Anyone know the bit rates of next gen consoles?

[smokehouse]

What exactly is the PS3 and XBox 360? 256-bit? 512-bit? I’ve asked this question on a different site just to be replied with “You must be an old guy who is stuck in the 90’s, nobody cares about bit rates anymore!”

Anyone here know? Any guesses?

[smokehouse]

I guess I’m not the only one who doesn’t know…..

[RCM]

I wouldn't expect either one to be 256 or 512 bit. The PS2 is the only 128 bit console and it is underpowered compared to the Xbox which is either 32 or 64 bit. I know the GC was 64 bit as well as the DC. Bits aint everything clearly.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[badinsults]

I'm betting that 64 bit will be the magic number in this generation. Not that it matters, as you say. More important factors are the amount of ram and video ram, and processing speed. But really, game consoles have got to the point where what is under the cover really doesn't matter, hence why you see the companies pushing features.

[goatdan]

I wouldn't expect either one to be 256 or 512 bit. The PS2 is the only 128 bit console and it is underpowered compared to the Xbox which is either 32 or 64 bit. I know the GC was 64 bit as well as the DC. Bits aint everything clearly.

It depends on what you're looking at, but technically the Xbox is 32 bit, the PS2 and DC are 128 bit, and the GC is 64 bits with a 128 bit graphics card.

Honestly, I expect all of these consoles to be either 32 or 64. Bits don't matter. Speed does. That is why the 32 bit Xbox looks better than the 128 bit PS2 or the 64 bit N64 (or for that matter, Jaguar). It is all about speed and RAM.

[wufners]

I was gonna guess 64 bits as well.

Since the X-Box is running off a Pentium III processor, it's 32-bit. (I'm assuming, but this is probably accurate, yes?) Now the 64-bit CPUs are on the market, it would stand to reason that the next gen will also be 64 bits.

Is the PS2 really 128-bit? If so, I can't imagine Sony scaling back.

Was the Nintendo 64 really a 64 bit system? Or was that just a name marketing came up with to capitalize on the whole more bits equal better system craze of the 90s?

[smokehouse]

Wow, consider me corrected. Thanks for the info guys. I actually had no idea the Xbox was 32-bit. I just assumed that because the DC and PS2 were 128-bit that the rest were as well.

I know that proc power, GPU power, system ram and video ram have more to do with the overall picture but I do appreciate the info! If the GC is 64-bit…what was the N64? (lord knows it looked like crap, if it was 64, it was barely cutting it!)

[evil_genius]

the guy at EB Games told me the XBOX is listed at 499 but they will probably be doing the bundle thing like the they did the first time around.

[Sylentwulf]

I've never understood the TINY amounts of ram in current gen consoles. Ram is so goddamn cheap right now, why does my PS2 have anything less than 512mb in it? Doesn't it have like 64 mb of RAM in it or something similarly ludicrous?

[tritium]

PS2 has about 32 megs of ram, Dreamcast has 16.

as for bits, as technology increases bits start to matter less. Bits is just how wide the information flows through the processor, but if the processor is fast enough, the width doesn't make that big of a difference.

[RCM]

I wouldn't expect either one to be 256 or 512 bit. The PS2 is the only 128 bit console and it is underpowered compared to the Xbox which is either 32 or 64 bit. I know the GC was 64 bit as well as the DC. Bits aint everything clearly.

It depends on what you're looking at, but technically the Xbox is 32 bit, the PS2 and DC are 128 bit, and the GC is 64 bits with a 128 bit graphics card.

Honestly, I expect all of these consoles to be either 32 or 64. Bits don't matter. Speed does. That is why the 32 bit Xbox looks better than the 128 bit PS2 or the 64 bit N64 (or for that matter, Jaguar). It is all about speed and RAM.

So I did a little digging and Sega's word is that it's (DC) 128 bit while many experts claim it's 64-bit. It has a 128 bit GPU with a 64 bit CPU.

So it should go like this:

DC and GC: 64-bit
PS2: 128-bit
Xbox: 32-bit

In the end it doesn't matter. it's all about the games right?

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[§ Gideon §]

The next-gen XBox has 360 bits, dumb ass.

[roushimsx]

I always found the whole bit wars argument a little....retarded. It was some nice marketing jive and was a convenient way to seperate generations (Oh, the NES and SMS were 8 bit, SNES and Genesis 16 bit, PS and Saturn 32 bit, etc) but even back then it didn't matter. Sure the Genesis was 16 bit, but it didn't hold a candle to the Neo Geo. Sure they hyped the Jaguar as a 64 bit system, but the core cpu was only a 16 bit Motorola 68000. Comedy Turbografix 16 option.

The playstation/saturn/n64 era helped prove to the average joe that those little numbers they throw around were even more meaningless. Why buy the N64 version of a game if it's just going to be an inferior version? What's with the rampant slowdown and shitty textures in most titles?

Maybe that's why they quit the "bit wars" after that.

[starchildskiss78]

The next-gen XBox has 360 bits, dumb ass.

I'm glad I read the subject line...I was about to get on you for being a jerk to someone who was just asking a question. I guess I am one of those "reads the whole post" kind of people.

[CrimsonNugget]

I've never understood the TINY amounts of ram in current gen consoles. Ram is so goddamn cheap right now, why does my PS2 have anything less than 512mb in it? Doesn't it have like 64 mb of RAM in it or something similarly ludicrous?

Consoles don't need as much memory as computers. PCs have memory occupied by drivers, the OS, any applications you have running... The consoles, since they are completely dedicated to games, don't need NEARLY as much memory. When you load a game, the game has nearly all the space to use in whatever way the programmers want.

ADD: ...and it doesn't matter how many bits the consoles have either. Did you SEE the graphics at E3?

[goatdan]

I was gonna guess 64 bits as well.

Since the X-Box is running off a Pentium III processor, it's 32-bit. (I'm assuming, but this is probably accurate, yes?) Now the 64-bit CPUs are on the market, it would stand to reason that the next gen will also be 64 bits.

Yes, but it may be harder to make the next-gen processors do much of anything at this point. 32-bit processors have had years of time to develop with, and besides that... they are cheaper.

Is the PS2 really 128-bit? If so, I can't imagine Sony scaling back.

But Sony wants the PS2 to be more like a computer now, and computers are 32 or 64 bit. It really doesn't matter. Maybe the GPU will be different.

Was the Nintendo 64 really a 64 bit system? Or was that just a name marketing came up with to capitalize on the whole more bits equal better system craze of the 90s?

The N64 was as much a 64-bit machine as the Jaguar, just like the Intellivision was just as much a 16-bit system as the Genesis.

I've never understood the TINY amounts of ram in current gen consoles. Ram is so goddamn cheap right now, why does my PS2 have anything less than 512mb in it? Doesn't it have like 64 mb of RAM in it or something similarly ludicrous?

As someone else pointed out, a lot of computer RAM is taken up by the OS and stuff running in the background. On a console, they don't need as much. If 32 MB of RAM costs them $10 / console, or 512 MB of RAM costs $75 / console, they can keep it cheaper by going with the smaller amount.

Obviously, the bigger the better... but at what point will consumers stop wanting the product?

as for bits, as technology increases bits start to matter less. Bits is just how wide the information flows through the processor, but if the processor is fast enough, the width doesn't make that big of a difference.

Basically, yeah... Except that bits have never really mattered. As I love to point out the Odyssey2 and 2600 were 8-bit, and so was the Nintendo and (technically) the Turbografx 16. The Intellivision and Genesis were 16-bit. It's never really mattered... but damn did Sega make it look good when they noted the fact that they had twice as many of them as Nintendo had, and people have believed it ever since.

So I did a little digging and Sega's word is that it's (DC) 128 bit while many experts claim it's 64-bit. It has a 128 bit GPU with a 64 bit CPU.

So it should go like this:

DC and GC: 64-bit
PS2: 128-bit
Xbox: 32-bit

In the end it doesn't matter. it's all about the games right?

Yup.

Although I thought that the Dreamcast could take a 128 bit command in its CPU without a problem. That is what tradionally has given a system its bits (and why the TG16 is actually only 8-bit, as its GPU was 16 but its main was 8 and it couldn't read a 16-bit code line through the CPU.)

But yeah, it really is all about the games in the end. The Jaguar really, really proved that. Speaking of the Jaguar:

I always found the whole bit wars argument a little....retarded. It was some nice marketing jive and was a convenient way to seperate generations (Oh, the NES and SMS were 8 bit, SNES and Genesis 16 bit, PS and Saturn 32 bit, etc) but even back then it didn't matter. Sure the Genesis was 16 bit, but it didn't hold a candle to the Neo Geo. Sure they hyped the Jaguar as a 64 bit system, but the core cpu was only a 16 bit Motorola 68000. Comedy Turbografix 16 option.

No, the core Jaguar chip was Tom, which was really three chips jammed into one. The Motorola 68000 which many people mistakenly think is the main processor is just there to be a controller of the data passing between Tom and Jerry (the other Jaguar chip). Since Tom was a hybrid of three chips and Jerry was another, the Jaguar had five processors. Of those, all of them could pass 64 bits of data at a time, although from what I understand, they couldn't interpert it all at once (but could as 32 bit statements). But the ability for them to pass the 64 bit statements makes it -- by technical definition -- a 64 bit machine.

It annoys me when people claim that the Jaguar definitely wasn't a 64-bit machine, because it most definitely was -- and it is the most perfect example of why bits don't matter. Because it sure as hell wasn't as powerful as the Saturn or Playstation.

But anyhow, I digress...

The playstation/saturn/n64 era helped prove to the average joe that those little numbers they throw around were even more meaningless. Why buy the N64 version of a game if it's just going to be an inferior version? What's with the rampant slowdown and shitty textures in most titles?

Maybe that's why they quit the "bit wars" after that.

I'd argue that the N64 version usually looked the best, and usually suffered the least slowdown. Developers just didn't have any extra space to screw with. To see the difference though, check out Robotron X on the PSX and then Robotron 64 on the N64. Nearly the same game, completely different in the way of playability.

But it had nothing to do with the bits, just the overall power. And the reason the Playstation won is that developers wanted the space -- not the power -- to make great games with. Metal Gear Solid would've been impossible on the N64 due to size constraints, although it would've looked better.

And they didn't really quit the bit wars until the last two rounds, when Nintendo and Microsoft both decided it was stupid to put a component into their machines that was much more expensive just to claim it was bitter "bits." In the other thread about the supposed specs for the Xbox and PS3, you'll notice bits not even mentioned. That's because th stupid, "BITS MATTER!" marketing is still around, and if people heard the Xbox 360 had "only" 32 bits, they would worry it would be like their Playstation.

[-hellvin-]

Personally, the way I feel is that with as far along as consoles have come now, it's really irrelevant to refer to them as an "x" amount of bits system.

[sabre2922]

"Bits" simply makes it easier to classify a certain console IE what generation they are usually considered to be in.

In my opinion we passed the so-called Bit generations or at least an easy way "label" a system or console after the PSone , Saturn and N64 generation.

Its Impossible to say that we are now in the 128-bit system era (although many would) and are heading into the 258-bit or 512-bit (MB of the PS3 anyone?) generation.

Its really impossible to put a Label on even the current gen systems as being one or the other because of their far diffirent archutecture and they each have many positives and negatives depending on the system.

Anyways the days of the bit labeling system are over even for us "laymen" that have always used the bits (marketing ploy or not) as a crutch to put each system into a cerain category.

check out my thread for the full specs of the new systems to decide for yourself (well Xbox360 and PS3 anyway) I doubt it will help much but even I understand about 70% of it after over 25 years of keeping up with console specs well I think I do anyway http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66867

[classicb]

Wow, consider me corrected. Thanks for the info guys. I actually had no idea the Xbox was 32-bit. I just assumed that because the DC and PS2 were 128-bit that the rest were as well.

me too. I have no concept of what's import spec wise to the newer consoles... i miss bits... it was so much easier to understand... more was better...although after reading the previous comments I guess it was all just an old man behind a mirror pulling strings

[Cantaloup]

There was a similar thread about this topic:

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46986

I will repeat my comments from that thread here:

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.

I have a more detailed post on the second page of the above thread. If you'd like to have in-depth technical discussion about system classification and performance, I would be happy to participate.