adapter board.

 

[+save2600]

It's also supposed to work with the CDTV and A2000. But if you want to plug it into the processor upgrade slot, you'll have to wait for them to manufacture the adapter board.

 

 

Good idea! I love that these boards are installed with machine pins, but ever shove one in a regular socket before? Practically end up ruining the socket as it stretches out/crushes/bends the female contact pins. Need to leave the accelerator in or replace the socket if you ever want good contact to be made going back to a regular package. Luckily my Phoenix CPU socket is all ready for the machine pin type.

 

Oh and as far as these types of boards working with the A1000, you'll more than likely need a 68k displacement board so that it doesn't interfere with the floppy drive. Basically just allows anything that gets plugged into the CPU socket to sit ahead another inch or so.

[RobertB]

I put down my payment for one a few days ago.

 

Truly,

Robert Bernardo

June 10-11 Pacific Commodore Expo NW -

http://www.portcommodore.com/pacommex

July 29-30 Commodore Vegas Expo v13 -

http://www.portcommodore.com/commvex

[eightbit]

You know, I put in for this (have yet to receive the email asking for payment) but I am still on the fence about it. Just the FPGA nature of how it is accomplishing what it is. I know the power of FPGA devices (I used to own a MiST) and I know it is a simulation of the real thing and not emulation....but even with how "real" it is (just an implementation of code telling the FPGA to be something) it still kind of feels like cheating to me in some sense as opposed to using an actual Motorola CPU on an accelerator card to achieve results. I understand the results even on the best accelerator will not come close to what the Vampire is doing, but a little part of me feels like I would just be using an FPGA primarily and it will just be overriding the entire computer but allowing user access to the ports and such.

 

Am I wrong in thing this way? I just feel like with something like this you might as well just get a MiST as it is doing the same thing....only in a stand alone box for $200 cheaper.

 

I have the feeling that had a USB or two been added to it and a way to power it (on its own) and a rewritten core it can be used as stand alone on its own as an Amiga simulator.....basically what the MiST is doing already...and adding it to an Amiga is nothing more than a tricky way to make the end user believe they made their actual Amiga itself "faster". Again, am I wrong in thinking this way?

Edited April 5, 2017 by eightbit

[Arnuphis]

@Eightbit I get what you mean. The rest of the Amiga is just an idle power conduit to the snazzy Vampire. If the inside of the Amiga was a city then the arrival of the Vampire would be like this photo:

 

[eightbit]

@Eightbit I get what you mean. The rest of the Amiga is just an idle power conduit to the snazzy Vampire. If the inside of the Amiga was a city then the arrival of the Vampire would be like this photo:

 

 

 

Haha I am not at all knocking the Vampire so don't get me wrong. I am sure a lot of people will be happy with sticking this thing inside of their Amiga and then saying it is ultra fast. That is what they will see to be true and that is what it will do. But underlying it is not making the Amiga fast really....it is taking over the Amiga and using its own FPGA core and the user is interpreting it as the Amiga being so much faster....as it is installed into the Amiga right?

 

I think I am going to pass on this being the purist I am The ACA500+ combined with a nice accelerator card is providing sheer unadulterated power without FPGA simulation....real hardware interacting with the other real hardware in the Amiga and doing what it is supposed to do....pure *real deal* performance!

Edited April 5, 2017 by eightbit

[JamesD]

It's a new processor, RAM upgrade, data storage, and an RTG graphics board on a single upgrade board. It's not simulating anything.

[eightbit]

It's a new processor, RAM upgrade, data storage, and an RTG graphics board on a single upgrade board. It's not simulating anything.

 

 

It is an FPGA. A reprogrammable gate array via a software written core. It is not a new processor. It is whatever the programmer decides it to be. Which is why the core can be (and is being worked on) to be written to do things the chipset on the board is not capable of. For example, AGA support on an ECS amiga. So, this thing will allow you to eventually play AGA games on the Amiga 500. How is that possible as the AGA chipset is not present? Well, the FPGA will be simulating that. It is real via the FPGA...but it is not "real" to the host (the Amiga it is installed into). I don't know any better way to explain it.

[JamesD]

It's not software, it's still hardware, I don't know any better way to explain it.

[eightbit]

It's not software, it's still hardware, I don't know any better way to explain it.

 

 

Who said it was "software"? We all realize it is hardware programmed by software (the core). What it is not is a "new CPU" as you put it. What it is is an FPGA that can be reprogrammed to simulate a "new CPU" via software. The software core is rearranging the FPGA logic to simulate a CPU. This is why it can be updated (or changed) via software cores. The MiST uses an FPGA and can "be" an Amiga, Atari ST, Colecovision, NES, Genesis, and so on. If you are meaning it is hardware because it is a chip that you can "hold" I guess you would be correct on that level. Sounds like you are new to FPGA's....

Edited April 5, 2017 by eightbit

[Sinphaltimus]

I'm excited. I loved my Amiga back in the day, more than any other computer since. Getting back in to the retro scene and bringing an Amiga back to life had proven difficult at times. I'm adding the Cable board to my Amiga 500 as a sort of way to have that experience all over again without the lack of tan, quality display and slowness that I have all but forgotten about. For me, it's a hobby that I want to bring in to production for personal reasons. For slightly over a hundred bux US I could have gotten an armiga. But that's only for gaming really which I can do in my Amiga or in emulation. For me, it's fun...again.I'm Not a purest and I don't knock those who are because in the end and last if what made Amiga great to me is that waxy and every Amiga owner made it their own. Customized, different configs and setups to enjoy the machine in their own way. That's what I'm doing here by adding the vampire.

 

Appollo team is working in a standalone. Not sure if I'm interested in that yet.

[eightbit]

I wouldn't doubt they create an attachment that makes your V2 a standalone. That would be cool.

 

Again don;t get me wrong, not knocking it and I think it is an excellent piece of hardware. It is just going about things in a non-tranditional way that some long time Amiga fans might disagree with....hence why I am on the fence about it

[Arnuphis]

I'm not knocking it either. It's a great way for legacy machines to get some snazzy oomph without having to try and hunt down rare and dying 50/60 accelerator boards and RTG cards. I may consider one for my A2000 when they become more widely available.

[JamesD]

 

 

Who said it was "software"? We all realize it is hardware programmed by software (the core). What it is not is a "new CPU" as you put it. What it is is an FPGA that can be reprogrammed to simulate a "new CPU" via software. The software core is rearranging the FPGA logic to simulate a CPU. This is why it can be updated (or changed) via software cores. The MiST uses an FPGA and can "be" an Amiga, Atari ST, Colecovision, NES, Genesis, and so on. If you are meaning it is hardware because it is a chip that you can "hold" I guess you would be correct on that level. Sounds like you are new to FPGA's....

Sorry, but it has an integrated Apollo CPU. The same logic could be permanently placed in a custom ASIC.

It would require some minor changes to be a stand alone part, but it's still a cpu.

It's directly running 680x0 code. It's not "simulating" anything.

 

This is no different than an ARM chip that has everything integrated onto it, except the chip can be reprogrammed.

Those still have an ARM CPU integrated onto the chip.

 

Why don't you go over to the apollo forums and tell them it's a simulation and not a CPU.

http://www.apollo-core.com/

[eightbit]

Been to their site many times my friend Here is a direct quote from that very website:

 

"Apollo Core 68080 is the natural and modern evolution of latest 68000 processors. It's 100% code compatible, corrects bugs of 680x0 designs and adds on top most of the cool features which were invented the years after.

 

When put in an FPGA, the Apollo Core offers a good combination of moderate FPGA space consumption and excellent performance. Apollo Core 68080 surpases the performance of 68060 ASIC by far - even when only using low cost FPGA."

 

 

Apollo CORE 68080 is a software core that is programmed into a low cost FPGA which is onboard on the V2. You should read more about this before making comments. You can download your "CPU" here (you will need to program that FPGA to simulate the 68080...or I should say the Apollo team will have done this for you prior to shipping your card):

 

http://wiki.apollo-accelerators.com/#latest_core

 

 

Here is someone asking how much space is left on the FPGA for more features:

 

http://www.apollo-core.com/knowledge.php?b=4&note=3567

 

 

So yeah, it is a big empty (well, its starts off empty!) powerful FPGA on there that accepts software cores to implement a CPU. But the chip is an FPGA, not a CPU. When it is programmed with a core it simulates a CPU, but it is technically not a traditional CPU like a real Motorola 68000 chip (or 020, 030, 040, etc) you would find in your Amiga or classic accelerator cards.

 

Again, I am not saying it is a bad device or a bad idea. Not at all. I like it and will probably end up with one of these for one of my machines as well. All I am saying is that I do not believe most people really understand what this is and how it is achieving it. Maybe they just don't care...and that is ok. I use the word "simulate" for FPGA's as it is not emulation. But it is also not the actual hardware. It is simulating the actual hardware with excellent results yes, but reprogramming an FPGA with a software written core does not "make" it a real 68080 no matter how you slice it. But, the cool part about an FPGA core is that it can constantly be worked on to get closer and closer to real hardware (and possibly even CORRECT bugs that existed in the original CPU!) as the changelog of the core is showing:

 

http://www.apollo-accelerators.com/files/ChangeLog

Edited April 5, 2017 by eightbit

[JamesD]

Been to their site many times my friend Here is a direct quote from that very website:

 

"Apollo Core 68080 is the natural and modern evolution of latest 68000 processors. It's 100% code compatible, corrects bugs of 680x0 designs and adds on top most of the cool features which were invented the years after.

 

When put in an FPGA, the Apollo Core offers a good combination of moderate FPGA space consumption and excellent performance. Apollo Core 68080 surpases the performance of 68060 ASIC by far - even when only using low cost FPGA."

 

 

Apollo CORE 68080 is a software core that is programmed into a low cost FPGA which is onboard on the V2. You should read more about this before making comments. You can download your "CPU" here (you will need to program that FPGA to simulate the 68080...or I should say the Apollo team will have done this for you prior to shipping your card):

 

http://wiki.apollo-accelerators.com/#latest_core

 

 

Here is someone asking how much space is left on the FPGA for more features:

 

http://www.apollo-core.com/knowledge.php?b=4&note=3567

 

 

So yeah, it is a big empty (well, its starts off empty!) powerful FPGA on there that accepts software cores to implement a CPU. But the chip is an FPGA, not a CPU. When it is programmed with a core it simulates a CPU, but it is technically not a traditional CPU like a real Motorola 68000 chip (or 020, 030, 040, etc) you would find in your Amiga or classic accelerator cards.

 

Again, I am not saying it is a bad device or a bad idea. Not at all. I like it and will probably end up with one of these for one of my machines as well. All I am saying is that I do not believe most people really understand what this is and how it is achieving it. Maybe they just don't care...and that is ok. I use the word "simulate" for FPGA's as it is not emulation. But it is also not the actual hardware. It is simulating the actual hardware with excellent results yes, but reprogramming an FPGA with a software written core does not "make" it a real 68080 no matter how you slice it. But, the cool part about an FPGA core is that it can constantly be worked on to get closer and closer to real hardware (and possibly even CORRECT bugs that existed in the original CPU!) as the changelog of the core is showing:

 

http://www.apollo-accelerators.com/files/ChangeLog

And again, you are calling it software and then will try to say you didn't call it software.

IT'S NOT SOFTWARE! It's programmed in a language that describes the hardware.

The compiler takes care of a lot of the design automatically, but it is hardware.

 

 

[eightbit]

Ok, calm yourself buckaroo

 

I will rephrase it for you to make you happy:

 

Apollo CORE 68080 is a binary core that is created USING SOFTWARE and then that binary is programmed into a low cost FPGA USING SOFTWARE.

 

 

 

You said "It's programmed in a language that describes the hardware." Programmed? Language? "Describes the hardware"? Sounds like software and simulation is very much involved to me....

Edited April 5, 2017 by eightbit

[JamesD]

Ok, calm yourself buckaroo

 

I will rephrase it for you to make you happy:

 

Apollo CORE 68080 is a binary core that is created USING SOFTWARE and then that binary is programmed into a low cost FPGA USING SOFTWARE.

 

 

 

You said "It's programmed in a language that describes the hardware." Programmed? Language? "Describes the hardware"? Sounds like software and simulation is very much involved to me....

When someone designs a building in CAD is the building software?

When someone creates a 3D model in software and creates the actual part on a CNC machine is the part software?

 

https://embeddedmicro.com/tutorials/mojo-fpga-beginners-guide/what-is-an-fpga

 

Pay special attention at at 3:45

Edited April 5, 2017 by JamesD

[eightbit]

When someone designs a building in CAD is the building software?

When someone creates a 3D model in software and creates the actual part on a CNC machine is the part software?

 

https://embeddedmicro.com/tutorials/mojo-fpga-beginners-guide/what-is-an-fpga

 

Pay special attention at at 3:45

 

 

Answer #1: No, the building is not software. The CAD application is. In that instance the user is using software to create a plan for a building.

 

Answer #2: No, the part is not "software". The user is using software to create a part obviously.

 

As for the video, I have seen it already, thank you so very much.

 

 

I see where you are trying to go with this obviously, and you obviously do not understand what has been explained to you in previous posts. The hardware (the FPGA which is hardware) is not software. Again, it is not software. Wait, one more time. It is not software. The core is a binary package. It has been created using software.

 

The core has been created using software. With me so far?

 

The core is a binary package which is used to program the FPGA's logic for it to "be" whatever the core developer told it to be. In this case, Apollo told it to be a 68080 Apollo CPU.

 

It was not a CPU beforehand. It was an empty FPGA waiting for instruction. Now, after programming it is a CPU (or it is an FPGA still...simulating a CPU).

 

 

Your statement previously that "Sorry, but it has an integrated Apollo CPU" is entirely WRONG. It is not an "Apollo CPU". It is an Altera Cyclone III. That is not a CPU. It may me programmed to be one, but make no mistake it is an FPGA. To correct your statement it should have been "It has an Altera Cyclone III FPGA programmed with an Apollo CPU core". Don't misinform people.

 

 

Much respect as you have a high post count here, but your tone has been quite patronizing. It not not appreciated it and it is NOT acceptable.

Edited April 6, 2017 by eightbit

[JamesD]

 

 

Answer #1: No, the building is not software. The CAD application is. In that instance the user is using software to create a plan for a building.

 

Answer #2: No, the part is not "software". The user is using software to create a part obviously.

 

As for the video, I have seen it already, thank you so very much.

 

 

I see where you are trying to go with this obviously, and you obviously do not understand what has been explained to you in previous posts. The hardware (the FPGA which is hardware) is not software. Again, it is not software. Wait, one more time. It is not software. The core is a binary package. It has been created using software.

 

The core has been created using software. With me so far?

 

The core is a binary package which is used to program the FPGA's logic for it to "be" whatever the core developer told it to be. In this case, Apollo told it to be a 68080 Apollo CPU.

 

It was not a CPU beforehand. It was an empty FPGA waiting for instruction. Now, after programming it is a CPU (or it is an FPGA still...simulating a CPU).

 

 

Your statement previously that "Sorry, but it has an integrated Apollo CPU" is entirely WRONG. It is not an "Apollo CPU". It is an Altera Cyclone III. That is not a CPU. It may me programmed to be one, but make no mistake it is an FPGA. To correct your statement it should have been "It has an Altera Cyclone III FPGA programmed with an Apollo CPU core". Don't misinform people.

 

 

Much respect as you have a high post count here, but your tone has been quite patronizing. It not not appreciated it and it is NOT acceptable.

I see your argument, I just don't agree with it.

No, it is not implemented in discrete logic. That I will agree with.

 

From the altera website:

 

 

Q. What is the Nios II embedded processor?

A. The Nios II embedded soft processor is a general-purpose, 32 bit RISC CPU optimized for programmable logic. Three distinct processor cores provide maximum design flexibility, balancing system performance needs and logic element (LE) usage:

https://www.altera.com/products/design-software/embedded-software-developers/faq/emb-faq-soft-processor.html

 

[eightbit]

The word "software" appears on that web page link 44 times!