Jaguar vs. 32X?

[BuddyBuddies]

How about V8 engines...some have less than 200 horsepower while some have thousands of horsepower. Is this a good analogy? lol

 

Yes a brilliant one at that.

LOL!!!! DA FROGGY HAS SPOKEN!!!! ribbit,ribbit,ribbit.............

[Gregory DG]

I think you guys are argueing two separate issues. System vs. chips.

[BuddyBuddies]

I think you guys are argueing two separate issues. System vs. chips.

humm,well i stand by the Jaguar as being 64bits!!!!! how can calling it 32bits not be degrading??? hell it even says 64bits on the console,LOL, so the system speaks for itself!!!,lol,its funny because people only argue the Jaguars power and not any other system........ Atari even advertised it and told people that it was 64bits...."Its the Worlds first 64bit videogame system".........its 64 bits nuff said!!!

[walter_J64bit]

There is no stopping this post

[jbanes]

I think you guys are argueing two separate issues. System vs. chips.

Actually, I have no idea what he's really talking about. I don't think he knows either. Atari advertised the system as the "first 64-bit system!" so now everyone has to keep up appearances. Any little detail that can possibly support that is pressed into service. Seems like a dumb excuse to me, but hey what do I know? I'm just the "really intelligent guy" who's apparently so stupid he can't see that none of the processors run 64-bit computations. They "consume" them.

[Gorf]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

now you are really boring me jbanes.

 

...oh...you are still just wrong btw.

[Gorf]

I think you guys are argueing two separate issues. System vs. chips.

 

 

 

My whole point GDG......Im trying to tell him it is a full 64 bit SYSTEM and he plays

symantics and tech twist to bend the truth...why? to sound right when he was called

on a big fat flubb!! But Im a total idiot when it come to a system I have only revesre

engineered for the last 12 years for crying out loud!!! Let him belive his fantasies

about this crap...he's still wrong. He is completely unqualified in the Jaguar department...

OBVIOUSLY. nice enough guy but clearly on some ego trip to be right even when all the

facts show he is not.

[Gorf]

I think you guys are argueing two separate issues. System vs. chips.

Actually, I have no idea what he's really talking about. I don't think he knows either. Atari advertised the system as the "first 64-bit system!" so now everyone has to keep up appearances. Any little detail that can possibly support that is pressed into service. Seems like a dumb excuse to me, but hey what do I know? I'm just the "really intelligent guy" who's apparently so stupid he can't see that none of the processors run 64-bit computations. They "consume" them.

 

 

Show me one peice of code you ever wrote for the Jaguar. I Knowwhat I am saying. I have

plenty of years of Jaguar experience in both hardware and software wise to know you are

just plain BZZZZZZTTT!!!!!

 

WRONG!

 

 

Back to your fantasy world my friend.

[ovalbugmann]

The GPU can read and write 64 bits in ONE instruction and ONE cycle.

That right there alone constitutes it as a 64 bit processor.

 

Even if the GPU only accessed 32 bits x 2 at a time, it is still possible to access a full 64-bits in one instuction, that means it is truly capable of a full 64 bits at once, which makes it a true 64-bit system, even if it doesn't take advantage of that feature all the time. jbanes: Your pushing word size, right?, if it's accessing 32 bit wide words -the the system is 32-bit? ILLOGICAL, because it is still capable of accessing a full 64 if and when it needs to.

 

I guess it depends on how you view this, jbanes you say it only accesses 32 x 2 bits at a time (2 words) that may be true while running some programs, but it is still capable of a full 64 if needed. You are looking at the actual work it does, we are looking at the full capabilities of the system.

 

Let me give you an analogy: in the simplest terms: If your watching the Twilight Zone on TV and of course it's in black and white video - does that mean - Your watching a monochrone monitor or a Black & White TV? No. Your TV is color capable dude, and if you switch channels you will see that your monitor is not monochrome but fully color capable.

 

The Jaguar can be considered a 64-bit system, because 64-bit components are used, and the GPU can access 64 bits of data if required. So, basically; "Communication is performed with a high speed 64-bit data bus, rated at 106.364 megabytes/second" and " the GPU can access 64 bits of data if required"

 

"Jaguar has the data shifting power of a 64 bit system, which is what matters for games, so can reasonably be considered a 64 bit system. But that doesn't mean it has to be 64 bits throughout." "64-bit Data Bus: Allows Jaguar to process more than 100 times as much data at one time than 16-bit games and twice as much as 32-bit game systems.

 

For the record, the opinion of most third party developers and observers is that the Jaguar is indeed a 64-bit system. The emphasis is on the word "system"; while not every component is 64 bits, the Jaguar architecture,as a COMPLETE SYSTEM, is.

 

So, looks like your in the minority, jbanes, and majority rules, I totally agree with Gorf (he has 12 years of Jag code writing experience and what experience on the Jag do you have, huh?) on this and think you are downgrading the Jaguar by speading innacuracies by telling people it's 32-bit because of word size, it still can do 64 in one pass and that makes 64-bit whether or not it uses it. Your logic is not all-encompassing, as it should objectively be, but limited to your "word size theory" and your biased definition of what makes a 64-bit system.

Edited June 2, 2007 by ovalbugmann

[EmOneGarand]

First off, As a Jaguar Developer, I dont owe anyone proof of anything.

 

Not very good business sense I don't deny the fact that the JAG can do some crazy things when it's true potential is utilized but to "sell" the idea to others who do not have the first hand knowledge that a programmer who has actually seen what it can do you need proof. The JAG didn't do so well during it's shelf life because of that reason, nobody provided the proof it could do some great stuff, one homebrewer coming onto a forum and making claims with no visual proof leaves alot to be desired and alot of speculation.

Edited June 2, 2007 by EmOneGarand

[A Sprite]

Data in a Jaguar exists in the 64 bit realm and is them only chomped down to 32 or 16 bits when needed, versus some other systems where 16 and 32 bit data is doubled- and quadrupled-up when fed into 64 bit components.

 

Ah. So the Jag takes all the developer code and dumbs it down into the games we see...?

[kevincal]

How about V8 engines...some have less than 200 horsepower while some have thousands of horsepower. Is this a good analogy? lol

 

Yes a brilliant one at that.

 

I'm honored! lol.

[kevincal]

How about V8 engines...some have less than 200 horsepower while some have thousands of horsepower. Is this a good analogy? lol

 

Yes a brilliant one at that.

 

Ok so, obviously the Jag is on the LOW LOW spectrum of 64 bit systems (including home PC's etc.) So that would make the Jag a 200-300 horsepower V8. Now, lets say the Playstation..32 bits. Let's say this is a V6...but it has a twin turbo system so it puts out 350 horsepower to the Jag's 300...Making it more powerfull, even though it has smaller engine(displacement). How's that?

 

So the Jag is an archaic 64 bitter, while the PS is a suped up 32 bitter (for the time), but it doesn't change the fact that the Jag is 64 bits! Maybe like.... a 1993 Mustang 5.0 liter (V8 225 hp) racing a 1993 Mitsu. VR-4 3.5 liter (Twin Turbo V6 300 hp) The VR-4 is faster/better even though it has the smaller engine (32 bit) and the Stang the bigger engine (64-bit) So, you could say the Jag doesn't live up to the 64-bit hype/potential, kind of like the Stang doesn't perform as most V8's should, but you can't take away from the fact that IT IS 64-bits!!! :D . And the Stang a V8...lmao

 

I think I just tried to make the exact same point twice...lmao.

 

BUT! The Stang has tons of potential and can be made wickedly fast, so therefore, one would think the Jag with its 64-bits has lot of potential too. So, the Jag is like a V8 car someone put together, but say, put a severely restrictive air intake and exhaust system on it, thus limiting the power the V8 can output. Same thing with the Jag right? Powerfull engine, but crippling accessories connected to the engine, limiting power output!!!

 

[jbanes]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

now you are really boring me jbanes.

 

...oh...you are still just wrong btw.

And this is pretty much your entire argument. I show comparisons, links, manuals, etc. to back up my claims. You make gestures about "consuming" 64-bit values, then put WRONG in 64pt text.

 

I'd love to agree with you, but I can't. The natural word size of the SYSTEM (as a whole) is 32 bits. A 64-bit bus does not change that, no matter how much you want it to.

 

You continually ignore the fact that the rest of the industry has been doing designs comparable to the Jaguar, without upgrading the status of the systems to "64-bit".

 

Can the Jaguar do 64-bit math? No.

Can the Jaguar do 64-bit memory addressing? No.

Can the Jaguar run 64-bit software? No.

 

What can the Jaguar do that's 64-bit? Well, it can move 64-bits from memory over the bus, pack a descriptor for the OP in 64-bits, and that's pretty much it. Everything else is 32-bit operations. (Sometimes 8 or 16.) You add? 32-bit. Subtract? 32 bit. Multiply? 16 bit. Rotate? 32-bit. Blit a pixel? 8 to 32 bits/pixel.

 

Prove me wrong, Gorf. Show me a single computation ANYWHERE in the system that results in a 64-bit value. ANYWHERE. Even a floating-point value. A SIMD instruction. A VLIW executation path. SOMETHING.

 

I bet you can't do it. Because no matter how much data is *consumed*, it's still running through 32-bit logic pathways. Thus everything is still 32-bit. The word size of the system is 32-bit. You will always get one or two 32-bit results. Two 32-bit values in, one to two 32-bit values out. That's how it works, doesn't it Gorf?

 

Even one of the creators of the system (John Mathieson) dodged the question:

 

According to Jaguar designer John Mathieson, "Jaguar has a 64-bit memory

interface to get a high bandwidth out of cheap DRAM. ... Where the system

needs to be 64 bit then it is 64 bit, so the Object Processor, which takes

data from DRAM and builds the display is 64 bit; and the blitter, which

does all the 3D rendering, screen clearing, and pixel shuffling, is 64

bit. Where the system does not need to be 64 bit, it isn't. There is no

point in a 64 bit address space in a games console! 3D calculations and

audio processing do not generally use 64-bit numbers, so there would be no

advantage to 64 bit processors for this.

 

"Jaguar has the data shifting power of a 64 bit system, which is what

matters for games, so can reasonably be considered a 64 bit system. But

that doesn't mean it has to be 64 bits throughout."

Basically, he's saying that it's a 32-bit system that can bus 64-bits of data. That's a good thing, because it improves the system performance. (Which he and I agree on.) Most (i.e. pretty much all) 32-bit systems of today bus greater data rates for the same reason. More bits over the bus means less time to wait around. And they are also 64-bit (or 128-bit) "where it matters". In the Floating Point Coprocessor, in the MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3/Altivec SIMD processor, in the bus, in the GPU (which is actually anywhere from 256-1024 bits these days). We still don't call them 64-bit architectures or 64-bit systems. That's reserved for systems with true 64-bit word sizes like PowerPC G5s, Sparc64s, and AMD64s.

 

*sigh*

 

I'm going to leave it at that now. I know you can't prove the 64-bit computational abilities of the machine (because they don't exist) any more than I can reach across the internet and bang 32-bit == THE GOODNESS into your head. So I'll just get back to the original post that started this and say this: A chart of the Jaguar's architecture will not convince anyone. It will simply start arguments like these, so don't even bother.

[ovalbugmann]

From the JagFAQ: "Some say the Jaguar should be considered a 32-bit system, as that is the maximum register size in the programmable processors (the 68000, the graphics processor, and the DMA sound processor) Others say the Jaguar can be considered a 64-bit system, because 64-bit components are used, and the GPU can access 64 bits of data if required. The lack of an agreed-upon definition serves to complicate the issue."

 

It just depends on how you look at it, jbanes sees it as a half-empty we see it as half-full.

 

Jbanes: "Computers use all kinds of different bit widths, but the one that is used to define the overall "bitness" is the width of the main CPU's ALU. In the case of the Jaguar, it has 3 CPUs that all have ALUs of 32 bits in width. Even the ability to perform SIMD instructions on a 64-bit data sample does not change the fact that it's really 32 bit operations."

 

How is it a 32-bit operation if the jag can access 64 if needed? I guess I don't fully understand this, because what would the abitilty to access 64-bits at ONE time be needed for if it's only going to be 32 x 2? Doesn't make sense there must be a logical reason for a full 64 in one instruction ability.

 

jbanes: "The Jaguar is a 32 bit system that has 3 32-bit processors wired to a 64 bit main bus. The double-word size of the bus allows for twice the data rate of comparable systems, meaning that the Jaguar can potentially process more data in less time. No processor in the system can handle 64 bit words. That fact is utilized in the design to increase the data throughput between the GPU, Object Processor, and Blitter. If the machine was capable of 64 bit processing, it would slow things down as only one word of data would be transferred over the bus at a time rather than two words."

 

Ok, makes sense, except for 3 -32bit processors mentioned, I thought it had 3 64-bit processors.

From the FAQ:

 

Q. Was the Jaguar really a 64-bit system?

 

A. The question is hard to resolve, largely because the definition of what

constitutes an "N-bit" system has not been set. Of the five processors in

the Jaguar, only the object processor and the blitter are "true" 64-bit

components. Because the blitter and the object processor are in the Tom

chip, by extension Tom is a 64-bit chip. Furthermore, the Jaguar also

used a 64-bit memory architecture, according to Jez San of Argonaut

Software.

Edited June 2, 2007 by ovalbugmann

[BuddyBuddies]

First off, As a Jaguar Developer, I dont owe anyone proof of anything.

 

Not very good business sense I don't deny the fact that the JAG can do some crazy things when it's true potential is utilized but to "sell" the idea to others who do not have the first hand knowledge that a programmer who has actually seen what it can do you need proof. The JAG didn't do so well during it's shelf life because of that reason, nobody provided the proof it could do some great stuff, one homebrewer coming onto a forum and making claims with no visual proof leaves alot to be desired and alot of speculation.

No proof is needed,those who know its capabilities dont question its abilities Atari thought it was 64-BITS!!!,lol....

[ovalbugmann]

jbanes:

The word size on the Jag is 32 bits.

 

So your saying a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link? I believe that's what your saying and I just don't think it's that simple cut and dry here. There are aspects of the Jaguar that you are not taking into account, like the 64-bit components - why not all 32 then. And your being a little bit arrogant assuming that the reason for the 64-bit bus is to carry 32 x 2 words how the hell do you know what Mathieson intended putting in 64-bit components and bus? You estrapolated from his quote you posted that:

 

he's saying that it's a 32-bit system that can bus 64-bits of data

 

I don't see him saying it's a 32-bit system, and the bus is for half-measures? Give it up, you know what happens when you ASS-u-me don't you?

Edited June 2, 2007 by ovalbugmann

[jbanes]

How is it a 32-bit operation if the jag can access 64 if needed? I guess I don't fully understand this, because what would the abitilty to access 64-bits at ONE time be needed for if it's only going to be 32 x 2? Doesn't make sense there must be a logical reason for a full 64 in one instruction ability.

Yes! There is a logical reason. If you look at the image from earlier in this thread, you'll see that all the chips share the same main bus. By main bus here, we mean physical pathways that carry a single electric current. There are 64 of them side by side, and linked up to all these chips simultaneously. If one chip makes use of the bus, the rest are told to get the heck off while it works. (Two signals happening simultaneously would produce a Z value. i.e. An unknown. That's why we lock-step our processors according to a clock to make sure that two things never overlap.)

 

Since the other chips are locked out of the bus while one chip works, the chips are effectively canabalizing each other's access to memory. Doubling the amount of data transferred allows for a particular chip to complete its load in half the time. So instead of waiting 1024 cycles for the 1K of GPU cache to get swapped out, the Jag can get it done in 512 cycles. Make sense?

 

Or to put it in a simpler example:

 

r0 + r1

 

This computation requires that registers r0 and r1 be loaded. A 32-bit bus would be busy for both loads. A 64-bit bus transfers both values at the same time, then allows another chip to use it while the chip doing the addition finishes loading the two registers.

 

 

Ok, makes sense, except for 3 -32bit processors mentioned, I thought it had 3 64-bit processors.

No. Tom and Jerry are both 32-bit RISC processors. The 68000 is a 32-bit CISC processor that was used as a 16-bit CPU. (This was actually an intentional design decision by Motorola. Silicon costs a lot less than pins.) The Object Processor and Blitter were on the same die as "Tom". These both took in 64-bit values, but were more specialized coprocessors. The OP decodes the 64 bit chunk of data into a variety of smaller values while the Blitter transforms, rotates, and shades 8-bit, 16-bit, or 32-bit pixel values from the 64 bit chunk.

 

 

jbanes:

The word size on the Jag is 32 bits.

So your saying a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link? I believe that's what your saying and I just don't think it's that simple cut and dry here.

No. What I'm saying is that there is NO 64-bit math anywhere in the system. Zip, zilch, none, nada. That's what I'm asking Gorf to disprove. All the computations are done in values of 8, 16, or 32 bits save for main bus transfers. Which makes sense. 32 bit values are HUGE at a maximum value of 4 billion. As I mentioned before, using a 64-bit bus slices bus transfer times in half.

 

There are aspects of the Jaguar that you are not taking into account, like the 64-bit components - why not all 32 then.

That's my point. They all load 64 bits at a time from the bus, but they only process them as 32 bit values. Ergo, you get 32x2 rather than 64x1.

 

And your being a little bit arrogant assuming that the reason for the 64-bit bus is to carry 32 x 2 words how the hell do you know what Mathieson intended putting in 64-bit components and bus?

Arrogant? He said as much! Let's go through it line by line:

 

Jaguar has a 64-bit memory interface to get a high bandwidth out of cheap DRAM

What he's saying here is that faster RAM was expensive. The Playstation ran at 33MHz rather than the Jag's 26ish. (That was a big difference back then.) To get that performance increase, Sony had to use higher quality parts. Mathieson got around that problem by using cheap parts, but doubling the data rate over the bus. For the cost of a few extra buffers in the chips (e.g. the G_HIWORD register in the GPU to store extra

32 bits) he was able to save a bundle on the memory.

 

The memory layout of the Jag is actually kind of neat in that it's 4x16-bits wired together to look like a single 64-bit transfer. So each 64-bit value is actually spread across 4 chips!

 

Where the system needs to be 64 bit then it is 64 bit, so the Object Processor, which takes data from DRAM and builds the display is 64 bit; and the blitter, which does all the 3D rendering, screen clearing, and pixel shuffling, is 64 bit.

He's stretching things a bit here, but this is where we get into the two coprocessors. The Object Processor takes a single 64-bit data descriptor, and pulls values from it to know how to build the display. A typical command might divide up like this:

 

   63	  56		48	   40	   32		24	   16	   8	3   0
 +--------^---------^-----+---^--------^--------+--------+--+-----^----+---+
 |		unused		  |	  Link-address   | unused |CC|   VCnt   |011|
 +------------------------+---------------------+--------+--+----------+---+

 

The Blitter, as I discussed above, does operations on a 64-bit chunk of pixels. For the largest size pixel, you get 2 pixels per 64-bit chunk.

 

The object coprocessor has 64-bit registers for temporary data storage.

 

Where the system does not need to be 64 bit, it isn't. There is no point in a 64 bit address space in a games console! 3D calculations and audio processing do not generally use 64-bit numbers, so there would be no advantage to 64 bit processors for this.

What he's saying here is that the processors are NOT 64-bit processors. They deal in 32 bit words, because 32-bits is plenty of space to fit the types of numbers that the Jag will process.

 

When he refers to the address space, he's talking about one of the features of CPUs. Since most CPUs use their internal logic to change the memory address being pointed at, the maximum memory in the system is limited by the word size of the CPU. In the case of an 8-bit processor, only 256 bytes can be addressed at any one time. You may have heard the 2600 programmers talk about "pages" of memory. These are each 256 bytes, and an extra register is used to select which page to look at. 16-nit processors have a ceiling of 64K. Again, segments or "pages" are often used to allow more memory. 32-bit processors were the first processors to make "flat" memory addressing a reality. They can address a maximum of 4 Gigabytes without resorting to pages or segments. A 64-bit processor can address 16 exabytes.

 

As you can imagine, the Jaguar didn't have 16 exabytes to address. It didn't even have 4 gigabytes. (It had 2MB, in case you're wondering.) Combined with the lack of a need for numbers as large as 2^64, it didn't make sense to design a 64-bit architecture. So they used 32-bit words everywhere, and simply doubled the data rate with a 64-bit bus.

 

(Continued in next post...)

[jbanes]

Jaguar has the data shifting power of a 64 bit system, which is what matters for games, so can reasonably be considered a 64 bit system. But that doesn't mean it has to be 64 bits throughout."

And this gets back to square one. He's saying that games need to move data around FAST. If you've got a sprite that's 32x32(x4) pixels, it's a lot faster to make 2048 transfers over the bus than 4096 transfers. Thus, "Where it matters for games."

 

If the Jaguar was a true 64-bit system, it would only be able to move one number over the bus at a time for anything that needed to be computed. (e.g. 3D coordinates) Thus its design as a 32-bit system is an advantage and accomplishes the creator's intentions.

 

Does that clarify?

 

Give it up, you know what happens when you ASS-u-me don't you?

Back at'cha. Though I'm not so rude as to call you an ass or arrogant. You simply didn't know. If I helped you understand the architecture and my position, then I've done my job well.

[Gorf]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

now you are really boring me jbanes.

 

...oh...you are still just wrong btw.

And this is pretty much your entire argument. I show comparisons, links, manuals, etc. to back up my

 

 

 

 

yawn....(you are still so completely incorrect, its comical)

 

You have twisted tech terms with symantics, excudling parts of the truth to bulster your fantasy, I have offered all the proof I need to, yet you will nit pick this till I copitulate........just dont hold your breath.

I do not copitulate to a fantasy in someones mind, inspite of the evidence.

 

You want to belive that the math capabilities is the ONLY thing that determines a systems bitness and want to tell me the opl and blitter DONT move the data at 64 bits, you go ahead.

 

 

Oh and your tag line still don't make your fantasy any more the truth.

 

 

Oh and keep reading the documents out of context. People do that with the bible and wala! A cult!

Edited June 2, 2007 by Gorf

[mos6507]

The whole bitness argument is ludicrous. It takes more than bit width to make a powerful system, and bit width can differ in relation to registers, address bus, data bus, etc... Everything from the original 8080-based Gunfight coinop machines through things like the Turbogfx-16 used 8-bit CPUs with vastly different capabilities.

 

From a consumer standpoint, the Jaguar didn't meet the expectations people had for a console with a 64-bit processor in it replete with the associated hype surrounding that fact. The N64 came closer, but didn't really either.

[Gorf]

The whole bitness argument is ludicrous. It takes more than bit width to make a powerful system, and bit width can differ in relation to registers, address bus, data bus, etc... Everything from the original 8080-based Gunfight coinop machines through things like the Turbogfx-16 used 8-bit CPUs with vastly different capabilities.

 

From a consumer standpoint, the Jaguar didn't meet the expectations people had for a console with a 64-bit processor in it replete with the associated hype surrounding that fact. The N64 came closer, but didn't really either.

 

 

N64 is probably not 64 bit either according to mr jbanes. It dont do 64 bit math so it cant be.

Just silly. HE wants you to believe the lagest word size of the Jaguar is 32 bit. Wrong. Read

the docs...IN CONTEXT PLEASE. He also wants you to think the the OPL even though it grabs

64 bits of data for it instructions(The phrases that are 64 bits that he says there is no such thing)

that its still not 64 bits even though it is. He wants you also to belicve the the GPU, OPL and blitter CANNOT write and read at 64 bits...if only he actually read the docs....IN CONTEXT.

 

Well, it's good comic releif at very least anyway.....annoying but certainly laughable.

[+LS650]

It's sixty-four bits.

[Gorf]

It's sixty-four bits.

 

 

Only if you believe the docs and those who have studied and coded it closely for 12+ years.

Edited June 2, 2007 by Gorf

[Atariman]

Well, I've read both sides of the argument, but without actually reading up on the documents that describe the different components, I'm not certain as to which side I believe.

 

My Atari fanboy side of me wants to believe Gorf, but the logical side of me wants to believe jbanes.

 

I understand that 64-bits can be thrown around at a time, but it doesn't really prove to me that the system can be considered to be 64-bit. I understand what jbanes is saying (at least I think I do anyway) - that even though 64-bits are being sent here and there in one cycle, the sending/receiving parts really don't WORK with all 64-bits at once (32-bits are put into a buffer or something). Kind of like taking a bite of a sandwich, but having to chew and swallow twice because you just can't stuff that much sandwich down your throat at once. (Kind of that "chipmunk cheek" look )

 

So I guess the question is: are the 64-bit values that are coming out onto the bus true 64-bit values from some sort of 64-bit computation, or are they simply two 32-bit values slapped together and sent along in a pair?

 

Even if the answer is the second one, I am still inclined to lean towards the 64-bit camp not because I believe that the parts hooked up to the bus are true 64-bit CPUs, but because it is still a very clever way of utilizing 32-bit processors to use a 64-bit pathway. There's still that hint of 64-bit to it, even though it can't deal with all of the 64-bits all at once.

 

Well, I hope I didn't garble any of what you were expressing, jbanes, just trying to simplify it a bit.

 

I think I see both points of view... I think... I also think it's important to remember that even though not all individuals have 12+ years of experience with working with the Jaguar, it is still possible to have a good understanding of how processors and hardware work... I find it hard to believe that the Jag hardware is so radically different that it is impossible to apply general knowledge of hardware to the argument.