128bit - The final frontier???

[Gemini-Phoenix]

Every generation, it has doubled. 8bit, 16bit, 32bit, 64bit, 128bit... BUt this new generation (As far as I am aware) is also going to be 128bit too...

Ie, the PS2, DreamCast, GameCube, and Xbox are all 128bit.

Obviously, the PSP will be 128bit too.

The GBA SP and Ngage are 32bit, and as far as I know, the DS is 64bit...


But it is undocumented what the new generation will be - The PS3, Revolution, And Xbox 2... I assume they will also be 128bit...


So is this the boundary? Is 128bit the most we can ever expect?

[Red Shadow]

Nobody knows until we get there. Remember when Bill Gates said 64k of RAM is all we would need (correct me if I've misquoted)? Nobody knows what's going to happen, or what things will be like in the future. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

[theoakwoody]

Isn't the Xbox's Pentium chip actually 64 bit.

[kai123]

Isn't the Xbox's Pentium chip actually 64 bit.


Yea you are right. 8-)

http://www.pcvsconsole.com/features/consoles/xbox.php

[Lost Monkey]

Isn't the Xbox's Pentium chip actually 64 bit.

It is 32 bit.

[SuperShark]

I am almost sure that one time on a video-game news show (called PULSE if any one out there ever watches it) that the XBOX 2 is going to be at least 200-bit. I can not remember the exact number however. I can't say anything about the other upcoming systems.

[FlufflePuff]

I thought Bill said 4k. I could be wrong, but I thought it was some really small number.

[calthaer]

So is this the boundary? Is 128bit the most we can ever expect?

People in the future who are playing games on their bio-tronic hyper-galactic starship enterprise computers and whatnot may find this statement somewhere in their archaic database of the "world-wide web" and will laugh at it.

[XxMe2NiKxX]

I remember a very simmilar discussion I had at my favourite videogaming store (which I still go to today, carries EVERYTHING) about the very same thing with the Genesis: Is 16-bit the most we can ever expect?

[badinsults]

The Gamecube is 64 bit. The Intellivision was 16 bit. It isn't the amount of bits that matters.

[BigGeorgeJohnson]

I am almost sure that one time on a video-game news show (called PULSE if any one out there ever watches it) that the XBOX 2 is going to be at least 200-bit. I can not remember the exact number however. I can't say anything about the other upcoming systems.

Last I heard it's going to have a IBM PPC based 64 bit risc cpu

[crazyjackcsa]

Bits are like horsepower, when it comes right down to the nitty gritty It's just a number to help sell something. I think bits really stopped mattering in this generation, nobody really cares.

[icbrkr]

The Gamecube is 64 bit. The Intellivision was 16 bit. It isn't the amount of bits that matters.

Actually, the Gamecube uses a version of the IBM G3 PowerPC chip which is 32 bit with 64 data paths. The G5 PowerPC is the first of the line that is 64 bit native.

[PC-Famicom64]

Every generation, it has doubled. 8bit, 16bit, 32bit, 64bit, 128bit... BUt this new generation (As far as I am aware) is also going to be 128bit too...

Ie, the PS2, DreamCast, GameCube, and Xbox are all 128bit.

Obviously, the PSP will be 128bit too.

The GBA SP and Ngage are 32bit, and as far as I know, the DS is 64bit...


But it is undocumented what the new generation will be - The PS3, Revolution, And Xbox 2... I assume they will also be 128bit...


So is this the boundary? Is 128bit the most we can ever expect?The Nintendo-DS & PSP ar 96bit and The PS3,Xbox2 & Revolution will be 256bit. :)

[Lady Jaye]

It means nothing. The Atari 2600 and the NES were both 8-bit systems, yet you could never mistaken a 2600 game from a NES game (even Solaris, which pushed the 2600 to its max, is clearly not a NES game, despite its beautiful graphics).

[PC-Famicom64]

It means nothing. The Atari 2600 and the NES were both 8-bit systems, yet you could never mistaken a 2600 game from a NES game (even Solaris, which pushed the 2600 to its max, is clearly not a NES game, despite its beautiful graphics).Act-sa-le The Atari 2600 is a 4bit system not a 8bit system.

[pixelsnpolygons]

Funny how Bits went from being the do all and end all to something that we're not even sure of the correct figures any more. 10 years ago, we'd all know how many Bits the Xbox had, because the number of Bits would have been written larger than the word 'Xbox' on the box artwork - like Stephen King's name is written 30 times larger than his book titles. Now no one cares, which is fantastic, because I can't remember the last time it has ever bothered me that a system "was lacking Bits".

[icbrkr]

It means nothing. The Atari 2600 and the NES were both 8-bit systems, yet you could never mistaken a 2600 game from a NES game (even Solaris, which pushed the 2600 to its max, is clearly not a NES game, despite its beautiful graphics).Act-sa-le The Atari 2600 is a 4bit system not a 8bit system.

The 6507 CPU is very much a 8 bit processor, it's also part of the same family that ran such machines as the Nintendo NES, C64, Apple II, Atari 400/5200/800/etc and many more.

[Cantaloup]

Please, make it stop... @_@

Assigning a moniker such as "8-bit" or "32-bit" to a system is, at best, vague. At worst it is meaningless or just plain wrong. It's a marketing term whose day has long passed.

[Ed Oscuro]

So is this the boundary? Is 128bit the most we can ever expect?

People in the future who are playing games on their bio-tronic hyper-galactic starship enterprise computers and whatnot may find this statement somewhere in their archaic database of the "world-wide web" and will laugh at it.
People won't be people anymore then, we'll be PSO-tards with googly bionic eyes.

Anyhow, calling the XBox 32-bit doesn't make much sense to me - somewhat like the SNES, it's the graphics card that pushes forward the XBox (though not nearly as much). Agee with Cantaloup. It was nonsense even before the TG-16 arrived (say you Intellivision?); let's forget about it :)

[Berserker]

If history's taught us one thing, it's that there is no "final frontier" when it comes to technology. There just isn't. And trying to make predictions on where it will stand at any given time or even worse, when it will end, is pretty pointless. There would be less futility spent in watching paint peel, or grass grow.

If there are any limitations, you're not going to find them in the potential of technology, but rather in our potential as human beings. And I'd venture to say you'd have little luck making predictions there as well.

Oh, yeah, the Atari is definately an 8-bit system.

[DStriemer]

Bits have ALWAYS only meant something if they are paired/followed with other vital system statistics. Alone, Bits means next to nothing. It is like measuring the speed of a rock rolling downhill without measuring its mass, volume, resistance, gravity, slope, etc.

[Anexanhume]

Yeah, bits are just one piece of the puzzle. The problem is, the number of bits has been changed every generation, when computers have been 32 bits for how long? It doesn't need to change as often as it has, but there are correct points. As you can see, the new AMD's work better than p4's with a lower clock speed. It's because it can address twice the information in one clock cycle. However, once the amount of information addressing is raised, the cpu clock is lowered, so it's still the same amount of information in the end.

edit: The 64 bit generation was practically skipped. The only real mainstream system to utlize it was the 64 ( discounting the jaguar and its amazing sale numbers ), wheras all the previous bits had at least 2 big supporters.

[NEOFREAK9189]

Please, stop
all the atari system from 70s to 80s ar 8bit
gameboy 8bit
game gear 8bit
neogeo pocket 8bit
sega master 8bit
nintendo 8bit
turbo grafx dual 8bit cpu
turbo express dual 8bit cpu
turbo duo cd 16bit
sega genesis sega cd 16bit
super nintendo 16bit
32x 32bit
neogeo,neogeocd 24bit
3do 32bit
sega saturn dual 32 bit cpu
ps1 32bit
pcfx 32bit
game advance 32bit?
atari jaguar 64bit
nintendo 64 64bit
panasonic 3do m2 64bit
nintendo ds 64bit
sega dreamcast 128bit
ps2 128bit
PSP 128bit
nintendo game cube 128bit
x-box 128bit
so next generation of system PS3,Xbox2 & nintendo Revolution will be 256bit

[Ed Oscuro]

Neo Freak: Stop...hum.

What evidence do you have for all the next series of consoles utilizing 256 bit processors? I don't think ANY of them are slated to have that sort of processor. The PS3 will use Sony/IBM Cell processors, and the Next XBox will be using a form of PPC I believe...

[Ernster]

Bits dont mean much these days but its just an easy way of classifying console generations, therefore I will be calling N5/PS3/Xbox 2 256bit machines.

[yok-dfa]

Using the number of bits to compare consoles is as useful as using the number of megahertz/gigahertz to compare the speed of different CPUs...

[robotriot]

On a related note, you might find this article interesting ;)

http://www.plexos.com/256_bit_CPUs_should_be_enough.htm

[EnemyZero]

Yeah, im not too worred, the higher the bit doesnt mean better games, and this generation proved it. Lets go back to, 8 , 16, 32, or 64 for some real fun :P

[neuropolitique]

Please, stop
atari jaguar 64bit
nintendo ds 64bit
sega dreamcast 128bit
ps2 128bit
PSP 128bit
nintendo game cube 128bit
x-box 128bit
so next generation of system PS3,Xbox2 & nintendo Revolution will be 256bit

Jaguar being 64bit is debatable
Nintendo DS is 32 bit
PSP will be 32 bit
GameCube is 32 bit
Xbox is 32 bit
Next Xbox will be 64 bit.

Really, though, it doesn't matter. So much more goes into making a system "fast". But, people need numbers. They need to know they have the fastest whatever. Whether it's horsepower, bits, or Mhz.

[Icarus Moonsight]

The short and long of the whole bits issue is rather pointless these days. All bits mean is the bandwidth of data the chip processes in a clock cycle. Think of it like roads, where 8-bit is like a single-lane road and 32-bit is like an 8-lane hiway. That doesn't say anything for gaming power in these times. A console could very well have a 32-bit core cpu augmented with 2 or 3 32-bit graphics processors and a 16-bit sound lay-out. It all boils down to the point of non-meaning. From what I can tell though, we are fast approaching the pinnicle of the processing power to be harnessed from silicone/copper based chips. You can only make these things so small until heat fuses the whole chip together. I'd bet cash money that we won't see anymore generation leaps of processing power until an alternate form of processing comes about. I'd keep my eyes out for Organic(DNA), Quantum, and Microfluidic processing to replace ye olde silicone.

Also, to my knowledge a TRUE 64-bit console has yet to be made. The cost of the powerful 64-bitters will most likely pigeon hole the console market to 32-bit for at least one more generation.

[RCM]

The Playstation 2 is the only console that is 128bit. At least according to an old Steven Kent article from a couple years back. I could give a fuck if the Xbox was 4bit. As long as the games look mighty pretty.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[ghostangelofcky]

from pong to halo, as long as it's a new game I'm happy

[Icarus Moonsight]

The PS2 is 128-bit only if you piggy-back all the chips. It's all marketing, If their machine has 4 32-bit processors in it there gonna tell you it's 128-bit cause bigger numbers sell systems! By the same logic Sega could have touted the Genesis as a "24-bit" system since it had the Master System chips in it too. Then you add the Sega CD and it becomes a "40-bit" system? Don't forget the 32X, would that bump it up to "72-bits"? Would that mean the "24-bit" Genesis was tech-superior to the 16-bit SNES? Of course not and quite the opposite. I think that's why I have always prefered Sega, they never played me the fool. NEC did it with the TG-16, 8-bit system MARKETED as a 16-bit. Nintendo did it with the N64, 32-bit sytem MARKETED as a 64-bit system. Yes dual and quad processors kick up the power but the bits don't level out to being equal. 2 32-bit processors are not as powerful as a 64-bit. If game companies put as much effort into making great games, **cough**sony**cough**, as they do trumping-up the hardware and selling lies the gaming world would be a better place IMO.

[goatdan]

Jaguar being 64bit is debatable
Nintendo DS is 32 bit
PSP will be 32 bit
GameCube is 32 bit
Xbox is 32 bit
Next Xbox will be 64 bit.

Really, though, it doesn't matter. So much more goes into making a system "fast". But, people need numbers. They need to know they have the fastest whatever. Whether it's horsepower, bits, or Mhz.

Agreed. It all depends on how you look at bits. Sega brought it to the forefront with the Genesis, and then the Jaguar started the war and the N64 finished it off. No longer does anyone really care.

If you look at the "bit" size of a chip, it literally means what you can pass to it in one clock cycle. Acidic_Pain's description was pretty much dead on, but here is some things to add to it...

If you have an eight lane highway for data, but are only sending four trucks down it at a time, do you really need all eight lanes? It would make more sense to make the trucks faster and more powerful than it would to expand the highway further. Expanding the highway to 16 lanes wouldn't help move those trucks faster. Making the trucks move twice as fast would.

If you look at the exact meaning of the term, the Jaguar is a 64-bit system as it can pass a 64-bit command to its processor in one call. Of course, the Jaguar didn't have much in the way of a supporting cast of processors, so while the Jaguar is by definition a 64-bit system, it doesn't make use of that power because it essentially only allowed trucks that were really slow to travel down the highway.

Gaming systems have shied away from the "bit" business after the N64 because it simply doesn't make sense. No company is going to be stupid enough to come out with a console that boasts a 512 bit processor (at least not for a long time). It would cost them an incredible amount of money to make, money that could be spent better by investing in RAM and other upgrades. For anyone that disputes that it is in fact a new processor that makes a system better, remember:

The original Pong was 8-bit (You can _not_ have a 4-bit or 2-bit processor) and so was the NES.

The 3DO was a 32-bit system. The Xbox is a 32-bit system.

Perhaps the best thing to look at: If you want to game better on your PC, what do you get? New graphics cards and RAM. Your processor (unless you have the new AMD 64-bit ones) is a 32-bit processor. But my PII-450 with no graphics card sure does suck when you compare it to my P4 2.4 GHz computer with a GeForce FX5800.

[Gemini-Phoenix]

And was it th Jaguar which is two 32bit processor's strapped together? I think Nintendo questioned this when the N64 was released, as Atari were claiming that their console was indeed the first 64bit console - Although technically it wasn't...

If you really think about it (Not including the unreleased consoles) we have four 128bit machines - But that spectrum is pretty wide in terms of power and processor speed!


As far as the DreamCast goes, it is still a 128bit machine, so you would think it would still cut it today agaist the Xbox, except it is at the bottom of the scale.

The PS2 is next in line, but is perceived as the Xbox's biggest rival, despite the GameCube being more powerful...

Then there is the Cube, but because Nintendo are so uptight with third party developers, and their controller has less buttons than the other two, it is seen as the runt of the litter.

Then at the top is the all powerful Xbox.


But all four are the same in theory. As has been proved by old DreamCast games being ported over onto all three other consoles within the last three or four years! The list of ex-DreamCast exclusive's is endless!



Oh, and as for Bill Gate's quote - He actually said 256k of RAM is all anyone would ever need.

[Anexanhume]

The short and long of the whole bits issue is rather pointless these days. All bits mean is the bandwidth of data the chip processes in a clock cycle. Think of it like roads, where 8-bit is like a single-lane road and 32-bit is like an 8-lane hiway. That doesn't say anything for gaming power in these times. A console could very well have a 32-bit core cpu augmented with 2 or 3 32-bit graphics processors and a 16-bit sound lay-out. It all boils down to the point of non-meaning. From what I can tell though, we are fast approaching the pinnicle of the processing power to be harnessed from silicone/copper based chips. You can only make these things so small until heat fuses the whole chip together. I'd bet cash money that we won't see anymore generation leaps of processing power until an alternate form of processing comes about. I'd keep my eyes out for Organic(DNA), Quantum, and Microfluidic processing to replace ye olde silicone.

Also, to my knowledge a TRUE 64-bit console has yet to be made. The cost of the powerful 64-bitters will most likely pigeon hole the console market to 32-bit for at least one more generation.

Quantum is a ways off, and I hope you simply just forget opitcal computing. They are also talking about layering the chips to make a cube, almost. I've never even heard of microfluid processing :D

[goatdan]

And was it th Jaguar which is two 32bit processor's strapped together? I think Nintendo questioned this when the N64 was released, as Atari were claiming that their console was indeed the first 64bit console - Although technically it wasn't...



The Jaguar has five processors which are contained in three chips. Two of
the chips are proprietary designs, nicknamed "Tom" and "Jerry". The third
chip is a standard Motorola 68000, and used as a coprocessor. Tom and
Jerry are built using an 0.5 micron silicon process. With proper
programming, all five processors can run in parallel.

- "Tom"
- 750,000 transistors, 208 pins
- Graphics Processing Unit (processor #1)
- 32-bit RISC architecture (32/64 processor)
- 64 registers of 32 bits wide
- Has access to all 64 bits of the system bus
- Can read 64 bits of data in one instruction
- Rated at 26.591 MIPS (million instructions per second)
- Runs at 26.591 MHz
- 4K bytes of zero wait-state internal SRAM
- Performs a wide range of high-speed graphic effects
- Programmable
- Object processor (processor #2)
- 64-bit RISC architecture
- 64-bit wide registers
- Programmable processor that can act as a variety of different video
architectures, such as a sprite engine, a pixel-mapped display, a
character-mapped system, and others.
- Blitter (processor #3)
- 64-bit RISC architecture
- 64-bit wide registers
- Performs high-speed logical operations
- Hardware support for Z-buffering and Gouraud shading
- DRAM memory controller
- 64 bits
- Accesses the DRAM directly

- "Jerry"
- 600,000 transistors, 144 pins
- Digital Signal Processor (processor #4)
- 32 bits (32-bit registers)
- Rated at 26.6 MIPS (million instructions per second)
- Runs at 26.6 MHz
- Same RISC core as the Graphics Processing Unit
- Not limited to sound generation
- 8K bytes of zero wait-state internal SRAM
- CD-quality sound (16-bit stereo)
- Number of sound channels limited by software
- Two DACs (stereo) convert digital data to analog sound signals
- Full stereo capabilities
- Wavetable synthesis, FM synthesis, FM Sample synthesis, and AM
synthesis
- A clock control block, incorporating timers, and a UART
- Joystick control

- Motorola 68000 (processor #5)
- Runs at 13.295MHz
- General purpose control processor

Communication is performed with a high speed 64-bit data bus, rated at
106.364 megabytes/second. The 68000 is only able to access 16 bits of
this bus at a time.

If you can perform communication at 64-bits, you have the definition of a 64-bit chip. A 32-bit chip cannot take 64-bit communication and interpert it. "Tom" is the chip that had the power.

Of course, as I already mentioned this doesn't really matter _at all_. The Jaguar was suddenly declared by magazines as a 32 bit machine because it "doesn't use all 64-bit processors" and it wasn't as powerful as the Playstation or N64. Both of which are true statements, but it doesn't equate to the Jaguar being a 32-bit (or lower) machine by definition.

The Jaguar _was_ a 64-bit system. Look beyond the graphical power of the system because that has _nothing_ to do with it and at the specs. The Jag actually is some of the best proof that you can get that how many bits the processors can move has little to nothing to do with it's place in power.

I'm sure that if they had the idea, Intellivision could've advertised their system as a 16-bit system... But personally, I think that the SNES looks a little nicer than it. That doesn't mean the Intellivision isn't a 16-bit system, just that it doesn't have the "supporting cast" to make it as graphically intense.

[goatdan]

Quantum is a ways off, and I hope you simply just forget opitcal computing. They are also talking about layering the chips to make a cube, almost. I've never even heard of microfluid processing :D

Agreed. The big new development that I heard is that Intel is thinking about making multiple processors and putting them on one chip, so instead of having a single 3.0 GHz processor, your computer would have four 2.0 GHz processors or whatever.

That seems like a pretty interesting idea. I'm very curious to see where Intel goes with that whole thing.

[Gemini-Phoenix]

Although classed as a 64bit machine, the Jaguar only outputted nothing short of 16bit graphics.

Same with the N64, although classed as a 64bit machine, the games looked 32bit.

Probably due to the fact that the consoles were both cart based, whereas the PlayStation is Cd based...


But bearing in mind that in those days, Virtua Racing was considered "Lifelike"! Lol. Until Ridge Racer came along... Yet you look back at Ridge Racer now (After playing GT4) and it looks really bad!

It's hard to beieve that a console capable of running games like Final Fantasy IX, GT2, and Metal Gear Solid, once run games like Ridge Racer...


I think given enough time, both the Jaguar AND N64 could've proved to output better looking games... Just look at some of the N64's last few games...

[Anexanhume]

Quantum is a ways off, and I hope you simply just forget opitcal computing. They are also talking about layering the chips to make a cube, almost. I've never even heard of microfluid processing :D

Agreed. The big new development that I heard is that Intel is thinking about making multiple processors and putting them on one chip, so instead of having a single 3.0 GHz processor, your computer would have four 2.0 GHz processors or whatever.

That seems like a pretty interesting idea. I'm very curious to see where Intel goes with that whole thing.

Well, we're already seeing that in the next-gen consoles. The nextBox is slated to have three cores, with two threads running on each.

[goatdan]

Although classed as a 64bit machine, the Jaguar only outputted nothing short of 16bit graphics.

Same with the N64, although classed as a 64bit machine, the games looked 32bit.

Probably due to the fact that the consoles were both cart based, whereas the PlayStation is Cd based...

The games didn't look 16-bit or 32-bit. You bought the whole thing that they wanted people to believe back in the day -- that bigger was better. The Jaguar was 64-bit. It looked slightly better than a Genesis or SNES, but not better than a Saturn or PSX. That doesn't change anything -- it's a 64-bit machine by definition. The N64 is also 64 bit machine by definition.

The Jaguar had a CD add-on, but it did not improve the graphics -- the processors remained the same, and the power did not go up or down based on the fact that it had a different medium.

It all comes down to the supporting chipset cast. I think that my Xbox looks a hell of a lot better than my Jaguar, but my Jaguar can process a 64 bit command while my Xbox can only process a 32 bit command. Just because it is prettier though doesn't make my Xbox a 128 or 256 bit machine. It's only 32.

[tritium]

I think when they refer to 128bit we're talking video capabilities. I know Intel and PC processors are mostly 32bit, but back in the mid 90's I remember 4 mb video cards being advertised as 128 Bit 2d graphics and whatever 3d capabilities.

-Tritium

[tritium]

Sorry for the double post, but here's a quote from the ATI website about discontinued products. Though the card I was previously refering to was from S3, this was oneof its competitors



XPERT™ 128
Overview
Powered by ATI RAGE™ 128 PRO - a 128-bit graphics engine and 64-bit memory interface
16MB of powerful memory
32-bit true color 3D graphics up to 1280x1024
Hardware DVD for full-screen, full-frame rate MPEG-2/DVD playback
2D graphics support up to 1900x1200x32bpp @ 80 Hz
Support for Direct3D® and OpenGL® to power all your favorite graphics-intensive 3D games and applications
Supports TV WONDER™, the add-on TV tuner card
Features ATI's MULTIMEDIA CENTER™ software
Available in PCI bus

-Tritium

[Cantaloup]

This thread is full of such misinformation and nonsense that my brain is about to explode. *_*

It seems some people are just doubling the "bit number" every generation; e.g. calling the current consoles "128-bit". This is fine from a purely nomenclature standpoint; you could call the current generation "Fred" or "Josh" for all I care. But from a computer science standpoint, these numbers have no real connection to the actual system architecture. Thus these are arbitrary labels being assigned. Personally I'd go with "Generation 4", but that's just me.

I know it is just human nature to want to boil everything down to a single number and then say, "Aha! This is better than that!". But computer systems (including video game systems) cannot be reduced to a single meaningful number in this way. For example, you could say a car had a top speed of 500 mph; but if your tires are flat and your gas tank only holds 2 gallons, is this car really any good? You need to consider many factors that go into a system's design.

The first problem with the "bit number system" is that it supposedly measures how "good" a system is: quality of graphics, speed, etc. However, bits, when used as a unit, measure capacity or size; they do not measure speed or performance! So right off the bat you're not even using the right units; speed would be measured by, for example, "bits per second". An increase in "bit size" does not necessarily translate into an increase in performance.

The second problem is that there is no commonly accepted standard for determining the "bit number" of a system. If you ask 10 different people you could get 10 different answers. Some people might say, "Well, an x-bit system is a system with an x-bit CPU", but even that is a problem since people can (and do) disagree about how to classify the CPUs themselves! Some people seem to be saying that if you had, for example, 2 "32-bit processors" (if we could agree on what a "32-bit processor" is) in a system, that this would be a "64-bit system". If that's how you want to define it, fine. Of course you now have to rewrite the previous classification system, since people only started doing this since about the last generation. And if you do define it like that, there are still problems. Such a system would still only have 32-bit addressing (not too important for consoles, since they all have less than 4GB of memory so far) and probably only a 32-bit data bus (which means data can be moved around the system in 32-bit chunks). This being the case, do you still want to call it "64-bit"? The fact is that a system will often in practice have many components of differing "bit sizes"; simply summing them together willy-nilly makes no sense.

Now, you could make a small case for "8-bit systems" and "16-bit systems" being named somewhat correctly. These were primarily 2D sprite-bases systems. As such, a lot of what you could do was determined by how fast you could shuttle data around the system. The jump from "8-bit" to "16-bit" doubled the system bus size, and the CPUs in those systems could move information in bigger chunks (and, as it happened, faster as well). With 3D systems, it's a whole new ballgame. The important thing is rapidly performing lots of floating-point calculations. This is usually measured by FLOPS (floating-point operations per second).

IMO, the only way to deal with this mess is to be excruciatingly exact and thorough when describing a system's features and components. Otherwise we aren't even speaking the same language.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. If you have any questions or would like to discuss things further, be my guest.

[Kamino]

Nobody knows until we get there. Remember when Bill Gates said 64k of RAM is all we would need (correct me if I've misquoted)? Nobody knows what's going to happen, or what things will be like in the future. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

640k, the conventional memory of dos

[Aswald]

But what will such consoles DO that we haven't seen before? Souped-up versions of games we already have?

Will they at least be backwardly compatible?

[Ed Oscuro]

By the same logic Sega could have touted the Genesis as a "24-bit" system since it had the Master System chips in it too.
It had a Z-80 for sound, but that's not "the Master System chips," exactly. Still needed a Power Base Converter (or equivalent) to play "Sega Power Base" games. I'm in agreement with your point though.

[Gemini-Phoenix]

But what will such consoles DO that we haven't seen before? Souped-up versions of games we already have?

Will they at least be backwardly compatible?

This is exactly what I was trying to get at. If the newer consoles are still 128bit, then what is the point? Ok, they may be faster, but at the endof the day, it's only as good as the code that it processes...


And if this "bit" system isn't such a big deal, then why the hell do I have "16 BIT" plastered all over the front of my Mega Drive in massive lettering?


Come to think of it, I think the DreamCast was the last console I heard being referred to as "128bit" - Everyone seems to have forgotten the 32bit wars of the eary 90's now it seems, and no one cares about how many a console has...


Also, my Jaguar has "64 - BIT" all over the box, so they obviously thought it was a good marketing ploy...

[Aswald]

It just seems that the obsession with "technology" (I hear that word at least 5 times/commercial break) has overshadowed the importance of the games themselves. If I own an X-Box, and someone tries to sell me a 128-bit console, my question would be "what can this do that my X-Box can't, in any practical sense?"

Back in the early 1980s, we had a saying- 5200 owners like to point to the tech-specs, while CV owners point to the games themselves. We didn't care if the 5200 was technically superior (which was in itself questionable), we just wanted to know which one was more fun. And numerous games, especially Newcoleco and Opcode games, have proven that it isn't so much WHAT you have, but how you use it. Just compare Opcode's version of Pac-Man on the CV to the version on the technically superior NES.

[halbert]

'Bits' refers to how wide the system bus is. Think of it as a water pipe. The wider it is, the more water can flow (data), but if you have a narrow pipe and a hi-tech pump, you can move the same amount of water through.

The consoles are so fast now that having a wider bus really doesn't make much of a difference right now.

Is 128 the final frontier? Uh, it does the job right now, but I am positive that in the near future, it will be surpassed.

EDIT: Reading pages 2 and 3 is a good idea, sorry for the redundancy. :embarrassed:

[Wavelflack]

"You can _not_ have a 4-bit or 2-bit processor"

I thought Motorola or intel had a 4 bit chip in the 70's. I'm pretty sure I remember that right. Used in some calculator. And Pong was just analog circuitry, eventually incorporated into an IC, not CPU driven. You can call it "no bit".

[Cantaloup]

This is exactly what I was trying to get at. If the newer consoles are still 128bit, then what is the point? Ok, they may be faster, but at the endof the day, it's only as good as the code that it processes...

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If you're asking: "What will newer consoles do better than current ones?", you might want to check out this thread about the PS3:

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46722

Basically more realism (or better frame rate) and HDTV support would be my guess. So nothing revolutionary, but an evolutionary improvement over what we have now.

If you're asking: "What new hardware advances will new consoles employ to make them faster?", it is hard to say exactly since the various companies like to keep that under wraps. But it will probably involve adding hardware parralelism. As times goes on, transistors can be made smaller and smaller, and we can put more of them on a chip.

There is a lot of stuff you can do to improve performance instead of increasing "bit size" (however you define it): pipelining, superscalar architecture, multiple processor architectures, better caching, faster buses, faster memory, etc.


And if this "bit" system isn't such a big deal, then why the hell do I have "16 BIT" plastered all over the front of my Mega Drive in massive lettering?

One word: marketing. It was a way to differentiate these systems from the previous generation.



"You can _not_ have a 4-bit or 2-bit processor"

I thought Motorola or intel had a 4 bit chip in the 70's. I'm pretty sure I remember that right. Used in some calculator.

You're correct. You're probably thinking of the Intel 4004. The original poster's statement is incorrect. The only thing "magic" about 8-bits is it is the smallest power of 2 that can conveniently represent all the symbols for the alphabet, numerals, punctuation, and so forth.

[bargora]

Now can we please direct the conversation to the most important aspect of modern console bit measurement? You know of course that I mean the naughty bits.

[Icarus Moonsight]

LOL Naughty Bits LOL
Bad Bits... No pudding for you :angry:

To clairify what a bit even is I submit;
A bit is a unit of measuring data, the bit being a 0 or 1 (on or off). Yup that's right... binary (or base 2 number system) Whoo Hoo!
A 8-bit data stream looks like this - 00101100
A 32-bit stream looks like this - 00110110101100101101110110010011
Now all those 0's and 1's are very hard to read and not very effecient when a human has to address the data.

Enter hexidecimal (base 16 number system). Hex can express 4 bits of data as one character, a byte.
00101100 in binary is expressed in Hex as 2C. Much easier to read and understand. Since 4 bits make a byte it's rather easy to translate binary to hex and vice versa.

Binary - Hex

0001 - 1
0010 - 2
0011 - 3
0100 - 4
0101 - 5
0110 - 6
0111 - 7
1000 - 8
1001 - 9
1010 - A
1011 - B
1100 - C
1101 - D
1110 - E
1111 - F

I'm fairly sure most people posting here has used some sort of game enhancer/cheating device like the game genie or gameshark. The "codes" you enter into such a device is actually hex format data, pretty sweet huh?

So what do bits mean in gaming terms? Not much really, since all computer like devices utilize bits. It comes down to the design of the system. Let's all hope that they tend to shy away from the "naughty bits". LOL

[Gemini-Phoenix]

But why do (Did) they make such a big fuss about it?

Why do we class the DreamCast, PS2, Xbox, and GameCube together, and the PSone, Saturn, 32X, 3DO, CDi, Amiga32, GBA, Ngage Etc all together?

What do the games companies mean when they state a certain console is "128bit" or "16bit"?

[goatdan]

But why do (Did) they make such a big fuss about it?

Simple - marketing. They could convince the market that one way was vastly better than another way.


Why do we class the DreamCast, PS2, Xbox, and GameCube together, and the PSone, Saturn, 32X, 3DO, CDi, Amiga32, GBA, Ngage Etc all together?

I don't know if I would classify the Ngage as much of anything yet ;)

Seriously though, from a collectors standpoint it is nice to be able to group things around some sort of number. Until recently, bits made the most sense as you had the "classics" (pre-NES stuff), 8-bit (NES, SMS), 16-bit (Geni, TG16, SNES), 32-bit (Saturn, PSX) and so on. Now, it doesn't make sense to do so though. Era's might be a better way to look at things, or what a system did. Personally, I group via things they did and not power.


What do the games companies mean when they state a certain console is "128bit" or "16bit"?

They mean "buy our console because it has 112 more bits than a 16 bit console! (Hopefully, no one realizes that doesn't mean much of anything...) BIGGER IS BETTER!"

And I do apologize about wrongly stating that there were no 4-bit processors before. I was wrong about that -- although none were used in any consoles.

[YoshiM]

Nobody knows until we get there. Remember when Bill Gates said 64k of RAM is all we would need (correct me if I've misquoted)? Nobody knows what's going to happen, or what things will be like in the future. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.

640k, the conventional memory of dos

Actually, according to Wired (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,1484,00.html), the 640K quote is rumor and not fact. At most it was the usual media hack n' paste of quotes. Or Bill could just be covering up a verbal blunder. Or he's stark raving mad.