Was Dreamcast a *true* 128-bit system? Or was it like the Atari Jaguar64 (a 32-bit system with only one minor piece 64 bit)?
Troy
Was Dreamcast a *true* 128-bit system? Or was it like the Atari Jaguar64 (a 32-bit system with only one minor piece 64 bit)?
Troy
TROY'S GAMING HISTORY
1977- Atari 2600 (primitive)
1985- Commodore=128 (8-bit)
1989- Amiga 500 (16-bit)
1991- zzzzzzzzzzz :scatter:
2002- Playstation 2 (128-bit)
I think by the time you got to systems like the Dreamcast it was impossible to really say it was a xxx bit system because of the mix and match of chips. This is what get's people rilled up in the whole Jaguar arguement (it has a 64-bit chip, but the main processors are only 32-bit). If you still want to stick with the xxx bit rating wouldn't the PS2 be a 128 bit system too?
Tempest
The Dreamcast is capable of 128-bit processing. But it has 32-bit chips as well as others. DC was originally labeled a 64-bit system back when it was called BlackBelt and Dural. I'm sure SEGA saw the future and labelled it 128-bit on purpose.
As Tempest stated, the bit-count no longer really says much, nor has it for a while. Dreamcast holds its own with all the 128-bit systems today in many ways. The PS2 is much more powerful than DC, especially when you code its vector units with low-level ASM coding, yet the PS2 has its own shortfall -- limited screen RAM. PS2 has lots of things to overcome (with more effort and smarter coding).
Just as in the old days, the 80's, it turns out that although processor speed is important, memory can be more important.
Or maybe Jaguar could be called 208 bit system (it has 2x 64 bit chips plus 2x 32 bit chips and a 16 bit chip inside)
Nowdays the system specs is in mips but I also don't pay attention to them, they are useless if a game doesn't use all of them. :P It's the game, not that system, that makes a great system.
XBox is what- only 32 bit system? Yet it can outperform PS2 in just about everything.
Another day, another dollar... wake me when it's payday.
still playing games
Bit count doesn't mean poopy anymore... not that it really ever did.
The Intellivision is 16-bit. Will it compete with a SNES or Genesis?
The TG-16 had an 8-bit processor but a 16-bit GPU... it was slower than the Genny but produced more colors.
The Saturn had two 32-bit CPU's... was it 64 bit? Did the addition of the two 32-bit GPU's make it a 128 bit system?
The N64 was 64 bit... how does it stack against the 32-bit Gamecube and X-Box?
The Genny had a 16-bit CPU and the 8-bit CPU from the SMS... was it 24-bit? With Sega CD attached, was it was 40-bit? With the dual-processor 32x attached, was it 108-bit?
Bits are too complicated and aren't a measure of power. 'Nuff said.
You should visit...
www.videogamebible.com
...for all your NeoClassic gaming needs!
And don't miss...
www.geocities.com/the32xmemorial
...for all the goods on the crappy Sega 32x!
Games, its all about the games, (and marketing)
specs wise i believe it was 64
When talking about how many bits a system is, the reference is always to the main processor (CPU). So, adding up stuff from other chips doesn't count. TG-16 broke that rule by marketing it as a 16-bit system, along with the Jaguar, which was marketed as 64 (by adding up other stuff).
Also, I'm surprised no one brought up the NeoGeo "24-bit" system.
Kinda funny about the x-box though, huh?
-Rob
The moral is, don't **** with Uncle Tim when he's been drinking!