How many "bits" do you consider the Jag and N64 to be?

[shadow460]

Well, there are good arguments that both systems are truly 64-bit.

 

The question is: When you're talking to friends about the N64, or especially the Jag, do you call them a 64 bit system because that's what they are, or do you call the Jag a 16 bit system and the N64 a 32 bit system, 'cause that's what most systems were when each of those two were released?

 

*ducks after calling the Jag a 16 bit system in an Atari forum*

[SteveW]

I've always thought of the Jag as 64-bits. The Intellivision is a 16-bit system, technically, but because it doesn't have the same graphical prowess as the Sega Genesis or SNES, does that mean that it doesn't qualify as 16-bit? The Jag and N64 were designed to technically be 64-bit, so that's what I accept them as.

[Flojomojo]

Jaguar: 2-bit, as in "shave-and-a-haircut"

 

Nintendo 64: Sixty-four. It's in the name, isn't it?

[guitarmas]

For the love of man please don't start the whole "Is the Jaguar 64-bit?" argument.

[deathtrappomegranate]

For the love of man please don't start the whole "Is the Jaguar 64-bit?" argument.

 

ditto.

 

It doesn't matter a jot anyway. The TI99/4A was a 16-bit computer in an 8-bit age. It just competed like the 8-bits. No-one cared whether it was 16-bit or not. Similarly, I can't think why anyone would care "how many "bits" " the Jag was considered to have. Just think about the software that exists, and the software that could exist.

 

The Enterprise 128 (an 8-bit machine) could knock spots off many 16-bit (or better) machines. So what?

 

As I keep trying to tell myself, it's not what you have - it's what you do with it.

[MCHufnagel]

How about the Jaguar was a 64 bit system with some serious bottlenecks. The N64 was a 64 bit system using the wrong media to take advantage of that power!

[JB]

I say that due to the various measuring sticks employed by various companies at various times muddying the issue so severely, we should go with teh least common denominator.

They're both 1-bit systems, as is everything else on the market.

[Nall3k]

The Jaguar is technically a 32-BIT system while the N64 is a true 64-BIT system.

[Gregory DG]

Jaguar is a 64-bit system. End of discussion.

[shadow460]

Well, no, I'm not trying to start the argument. We know the Jag is a 64 bit system. Someone who doesn't know consoles, though, might mistake it for being stronger than a Saturn, which it probably isn't.

So that's why I ask the question.

 

Inty being 16 bits might make that same person think it was released to compete with the Genesis.

 

I usually talk about "the 16 bit era" (which the 64 bit Jag is a part of), the "32 bit era" (includes the Nintendo 64), and whatever other eras the systems were in.

When asked, though, I clarify with "the Jaguar is a 64 bit system."

[JB]

As far as "eras" go, the Jag, 3D0, and whatever fall into a half-era.

 

If we MUST make up classifications that don't really fit the hardware, let's call them "24-bit" systems. It's as accurate as anything else, and moreso than a lot of other terms.

[JagFan422]

well when you throw away all the numbers, I consider the Jag, CART SYSTEM ONLY, 16-bit. There's nothing really impressive on the Jag that the SNES couldn't do, FX chip or not, and even the Megadrive had more technically advanced games, like Virtua Racing running circles around Checkerd Flag.

 

The N64 in my opinion is true 64-bit and something the Jag or Jag cd could never match.

[Rybags]

The size of integers the processor can deal with individually, or the size of the data bus, whichever is smaller should determine the "number of bits".

 

Regardless, it's just marketing crap (like AGP 8x - one of the most pointless developments in recent times).

 

Effectively, you could call a '486 PC with a GeForce2 PCI card a 128 bit system - if you go by the logic used by Jag/Nintendo 64.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Rybags

[guitarmas]

Is there any way we can leave the Jaguar completely out of this?

[Atari-Jess]

the whole bit argument was a marketing craze in the 90s, just like tflops and millions of polys seems to be right now

[8th lutz]

The bit thing was marketing. The bits things can be traced to the intellivision. The companies said what bits they are because of nothing was more powerful one it was released. I am not sure what bit is the tg-16 for sure. These market ploys made people confused with the neo geo and the tg-16 in bits.

 

It is hard to compare the Jaguar to the n64 in bits. The Jaguar was released in 93 and n64 in 96. The n64 had a huge advantage in technology like the snes did over the genesis when it was released. The Jaguar was at least 32 bit.

[Flojomojo]

I usually talk about "the 16 bit era" (which the 64 bit Jag is a part of), the "32 bit era" (includes the Nintendo 64), and whatever other eras the systems were in.

If you're hung up on classifying these machines, Wikipedia's list of generations, sorted by era, is as good as anything I've seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_consoles

Of course, if you're talking about anything older than Playstation 2, most normal people would just call them "old games," "old Nintendo games," and "old Atari tapes."

 

Heheheheh. Atari tapes.

[snorlaxnut]

Just look...

 

 

If it says 64 bit, then its 64 bit.

 

Enough said.

[JB]

I am not sure what bit is the tg-16 for sure. These market ploys made people confused with the neo geo and the tg-16 in bits.

TG16 had an 8-bit CPU, 8-bit system bus, and 16-bit graphics chip.

 

NeoGeo... gods... SNK was claiming they were a 24-bit system by adding the 16 of tehir 68000 and the 8 of their Z80. Of course, they made sure to ignore that the Genesis had EXACTLY the same processor configuration and call it a 16-bit machine.

[shadow460]

Is there any way we can leave the Jaguar completely out of this?

 

I would have, but that was specifically the system we were talking about at work. With, of course, the knowledge that it is a 64 bit system that was meant to compete with the 16 bit Super Nintendo.

 

Wiki is probably the best source of info on how to "classify" these two 64 bit systems.

[jbanes]

I've got an idea! Let's give a game system to Mr. Wise Old Owl and ask him to tell us!

 

Mr. Wise Old Owl, how many bits are in our Tootsie Pop Atari Jaguar Game System?

Lets find out!

 

*slurp*

 

ONE!

 

*slurp*

 

TWO!

 

*slurp*

 

THREE!

 

*CRUNCH*

 

The answer is THREE. There are THREE Bits in your game system!

 

Great! Now that it's settled, does anyone know where I can get a new Jaguar?

[okto]

Are we all on the same page about what "bits" means for a system, as in, the width of a processor word?

*is not insulting anyone, just making sure*

Edited May 19, 2006 by okto

[+remowilliams]

Are we all on the same page about what "bits" means for a system, as in, the width of a processor word?

*is not insulting anyone, just making sure*

I added up the bits inside the Jaguar, there are 487 of them in there!

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2006 by remowilliams

[+batari]

Are we all on the same page about what "bits" means for a system, as in, the width of a processor word?

*is not insulting anyone, just making sure*

Most definitely so...

 

Before ca. 1993, this was the definition and there was no confusion. But then Atari came out with a 16-bit machine (under the accepted definition) but imprinted "64-bit" on it anyway because of a graphics chip. So instead of questioning Atari, Jaguar fanboys redefined "bits" to make Atari seem correct.

 

If we are able to change definitions for marketing purposes, the terms lose their meaning. I take, as complete bullshit, any console with its "bitness" noted, 'cuz it usually is. Good thing console manufacturers don't do this anymore.

[goatdan]

In reality, the Jaguar was a 64 bit system. It doesn't matter what "the public" thinks. If they think that means it is way more powerful, they need to realize...

 

The Xbox is a 32 bit system. Hell, the Xbox 360 is a 32 bit system.