64 bit systems

[Evil E]

What are the true 64 bit systems--people seem very torn and confused about this--I know N64 is one and Atari Jaguar is another, but are there more? Is Saturn a 32 or 64 bit system?

[anagrama]

The Saturn is 32-bit. And the Jaguar is pretty debatable.

[Evil E]

So, N64 is the only "true" 64 bit system?

[Ze_ro]

I'd say the Jaguar is legitimately 64-bit... but these whole "bit" arguements are really a waste of time. Does it matter if the Jaguar is 64-bit and the Saturn is 32-bit?

The whole thing is very subjective anyways. SNK called the NeoGeo 24 bit because it had a 16-bit processor and an 8-bit processor... the Saturn has two 32-bit processors, yet no one claims that it's 64-bit. There's also the whole confliction of the size of data registers and address registers (which are usually different sizes).

Bittage means nothing.

--Zero

[Dr. Morbis]

Considering that the Intellivision is 16-bit and the XBOX is 32-bit, bittage really doesn't mean much. And the Jag is no more 64-bit than the TG16 is 16-bit. It's all about marketing.

[Evil E]

I know, it is all very confusing. Which system was the best graphically between the N64, Jaguar and Saturn?

[Raedon]

The Jag is pretty much a 16 bit system if only the main processor is used.

[sisko]

Isn't the Jaguar 1 32 bit and 2 16bit processors?

Thus not making it a "true" 64 bit machine.

Also wasn't the Saturn 2 32 bit processors?

[charitycasegreg]

This doesnt have to do with ANYTHING, but how do you get those little icons like cherries and strawberries by your name?

[Evil E]

This doesnt have to do with ANYTHING, but how do you get those little icons like cherries and strawberries by your name?


I believe it has to do with the number of posts you have--the more you post, the more fruit/items appear by your name.....kinda like awards for posts.

[Evil E]

Isn't the Jaguar 1 32 bit and 2 16bit processors?

Thus not making it a "true" 64 bit machine.

Also wasn't the Saturn 2 32 bit processors?


See what I mean? We need someone to break it all down for us in a simplictic way. I don't own a true 64 bit system--I never got one around the time they were out ( I did/do have a PS1, but we all know it is 32 bit) so I am interested in getting a true 64 bit system, but all the system claims and configurations throw me off. @_@

[Evil E]

I know, it is all very confusing. Which system was the best graphically between the N64, Jaguar and Saturn?

Noone has an opinion on this question? I wanna know your thoughts on which of these systems outperforms the other!

[NEOFREAK9189]

the only true 64 bit systems the nintendo 64 and neogeo 64 and konami m2 3do arcade and sega model 2 arcade

[Garry Silljo]

Yes if you REALLY care about the bits, then N64 is the only one you listed. I personally like Saturn better, but that's just game preference, as the Saturn is 32 and not as popular with the 3D crowd either. Jaguar is a piece of &^@# that I BARELY call a 16 bit system, with the toilet shaped CD MAYBE it's the equivalent of a 32x.

[tholly]

This doesnt have to do with ANYTHING, but how do you get those little icons like cherries and strawberries by your name?

you get a new piece every 200 posts. this ends when you have posted 2000 times, at which point you will have every piece by your name...its in the FAQ section of the boards

[8-Bit Master]

I know, it is all very confusing. Which system was the best graphically between the N64, Jaguar and Saturn?

I'd have to say the N64 has the best graphics out of those 3 consoles, especially when it's enhanced by an expansion pak.

[Ze_ro]

Isn't the Jaguar 1 32 bit and 2 16bit processors?

No. The Jaguar has two 64-bit processors (Combined into one chip called "Tom", which handles the Jaguar's graphics), two 32-bit processors (Combined into one chip called "Jerry", which handles sound and DSP stuff), and a 16-bit 68000 chip.

The 68000 can be completely turned off if the game instructs it to do so. Atari actually only recommended using it to bootstrap the system and handle controller input.

I was an early adopter for the Jaguar, and I've lived through many years of people crying "It's not really 64-bit". It's made me quite bitter (no pun intended), so here comes a nice long rant....


Thus not making it a "true" 64 bit machine.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

BITTAGE MEANS NOTHING.

It's a meaningless indication of power. Every company bases the "bittage" of their system on different qualities of their system, so there really is no such thing as "true" 64-bit, or true any-bit for that matter. It's just a number that companies put on the box to try to convince people of the power of their system. The Jaguar has 5 different processors with different "bit" ratings. How would you come to a number out of all that? Add the numbers together? Average them? Use the width of the data bus? There is no "right" answer, so it's all in the eye of the beholder. If the Jaguar isn't "really" 64-bit, then what is it? There certainly are qualities of the system that could be described as 64-bit, so who are we to try and correct Atari?

Lets look at a few examples of rather questionable "bit" labelling:

The TG-16. This machine uses an 8-bit processor called the Hu6280, and it uses a 16-bit graphics chip. NEC marketed the system as a 16-bit system, and it competed with the Genesis and Super NES. Arguably, the TG-16's processing pales in comparison to the Genesis and SNES, but it's graphics capability kept it in the competition. Was NEC lying when they called their system 16-bit?

The Lynx. This machine uses an 8-bit 6502 processor, and it uses a 16-bit graphics chip. Atari marketed it as a 16-bit system and it competed against the Gameboy and Game Gear. Even though the Gameboy and Game Gear are supposedly 8-bit systems, the "16-bit" Lynx certainly isn't twice as powerful by any means. It can do some odd tricks with it's graphics, but that's about it. Was Atari lying when they called their system 16-bit?

The NeoGeo. I already mentioned this one above... It's based on a 16-bit 68000, and uses an 8-bit Z80 to do other tasks... SNK marketed it as a 24-bit system. Since it was obviously more powerful than the Genesis and SNES, no one questioned the fact that SNK essentially just added the two numbers together. Was SNK lying when they called their system 24-bit?

Most people think that "32-bit" refers to the power if a system's main processor, but that's usually not the case. Most companies are referring to their video circuitry when they call their system #-bit... so when people find out that the processor doesn't get the same number, they get confused or angry. However, even if you have two systems with 32-bit processors from completely different families, there's no guarantee that the systems are anywhere near equivalent. You could easily make a console that was based on a 16-bit 68000 that might outperform a system based on a 32-bit SH-4.

Also, even referring to specific processors as #-bit is usually inaccurate. There are many processors that use 8-bit data registers, but 16-bit address registers. Is that processor then 8-bit or 16-bit? Does it matter? Can't we all just admit that "#-bit" is a useless and imprecise way to judge systems, and be glad that companies don't market their systems like this anymore?

These arguements are completely futile. However, I would say that considering the Jaguar, Saturn and N64, the N64 would be the most powerful, and the Jaguar the least powerful. But even that is an oversimplification, since each system has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and each system has both good games and terrible games that cause the quality of each system's libraries to overlap.

--Zero

[Evil E]

Wow, thanks Zero. Then if it's not about bittage, how do systems get grouped together competition-wise? Like SMS vs. NES, and SNES vs. Genesis, and Saturn vs. PS1 vs. N64 vs. Jaguar...etc. etc. What aspect of the system is in competition? The processors? The systems of today (GC, PS2, Xbox, and DC) all claim to be similar graphics-wise, and they all are! People continually refer to these "next generation" systems as being 128 bit systems. @_@

[charitycasegreg]

Whoh!! Zero, you are a hardcore nerd! Im not even halfway up the nerd ladder. I will get there eventually, you guys will see!

[Ed Oscuro]

Haha, yeah, Zero broke it down really nicely.

Though the idea of an SH-4 system being inferior to a 68000 system...maybe if it was a 68040, heh. Yeah, the graphics chip means a whole lot here.

The only way in which consoles can be grouped...by date and competitiveness. The Neo Geo was a pretty advanced system and came out quite early, but then you see its $700+ price tag...was it really competitive? I'd say no, not very. You get less bang for your buck. Is this a less valid way to compare consoles? It's all up to you.

There's no secret group tasked with setting standards for how people view video game related issues, and whose word is taken as gospel (thank goodness).

[Ze_ro]

Then if it's not about bittage, how do systems get grouped together competition-wise?

I usually group them by generation... like so (I use bit numbers here mostly for the sake of convenience):
Dedicated consoles (Pong, Stunt Cycle, Video Pinball, Coleco Telstar, Odyssey, etc)
Early programmable consoles (Atari 2600, Channel F, Odyssey^2, Arcadia 2001, RCA Studio II, Bally Astrocade, etc)
Pre-crash 8-bit consoles (ColecoVision, INTV, Vectrex, Atari 5200)
Post-crash 8-bit consoles (NES, Master System, Atari 7800)
16-bit era (SNES, Genesis, SegaCD, TG-16/TurboDuo, NeoGeo)
Early 32/64-bit era (3DO, Jaguar/JagCD, 32X, CD-i, CD32, Virtual Boy, NeoGeo CD)
Later 32/64-bit era (Playstation, Saturn, N64)
"Modern" consoles (Dreamcast, PS2, X-Box, Gamecube)
Seperating the 32/64-bit systems like that seems about right to me, even if they did share some of the marketplace for a time. There was some semblance of competition between the 3DO and the Jaguar, but when the PSX came out, pretty much all these systems were pushed out of the market and it quickly became a three-man show with Sony, Nintendo and Sega controlling the market. Saying that the N64 and Jaguar were competing against each other is like saying there is a territory struggle between me and the ants on my lawn (I'm a Jaguar fan, but I can admit that the system failed). It could also be argued that the early/late difference is a matter of 3D... the Jaguar and 3DO could do 3D, but they certainly didn't do it as well as the Saturn, PSX and N64.

There are some systems that don't fit well into these categories though. The CD-i really sort of straddles the 16-bit and early 32-bit generations, as does the SegaCD in a way... The Virtual Boy is sort of a wildcard, and might be better off grouped with portables... and the 2600 could claim to have competed even into the post-crash 8-bit generation. There are some others that I really don't know enough about to categorize properly. I'm guessing the PC-FX and Pippen probably fit into the same category as the 3DO and Jaguar... but I'm not sure where the Playdia, Nuon or Pico would fit. And of course, handheld systems and computers follow completely different generations.

--Zero

[Cantaloup]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

BITTAGE MEANS NOTHING.


I totally agree. I've been giving this issue a lot of thought. "Bittage" is useless for two reasons:

1. There is no accepted definition of what is meant by an "x-bit system".
2. Even if we had such a definition, it would most likely apply to one specific feature/area of the system (such as CPU data register size). So it wouldn't give a good indication of overall system performance, since it doesn't take into account, memory size and speed, I/O device characteristics, etc.


Then if it's not about bittage, how do systems get grouped together competition-wise? Like SMS vs. NES, and SNES vs. Genesis, and Saturn vs. PS1 vs. N64 vs. Jaguar...etc. etc. What aspect of the system is in competition? The processors? The systems of today (GC, PS2, Xbox, and DC) all claim to be similar graphics-wise, and they all are!

If you're asking how we can compare system "power", we can use performance benchmarks such as frame rate and number of polygons drawn per second. For example, if we rendered the same scene on two different systems and one had a frame rate of 10 fps and another had 40 fps, we could say the second was more powerful for that particular task.

If you're asking how we group similar systems together, we can look at when they were introduced and what hardware features they include. For example, we would put the Genesis with the SNES because they both were oriented toward sprite-based graphics; we wouldn't put them with the PS1 or N64, since those include 3D rendering support in hardware. I think instead of using "bits" we should look at all the systems through history and divide them into "generations" by time of introduction and hardware features. Anyone want to try it? Group effort maybe? :)

[§ Gideon §]

Use the width of the data bus?
Bingo. This is what I do, and it keeps me sane.

[bargora]

Use the width of the data bus?
Bingo. This is what I do, and it keeps me sane.
I view your avatar, sir, and I wonder whether it really has.

[§ Gideon §]

Use the width of the data bus?
Bingo. This is what I do, and it keeps me sane.
I view your avatar, sir, and I wonder whether it really has.
Heheh. no comment

[farfel]

Wow, thanks Zero. Then if it's not about bittage, how do systems get grouped together competition-wise? Like SMS vs. NES, and SNES vs. Genesis, and Saturn vs. PS1 vs. N64 vs. Jaguar...etc. etc.

By era.
pre-1985 Atari,intellivision, colecovision
post-85 sega master system, nes, 7800
1990-95 genesys, super nintendo
1996-2000 saturn, ps1, n64
2001-05 cube, box, ps2

Consoles that flopped, like Jaguar/Dreamcast, I ignore.

[Evil E]

Wow, thanks Zero. Then if it's not about bittage, how do systems get grouped together competition-wise? Like SMS vs. NES, and SNES vs. Genesis, and Saturn vs. PS1 vs. N64 vs. Jaguar...etc. etc.

By era.
pre-1985 Atari,intellivision, colecovision
post-85 sega master system, nes, 7800
1990-95 genesys, super nintendo
1996-2000 saturn, ps1, n64
2001-05 cube, box, ps2

Consoles that flopped, like Jaguar/Dreamcast, I ignore.

Oh man, you CANT ignore the Dreamcast!! I know it died, but it is a great little system!