SNES really 8-bit, Jaguar as a matter of fact, 64 bit.......

[tom]

put the record straight, you tech people.

[50TBRD]

If I remember right, the SNES did have a 16 bit capability but a lot of games were 8 bit or even 4 bit. Its the same with the NES, capable of 8 bit but had a lot of 4 bit and 2 bit games. The old Nintendo Powers used to tell you what the true number of bits were for each game. Though i haven't broken any of the out in quite a while. I'll check them and post some that suprise me.

[tom]

BTW, I was kidding about the Jaguar. Of course it's 64-bit.

[LucidDefender]

If I remember right, the SNES did have a 16 bit capability but a lot of games were 8 bit or even 4 bit. Its the same with the NES, capable of 8 bit but had a lot of 4 bit and 2 bit games. The old Nintendo Powers used to tell you what the true number of bits were for each game. Though i haven't broken any of the out in quite a while. I'll check them and post some that suprise me.

You're confusing the bit processing ability of the processor contained in the console, vs the amount of the data stored on the cartridge. Everyone NES game ran on the 8-bit 6502 processor. Cartirdge capacities varied however, depending on the complexity of the game, mapper used, compression used, etc.

The Intellivision was a 16 bit console. Does that make it more powerful than the NES? The Jaguar, whether 32 bits or 64 bits isn't nearly as powerful as the playstation or N64. Clockspeed, the type of processor used, and the supporting video and sound processors all play in a role in how powerful a console is. Bits don't mean anything; It was just something marketing people decided to make into something for the uninformed consumer.

[Pico956]

If I remember right, the SNES did have a 16 bit capability but a lot of games were 8 bit or even 4 bit. Its the same with the NES, capable of 8 bit but had a lot of 4 bit and 2 bit games. The old Nintendo Powers used to tell you what the true number of bits were for each game. Though i haven't broken any of the out in quite a while. I'll check them and post some that suprise me.

You're confusing the bit processing ability of the processor contained in the console, vs the amount of the data stored on the cartridge. Everyone NES game ran on the 8-bit 6502 processor. Cartirdge capacities varied however, depending on the complexity of the game, mapper used, compression used, etc.

The Intellivision was a 16 bit console. Does that make it more powerful than the NES? The Jaguar, whether 32 bits or 64 bits isn't nearly as powerful as the playstation or N64. Clockspeed, the type of processor used, and the supporting video and sound processors all play in a role in how powerful a console is. Bits don't mean anything; It was just something marketing people decided to make into something for the uninformed consumer.

Just like mega pixles ona digital camera. You can havea 7mp camera and still have photos look like arse. It's all a matter of the speed and the size of the lense (and of course other factors).

[vulcanjedi]

Bits in the console terms usually refer to the width of the main address bus. But when the PC Engine came out they brought up the fact that is has a 16 bit grafix bus even though it only has an 8 bit processor.

Apple computers, Atari 2600's, NES's all use a basic 6502 eight bit processor. Ok the NES is slightly modified.

The SNES is true 16 bit. But customized so heavy it has to run super slow.

The Sega Master system uses a Z80 processor. That is an 8 bit processor with 16 bit memory addressing.

And the Genesis has both a Z80 and a 68000 so it has both an 8 bit and 16 bit processor.

And by the way the Jaguar is backwards in the graphics vs processor specs. It uses a 32 bit graphics processor but has two rather limited 64 bit RISC processors handling everything.

just my 2 cents.
vj

[blue lander]

Bits in the console terms usually refer to the width of the main address bus.

Data bus, not address bus. The 6502 has a 16 bit address bus, 8 bit data bus. The 6507 in the 2600 is only 12 bits (I think)



The SNES is true 16 bit. But customized so heavy it has to run super slow.

The SNES runs super slow because it's just a super slow CPU. The 65816 is basically just a 16 bit version of the 6502. There's only a few new commands (multiplies and divides for instance) otherwise it's just a slightly faster 6502 that can manipulate 16 bit numbers.



And by the way the Jaguar is backwards in the graphics vs processor specs. It uses a 32 bit graphics processor but has two rather limited 64 bit RISC processors handling everything.


The main CPU in the Jaguar is just a plain old 16 bit 68000. I don't recall the specifics, but I think one portion of one of the graphics chips handles 64 bit data (perhaps just internally), and that's how Atari got away with calling it a 64 bit system.

[tom]

According to a letter from an American guy in Retro Gamer issue 11, the 65C816 used in Apple II GS (and according to RG, used in SNES) has internal 16 bit architecture but communicates to the rest of the world in 8-bit. Basically he called the IIGS 8-bit, making comparisons with ST and Amiga being called 16 bit (despite also having 32 bit architecture), hence the SNES is more 8-bit than 16 bit.

[Anthony1]

I can't tell you anything from a technical standpoint, but I personally consider the Jaguar to be at a 16-bit level. I don't consider it to be a "true" 32-bit or 64-bit machine. I think of it as a 16 bit machine with some added special effects. Remember that it started out as the Panther (a 16-bit system) and was later changed to the Jaguar (supposedly 64 bit). I'm thinking that in that change over to Jaguar, alot of the Panther was still left in it.


If you look at games like Bubsy and NBA Jam and Brutal Sports Football and Double Dragon V: The Shadow Falls and Pitfall and Raiden and Zool 2, it seems very much like a 16-bit system. The Jag does have tremendous color, but those games can easily pass as SNES games to somebody that isn't really familar with the Jag.

[Memnon]

A lot of SNES and Genesis games were advertised as having 24 'Megs' (such as SFII:CE). Is this the same thing as 'bits'?

[Push Upstairs]

"Megs" were cartridge memory size.

[j_factor]

The Jaguar's 68000 is in no way its main CPU. I think it's perfectly reasonable to call Jaguar a 64-bit system because two of its processors are 64-bit, the GPU can access 64 bits of data, and it uses a 64-bit memory architecture. I don't think it's fair or even remotely accurate to call it a 16-bit system just because its games seem at "16-bit level". 'Bittage' has little if anything to do with how advanced the games are. I mean, Xbox has better graphics than PS2, but it's still a 32-bit machine.

[Ed Oscuro]

"Megs" were cartridge memory size.
In bits.

For example, the Xbox 360 has 512 MB (Megabytes) of RAM (and any amount of that can be used as texture memory, unlike the PS3, but I'm getting off-track here...), which is actually 4096 Mb (Megabits). If Microsoft used this disingenuous labelling format (I think Sony's PlayStation was the first console to do away with it in reference to machine specs as well as media format size), they would go with the eightfold-improved number.

It seems that it was more common in the past for the program to do a lot of individual pushing of bits (lots of true-false statements in the old games, and using a whole byte woulda been wasteful). Consoles (and PCs) still have the ability to do single bit operations (including the classic ones like SHL, shift all the bytes left and wrap one around to the far right, or ROL for Rotate Left, etc.) but from what I can tell multi-bit operations (not just 1 bit, but maybe three or so) are mostly reserved for video programming (and there I believe many of the multi- or single-bit operations are done because they're quick, not because they save space). It's a balancing act between packing more data into a small space, and working on data quickly (on some architectures you're wasting time if you pull one bit instead of a whole byte).

Oh yeah, the 16 or 32 or 64 bit debate: rofl

[tom]

The old Genesis and SNES carts were measured in 'bits' to sound cool, eg 8 Mbit game = 1 Mbyte, 16 MBit game = 2 Mbyte and so on.

[chrisbid]

as mentioned, bits were an attempt to oversimplify specs for consumers to show the power of a machine. in the 80's, computers were marketed by how much RAM they had, in the 90's they switched to MHz, and the example was already given about megapixels in a digital camera.

[tom]

Actually, I just remembered Retro Gamer issue 26, all the facts about the Jaguar being a real 64 bit console.

So the case is settled,
the SNES is more 8 bit than 16 bit, whilst the Jaguar is a real 64 bit console.

Thanks for listening guys.

[j_factor]

The old Genesis and SNES carts were measured in 'bits' to sound cool, eg 8 Mbit game = 1 Mbyte, 16 MBit game = 2 Mbyte and so on.

Megs (as opposed to using MB) weren't just to sound cool. It comes from the Master System days when Sega used "the mega cartridge" to refer to their 1Mb games (and "the two-mega cartridge"). It only made sense to keep going by megs, especially considering the early Genesis games were mostly 4 meg (Phantasy Star 2 was 6 meg). In 1989 that was actually quite big. The first 8 meg (or 1 MB) cart was Strider, and it wouldn't have made much sense to switch at that point. NEC started showing their games' sizes in megs to show that their little hucards were actually of comparable size to Genesis cartridges. Not every game was a multiple of 8; for example, there were lots of 12 meg games.

[j_factor]

(I think Sony's PlayStation was the first console to do away with it in reference to machine specs as well as media format size)

Sega CD (and I think Turbo CD) was advertised as its games being on 650MB discs. They never used however many bits that is. Machine specs such as RAM were always measured in bytes, as far as I know. Genesis, for example, has 64KB of main RAM, another 64KB of video RAM, and 8KB of sound RAM. These are all in kilobytes, not bits. Only processors themselves are given bits.

[blue lander]

According to a letter from an American guy in Retro Gamer issue 11, the 65C816 used in Apple II GS (and according to RG, used in SNES) has internal 16 bit architecture but communicates to the rest of the world in 8-bit. Basically he called the IIGS 8-bit, making comparisons with ST and Amiga being called 16 bit (despite also having 32 bit architecture), hence the SNES is more 8-bit than 16 bit.

That's really weak reasoning on his part, then. If that was true, the original IBM PC is actually an 8 bit system since the 8088 used an 8 bit data bus as well.

[Memnon]

(I think Sony's PlayStation was the first console to do away with it in reference to machine specs as well as media format size)

Sega CD (and I think Turbo CD) was advertised as its games being on 650MB discs.

In the 3/95 issue of Game Players, the Jaguar CD is advertised as "The most powerful game system in the world just got a 790 Meg tune-up", and in the description it says "It's like attaching an atom bomb to an F-14". It seemed like a very powerful add-on the way they worded it, in a huge number of 'Megs'.

[blue lander]

The Jaguar's 68000 is in no way its main CPU.

The 68k is the only general purpose processor in the system. There's no way it can be anything other than the main CPU, since the rest of the chips are just GPUs and DSPs. Calling the Jaguar a 64 bit system because some of the support chips are 64 bits is a little like calling the Genesis an 8 bit system because it has a z80 for a sound processor.

Personally, since there's no real rule for determining how many "bits" a system is and since it's meaningless as a way of measuring the capabilities of a system anyways, I don't really care either way. It's just marketing nonsense to make console A look more powerful than console B.

[j_factor]

The Jaguar's 68000 is in no way its main CPU.

The 68k is the only general purpose processor in the system. There's no way it can be anything other than the main CPU, since the rest of the chips are just GPUs and DSPs.

I dunno, I've always thought of it as the control processor. Jaguar doesn't have a "main" CPU, IMO.

[boatofcar]

Actually, I just remembered Retro Gamer issue 26, all the facts about the Jaguar being a real 64 bit console.

So the case is settled,
the SNES is more 8 bit than 16 bit, whilst the Jaguar is a real 64 bit console.

Thanks for listening guys.

So you're basing your whole argument on two letters to Retro Gamer Magazine. That's pretty weak.

[tom]

Works for me :-)

[Ed Oscuro]

(I think Sony's PlayStation was the first console to do away with it in reference to machine specs as well as media format size)
Sega CD (and I think Turbo CD) was advertised as its games being on 650MB discs.
Could be. I haven't seen anything on the packages themselves, however.


In the 3/95 issue of Game Players, the Jaguar CD is advertised as "The most powerful game system in the world just got a 790 Meg tune-up", and in the description it says "It's like attaching an atom bomb to an F-14". It seemed like a very powerful add-on the way they worded it, in a huge number of 'Megs'.
Well, I haven't seen any early advertising for the PlayStation, but that console was released in Japan months before that GP ad you speak of.

[Ed Oscuro]

The old Genesis and SNES carts were measured in 'bits' to sound cool, eg 8 Mbit game = 1 Mbyte, 16 MBit game = 2 Mbyte and so on.

Megs (as opposed to using MB) weren't just to sound cool. It comes from the Master System days when Sega used "the mega cartridge" to refer to their 1Mb games (and "the two-mega cartridge"). It only made sense to keep going by megs, especially considering the early Genesis games were mostly 4 meg (Phantasy Star 2 was 6 meg). In 1989 that was actually quite big. The first 8 meg (or 1 MB) cart was Strider, and it wouldn't have made much sense to switch at that point. NEC started showing their games' sizes in megs to show that their little hucards were actually of comparable size to Genesis cartridges. Not every game was a multiple of 8; for example, there were lots of 12 meg games.
Nah, Tom has it right in this case.

Multiply all those numbers by 1024, and then divide by eight. Suddenly 4 meg (512K) seems awfully pathetic at a time when 360K double density floppies (which could hold 720K if both sides were used) were the norm.

[idrougge]

The old Genesis and SNES carts were measured in 'bits' to sound cool, eg 8 Mbit game = 1 Mbyte, 16 MBit game = 2 Mbyte and so on.

It's not only that, it's because memory is usually mentioned in bits. Since you don't know how wide the bus the memory is going to be connected to is, you sell them in bits, not bytes. This was particularly important in older times, when computers usually used "words", which could have lengths up to 36 bits.

[blue lander]

Even if you have a 32 bit wide bus, you still measure the memory in megabytes, at least from the consumer perspective. Your PC probably has a 32 bit bus, but you still count how much memory you have in megabytes, not in mega-32-bit-words or whatever. Since DEC stopped making 12 and 36 bit machines back in the 70's, it's not really as important to differentiate between the two. From the technical side, though you do specify a chip's memory capacity like 4 megs x 1 x 8 or x 16 or however wide the chip is. But to be honest, I sincerely doubt there's any reason for the whole megabit thing other than inflating the cartridge size. If Sega brags that their latest game is 500 kilobytes, people who use PCs are going to know that's less than a floppy disk holds and not be terribly impressed. 4 Megs sounds much more impressive.