How many bits, part infinity - or - Jaguar vs Intellivision.

[Artlover]

To continue from another thread.

 

well no, i never claimed the Jaguar to be one or the other (John Mathieson knows the specs of Jaguar, that's good enough for me, after all the creator of the Jaguar has more knowledge about his 'baby' than you by a long shot)

And of course the creator of something would never be biased in any way?

 

Anywho, I'm still waiting for for snippet from page 231 of 'Jaguar Gamer's Guide' so I can be on the, ehm, same page, as you, excuse the pun.

 

I did find this in surfing around..

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.

In my view, this is picking and choosing. This is nothing but a creative definition to support a particular point. Where I come from and generally, as in the case of the Intellivision for example, core CPU/addressing determines the classification. 2600, 5200, NES, SNES, Genesis, 800, C64, etc..

 

I've got a 32bit AMD 1.3ghz computer with a 128bit Nvidia video card, can I call my computer a 128 bit computer because of that? I'm pretty sure everyone will say no, but yet it's completely ok to use this exact same logic in describing the bits of a video game console?

 

Only when everyone starts ignoring that and getting hung up on independent GFX hardware that a problem arises. More specificly, it seems to pertain almost exclusivly to 3d based consoles.

 

I propose that consoles be rated the same way as computers, particuarly since they are pretty much one in the same now a days. Where the bit level of a console is quantified by what function it pertains to. IE: "Jaguar is a 32 bit system with 64 bit graphics proccessing." THAT is without a doubt 100% true. Short and to the point. As calling it either 32 -or- 64 bit as a singular measure is technicaly wrong for one reason or another. Which is ultimatly what causes all these stupid bit debates. Be it on the Jag, 3d0, N64, Xbox, PS2, name your 3D console.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Artlover

[Gorf]

In my view, this is picking and choosing. This is nothing but a creative definition to support a particular

 

 

No..it is an absolutely accurate and complete description and you are comparing apples to

oranges.

 

PC is a 32/64 bit system becasue it is controled by a 32/64 bit CPU. The graphics/sound card

in your PC != to the TOM/Jerry. Your GFX card GPU cannot control the PC nor can your DSP

on the sound card.. The Tom/Jerry/68k Chip can completely with no help from anything else.

Not even a close analogy. I kknow you might think that but this is another achitechture than

ANY machine before it. It is a TRUE multi processing system. Any one of the 3 Gen purp

registers can completely control EVERY aspect of the system, together, or by them selves

or any combo of the three. Jerry != to sound card in the same manner.

 

The Jaguar is a 64 bit system as that is the brunt of its work load. Get over it.

You do not need 64 bit integers and you do not need 64 bits for sound or for color.

The bus is a FULL 64 bits. It is a a 64 bit operation where it nees to be. Everything

else would be a waste of silicon. There are schemtics of the Jaguar everywhere and

unless you know something the rest of the elec tech dont its clearly a 64 bit architecture.

 

The creator's word Is a lot more credible to me than your opinion and by all definitons

he is right. You are wrong. The Nintendo 64 has an external 32 bit bus....how do you

quantify that? By the fact the it's CPU is 64 bits and the system is designed around it.

 

The Jaguar has no central processing unit. Again any of the 3 can be that. It has a 64 bit

bus and that is what the system is designed around. It's 64 bits. Like it or not.

[Ze_ro]

I've got a 32bit AMD 1.3ghz computer with a 128bit Nvidia video card, can I call my computer a 128 bit computer because of that?

You can call it whatever you want. "bits" on it's own is a meaningless marketing term. It's like saying your car is a "25 incher", without actually saying what part of the car is 25 inches long.

 

--Zero

[Artlover]

In my view, this is picking and choosing. This is nothing but a creative definition to support a particular

No..it is an absolutely accurate and complete description and you are comparing apples to

oranges.

 

The bus is a FULL 64 bits. It is a 64 bit operation where it nees to be. its clearly a 64 bit architecture.

 

The Nintendo 64 has an external 32 bit bus....how do you quantify that? By the fact the it's CPU is 64 bits and the system is designed around it.

 

It has a 64 bit bus and that is what the system is designed around. It's 64 bits. Like it or not.

And the funny thing about this all is it really just proves my point from the other thread.

 

There needs to be a universaly definitive standard that dictates what constitutes bit level. To make any argument where the results stem from unequal measurement critera based on console specifics is inherently biased, as any such result will, of course, cater to supporting the position one wants it to hold.

 

My over all argument here isn't regarding how many bits the Jag is persay as it is the lack of consistantancy between how different console makers choose to derive their bit levels and how completely meaningless it is as a system/system comparison. When two different things have different results from each other by different standards; that's apples & oranges.

 

And for a semi related, but different side discussion...

The Jaguar has no central processing unit. Again any of the 3 can be that.

From a design point, it is capable of functioning in that capacity, I'll concure that. I even quoted JM on that point in my previous message.

 

That said, how many developers actually bothered to use the machine in that way? IIRC, general practice was developers just used the 68000 cpu for logic & AI, using Tom & Jerry for nothing more then gfx and sound proccessing. Not that bad programming has anything to do with bit level. But it's one of those "who cares if your car can do 240mph stock, the speed limit is still only 75 max" kinda points. Read, potential means nothing if not utilized.

 

 

I've got a 32bit AMD 1.3ghz computer with a 128bit Nvidia video card, can I call my computer a 128 bit computer because of that?

You can call it whatever you want. "bits" on it's own is a meaningless marketing term. It's like saying your car is a "25 incher", without actually saying what part of the car is 25 inches long.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Artlover

[+batari]

PC is a 32/64 bit system becasue it is controled by a 32/64 bit CPU. The graphics/sound card

in your PC != to the TOM/Jerry. Your GFX card GPU cannot control the PC nor can your DSP

on the sound card.

Any device connected to the bus can take control over a PC. A PC has a shared bus and has things like interrupts, DMA, and bus mastering that all help in this regard. A PC's operating system will generally not allow any device to completely take over, but that's only a software limitation, not hardware. With an OS-less system like the Jag, of course you may see this sort of thing happen a lot but that doesn't mean it isn't possible on a PC.

[supercat]

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.

 

From what I have read, any memory access by any of the processors ties up the entire 64-bit bus. Had the processor-memory interface included any sort of caching so that fetching four words' worth of code would only require a single full-speed access on the main bus, referring to the Jaguar as a "64-bit system" would have seemed entirely reasonable. As it is, though, in most applications there will be a major bus performance bottleneck as the bus will spend much of not most of its time performing 16-bit transactions.

[Gorf]

PC is a 32/64 bit system becasue it is controled by a 32/64 bit CPU. The graphics/sound card

in your PC != to the TOM/Jerry. Your GFX card GPU cannot control the PC nor can your DSP

on the sound card.

Any device connected to the bus can take control over a PC. A PC has a shared bus and has things like interrupts, DMA, and bus mastering that all help in this regard. A PC's operating system will generally not allow any device to completely take over, but that's only a software limitation, not hardware. With an OS-less system like the Jag, of course you may see this sort of thing happen a lot but that doesn't mean it isn't possible on a PC.

 

 

DMA access is a little different then full processor control. Let's face it the GPU in a PC GFX card or a DASP in a SFX card

are never going to be used as gen purp processors becasue that was never their intention. It's not the case with TOM &

Jerry. You cant base a systems bitness on a card that you can plug in and out. It's an accesory of sorts. IT 's sole function

is to draw grafics or process audio. The PC operating system was not originally so restrictive...DOS...and I never once saw

a GFX or SFX card controlling a PC bus. The had GPU's and DSP's on sound and graphics cards back then. Im sure its possible

but just how practical. The Jaguar was design to do exactly that, control the system in a variety of ways...not an after thought.

All three gen purps in the Jaguar can control EVERYTHING in the system as if it WERE the CPU.

 

Im willing to bet (not knowing for sure) that the architechtre of a PC wont allow this like you say and not just the software. It

would not make a whole lot of sense seeing that no one would ever use it that way anyway. It's not impossible but I dont see

why it would be even needed. This is apples and oranges.

[Gorf]

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.

 

From what I have read, any memory access by any of the processors ties up the entire 64-bit bus. Had the processor-memory interface included any sort of caching so that fetching four words' worth of code would only require a single full-speed access on the main bus, referring to the Jaguar as a "64-bit system" would have seemed entirely reasonable. As it is, though, in most applications there will be a major bus performance bottleneck as the bus will spend much of not most of its time performing 16-bit transactions.

 

Only if you use the 68k. One instruction turns it off and only one of the other processors can wake it

with the right interrupt bits set. The 68k is good for booting and loading levels and simple cap like that

but NEVER run it in the game loop if you ever hope to get true 64 bit through put from the very capable

bus. I have several sources of eevn some of the more impresive JAguar games.....they are ALL 68k based

game loops. Like you said treating the DSP and the GPU as graphics cards and sound chips....foolish and

I blame Atari mostly for this. It's hard to want to code in unknown RISC assembler when ther is a lazy mans

68k C compiler in the same dev kit.

 

What the Jaguar needs is Fred Q to help me figure out how to port batari basic to the Jaguar GPU and DSP.

The results of that compiler are very impressive and it would go along way to writing code faster for the

tight GPU loops. Fix it a bit to allow main code execution and I 'll be able to write a few of those power pushing

apps.

[thomasholzer]

To continue from another thread.

 

well no, i never claimed the Jaguar to be one or the other (John Mathieson knows the specs of Jaguar, that's good enough for me, after all the creator of the Jaguar has more knowledge about his 'baby' than you by a long shot)

And of course the creator of something would never be biased in any way?

 

 

Anywho, I'm still waiting for for snippet from page 231 of 'Jaguar Gamer's Guide' so I can be on the, ehm, same page, as you, excuse the pun.

 

I did find this in surfing around..

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.

In my view, this is picking and choosing. This is nothing but a creative definition to support a particular point. Where I come from and generally, as in the case of the Intellivision for example, core CPU/addressing determines the classification. 2600, 5200, NES, SNES, Genesis, 800, C64, etc..

 

 

In my view that's flexible, just like the 16-bit Intellivision:

The CPU of the Intellivision is the General Instruments CP1610. This is a general purpose 16-bit microprocessor which has 1024 separate op-codes, and can equally well use 8-bit, 10-bit, 14-bit, and 16-bit RAM or ROM. The CP1610 in the Intellivision uses a machine cycle rate of 894.886 KHz. Individual operations on the 1610 take between 4 and 12 microcycles (Note: the CP1600 is the prototypical or conventional form of the microprocessor; the CP1610 used in the Intellivision is precisely the same in all respects except for a differing clock rate.)

[Artlover]

Taking it back to the Jaguar Forum:

 

Not only that, but this flexibility of the Jaguar was, as a matter of fact, quite groundbreaking for its time. And that was the trouble with the Jaguar, it was to complex for most to understand (Just like Artlover doesn't get it perhaps?)

How original. "It's unlike anything else" excuse for justifying the methodology used to obtain the results they wanted to give.

 

Of course, what you, like several others apparently "doesn't get" is what I am actually arguing about here.

 

We got 4 car (console) makers, trying to complete. All are using the car's speed (bit level) as the basis wanting to say they have the faster (higher) car (console) based only on a number representing top speed (bit level).

 

Car maker 1: My car goes 240

Car maker 2: My car goes 240

Car maker 3: My car goes 5

Car maker 4: My car goes 50,000

 

Doesn't mean a damned thing when one is using MPH, one is using KPH, one is using Lightspeed and the other is using Snail paces per day.

 

To this end, the Jaguar, while 'unlike anything else ever in history of man kind then and forever' , still shares common traits of comparability. For example, data bus. The problem is, no one wants to make a side-by-side comparison based on something like that because then the numbers won't back how everyone wants.

 

Jag vs N64. Jag comes out, the first 64 bit console. Nintendo comes out swinging trying to win over consumers with their own 64bit console. So consumers are sitting there going, well, they are both 64bit, which should I get. Well, yeah, they are both 64 bit, but for completely different reasons. If one used some of the same criteria to classify the N64 as is used to classify the Jaguar, then the N64 could be classified 32bit.

 

Ok, I can already hear some going: "Waaa! But they are a complete different architecture, you can't compare them like that".

 

Well, if two things are going to be compared, there needs to be some base line commonality, otherwise you're just comparing apples and oranges. There is no commonality in a result who's measurement criteria is different for each item being compared.

 

For that reason, everyone SHOULDN'T BE USING bit level as a basis of comparison to begin with. It's a meaningless number with no universal cross-platform relevance.

[Gorf]

For that reason, everyone SHOULDN'T BE USING bit level as a basis of comparison to begin with. It's a meaningless number with no universal cross-platform relevance.

 

They are NOT meaningless numbers. The mean something depending on what part of any system you are talking

about. Even PC's have 8 bit ports still...serial even...does that make it one bit? NO! But the amount of bits you can

read at one time can make a LARGE difference on how quick you can process it. Us a 64 bit machine like an Atari

ST and the games are going to look like an Atari ST's. It's only logical so you are correct in this regard. But a proper

use of the systems 'bitness' does indeed have an effect on its performance. The N64 was not plagued with an

essentially low powered low bit processor, and then the only real tools in the dev package were for that low powered

low bit boot processor. If you limit a 64 bit sysetms ability by bottlenecking the bus with half the speed using 25%

of the bits, how can you possibly make games that 'look' 64 Bit? Bit's are not being used to compare anything.

At least not by me. Im simply trying to point out that bits do matter. 64 bits can be slower than 32 bits in a bad design.

 

Go see what 64 bits of TOM can really do next time you play a Area 51 machine. Same clock with a REAL processor

and a better design. Still not the most optimal but alot better than the Jaguar in design. the bits do matter when

you compare. reading in 4 16 bit color pixels in one transfer is ALWAYS going to be better the two 32 bit t 16 bit

color pixels per transfer....in the right design. Stop the 68k in the Jaguar and it's a different machine. It's really

ful bore 64 bits.

[Artlover]

For that reason, everyone SHOULDN'T BE USING bit level as a basis of comparison to begin with. It's a meaningless number with no universal cross-platform relevance.

 

The mean something depending on what part of any system you are talking about.

Which is exactly my point.

 

If you have to qualify a result by saying "depending on which part of" you wish to look at, that's cherry picking.

 

Again, if you are going to compare things, particularly when one is going to use the results of some measurement criteria as the end all final result for that comparison, the measurement criteria needs to have some level of common basis or the results mean nothing for a comparitive conclusion.

 

I do not care how many bits the Jag is. I do not care now many bits the N64 is. I don't care that they are the same. What I care about is what those values mean in relation to each other, which currently is nothing because the results for each were arrived at differently.

 

If one is going to measure two things to compare, the units of measurement need to be the same. I can't make my point any simpler then that.

 

You go on to talk about pushing pixels, gfx and stuff. Fair enough, but again, has absolutly nothing to do with my point. I don't care about the destination, I care about how I got there.

 

You can take either the tram or the donkey to the top of the mountain. Both take you to the same place for the same price. Doesn't make them comparitive to one another.

[ZylonBane]

Y'know, we'd have a whole lot less of these idiotic threads if everyone just stuck to saying, "The Atari Jaguar has a 64-bit data bus."

[Gorf]

Which is exactly my point.

If you have to qualify a result by saying "depending on which part of" you wish to look at, that's cherry picking.

 

 

That is just silly though. Every bit of a sysetm has it's importance. The brunt of the Jaguar system is a 64 bit work load.

You have to cherry pick to be accurate. Its not just a simple phrase to describe a sytem like Jaguar OR the N64.

You cant say Jag is a XXX based processor system for a reason....The system is not designed around the processors

but the 64 bit bus. Call it cherry picking if you like but it absolustely matters when describing the machine and comparing

it to other systems, similar or not.

 

 

Again, if you are going to compare things, particularly when one is going to use the results of some measurement criteria as the end all final result for that comparison, the measurement criteria needs to have some level of common basis or the results mean nothing for a comparitive conclusion.

 

 

Exactly. But just because the systems differ in architecture, does not mean you can't compare them.

Granted it might be comparing apples to oranges and in video gaming tastes, that is certainly more

suitable if you stop and think about it. Some like this flavor and some like another flavor. But fruit is

still fruit. Computations are still computations. Sedan or Luxury...its still a car. They have enough in

common to make very reasonable comparisons.

 

I do not care how many bits the Jag is. I do not care now many bits the N64 is. I don't care that they are the same. What I care about is what those values mean in relation to each other, which currently is nothing because the results for each were arrived at differently.

If one is going to measure two things to compare, the units of measurement need to be the same. I can't make my point any simpler then that.

 

I completely understand your point but I still think it is not unreasonable to look at similar devices

(similar in what they ultimately do) and compare them. Fair? Life isn't fair my friend. It's going to

happen.Complaining about it wont stop it...you know what I'm saying.

 

 

You go on to talk about pushing pixels, gfx and stuff. Fair enough, but again, has absolutly nothing to do with my point. I don't care about the destination, I care about how I got there.

You can take either the tram or the donkey to the top of the mountain. Both take you to the same place for the same price. Doesn't make them comparitive to one another.

 

 

I'm sorry but I still dont see how you are'nt allowed to compare two forms of transportation.

Granted very different but one experiencing both could certainly say 'This does this stuff

better than that, but this is better in this area', can't they? I 'm not following the restriction.

 

Is it a reasonable comparison? No, but you can obviously decide if you like the donkey

or the tram one way or the other, no? Obviously the tram is going to be less a burden

on ones butt. N64 and Jag are not THAT far appart, at least not on the level of a tram vs.

donkey comparison. I can't tell you one wya or the other as I've never rode on either. I'll

stick to coding if you don't mind...

[Artlover]

Well, you know what I'm trying to say tho, which is all I was trying to accomplish. So I'm content at this point.

[supercat]

That is just silly though. Every bit of a sysetm has it's importance. The brunt of the Jaguar system is a 64 bit work load.

 

The brunt of a well-programmed Jaguar is a 64-bit workload. But did such a thing exist back-in-the-day?

 

On many systems, performance can be reasonably estimated by the sum of (bus width times bus speed times bus utilization) for all RAM/ROM data buses (including those handling display RAM/ROM within a video chip). A system with a 64-bit bus that achieves the same bus speed and bus utilization as one with a 32-bit bus will generally perform better. But how many 20th-century games for the Jaguar even managed to use the bus at even 50% of optimal capacity?

[Bryan]

Go see what 64 bits of TOM can really do next time you play a Area 51 machine. Same clock with a REAL processor

and a better design. Still not the most optimal but alot better than the Jaguar in design. the bits do matter when

you compare. reading in 4 16 bit color pixels in one transfer is ALWAYS going to be better the two 32 bit t 16 bit

color pixels per transfer....in the right design. Stop the 68k in the Jaguar and it's a different machine. It's really

ful bore 64 bits.

 

Actually, this helps make the point about how useful the term n-bits is. The 64-bit chips perform better when they're not in the Jag, so the Jag doesn't benefit as much from being 64-bit as is possible. In the same way, an 8-bit Fairchild Channel F isn't as powerful as an 8-bit NES. So, is the Jag a Channel F or a NES?

 

The fact is that virtually everything past the 8-bit era is a hybrid in some way so the "bits" designation started out not meaning much, and now means even less. If a system has great performance, then the number of bits just gives you some insight on how they achieved it.

 

-Bry

[Gorf]

Go see what 64 bits of TOM can really do next time you play a Area 51 machine. Same clock with a REAL processor

and a better design. Still not the most optimal but alot better than the Jaguar in design. the bits do matter when

you compare. reading in 4 16 bit color pixels in one transfer is ALWAYS going to be better the two 32 bit t 16 bit

color pixels per transfer....in the right design. Stop the 68k in the Jaguar and it's a different machine. It's really

ful bore 64 bits.

 

Actually, this helps make the point about how useful the term n-bits is. The 64-bit chips perform better when they're not in the Jag, so the Jag doesn't benefit as much from being 64-bit as is possible. In the same way, an 8-bit Fairchild Channel F isn't as powerful as an 8-bit NES. So, is the Jag a Channel F or a NES?

 

The fact is that virtually everything past the 8-bit era is a hybrid in some way so the "bits" designation started out not meaning much, and now means even less. If a system has great performance, then the number of bits just gives you some insight on how they achieved it.

 

-Bry

 

 

You dont even need the Cojag hardware....lay off the 68k... 'stop #$2000'...is all it needs

[Gorf]

Well, you know what I'm trying to say tho, which is all I was trying to accomplish. So I'm content at this point.

 

 

No I do understand...when it comes to the actual ultimate purpose...playing games...bits dont matter

if the game does what it is supposed to do...entertain you...

[thomasholzer]

that still leaves the question: what's better up a mountain, a tram or a donkey?

[Sigurd]

that still leaves the question: what's better up a mountain, a tram or a donkey?

 

Tram all the way!

[Artlover]

that still leaves the question: what's better up a mountain, a tram or a donkey?

Who doesn't like a nice long ride on a big fat ass.

[Artlover]

NeoGeo? 16-bit CPU+8-bit sound processor = 24-bit system.

 

Using that logic the Jaguar must be 192bits.

 

I dunno how to add it seems, make that 256, or 208 depending on below.

 

 

Cool, that'll make the Jaguar a 112-bit system (Tom, Jerry, Motorola CPU)

Tom is not a singular processor, it's 3. At worst, 32/64/64, at best 64/64/64, depending on your point of view.

 

In simmilar point of view fasion, the motorola cpu is 16 or 32.

 

So by NeoGeo's measurement logic at worst, it would be 208 bit.

[Gorf]

that still leaves the question: what's better up a mountain, a tram or a donkey?

Who doesn't like a nice long ride on a big fat ass.

 

Really! All those saddle sores! that's livin!

[Gorf]

NeoGeo? 16-bit CPU+8-bit sound processor = 24-bit system.

 

Using that logic the Jaguar must be 192bits.

 

I dunno how to add it seems, make that 256, or 208 depending on below.

 

 

Cool, that'll make the Jaguar a 112-bit system (Tom, Jerry, Motorola CPU)

Tom is not a singular processor, it's 3. At worst, 32/64/64, at best 64/64/64, depending on your point of view.

 

In simmilar point of view fasion, the motorola cpu is 16 or 32.

 

So by NeoGeo's measurement logic at worst, it would be 208 bit.

 

 

Adding bits is quite laughable. Unless the system was intended to have the processors

act just that way. The Aries in the Nuon is a 256 bit processor in the sense that it can

grab that many bits per instruction fetch and split it among the four MPE's. That however

is a whole other universe compared to any other system out there before it. Its really

a bear to code for without knowing what you are doing...I dont....at least not completely.

 

I did however manage a quick port of the first level of Gorf 3D to it. I got very sick of burning

a shitload of CD's just to test the code out. I now have a few other methods available to try

to develope for that thing. the tools are great but it's been hard finding a better solution to

the CD burnings until just recently...just add it to the long list of TODO's.