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

[Ferris]

Ya know what.... the Jaguar could have had three thousand "32-Bit processors" and video game system x could have had a single 64-bit processor and the game mags would all be claiming that the Jaguar was a farce. It's crap. The bottom line is the games, and the Jaguar games never even nicked the machine's hardware.

 

And shame on Tramiel for not throwing in an 030 chip.

[kevincal]

Doom, AvP, Tempest 2000, Rayman, Iron Soldier and Battlesphere nicked the hardware plenty, and there were many more impressive titles that a 16 bit machine would have a hell of a time replicating.

Edited May 22, 2006 by kevincal

[AtariJr]

Doom, AvP, Tempest 2000, Rayman, Iron Soldier and Battlesphere nicked the hardware plenty, and there were many more impressive titles that a 16 bit machine would have a hell of a time replicating.

 

yea they looked impressive in the 16 bit universe... but common... they didnt look like n64 or even saturn graphics for that matter....

[ZylonBane]

There's entirely too much stupid in this thread.

[goatdan]

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

Actually, the 360 is 64-bit, it uses Power970s (AKA G5s) which are 64-bit native processors.

 

Ah crap, you're right. Said that without fact-checking, a rare thing for me...

 

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.

Sorry, the accepted definition among computer engineers is very precise, and we refer to the general-purpose CPU (in this case the 68000), not the graphics chips or specialty processors.

 

So either the Jag fanboys are living in an alternate reality or they've changed the definition.

 

Actually, the accepted definition of what defines a machine is usually based on what size data can be passed. The Jaguar's GPU can access 64 bits of data if required. Now, if you knew anything about the Jaguar, you would know that there is basically no need to ever pass the Jaguar's GPU a 64 bit command, thus rending the "bit" rating even more pointless.

 

Besides that, the 68000 was not intended to be used in the Jaguar as the main processor. The designers of the console stated that the only reason they put the 68000 in there at all was to "read the joysticks." If that's the case and the GPU is doing the meat of the work like intended, wouldn't then the "general purpose CPU" become the GPU in reality, thus still giving us the answer of a 64-bit machine?

 

I've had quite a number of conversations with people who actually worked on the Jaguar, and the general consensus from them was that, in fact, the Jaguar was a 64 bit system in the purest sense of the word. It had the potential to do 64 bit things. The real source of the problems and debate over what the Jaguar "actually" was comes from the fact that Atari marketed it as if the difference in bits is what made a gaming console great. That's what I was trying to point out by the fact the Xbox is 32 bit. Atari (with help from Sega and Turbografx before them, but mostly by themselves) did such a good job convincing the general public that bits were so important, when the Jaguar failed to deliver the mind-blowing graphics and/or gameplay experience that people were expecting, instead of believing that the Jaguar's marketing scheme was crap and bits didn't really matter much, they believed that the Jaguar actually wasn't 64 bits at all. In reality, it didn't matter. The Jaguar was built to be a 2D powerhouse, but was released just in time for 3D games to become all the rage. And it had very little RAM, so it followed that even the 2D games on it weren't that impressive.

 

The Jaguar was a 64 bit machine because it could access 64 bits of data if required. It did not have a 64 bit CPU. While I am a Jaguar fan, I would hardly think that I'm a "fanboy" when it comes to this subject, although thank you for declaring me one. I've long hated the 'bit' myth about consoles, and I could truly care less what it has on board. 32-bits works just fine for me, as long as you make it powerful through other methods.

[Bryan]

It's hard to not lean on the 68000 since Tom's ability to run code from system RAM is broken.

 

-Bry

[shadow460]

btw this is a useless thread that doesnt matter at all... why did you bring this up

 

A friend and I were discussing the N64 and Jag, and he got confused. I explained to him that there wasn't a "64 bit era" and the N64 is newer and has a little more kick than the Jag did, even though they're both 64 bit consoles.

[AtariJr]

btw this is a useless thread that doesnt matter at all... why did you bring this up

 

A friend and I were discussing the N64 and Jag, and he got confused. I explained to him that there wasn't a "64 bit era" and the N64 is newer and has a little more kick than the Jag did, even though they're both 64 bit consoles.

 

you could have saved us the pain and left it at that , just jokin

 

nice to see you back posting

Edited May 23, 2006 by AtariJr

[shadow460]

Yeah, but there will be another hiccup in my posting while I wait for internet service at my new place. Should be on a couple days after I move in if it's not already.

[kevincal]

Doom, AvP, Tempest 2000, Rayman, Iron Soldier and Battlesphere nicked the hardware plenty, and there were many more impressive titles that a 16 bit machine would have a hell of a time replicating.

 

yea they looked impressive in the 16 bit universe... but common... they didnt look like n64 or even saturn graphics for that matter....

 

Hmm, funny how the Jag version of Doom runs better than the Saturn version. It was released on the Jag atleast a year before the Saturn version too...I realize the Saturn version has a lot more levels, but still. All of the other games I mentioned there are easily on par with Saturn games. Of course we can't compare the Jag to the N64 because, well, the N64 was released almost 3 years after the Jag was released... But wanna know something funny, Tetrisphere was originally developed for the Jag and Nintendo was impressed enough to snatch it up after Atari died...Rayman was also originally developed for the Jag. I do believe that Tomb Raider was originally planned for the Jag as well when Lara Croft was known as Lara Cruz.

[guitarmas]

Doom, AvP, Tempest 2000, Rayman, Iron Soldier and Battlesphere nicked the hardware plenty, and there were many more impressive titles that a 16 bit machine would have a hell of a time replicating.

 

yea they looked impressive in the 16 bit universe... but common... they didnt look like n64 or even saturn graphics for that matter....

 

Hmm, funny how the Jag version of Doom runs better than the Saturn version. It was released on the Jag atleast a year before the Saturn version too...I realize the Saturn version has a lot more levels, but still. All of the other games I mentioned there are easily on par with Saturn games. Of course we can't compare the Jag to the N64 because, well, the N64 was released almost 3 years after the Jag was released... But wanna know something funny, Tetrisphere was originally developed for the Jag and Nintendo was impressed enough to snatch it up after Atari died...Rayman was also originally developed for the Jag. I do believe that Tomb Raider was originally planned for the Jag as well when Lara Croft was known as Lara Cruz.

 

Well from what I understand, Doom on the Jaguar was coded in C so therefore it probably wasn't too difficult to make the conversion.

[kevincal]

Doom on the Jag is a very good port of the PC version. It's pretty incredible to think that especially since it was the very first home port of Doom to a console. Wolf 3D on the Jag is equally impressive. Just thought I'd get that out. And about Doom being done in C...I think you're right. But anyway...

[JB]

It's even more impressive if it's mostly compiled code. At the time, hand-written assembly was generally faster.