Which generation does the Dreamcast belong to?

[boatofcar]

Now that we've pretty much see nthe extent of the hardware capabilites of the GameCube, Xbox, and the PS2, do you think that the Dreamcast fits in more with the current generation of consoles or more with the Playstation, Saturn, and N64?

[machine.slave]

Well, it's a 128-bit system, so I'd say the GCN/PS2/XB category fits the bill. In fact, in many ways I think games look better on it than the PS2, mainly because of the AA capabilities that Sony kind of overlooked (which makes their games look REALLY dated, IMO).

[goatdan]

It sorta has to go with the current gen, because it would be odd to put it in the same generation as the Saturn. Obviously, Sega wanted to upgrade the power of the Saturn.

That, and it came out nearly five years after the Playstation, which is the approximate cycle of new hardware.

Even though it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the "now" systems, it is a current gen system in my opinion.

[Pantechnicon]

Unquestionably Dreamcast is a "current gen" system. 128-bit processor, advanced graphic chipsets and online play (IMHO, the online aspect alone qualifies DC as a current-gen system). The VMU was a highly innovative idea which Gamecube strives for with GBA compatibility.

Launched too soon, loved too little.

<--Gaze lovingly at my item.

[Gapporin]

It depends on how you look at it.

Chronologically speaking (which is the way I view it), it should be in the PS1/N64 generation.

Technologically speaking, it should be in the PS2/GCN/XBox generation.

It's quite the anomaly in the videogaming world. Where everything else tends to group together, the DC refuses to be classified.

[Gzilla23]

I think its in the current generation of consoles. Frankly I wish support was still there for it. It was a quality system that I still enjoy a lot.

[MegaDrive20XX]

Well since it was only a year apart from the PS2 itself, it would have to sit nicely within the next-gen department.

Which reminds me, I will kick that GameStop manager in the teeth the next time I see him, especially when he calls Dreamcast "Old School" :angry:

[fishsandwich]

Indeed, I believe it belongs right next to the PS2. It can alomost match the power of the pS2 in some respects, and even exceeds it in terms of lighting effects and image clarity.

Whoever said the Dreamcast is a souped-up N64 is a dullard.

Cheers

:D

[BigGeorgeJohnson]

Which reminds me, I will kick that GameStop manager in the teeth the next time I see him, especially when he calls Dreamcast "Old School" :angry:


I will kick him in the balls so hard that I will create a vagina! LOL


Back on topic, the Dreamcast is the best system of this gen.

[starchildskiss78]

Oh so many posts ring true. The Dreamcast was ahead of it's time and it's a shame that it didn't get the chance to have a full production cycle. I got mine late (even though I wanted one BADLY on launch day) and as a result missed out on some stuff. (Which I am getting little by litte!) Ironically the Dreamcast is the last "new" system I own. (Have not bothered with PS2, GCN, or X-Box. Maybe when they're "last gen" systems I'll think about it!)

[tholly]

no matter how you look at it, it really belongs in the current gen category

chronologically, it is too new to be with the n64 category...its very close to the release of the ps2...it just happens to be the 1st system released in the new generation

powerwise it is on par with any of the current systems, so throwing it in with the previous gen would be incorrect

[digitalpress]

I don't understand how 7 people could say it belongs in the PS1/N64 category. Even chronologically it doesn't fit in there.

The system was the first of THIS generation, just a year ahead of PS2 and THREE years after the N64. NOTHING about the Dreamcast is previous generation, from the processer to the built-in modem.

[anagrama]

Notice how none of those 7 (edit: now 8) have actually posted in the thread...

[machine.slave]

Yeah, I don't understand those 8 votes... the DC is current gen, end of discussion. Saying it belongs in the N64 category is like saying the Jaguar belongs in the SNES/Genesis category.

[slip81]

Definately belongs to the PS2 generation. The Saturn was Sega's PSX generation console.

[CreamSoda]

It's part of this generation(the 128 Bit PS2/Xbox/Gamecube Generation).

Just like Saturn is part of the 32 Bit PS1/N64 Generation.

;)

[mark1bdi]

Me I will never forget how amazing Crazy Taxi was the first time I saw it. It was like really having an arcade machine at home. I think it is the first time I have seen a console, been impressed and bought one in one single action. £129 seemed like a bargain. I would have probably paid £300.

It is also the first system I wanted all the games for. Although somewhere around 200 i got distracted by the glut of quality Gamecube, XBX and Ps2 games being released....

:( I'm going to power up mine now........ and play..... Ikaruga, god that is an amazing game....

[josekortez]

It's the bridge between both gens, in a class all its own.

Also, I second mark about that Crazy Taxi thing, although NBA Showtime was the first official Dreamcast game I ever bought.

[NintendoMan]

I want to say this generation but had to vote for the previous gen.

[jajaja]

When I think of Dreamcast it reminds me of the PSX days, so I voted PSX generation, eventho its probly better hardware wise than a PSX.

[njiska]

First of all. 128-bit processor my ass. 128-bit graphics engine does not equal 128-bit processor. the SH4 is a 32-bit processor.

Second of all The DC is clearly in a generation of it's own. It has elements of both the current generation and the previous one.

Cool graphics, it's still CD based. The Dreamcast is an outcast. It doesn't run with the mainstream crowds. If you really want to stick it in a generation you'll have to stick it in a generation with the PS2 and then put the GC and xbox in the next gen.

[jdc]

I'm staring at my Dreamcast right now.......and I'm gonna say that it was the first of the current-gen systems. Many, many people passed this system up in favor of buying a brand new DualShock 9001 PSX because they were wary of the future of the whole 128 bit thing.

It's the N64 that has me baffled. It isn't REALLY last gen.....and it isn't this gen either. It's a weirdo unto itself. The red-headed stepchild caught in the middle, which is why I love the thing so much. ;)

[Anthony1]

I can't understand why this is even a question or an argument to debate over.

The Dreamcast clearly is with the PS2, Cube & XBOX. The fact that it died an early violent premature death has nothing to do with it.

It just happened to be the first system of this generation out of the blocks, only 1 year ahead of the PS2 and 2 years head of XBOX and Cube, and it definitely belongs in the current generation.

It's just weird to think of it that way, because it's been dead for quite some time now, and retail doesn't carry it, and they almost pretend like it never existed.

But without question it belongs with the current Gen systems and anybody that thinks differently should splash some cold water in their face!!

[CullJeff]

The dreamcast is in a league of it's own. Why oh why did it have to get it's ass kicked.

[RetroYoungen]

I think its in the current generation of consoles. Frankly I wish support was still there for it. It was a quality system that I still enjoy a lot.

Amen, my brother. Amen.

It's a current gen console, and it's sad that this question is even brought up. Not because it's a bad question or anything, far from it, but because it really didn't get the support and the numbers that it deserved. If new games were still being released for it, that would be beautiful, but unfortunately it was not to be.

Damn.

[Anthony1]

It's the N64 that has me baffled. It isn't REALLY last gen.....and it isn't this gen either. It's a weirdo unto itself. The red-headed stepchild caught in the middle, which is why I love the thing so much. ;)


The N64 is definitely part of the PSone and Saturn generation. Just because it was the last one released during that era, doesn't mean that it doesn't belong in that era.

Here is how I look at the gaming era's since the NES


16 Bit Era

TurboGrafx-16 (yes it's more of a 8 bit system on crack, but I still put it in this era, it was released in U.S. in 1989 along with the Genesis)
Sega Genesis
Neo-Geo (I guess technically it's 24 bit or something like that, but it still belongs in the 16 bit era)
Super Nintendo
Sega CD
TurboDuo

Pre 32 Bit Exploratory Era

CD-I
Atari Jaguar ( 64 bits? please, I almost consider it a SNES on crack)
3DO
Sega 32X
Neo-Geo CD


32 bit/ 64 bit Era

Sega Saturn
Sony Playstation
Nintendo 64


128 bit Era

Dreamcast
Playstation 2
XBOX
GameCube

[fishsandwich]

When I think of Dreamcast it reminds me of the PSX days, so I voted PSX generation, eventho its probly better hardware wise than a PSX.

PROBABLY (or probly) better hardware? Do you have a TV?

:hmm:

[fishsandwich]

It's the N64 that has me baffled. It isn't REALLY last gen.....and it isn't this gen either. It's a weirdo unto itself. The red-headed stepchild caught in the middle, which is why I love the thing so much. ;)


The N64 is definitely part of the PSone and Saturn generation. Just because it was the last one released during that era, doesn't mean that it doesn't belong in that era.

Here is how I look at the gaming era's since the NES


16 Bit Era

TurboGrafx-16 (yes it's more of a 8 bit system on crack, but I still put it in this era, it was released in U.S. in 1989 along with the Genesis)
Sega Genesis
Neo-Geo (I guess technically it's 24 bit or something like that, but it still belongs in the 16 bit era)
Super Nintendo
Sega CD
TurboDuo

Pre 32 Bit Exploratory Era

CD-I
Atari Jaguar ( 64 bits? please, I almost consider it a SNES on crack)
3DO
Sega 32X
Neo-Geo CD


32 bit/ 64 bit Era

Sega Saturn
Sony Playstation
Nintendo 64


128 bit Era

Dreamcast
Playstation 2
XBOX
GameCube

I think you're list is almost spot-on, except for...

Neo-Geo CD... it's in the same class as the regular Neo-Geo, just with a CD drive and some serious loading times.

CD-I... it has the same CPU as the Genesis... it just has a CD drive and higher resolution than a Sega CD. It can't do polygons worth a crap, unlike the others of that generation.

Cheers

:D

[goatdan]

It's the N64 that has me baffled. It isn't REALLY last gen.....and it isn't this gen either. It's a weirdo unto itself. The red-headed stepchild caught in the middle, which is why I love the thing so much. ;)


The N64 is definitely part of the PSone and Saturn generation. Just because it was the last one released during that era, doesn't mean that it doesn't belong in that era.

Here is how I look at the gaming era's since the NES


16 Bit Era

TurboGrafx-16 (yes it's more of a 8 bit system on crack, but I still put it in this era, it was released in U.S. in 1989 along with the Genesis)
Sega Genesis
Neo-Geo (I guess technically it's 24 bit or something like that, but it still belongs in the 16 bit era)
Super Nintendo
Sega CD
TurboDuo

Pre 32 Bit Exploratory Era

CD-I
Atari Jaguar ( 64 bits? please, I almost consider it a SNES on crack)
3DO
Sega 32X
Neo-Geo CD


32 bit/ 64 bit Era

Sega Saturn
Sony Playstation
Nintendo 64


128 bit Era

Dreamcast
Playstation 2
XBOX
GameCube

You can't and shouldn't classify by bits. It is crazy.

The Xbox is 32 bit. The Jaguar is 64 bit. The Intellivision is 16 bit. The Turbografx is 8 bit. It has to do with the bus size of the processors they use, not the speed they go, the graphics they display or anything else. Otherwise, the Jaguar should PWN the Xbox, and the Dreamcast should be four times as powerful.

Classifying as bits is a really horrible way to try to classify things.

All of the computers I've ever owned have been 32 bit. That doesn't mean that my P4 2.4 GHz processor I currently have (with Nvidia 128 bit 5700 graphics card) doesn't wipe the floor with my last P2 400 MHz on-board graphics computer. That thing couldn't play Doom 3. This one gets about 30 frames a second.

Sorry for the mini-detour, I just hate having things classified like this, and we've been down this road a million times before. The Jaguar is 64 bits. The Xbox is 32 bits. That doesn't change anything except perhaps the size of either of their ePenises -- the Xbox still graphically wipes the floor with the Jaguar.

[Moose]

I'd like to say that the DC fits into a category of its own. I think it fits more as a transitional system, where the technology was growing but the marketing for that technology was only catching up. Sure it lead the way for the newest generation, but it came before it like a father more than a brother or cousin.

[Fuyukaze]

I consider it just as next gen as any of the curent systems. While its not as powerfull as any of the big 3, it was released within less then 2 years from the last of them. Its power was arguably better then the PS2 for its price, and was generaly more cutting edge as well. I do wish it had lasted, as I think there were so many great games that could and should have been released for it, but all the bitching and whining and crying I could do will never change how things went. Atleast I can look at both my systems and remember how fun it was when I got my first one, and should I feel like it, break a game out and play it when ever I feel like it.

[Frankie23]

Cool graphics, it's still CD based. The Dreamcast is an outcast.

The Dreamcast was not CD-based. It used GD-Roms, a proprietary media, which had approximately the same capacity as a Gamecube disc, albeit on 5" media as opposed to 3".

It's a silly question though, personally. The Saturn was equivalent to the PSX, and the Dreamcast was intended to compete against the PS2. Sega were trying to get an early start on the new gneration, but they're still in it. Sega pulled the plug early, but the Dreamcast is still a "current gen" console.

[njiska]

Cool graphics, it's still CD based. The Dreamcast is an outcast.

The Dreamcast was not CD-based. It used GD-Roms, a proprietary media, which had approximately the same capacity as a Gamecube disc, albeit on 5" media as opposed to 3".

It's a silly question though, personally. The Saturn was equivalent to the PSX, and the Dreamcast was intended to compete against the PS2. Sega were trying to get an early start on the new gneration, but they're still in it. Sega pulled the plug early, but the Dreamcast is still a "current gen" console.

True the DC did use GD-ROMS, that was a mistake on my part, however the point i was trying to make was the small storage media. Space wise the GD-rom is closer to a cd then DVD (1GB as oppossed to the 1.5GB on the GC.) and it's not often you find a game that uses the max GD-rom space, even if it is a multi-disc game.


You can't and shouldn't classify by bits. It is crazy.

The Xbox is 32 bit. The Jaguar is 64 bit. The Intellivision is 16 bit. The Turbografx is 8 bit. It has to do with the bus size of the processors they use, not the speed they go, the graphics they display or anything else. Otherwise, the Jaguar should PWN the Xbox, and the Dreamcast should be four times as powerful.

Classifying as bits is a really horrible way to try to classify things.

Ok dan how does this sound.

8-Bit Generation {Nes, SMS}
16-Bit generation {SNES, Genesis, Turbo Duo, Super CD, 32X, Sega CD, Neo-Geo, Neo-Geo CD} - Because those are widely excepted across the gaming generation.

The CD Generation {3DO, PSX, Saturn, N64, CDI?} - Because It was the major innovation that came out of the generation.

For the next gen you have three options:

The DC Generation {DC} - It's clearly in a generation all it's own.

And

The DVD Generation {PS2, GC, XBOX} - Because of the media type.

Or

The Online Generation {Xbox, PS2, GC, DC} - Online play has truely defined this generation and even though the GC was devoid of almost any online games, it was still supported by some.

and finally

The High-Def generation {Xbox 360, PS3, Revolution} - Maybe it's because there's such a focus on graphics or maybe it's because of J. Allard, but i think HD will define the next generation.

I think these names sound a hell of alot better then doubling some arbitary bit number that some marketing exec. decided sounded good. We use 32-bit processors and 32-bit (or less, i think the GC is only 24-bit) colour. There are no 128-bit processors in any home console and the next gen will only have 64-bit processors. There is also no point to 128-bit colour since we can't even see all the colours in the 32-bit spectrum.

[goatdan]

Ok dan how does this sound.

[snip the awesome list]

I think these names sound a hell of alot better then doubling some arbitary bit number that some marketing exec. decided sounded good. We use 32-bit processors and 32-bit (or less, i think the GC is only 24-bit) colour. There are no 128-bit processors in any home console and the next gen will only have 64-bit processors. There is also no point to 128-bit colour since we can't even see all the colours in the 32-bit spectrum.

That sounds a MILLION times better.

By the way, there are 128-bit processors in home game consoles, but they usually aren't the main processor. The Dreamcast has a 128-bit graphics card in it, although it's main processor is only 64-bit.

The Emotion Engine of the PS2 is also a 128-bit processor.

The GameCube is debateable, as the internal processor has weird limits on the data that can be passed back and forth (much like the Jaguar), but it is also essentially a 128-bit processor.

It doesn't make sense to use these to classify though, because as was already noted the 32-bit at the max Xbox is graphically superior to all of the above thanks to the enhanced processor speed and RAM. If we had to classify by something numerical (although I MUCH prefer the one you just made), I'd suggest the speed of the main CPU processor, which would give us:

DC - 200 MHz
PS2 - 300 MHz
GameCube - 485 MHz
Xbox - 733 MHz

And just to demonstrate how well this aligns the actual power of 3D systems:

3DO - 12.5 MHz
32X - 23 MHz
Jaguar - 26.6 MHz
Saturn - 28.6MHz (2 of them running parallel)
Playstation - 33.86 MHz
Nintendo 64 - 93.75 MHz

That doesn't work so good for 2D systems though...

Intellivision - 500 KHz
2600 - 1.19 MHz
5200 - 1.78 MHz
7800 - 1.79 MHz
NES - 1.79 MHz
Colecovision - 3.58 MHz
SNES - 3.58 MHz (w/ dedicated graphics processor though, which is important)
Genesis - 8 MHz

Anyway, yes... I much like that version more :)

[Ed Oscuro]

Voted. My two cents - how can the successor to the Saturn belong to the same generation as it? Come on, Panzer Dragoon Saga wasn't THAT close to DC quality.

[machine.slave]

I think this comic says it all. :D

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=100

[njiska]

By the way, there are 128-bit processors in home game consoles, but they usually aren't the main processor. The Dreamcast has a 128-bit graphics card in it, although it's main processor is only 64-bit.

The Emotion Engine of the PS2 is also a 128-bit processor.

The GameCube is debateable, as the internal processor has weird limits on the data that can be passed back and forth (much like the Jaguar), but it is also essentially a 128-bit processor.


As usual Dan you are right the GPU's are 128-bit. I guess i wasn't thinking.



It doesn't make sense to use these to classify though, because as was already noted the 32-bit at the max Xbox is graphically superior to all of the above thanks to the enhanced processor speed and RAM. If we had to classify by something numerical (although I MUCH prefer the one you just made), I'd suggest the speed of the main CPU processor, which would give us:

[Deleted distrubingly accurate processor speed list]

Anyway, yes... I much like that version more :)

It reminds me of the old debate of which is faster a P4 or a G4 that's got a slower clock speed.

You can't determine a systems power by just one aspect. It you really want to measure it you have to average a whole bunch of factores such as CPU speed, Cache size, Memory bandwidth, System memory, GPU speed, GPU Cache size, GPU memory bandwidth, GPU memory (if seperate from the core system memory) and so on. It's too hard to group systems like that.

I just wish that the industry would decide on a naming system. My one makes sense, but since when has sense ever meant anything?

[goatdan]

It reminds me of the old debate of which is faster a P4 or a G4 that's got a slower clock speed.

You can't determine a systems power by just one aspect. It you really want to measure it you have to average a whole bunch of factores such as CPU speed, Cache size, Memory bandwidth, System memory, GPU speed, GPU Cache size, GPU memory bandwidth, GPU memory (if seperate from the core system memory) and so on. It's too hard to group systems like that.

Oh, I agree completely. I wasn't trying to say that the CPU speed was the best indicator -- because as I pointed out, for 2D the Colecovision and the SNES have an equal speed while the Genesis is over twice as fast. Obviously, that doesn't relate. It just seems to relate decently well toward the current crop of systems, and it really is the major spec that makes the Xbox look a lot more powerful.

Although making the Xbox look that much powerful is really a whole different problem, as I wouldn't peg it's graphical display power at nearly 2.5 times that of the PS2. It's just that if someone told me I had to pick the stat that made the most sense for the current generation, it would easily be CPU power for me. In fact, the only 3D system that doesn't really fall into the right place is the 3DO, because it most definitely was not half the power of the 32X. Othern than that though, I'd say the list is pretty well accurate of power.


I just wish that the industry would decide on a naming system. My one makes sense, but since when has sense ever meant anything?

The industry won't because the industry itself doesn't really care. It's people like us who sit on video game boards trying to figure out which system is the most powerful and how to best group systems together that do :) Personally, I'd be really happy if yours was adapted.

[SkiDragon]

Yeah, its unquestionable in the current generation. If it were in the last generation than Sega would have had one more generation than anyone else at the time. They are good, but not THAT good.

[sabre2922]

The Dreamcast is THIS generation.

Its sooo damn Ironic that I now have the PS2 -hyped DC killer :angry: and DC right next to eachother O_O .

I will always have a pure love/hate thing with the PS2 luv it for all the great games I can play on it but hate it for so many other reasons shoddy hardware etc.

Also the PS2 is actually 333MHz ;)

[njiska]

I just wish that the industry would decide on a naming system. My one makes sense, but since when has sense ever meant anything?

The industry won't because the industry itself doesn't really care. It's people like us who sit on video game boards trying to figure out which system is the most powerful and how to best group systems together that do :) Personally, I'd be really happy if yours was adapted.

Wow praise from Caeser. Dan you're one of the most respected DP members so i appreciate that you like my list. If you want it adapted just start using it to refer to the generations and eventually it might take. Well atleast amongst some of the gamer community.

The developer and publishers may never decide on a way to name the generations, however i wouldn't be suprised if the gaming news/magazine industry decided to come up with names someday. They seem to enjoy do things like that.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ahh, processor speeds - that doesn't work quite as well; pump the Dreamcast's processor up to Pentium IV speeds - would it work as well? Would it scale economically? It's just a better design.

I think the only real way to lump games together is by their competition; we never think of the Intellivision as "16-bit era" even though it IS 16-bit; the sub-1 MHz processor has taken care of that. The goal here is to come up with a natural classification system, and I say just use the one we always naturally have - contempraries.

[StevenH]

I think that any system should be looked at from a software point of view. If we all just looked at the the bits (and we all know how well that work for Atari with the Jaguar LOL ) thats really not the way to see the sysem as a whole.
It's how the software is used with the bits available. Dreamcast had some really fun game like Wacky Races, Seaman, Typing of the Dead. Not many other developers but SEGA really made oddball games and there in house teams always made them with the hardware in mind.

[bargora]

Generation SEXXXY

All right--what did I win?

[Ed Oscuro]

Dreamcast had some really fun game like Wacky Races, Seaman, Typing of the Dead.
Not to mention a sabotaged House of the Dead 3 :S

[XxMe2NiKxX]

There is no such thing as a 128-bit processor.

Current-gen. Hell, as it is, it's probably more powerful then a playstation 2.

[The Manimal]

If Sega hadn't pulled the plug on it, then this question wouldn't even be raised. This generation.

[sharp]

I think the discussion is quite useless I think. In power it's current generation. But anyway the comlete question is from people who want to put systems in categories. Personal I don't give a damn about which generation a system is, as long as I have some good games for the platform. And btw the DC got quite some good shooters after the end of production, oh and of course puyo puyo fever. Anyway I think the DC will be the last new console I ever bought.

Viva 2D.

[FantasiaWHT]

I honestly think it doesn't ift in either generation, which is why it failed... forced to make a choice between the two, tho, I'd say modern generation because that's where it SHOULD have fit... if they had spent a little more time on it to catch the mistakes they made, it could've done fantastically in this generation.

We're all so amazed that three consoles are concurrently succesful... can you IMAGINE how awesome the industry would've been if it had been 4?

[fishsandwich]

Ok dan how does this sound.

[snip the awesome list]

I think these names sound a hell of alot better then doubling some arbitary bit number that some marketing exec. decided sounded good. We use 32-bit processors and 32-bit (or less, i think the GC is only 24-bit) colour. There are no 128-bit processors in any home console and the next gen will only have 64-bit processors. There is also no point to 128-bit colour since we can't even see all the colours in the 32-bit spectrum.

That sounds a MILLION times better.

By the way, there are 128-bit processors in home game consoles, but they usually aren't the main processor. The Dreamcast has a 128-bit graphics card in it, although it's main processor is only 64-bit.

The Emotion Engine of the PS2 is also a 128-bit processor.

The GameCube is debateable, as the internal processor has weird limits on the data that can be passed back and forth (much like the Jaguar), but it is also essentially a 128-bit processor.

It doesn't make sense to use these to classify though, because as was already noted the 32-bit at the max Xbox is graphically superior to all of the above thanks to the enhanced processor speed and RAM. If we had to classify by something numerical (although I MUCH prefer the one you just made), I'd suggest the speed of the main CPU processor, which would give us:

DC - 200 MHz
PS2 - 300 MHz
GameCube - 485 MHz
Xbox - 733 MHz

And just to demonstrate how well this aligns the actual power of 3D systems:

3DO - 12.5 MHz
32X - 23 MHz
Jaguar - 26.6 MHz
Saturn - 28.6MHz (2 of them running parallel)
Playstation - 33.86 MHz
Nintendo 64 - 93.75 MHz

That doesn't work so good for 2D systems though...

Intellivision - 500 KHz
2600 - 1.19 MHz
5200 - 1.78 MHz
7800 - 1.79 MHz
NES - 1.79 MHz
Colecovision - 3.58 MHz
SNES - 3.58 MHz (w/ dedicated graphics processor though, which is important)
Genesis - 8 MHz

Anyway, yes... I much like that version more :)

It's a fine point, but the 32x actually has two CPU's (much like the Saturn) that both run at 23Mhz. It obviously can't compete with a Saturn in terms of performance, but DarXide came pretty close to some early Saturn games.

To say the Dreamcast is "clearly in a class of its own" (as in in some nebulous place between the N64 and the PS2) is rather silly... the Dreamcast can match and even surpass the PS2 in some areas, just as the Gamecube has an advantage over the Xbox when it comes to certain lighting effects.

That is all.

:D

[Damon Plus]

If Sega hadn't pulled the plug on it, then this question wouldn't even be raised. This generation.


*Cries and agrees* :(

[Ed Oscuro]

There is no such thing as a 128-bit processor.
Hold the phone!

[The_EniGma]

Its belonging to the ps2 era but we always compare it to the psx seeing how far ahead it was. Also one of the deaths of the DC was making cdrs readble... big mistake.

Although its still supported to today, there was some game trigun or some kind of shooter that was released recently which shows there still is pwoer in that lil machine.

Just my 2p now gimme my 1p back before i smash yer teeth :D

[goatdan]

There is no such thing as a 128-bit processor.

Next time, if you could read the replies to the thread that were above yours, it would be good. I named three 128-bit processors that have been released so far in one of my posts above yours.


It's a fine point, but the 32x actually has two CPU's (much like the Saturn) that both run at 23Mhz. It obviously can't compete with a Saturn in terms of performance, but DarXide came pretty close to some early Saturn games.

Aw crap, you're right. I missed that with the list. Like I said, it isn't perfect.


To say the Dreamcast is "clearly in a class of its own" (as in in some nebulous place between the N64 and the PS2) is rather silly... the Dreamcast can match and even surpass the PS2 in some areas, just as the Gamecube has an advantage over the Xbox when it comes to certain lighting effects.

Well, true... but then the Jaguar shouldn't be compared to anything because it is easily the most powerful 2D system that was made -- but RAM limitations and Atari's attempt to transform it into a 3D system that used texture mapping really doesn't make it look like it is.

[fishsandwich]

Well, true... but then the Jaguar shouldn't be compared to anything because it is easily the most powerful 2D system that was made -- but RAM limitations and Atari's attempt to transform it into a 3D system that used texture mapping really doesn't make it look like it is.

Would you say that the Jaguar was more powerful from a 2-D standpoint than the Saturn? The Saturn has two 32-bit CPU's and two dedicated graphics chips, including one that does nothing but background graphics (unless pushed to do other stuff.)

I've always felt that the Jaguar had a lot more potential locked inside it... I mean, most of the games don't seem to push it very hard. A lot of them are just 16-bit games that use the Jaguar's 6800 CPU and don't even utilize the graphics chips. I think that the Jaguar is capable of some pretty decent 3-D and belongs solidly in the 3DO/32x camp in terms of its polygonal capabilities.

Another .02 from my personal peanut gallery.

:D


.

[goatdan]

Would you say that the Jaguar was more powerful from a 2-D standpoint than the Saturn? The Saturn has two 32-bit CPU's and two dedicated graphics chips, including one that does nothing but background graphics (unless pushed to do other stuff.)

The Jaguar is more powerful as a 2D machine then the Saturn going just by the chips. The fact is that the Saturn had a lot more RAM, which means that it could display things much better.

I was talking with some of the programmers of the Jaguar when I was working on organizing Jagfest 2K1, and both of them that I asked said by chips it was easily the most powerful 2D system, but RAM limitations kept the games from actually showing it. Supposedly, Atari had originally planned on putting in double the RAM they ended up with, and doing so would've greatly helped the system.


I've always felt that the Jaguar had a lot more potential locked inside it... I mean, most of the games don't seem to push it very hard. A lot of them are just 16-bit games that use the Jaguar's 6800 CPU and don't even utilize the graphics chips. I think that the Jaguar is capable of some pretty decent 3-D and belongs solidly in the 3DO/32x camp in terms of its polygonal capabilities.

The problem with the Jaguar was that they thought that games like Virtua Racing were going to be the "future" of 3D gaming, so the Jaguar was made to handle high quality 2D and 3D games like that. Then, texture mapping became huge and Atari tried forcing it onto their machine instead of using the Jaguar's built-in strengths and killed it.

The Jaguar was a very powerful machine, it's just that Atari didn't want to show it in the best light.