n64 vs. jag

[atari_2600_master]

which 64 bit console is better?

[+Cobra Kai]

You can't be serious. One system has a 64-bit graphics processor, the other doesn't.

[dalton4life]

I really like my Jag, but it's no contest at all. N64 wipes the floor with it and it should. It came out 4 years later by a much superior company in terms of the games they made and they way they ran their business.

Edited April 8, 2006 by dalton4life

[8th lutz]

The jaguar was advertised as one, but wasn't. It would've cost most more the $250.00 if it has 64 bit processor when it was a 32bit processor when it was released in 1993.

 

It would've made more sense to compare it to the 3d0 or any 32bit game console for that matter..

Edited April 8, 2006 by 8th lutz

[Lost Monkey]

mY BRAIN!

[AtticGamer]

N64 is better but doesn't have AvP. That's sad.

[DracIsBack]

This is a pointless debate to get into.

 

Regarding the Jaguar's "bitness", two of its five processors are 64 bit and it has a 64-bit database so it can reasonably be called a 64-bit system.

 

There has been a lot of debate about this over the years, with some outright fallacies being stated by leading publications (example: EGM saying that the Jaguar uses two 32-bit processors in parallel ... pure ignorance).

 

Some points you could debate but there's always a counter-argument.

 

Some have assumed that the Jaguar is only 16 bit because it has an MC68000. However, that's the weakest processor of the five and the Jaguar isn't dependent on it for operations.

 

Some have also argued that because the Jaguar isn't "64-bit in every way", it shouldn't be considered "64-bit". But using that logic, the Sega Genesis isn't 16-bit either because one of its two processors is a Z80!

 

 

My feeling as always been this:

 

It was stupid for Atari to hang its hat on a "64-bit slogan". At that stage in consoles, systems were getting into multiple processors in parallel and dedicated hardware to perform specific tasks. A "32-bit playstation" had all kinds of dedicated hardware for 3D graphics and texture mapping that the Jaguar didn't have. So it was better at 3D games than the Jaguar, even though it was only 32 bit.

 

The other factor to consider (as others have noted) is age and software development.

 

The Jaguar came out in 1993. The PSX in 1995 and the N64 in 1996. The N64 is three years NEWER than the Jaguar. Of course it is more powerful. It should be. It's newer! It's like asking "which 8-bit system makes better graphics: The Atari 2600 or the Nintendo Entertainment System."

 

The Jaguar was known to be one of the hardest systems to program for, due to its proprietary hardware, awful development tools and some key bugs. Jack Tramiel couldn't afford to hire the best developers or sink the biggest budgets into their games.

 

Meanwhile, Nintendo had some of the best developers on the planet.

Edited April 8, 2006 by DracIsBack

[JB]

Which 16-bit system is better, the Intellivision or the SNES?

[walter_J64bit]

The Jag is a 2D 64-bit Games system that thinks it can do 3D. The N64 is a 3D 64-bit game system.

Edited April 8, 2006 by walter_J64bit

[walter_J64bit]

Which 16-bit system is better, the Intellivision or the SNES?

[8th lutz]

Which 16-bit system is better, the Intellivision or the SNES?

where's the tg-16?

 

It claimed it was 16 bit.

 

 

It supposed to between those three for 16 bit.

 

This is getting silly.

Edited April 9, 2006 by 8th lutz

[JB]

Which 16-bit system is better, the Intellivision or the SNES?

where's the tg-16?

 

It claimed it was 16 bit.

 

 

It supposed to between those three for 16 bit.

I'd nominate the Genesis first, since it acutally had a 16-bit processor.

[ninjarabbit]

The one with Super Mario 64, Goldeneye, 2 Legend of Zelda games, Ogre Battle 64, and WWF No Mercy among others.

[Bryan]

Regarding the Jaguar's "bitness", two of its five processors are 64 bit and it has a 64-bit database so it can reasonably be called a 64-bit system.

 

I didn't get a database with mine.

 

-Bry

[DracIsBack]

Regarding the Jaguar's "bitness", two of its five processors are 64 bit and it has a 64-bit database so it can reasonably be called a 64-bit system.

 

I didn't get a database with mine.

 

-Bry

 

Databus, smartass.

[bedouin]

I never cared about the 16-bit vs. 8-bit debate for the TG16. It had games that compared to what the Genesis and SNES offered, and that's all that really mattered to me.

 

The Jaguar 64-bitness debate doesn't matter to me really either, much like benchmarks between Macs and PCs don't matter a hell of a lot to me. They're statistical numbers for technical evaluation and comparison by people who need to know; it has no bearing on the end user experience, generally. It's like comparing the G5 Macs to the new Intel Macs and saying the Intel ones suck because they're only 32-bit. There's a small population who need 64-bits, but for most people it's another corporate marketing gimmick to encourage a purchase. People (especially Americans it seems) are infatuated with 'bigness;' larger numbers equates to getting 'more bang for the buck' and marketing people are well aware of this; whether or not it actually transfers into a superior product or experience is an entirely different story.

[AtariJr]

I never cared about the 16-bit vs. 8-bit debate for the TG16. It had games that compared to what the Genesis and SNES offered, and that's all that really mattered to me.

 

The Jaguar 64-bitness debate doesn't matter to me really either, much like benchmarks between Macs and PCs don't matter a hell of a lot to me. They're statistical numbers for technical evaluation and comparison by people who need to know; it has no bearing on the end user experience, generally. It's like comparing the G5 Macs to the new Intel Macs and saying the Intel ones suck because they're only 32-bit. There's a small population who need 64-bits, but for most people it's another corporate marketing gimmick to encourage a purchase. People (especially Americans it seems) are infatuated with 'bigness;' larger numbers equates to getting 'more bang for the buck' and marketing people are well aware of this; whether or not it actually transfers into a superior product or experience is an entirely different story.

 

How do Intel macs have anything to do with this... and btw they are way better machines then their g5 counterparts..

back to the subject, you cant compair the systems... plus i judge systems on their games not their power... the saturn in my mind was better than the 64 even though its 3d capabilites were far worse. Its all opinion... and with the lack of games AND power i doubt anyone here will admit the Jag was better

[Bryan]

Databus, smartass.

 

[JB]

I never cared about the 16-bit vs. 8-bit debate for the TG16. It had games that compared to what the Genesis and SNES offered, and that's all that really mattered to me.

For one part of me, it does. That's the part that actually PLAYS games.

 

The part that's interested in the hardware cares about this stuff. It's annoyed that people insist the XBox 1 has a 128-bit processor and the old SNK ads that claim the NeoGeo is 24-bit.

[Bryan]

What no one takes into consideration is that a 16 bit bus at 32MHz moves as much data as a 32 bit bus at 16MHz. Bits means nothing without speed. Case in point: You know what fast new hard drive interface PC's are using? SATA. A fast-as-hell one-bit interface! Then, of course, you've got to be pumping data into capable hardware. All the speed in the world wouldn't make CGA look much better.

 

-Bry

[Gregory DG]

The Jag is a 2D 64-bit Games system that thinks it can do 3D. The N64 is a 3D 64-bit game system.

To finish your sentence:

 

"The N64 is a 3D 64-bit game system that thinks it can do texture-mapping."

 

[walter_J64bit]

The Jag is a 2D 64-bit Games system that thinks it can do 3D. The N64 is a 3D 64-bit game system.

To finish your sentence:

 

"The N64 is a 3D 64-bit game system that thinks it can do texture-mapping."

 

Oh my bad!

[JB]

What no one takes into consideration is that a 16 bit bus at 32MHz moves as much data as a 32 bit bus at 16MHz. Bits means nothing without speed. Case in point: You know what fast new hard drive interface PC's are using? SATA. A fast-as-hell one-bit interface! Then, of course, you've got to be pumping data into capable hardware. All the speed in the world wouldn't make CGA look much better.

 

-Bry

Another example is PCI-Express. They intentionall dropped from a 32-bit bus down to 1-16-bits(depending on the specific slot) because it let them clock it MUCH faster, offsetting the reduced word size.

Or USB, which has replaced the legacy parallel port(and the legacy serial port,but that's not relevant).

 

 

Tangent tech babble: The problem with large buses(part of it, anyways) is keeping all the bits on the bus in sync. If you have a 1-bit stream, you KNOW where a bit goes chronologically. If you have a 256-bit bus and aren't VERY careful, it's easy for them to get desync'ed, and you start having bits from one word interleaved with bits from another. Hence the current move towards serial busses.