In Hindsight, Atari Jaguar seems very 16 bit to me

[Anthony1]

After playing a number of Jag games, I've convinced myself that the Jag really wasn't a 64 bit system.

You can talk about Tom and Jerry and all this crap until you are blue in your face, but I really don't give a damn.

If you were to put every Jaguar game on a TV and line all the TV's up, the games look very 16 bit. Certainly, the Jag if it is to be considered 16-Bit would definitely be a turbocharged 16 bitter, with advanced 16 bit graphics, but quite honestly I just don't see this thing as anthing close to a 64 bit system. I don't even see it as a 32 bit system.

To me it's a 16 bit system that is supercharged with some special effects. That's about it.

I mean, look at Bubsy and Zool and Cannon Fodder and Troy Aikmen football, etc, etc ,etc.

Try to tell me that these are really 64 bit games or even 32 bit games.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it.

Nothing against the Jag, I still like it quite a bit, but I think when looking back at that system, it should almost be classified along with the Genesis, SNES, Sega CD and those type of systems.

[orangemage]

i believe that it had 2 32bit processors (32+32=64, do the math ) yeah most of the games didn't look better then anything on the 32X

[Anthony1]

i believe that it had 2 32bit processors (32+32=64, do the math ) yeah most of the games didn't look better then anything on the 32X

Speaking of systems pretending to be more advanced then they really are....


32X is very much in that category. Again, I see the 32X as being a 16 bit system, despite the name. I can't think of any 32X games that actually "look" like 32 bit games. Not only that, the 32X would brag about 32,000 colors or whatever, and I never saw those either. Looks basically just like Genesis with a Super FX chip or something.

[Algol]

Supposedly, it was a very difficult system to program, and many developers just weren't sure how to push the system. That's why many games aren't that much better than 16 bit stuff.

[Daniel Thomas]

The whole '64-bit' tag was little more than a marketing line. Those numbers don't mean anything when consoles use multiple processors for various tasks.

I remember back when Atari claimed that the Lynx had 32-bit audio, because it had four 8-bit sound channels. The Jaguar was the same nonsense. The console was just barely above the level of the Genesis and Super Nintendo. It did pump out some great color, but so what?

It's embarassing to think that Atari seriously promoted this console. It never had a chance.

[jonjandran]

Actually the jaguar had a 16bit processor and a 64bit graphics chip.

So they chose to bill it as "64bit" ..

But it was more like 16bit+

[Kid Ice]

I guess it depends on what a 32-bit or 64-bit game looks like to you. When I think 16-bit I think Genesis, and there are a number of Jaguar games (Iron Soldier, Battlesphere, Protector, Fight for Life, Checkered Flag, sheesh a lot of them) that couldn't have possibly been done on a Genesis.

I do agree that Jag games don't look anything like 32-bit and 64-bit games if you're using the Playstation and N64 as standards.

[K3V]

This debate has been done a zillion times, (thank EGM for the 32+32 theory), so I'll just quote the Jaguar FAQ:

Q. Was the Jaguar really a 64-bit system?

A. The question is hard to resolve, largely because the definition of what
constitutes an "N-bit" system has not been set. Of the five processors in
the Jaguar, only the object processor and the blitter are "true" 64-bit
components. Because the blitter and the object processor are in the Tom
chip, by extension Tom is a 64-bit chip. Furthermore, the Jaguar also
used a 64-bit memory architecture, according to Jez San of Argonaut
Software.

Some say the Jaguar should be considered a 32-bit system, as that is the
maximum register size in the programmable processors (the 68000, the
graphics processor, and the DMA sound processor). Others say the Jaguar
can be considered a 64-bit system, because 64-bit components are used, and
the GPU can access 64 bits of data if required. Again, the lack of an
agreed-upon definition serves to complicate the issue.

According to Jaguar designer John Mathieson, "Jaguar has a 64-bit memory
interface to get a high bandwidth out of cheap DRAM. ... Where the system
needs to be 64 bit then it is 64 bit, so the Object Processor, which takes
data from DRAM and builds the display is 64 bit; and the blitter, which
does all the 3D rendering, screen clearing, and pixel shuffling, is 64
bit. Where the system does not need to be 64 bit, it isn't. There is no
point in a 64 bit address space in a games console! 3D calculations and
audio processing do not generally use 64-bit numbers, so there would be no
advantage to 64 bit processors for this.

"Jaguar has the data shifting power of a 64 bit system, which is what
matters for games, so can reasonably be considered a 64 bit system. But
that doesn't mean it has to be 64 bits throughout."

For the record, the opinion of most third party developers and observers
is that the Jaguar is indeed a 64-bit system. The emphasis is on the word
"system"; while not every component is 64 bits, the Jaguar architecture,
as a COMPLETE SYSTEM, is.

To see the power of the system you need to play games created for the system, not ports from 16 bit platforms. See Tempest 2000, BattleMorph, Iron Soldier 1 + 2, BattleSphere, Zero 5, Alien Vs Predator, etc.

[yuppicide]

Don't forget the Turbo Grafx-16. Wasn't that really an 8-bit processor and 8-bit sound?!

[PDorr3]

well alien vs predator seems like a 32 bit game, but everything else...16bit..

[Jorpho]

I'm pretty sure the TG-16 had 16-bit graphics of some sort.

Anyway, as mentioned in the above article, at the heart of the Jaguar there was indeed a 16-bit Motorola 68k processor, just like in the Genesis, Amiga, Macintosh, CDi, Neo Geo, et cetera. It has been suggested that programmers were really quite content to do what they could with the familiar 68k, even though the Jaguar really was capable of many things with the other processors included in the unit. The 68k was really just meant to orchestrate everything. Untapped potential, y'see.

[FABombjoy]

Using "bits" to determine theoretical capabilities is misleading anyway. Remember, the 386 and Pentium 4 are both 32-bit.

[GaijinPunch]

Speaking of systems pretending to be more advanced then they really are...32X is very much in that category. Again, I see the 32X as being a 16 bit system, despite the name. I can't think of any 32X games that actually "look" like 32 bit games.

Space Harrier

[Graham Mitchell]

Tempest 2000 looked pretty damn good to me. I don't think that could have been done on the SNES or Genesis. Playstation and Saturn weren't around then, either, so that game was the shit for awhile.

[le geek]

The Jag, game for game, was a dissapointment, but play Iron Soldier and Tempest 2000 and tell me they could be done on the Genesis or SNES...

Cheers,
Ben

[NoahsMyBro]

I feel foolish for even entering this very tired, and very silly and pointless topic, but I just wanted to point out that while we're throwing around the 'bit-ness' of various consoles, the Intellivision was 16-bit.

Does anybody reading still believe the 'bits' of a system matter?

[Graham Mitchell]

I feel foolish for even entering this very tired, and very silly and pointless topic, but I just wanted to point out that while we're throwing around the 'bit-ness' of various consoles, the Intellivision was 16-bit.

Does anybody reading still believe the 'bits' of a system matter?

No, I don't think it ever really has, and that's why I posted in the first place. Thank you for having the guts to say it.

[crazyjackcsa]

Do "Bits" Matter? Not really. To take a modern take on it, Do Polygon counts matter? Not really. Especially Whe certain companies, ie Sony. Take the total maximum flat shaded no effects no AI numbers. It sells to the casual gamer, that's it, that's all.

[Anthony1]

The Jag, game for game, was a dissapointment, but play Iron Soldier and Tempest 2000 and tell me they could be done on the Genesis or SNES...

Cheers,
Ben

There isn't any question, that there are "certain" jaguar games that couldn't be done on the SNES or Genny, but does that mean that the Jag wasn't essentially a "souped up" 16 bit system ?

No.


When the SNES got the Super FX chip, it could do Starfox. When the Genesis got that special chip, it could do Virtua Racing.

So basically, the way that I look at it, is that the Jaguar was basically a 16 bit system, but it came towards the end of the lifespan of 16 bit technology, and it definitely had some extra features and effects to take it beyond ordinary 16 bit gaming, but can you really consider the Jag to be a true 32 bit or 64 bit system?

Hell no.


But again, I do agree that the Jag had a "few" advanced games that seemed quite a bit beyond what the SNES and Genny could do. For example, consider the Jag port of Doom. Compare the Jag port of Doom with the SNES port of Doom, and it actually looks like the Jag is far beyond 16 bit. And Aliens vs. Predator definitely looks like it's beyond 16-bit. Cybermorph, while similar to Starfox on the SNES, is way beyond what Starfox can do. But if Nintendo had come out with a new, modern 16 bit system, at the same time that the Jag was released, it would have been dramatically better as well, and it would have easily been able to do games like AVP and Cybermorph.


Sure, this is a childish discussion, that has been done to death a million times, but it's still fun.

[badinsults]

Bit rate is a rather silly thing to judge the power of a console. I mean, most people would agree that the Xbox is the most powerful console out right now, followed by the Gamecube. However, the Xbox is 32 bit, the GC is 64, and the PS2 is 128. Of course, people have argued the bit rate of all these consoles, but in reality it is of little meaning, except to the people developing for them.