How powerful is the Intellivision compared to Atari 2600?

[Lacan]

Is it true that the Intellivision is more powerful then the Atari 2600, or is it the same? They both look the same to me, in fact I wonder if they copied Atari's hardware.

[Ugclone]

i havn't played intellivision in a while but i do recall the graphics being slightly better but only on certain games...so it really depends on what game you are playing. but seriously as long as the gameplay is fun, graphics really don't matter.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Is it true that the Intellivision is more powerful then the Atari 2600, or is it the same? They both look the same to me, in fact I wonder if they copied Atari's hardware.

The Intellivision design is quite different from the Atari.

 

Atari's hardware was very, very minimal due to cost restrictions. When the Intellivision came a few years later, the prices for RAM etc. had dropped a lot and therefore it contains a lot more hardware.

[liquid_sky]

here are the actual specs of the two..

 

From the 2600 FAQ

2600

 

CPU: 6507

RAM: 128 Bytes, in VLSI

ROM: 4K max

Cpu Clock: 1.19 MHz

Graphics Clock: 1.19 MHz

Slot Config: Rom access only

CPU Avail: less than 50%

 

 

Notes: ROM specs are based on non-bank select scheme, the graphics clock is the master clock used to drive the video chips.

 

And from the INTV FAQ

 

CPU: GI 16 bit microprocessor

Memory: 7K internal ROM, RAM and I/O structures, remaining

64k address space available for external programs.

Controls: 12 button numberic key pad, four action keys, 16

direction disk

Sound: Sound generator capable of 3 part harmony with

programmable ASDR envelopes.

Color: 16

Resolution: 192v x 160h pixels

 

 

So it looks as if the INTV is more powerful, right? Wrong. Im not sure why, but have you ever noticed how some INTV games run choppy, while the 2600 ones move smooth as glass? I know thats not a techinacal responce, but it SEEMS to me tha the 2600 has faster frame rates.. maybe Thomas or someone can explain the actual tech. of things.. im just saying how i see it.

[jsoper]

An intellivision probably couldn't do Solaris

 

A 2600 can't do a good version of Burgertime.

[AtariDude]

The reason that Intellivision games were so choppy was because they wanted their games to look far superior than the 2600. So they concentrated on the graphics end of the machine but it took a lot of the juice out of the machine. They thus had a lot of sports games that did not require a lot of arcade antics like the 2600 did.

[Goochman]

I believe there is something with the GI CPU that makes it difficult to make 'action' type games on the Inty - The VBI capability in the 2600 allows for much more flexibility in terms of game design and speed vs the Inty.

 

The Inty runs things alot slower and its not due to graphics design per se but hardware limitations. From a 'picture' persepctive the Inty can and does look better.

[King Atari]

Yes, the INTV has some great games, but much of it is slower than the 2600. Even Donkey Kong is worse! Pac-Man is farrrrrrrrrrrr superior. INTV games also seem more 'thinky' in some cases. I mean, you had that keypad and everything.

 

Whatever, they're both great systems.

[George Gray]

According to the Blue Sky Rangers, Mattel Marketing dictated a 'one for all' approach in game development. That meant they had to develop games for all systems they supported, including the 2600. Technically, the Inty WAS better than the 2600. However, because of the mandates from the marketing folks, the games could not be optimized for the Inty hardware. The developers had the program for 'lowest common' platform...the 2600. (They said this, not me!) Also, the marketing folks said that the faster graphics modes on the Inty could not be used because the 'blinked' too much (ala the 2600.) So, in a nutshell, the game developers hand their hands tied because of the marketing folks (and, to lesser extent, the 2600 itself.)

 

I tend to think that the weirdness of the Atari video and the low system specs forced the Atari developers (at most companies) to be better programmers and write tighter code. I don't mean to lessen the Inty folks since they did awesome jobs with what they had. I simply mean that one tends to be more clever in finding ways to milk every bit of a system when the resources are few.

[ubersaurus]

The intellivision display doesn't go scanline by scanline like the 2600 does, it refreshes the whole screen at once, if I recall. That's why it seems slower on the display. Of course, on later releases this is almost unnoticable, like Commando and Thin Ice. And the Imagic games.

[Pitfall Harry]

There was an advertising slogan long ago, back in the days when Apple's Macintosh battled IBM's PC for most powerful computer status. The slogan went something like this:

 

 

"What's the most powerful computer you can buy today? The computer you will use."

 

 

That was and is soooo true.

 

 

Ben

[King Atari]

According to the Blue Sky Rangers

 

I've been a bit weary of what they say, since they state on their site that the INTV was the longest running cartridge based system. Bull, Atari had them beat 1-2 years.

[Sir Plus]

The intellivision display doesn't go scanline by scanline like the 2600 does, it refreshes the whole screen at once, if I recall. That's why it seems slower on the display. Of course, on later releases this is almost unnoticable, like Commando and Thin Ice. And the Imagic games.

 

Yeah, I also read that if the program had too much code to complete when the screen update was needed, the entire screen update would be lost. Plus, the some games relied heavily on tile graphics (which is not possible on the 2600).

[ZylonBane]

Intellivision games are sluggish because almost all of them use the EXEC, a 4K BIOS of common graphics/sound functions. Unfortunately, it only updates sprites every 1/20th second.

 

The hardware supported 8 sprites, which could be reused vertically a la the 2600.