Ok, who here failed to DO THE MATH and didn't buy an Atari Jaguar?

[kaneada]

richardhutnik said:

kaneada said:

richardhutnik said:

 

 

Processors

• "Tom" Chip, 26.59 MHz
  • Graphics processing unit (GPU) – 32-bit RISC architecture, 4 KB internal cache, provides wide array of graphic effects
  • Object Processor – 64-bit RISC architecture; programmable; can behave as a variety of graphic architectures
  • Blitter – 64-bit RISC architecture; high speed logic operations, z-buffering and Gouraud shading, with 64-bit internal registers.
  • DRAM controller, 32-bit memory management

Again, it was 64bit the wat the PC-Engine was 16bit.  It had a 64bit processor in it and a 64bit bus.  Of course, most developers coded to the 16bit processor in it, so it was moot.  Number of bits don't mean much either.  The Intellivision was a 16bit system, but compare the 8bit NES to it.  The NES blows it away. 

 

I understand what is going on here.  The real understanding is screaming specs is a joke when it comes to games.

That's where I pulled my info. However when you think about it, that was kind of a bottle neck in performance. If your primary processing can only send 32-bit instructions, having 64-bit accelerators don't matter. Ultimately the system was 32-bit on my understanding of this document. The only real advantage you have there is parallelism as theorectically you could send two 32-bit instructions on that bus, but ultimately that was a weak solution.

As far as whether the system was 64 bit or not is kind of a joke. If the presence of 64-bit anything existing on the board made it a 64-bit system then I could just as easily question that it is 32-bit due to the main CPU. That would be like saying the Gensis was only 8-bit because it used Z80 for sound processing and backward compatibility.The point is that neither statement in this paragraph faithfully represents the systems acutal capability (i.e. the Gensis used a motorolla 68000 CPU for its primary processor which is 16-bit.)

Lastly, I did read all the way through this, so I know it was intended to be satirical and therefore I wasn't actually flaming you for any lack of understanding and I do think I did mention that the systems specs were used a gimmick, so I got your point.

 

The Blitter was a 64bit chip.  It also had a 64bit bus.  It had a 16bit CPU and multiple 32bit chips in there.  It wasn't, as is said, "Well, they took two 32 bit chips and added them up, and it was 64 bit". 

What I believe should be concluded is that "number of bits" means jack, because the Intellivision was a 16bit system.  Doesn't mean it even holds a candle to the NES, for example.  Raw CPU horsepower doesn't count either.  What matters is what the system plays, not all the hype over number of bits, size of storage, how many FLOPS something does, or whatever else.  This is particularly true now. 

So, with the Jaguar, as far as 64 bits go, it is LAME, the way the Intellivision is LAME for 16bits.  The TurboGrafx does a decent job keeping up with the Genesis and SNES, as far as games go, and what the system does, so it belongs in the same class as those two systems.  And yes, it had an 8bit CPU, and 16bit graphics processor.

And with everything overall, it matters that you are having fun.  Angry Videogame Nerd on the Jaguar summed up what matters.  And Tempest 2000 rocks.  Too bad not too many people are interested in a techno remake of the original Tempest.

Based on the way the technical specs are laid out, this is a 32-bit chip with a 64-bit bus and not a 64-bit chip by design. The first line indicates that it is a 32-bit risc archecture chip. This looks like a list of features that one chip is capable of and not a separate chip. So to understand the way your looking at it, there are 3 TOM's one Jerry and a 68000 motorolla that is was supposed to be used for controller input, but was instead more often than not used for game logic.

I do generally agree with your points on this and if you aim is to wax philosophical about what makes a successful system you have made your point clearly. I don't argue with the the fact that the Jaguar was junk, I'm arguing about the system specs, because (and no fault to you) they make this section that you list as a reference look like one chip that can perform 3 different ways and not 3 seperate chips with the only differece being the size of the buses on each.

The NES rocked because of software and was carried largely on it, much like the PS1 and PS2. They all had successful runs due to their software libraries...no doubt about it.

I agree you were spot on with how fanboys come across, though I'm not sure why you choose to do so if your point was to argue that software dictates success for a platform and not archetecture. Though elusive, it seems like you are using the Atari Jaguar as a metaphor defining both the stupidity of fanboys and your distaste for this generations underdog console.

I'm arguing with you for a little bit of fun, because its nice to have a converastion that does not have to do wtih current gen and who's winning or loosing. Not only that I love old technology.

But here's a thought and its your choice to continue this: With a 6 megabyte cartridge limit (roughly the size of the last run of SNES carts in Japan which are defined as 48 megabit) and a console with that much power (which for the time was a lot) if proper development was invested along with cash, how great the games could be. Afterall, the fail of the Jag was based solely on its software library getting poor reviews. It could have been very successful. I bet with with a modern budget and some of today's top notch developers you could have some incredible games.

Oh and don't forget Rayman and AVP, they were both huge sellers for the JAG. It almost made the system worth owning in retrospect. :)