Atari Jaguar VS Sega Saturn

[A Sprite]

This is retarded, so here's the last comparison pic -

 

 

Everyone make of it what you will, my role as devil's advocate is done.

 

Spiffyone, it was fun to debate you, as one retard to another.

[Gorf]

Spiffy, I really don't know who you think you are by talking down to me like you are... You're are not above me in any way by any means, so don't even try. You can't judge someones intelligence based upon a few unedited replies in a video game forum... Gorf has misspelling and shit all the time cus like me, he could really give a shit to impress anyone that way...yet it's obvious he's a very bright guy..You gonna talk down to him like he's a dumbass too? ... Don't insult my intelligence again, ok?

 

 

Yeah, But I live in Jersey...We mis-spell and cuss as a normality.

 

We dont consider 'f#$k' a cus word....in Jersey its either a verb or an

adjective...even a noun some time..."Hey ,you ugly f#$k! Let's go

get a bite to eat." Is a perfectly acceptable and friendly invitation out

to dinner aoround here.

 

 

Well I wish it was more like that here in Cali. I love me some cussing... When the situation requires it, of course...

 

Again...here it's not even considered cussing by most...they are just 'colorful' words...

Edited August 10, 2007 by Gorf

[spiffyone]

And YOU would try to even make a comparison with a SNES game vs a PS game... Your hate for the PS is so obvious dude... lol

 

Actually, I'm making a comparison between a game that appears on SNES, PSone, and Saturn not just SNES and PSone, and one was originally on arcades. I'm stating that still screens are not a valid comparison. They have to be judged in motion.

 

That goes for any game, tbqh.

[spiffyone]

LOL it's so obvious that is 16-bit it's not even funny... ok it IS funny...

 

Y'know what's really funny?

 

The original arcade game is 16-bit.

 

Wanna know what else is funny?

 

I made my point long ago. Now I'm just continuing the laughs.

[A Sprite]

Yeah, but I think both of you are forgetting the true king of 2D.

 

 

Marvel vs. Capcom vs. SNK.

 

 

4 Player simultaneous tag - no ram cart needed.

 

 

And it's got werewolves.

 

Welcome to the future. Carried to you by the power of Blast Processing.

[sd32]

That Ryu sprite looks gorgeous for the Sega Genesis, its a shame that the game is pretty bad... well, not so bad for what it is.

Edited August 10, 2007 by sd32

[jesusc]

are those really genesis? What is it some hack of sorts?

I used to have Yu Yu Hakusho.

Paid $180 for it, and literally never played it.

I so don't miss the days of collecting just for the sake of collecting.

[gamersrevenge]

Well the Saturn was also a bitch to program

sega has some cool games but the jag is awesome

[Pocket]

SPIFFYONE (what a retarded name...) No need for me to waste my time to prove to you anything. Everyone read the same mags as me in the 90's and knows that the same 2d games on the Saturn on PS were rated very similarly. Whereas the same 3d game on the both systems was usually rated significantly high on the PS...That's fact. This isn't my damned opinion like you keep stating. I'm not talking out of my ass. Go away...

 

Well, I worked in videogames magazines in these years and Saturn games had usually better reviews... (in france)

[A Sprite]

Sorry to bump this, but...

 

 

Gorf, could the Jag do this? This shot of Radiant Silvergun has been altered. Two filters. More colors are forced, leading to smoother looking graphics.

 

I saw a similar effect in Raiden.

Edited September 4, 2007 by A Sprite

[Gorf]

I have to say , you guys kill me....slay me even....You post screen shots as if that tells me the

story. Vid maybe? I can make ANYTHING LOOK like anything on the Jaguar....it has the color

depth and plenty enough resolution....what I dont have is the fogiest clue as to what that game

looks like in motion.

 

Like I've been telling you guys around here...screen shots are useless...They hardly give

any indication of what is going on. If I were to show you screen shots of Myst on the Jaguar

and you did not know what Myst was, would it be a truthful representation of Jaguar's

poly pushing and frame rate abilities? ou know it would'nt once you put the game in and played.

yeah they screens look great but the are all stills.

 

Looks are fleeting, beauty is skin deep......it's no different in video games.

[A Sprite]

Apologies.

 

[walter_J64bit]

Sorry to bump this, but...

 

 

Gorf, could the Jag do this? This shot of Radiant Silvergun has been altered. Two filters. More colors are forced, leading to smoother looking graphics.

 

I saw a similar effect in Raiden.

[A Sprite]

If it's not your type of thing, that's your call, but Radiant Silvergun is considered one of the best games out there. If the Jag can pull it off, it's instant street cred.

[A Sprite]

http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-13-71-8m-49-en-70-rbf.html

[Gorf]

Apologies.

 

 

 

Jag can hahdle that. Even the texture mapped models.

[Exophase]

Sorry to register just to post this but I've been reading a lot of Gorf's technical information about platforms and although it's all very technical sounding and convincing a lot of the time it's just plain wrong. Rather than respond to actual quotes I'll just address some of the things I've been seeing:

 

"PS1 can only do 4000 8x8 sprites"

 

You shouldn't believe everything you read off of Wikipedia. PS1 doesn't have a "2D sprite engine", it does however have a sprite (textured 2D quad) primitive, and it's in no way limited to being 8x8. This reference in particular is probably just someone's rough estimation on throughput, and who knows where it was received from.

 

By the way, PS1's GPU has display list processing that is awfully similar to what the Object Processor in Jaguar does..

 

"A single SH2 on the Saturn could beat the R3000a in the PS1"

 

This is absurd. There's nothing "more efficient" about the SH2s on the Saturn. On the contrary, by only having 16bit wide instructions (just like the Jaguar's RISC chips) they're actually quite a bit weaker than what you'll tend to find in your average 32bit wide instructions (R3000A). SH2 has less registers, smaller immediates, etc. Jaguar's RISCs have very small immediates and an instruction set that is in general less orthogonal. All of these platforms are sufficiently pipelined so that most instructions run at 1 cycle when no stalls are introduced and none of them are superscalar, so you can't say that any one of them is particularly "more efficient" than another.

 

"Jaguar's ~100MB/sec bus bandwidth is almost as good as PS1's ~133MB/sec bus bandwidth"

 

This is faulty for two reasons. First, Jaguar's bandwidth is artificially high because of the 64bit wide bus. The problem here is that a lack of buffering throughout the system means that a lot of the time this is wasted. I'm sure you're all aware of the John Carmack quote showing how this makes the actual texturing bandwidth pretty bad. A lot of bus accesses are going to be either 16 or 32bit, not 64bit.

 

The other problem is that just about everything useful is connected to this bus and has to use cycles off of it to get anything done. The PS1, on the other hand, has dedicated VRAM. I don't know how fast it is for the GPU there to access it, but I do know it's not ported on the main bus, so is this really a relevant comparison?

 

"Jaguar is a 64bit platform, everyone who says differently is completely wrong."

 

Okay, I'm sure this is a popular criticism here but think about it. A Pentium 1 computer has a 64bit data bus between CPU and RAM, and yet virtually no one would dare consider it a 64bit platform. To be a 64bit platform you have to have 64bit CPUs, which has to include 64bit wide registers that can perform 64bit ALU operations AND you need the bus width to properly supply this. Just one or the other isn't enough. Jaguar is a 32bit console. Then again, everyone knows bit ratings are pure marketing most of the time anyway, and until this generation there have only been two real 64bit consoles...

 

"Jaguar has 5 processors"

 

Okay, what is considered a "processor" here? Jaguar has 3 CPUs. If you want to consider things like the OP and blitter processors then you'd better be willing to consider the GPU, SPU, MDEC decoder, etc on PS1 processors too.

 

Finally, everyone says that no one used the RISCs on Tom and Jerry because of lack of dev kits. Maybe that's true, but how is it that the lack of cache never comes up? It doesn't matter if you can run code from main RAM, there's a very obvious reason why you'd never want to do this: because it'd be extremely slow. I'd be surprised if the instruction throughput at this point is even 1/5th what it is running from the fast SRAM. So to actually get GOOD performance out of the RISCs you need to chunk instructions in and out of the SRAM, which is not just a lot more tedious (and nigh impossible to build good compilers around, maybe that explains the lack of tools) but actually does have a significant overhead over what a real cache controller would do. The lack of normal instruction cache is just another one of the Jaguar's design flaws, possibly one of the most crippling.

[kevincal]

Welcome to Atari Age. It looks like Gorf has some real competition now...

[Gorf]

Oh brother! Here we go again.....

 

Sorry to register just to post this but I've been reading a lot of Gorf's technical information about platforms and although it's all very technical sounding and convincing a lot of the time it's just plain wrong. Rather than respond to actual quotes I'll just address some of the things I've been seeing:

 

LOL! So far most of what you posted, sound techincal but is just plain wrong...shall we proceed? Excellent then....

 

"PS1 can only do 4000 8x8 sprites"

You shouldn't believe everything you read off of Wikipedia. PS1 doesn't have a "2D sprite engine", it does however have a sprite (textured 2D quad) primitive, and it's in no way limited to being 8x8. This reference in particular is probably just someone's rough estimation on throughput, and who knows where it was received from.

 

Um that was NOT from wikipedia and every spec I've ever read on the system sugests otherwise.

The machine is not a 2D power house and it WONT out do the Jaguar in 2D. IT is powerful at 2D

but the Blitter and the OPL together with kick its ass in 2D anyday. The PS1's strong point is 3D

trips, and not 2D....at least not more able than the Jaguar. There is no game on the PS1 to indicate

this to be true. The point of this is simply the PS1 is not as flexible or capable in 2D as the Jaguar.

It was not meant to be and it did not need to be. Clealy it did fine without it.

 

By the way, PS1's GPU has display list processing that is awfully similar to what the Object Processor in Jaguar does..

 

Similarities do not make it the same, that's just silly. The Jaguar can draw trips but its still not the same as

how the PS1 does it. I've never heard anyone try to compare the two.

 

"A single SH2 on the Saturn could beat the R3000a in the PS1"

This is absurd. There's nothing "more efficient" about the SH2s on the Saturn. On the contrary, by only having 16bit wide instructions (just like the Jaguar's RISC chips) they're actually quite a bit weaker than what you'll tend to find in your average 32bit wide instructions (R3000A). SH2 has less registers, smaller immediates, etc. Jaguar's RISCs have very small immediates and an instruction set that is in general less orthogonal. All of these platforms are sufficiently pipelined so that most instructions run at 1 cycle when no stalls are introduced and none of them are superscalar, so you can't say that any one of them is particularly "more efficient" than another.

 

Quite weaker? Talk about absurd! What does an instruction width have to do with anything? IT has NOTHING

to do with anything. 32 bit wide instructions are less efficent becasue you need a long instead of a word. At the time

of Tom& Jerry the Mips processor instruction were no more complex by any stretch of the imagination. The idea of

RISC is a reduced simple instruction set. The SH2 is a very powerful processor and can keep up with just about any

MIPS of its time. Immediates are a bit of a pain but no where near like you are trying to tell everyone. nice try

but try again......after you do some REAL homework....

 

Lets see 4k of local ram.....thats 2k worth of GPU instructions at 16 bit wide.

4k of local ram.....thats 1k worth of RISC instructions at 32 bit wide.

 

This is efficient? Come now!

 

"Jaguar's ~100MB/sec bus bandwidth is almost as good as PS1's ~133MB/sec bus bandwidth"

This is faulty for two reasons. First, Jaguar's bandwidth is artificially high because of the 64bit wide bus. The problem here is that a lack of buffering throughout the system means that a lot of the time this is wasted. I'm sure you're all aware of the John Carmack quote showing how this makes the actual texturing bandwidth pretty bad. A lot of bus accesses are going to be either 16 or 32bit, not 64bit.

 

 

No this is NOT faulty because even John Carmack did not know what we now know about the Jaguar.

Doom is Using ALOT of 68k code BTW, and is exactly why id software had the issues they had with the

Jaguar. Run everything off the GPU and its going to be mostly 32 64 bits. run it off the 68k and you will

choke the bus and the system. Hats off to Carmack but he is hardly a Jaguar expert. A lot of that code

was C code...the source is available for you to see for yourself. John Carmack also admitted he approached

the jaguar like a PC or DOOM would have never be ready. It helps to be accurate when you quote some

one and even understand their level of understanding on a particular system. Carmack admitted he could

have double the resolution and gotten a faster frame rate if he coded doom specifically for the JAguar.

The texture mapping is the fault of the blitter, not the bus. the blitter had bugs and this was one that only

allowed PIXEL mode texturing....even this has a work around now, so this is not even true anymore.

 

What they knew then is very different to what WE know now. The docs form Atari dont explain everything.

 

 

The other problem is that just about everything useful is connected to this bus and has to use cycles off of it to get anything done. The PS1, on the other hand, has dedicated VRAM. I don't know how fast it is for the GPU there to access it, but I do know it's not ported on the main bus, so is this really a relevant comparison?

 

It's very relevant.

 

I agree with you that there should have been seperate buses(which actually is true anyway, as the GPU and DSP have

their own internal local bus and can run in parralel with the 68k and the DSP with someone who REALLY understands

the machine that is). The instructions are pipelined in and out of the local and the speed difference is only effected

when there is a page hit or some one else has the bus. Read the docs...the JAguar GPU can run out in main

as fast as it does in local, outside of the dram pitfalls(page hits and refresh). The Apline development board has

SRAM and the GPU runs quite efficently from there. The MMU helps this to take place. It always sees the bus

as a physical 64 bit wide bus and internally redirects the smaller parts out to the smaller widths.

 

"Jaguar is a 64bit platform, everyone who says differently is completely wrong."

Okay, I'm sure this is a popular criticism here but think about it. A Pentium 1 computer has a 64bit data bus between CPU and RAM, and yet virtually no one would dare consider it a 64bit platform. To be a 64bit platform you have to have 64bit CPUs, which has to include 64bit wide registers that can perform 64bit ALU operations AND you need the bus width to properly supply this. Just one or the other isn't enough. Jaguar is a 32bit console. Then again, everyone knows bit ratings are pure marketing most of the time anyway, and until this generation there have only been two real 64bit consoles...

 

First, there is no such standard to rate systems other than in your mind and unfortunately a bunch of stuborn others

who think the ALU is the ONLY part of a computer. The Jaguar moves and manipulates data 64 bit at a time. It is a 64

bit system. Where it is not 64 bit is does not need to be 64 bits. I wont rehash this utter nonsense or a supposede

bitness standard that just does not exsist. You want to be a fool and stick to an old out dated definition then be my

guest. Again the Jaguar doe not have a MAIN processor so your whole argument is shot there. The Jaguar reads

modifies and writes data at 64 bits wide. How is this not a 64 bit procces?

 

 

"Jaguar has 5 processors"

Okay, what is considered a "processor" here? Jaguar has 3 CPUs. If you want to consider things like the OP and blitter processors then you'd better be willing to consider the GPU, SPU, MDEC decoder, etc on PS1 processors too.

 

Fine, they process data. I only ever said that 3 of these processor are general pupose. If a piece of silicon

reads, modifies and writes data then that silicon is a processor. Please tell me how it is not.

 

Finally, everyone says that no one used the RISCs on Tom and Jerry because of lack of dev kits. Maybe that's true, but how is it that the lack of cache never comes up? It doesn't matter if you can run code from main RAM, there's a very obvious reason why you'd never want to do this: because it'd be extremely slow.

 

IT does matter becasue it has been proven...I know tho....never mind the facts.....you are as wrong as can be.

Believe this folly all you want but its cleary a lack of necessary Jaguar experience. There is NO obvious reason and

one of the more common complaints of the developers is the inablilty to run from main ram. That inability has been

erased. It makes a MAJOR difference in speed.

 

I'd be surprised if the instruction throughput at this point is even 1/5th what it is running from the fast SRAM. So to actually get GOOD performance out of the RISCs you need to chunk instructions in and out of the SRAM, which is not just a lot more tedious

 

Yes and eat up a heck of alot MORE cycles flipping code int he cache than running it out in main.

I have proved this to myself so it really does not matter ifyou beleive me or not. Keep beleiving

the Jaguar as conventional and you will always be wrong.

 

(and nigh impossible to build good compilers around, maybe that explains the lack of tools) but actually does have a significant overhead over what a real cache controller would do. The lack of normal instruction cache is just another one of the Jaguar's design flaws, possibly one of the most crippling.

 

I bring the lack of cache all the time but you obviously are not a very thorough reader. Also The tools were not even

geared toward the RISC's other than a simple assembler. NOt a great way to try to compete against C compilers.

I can understand why you bleive some of the crap you do but until you have coded the JAgur for 12+ years, you

should pick your battles better. You may have read this and that, butIm telling you from first hand experience.

12+ years of it, thank you very much.

[Gorf]

Welcome to Atari Age. It looks like Gorf has some real competition now...

 

 

Please....in your dreams PS1 fan boy. See previous post wher FACTS are once again laid out.

 

 

Edit...

 

sorry KK.....forgot the ..... ...after the PS1 fan boy...you knowIm busting you short and curly's...

Edited September 7, 2007 by Gorf

[SatNoob]

I enjoyed reading that and I have no idea what any of it means

[Gorf]

I enjoyed reading that and I have no idea what any of it means

 

 

Dont feel bad .....I dont really either....I admit it and have admitted it....I have been doing this stuff

however for 30 years now and I think I have somewaht an understanding of how this works.

 

Exophase is not stupid by any means but does not understand what I understand about the Jaguar.

I also admit I know very little about the PS1 and its hardware and can only go by the info available.

He says most of those sources are wrong. I cant say as I've not seen contrary sites otherwise.

I mearly posetd most of waht I did to bust his chops for saying Im just plain wrong. he is not wrong

in some of what he is saying but niether am I.

 

I cant speak to his experience with PS1 but he's no dummy. I will admit he may know something

more about the PS1 hardawre than is available to the public, so I give him the benefit of the doubt to

be honest....but you know me...I gotta bust a few you know whats once in a while...ok a lot!

 

Again, I know the PS1 has the advantage over the Jagur in a lot of ways but not by a complete

generation by any means...it has a bit more power and all in the right place. He is right also

about the bus stuff to a point but a good coder can work his way around such things.

 

All I can tell any of you is the same thing I have been telling you. I know the Jaguar has a lot more

abilitly than has been show for the most part. I only wish I were a millionare's son and had nothing

to do with my life but code the Jaggy...the trouble is...it aint true. If time allows, I will get back to

finishing waht I have started and post something nice for everyone....infact me and Atari Owl have

agreed to a joint effort to show what we have both discovered and confirmed with one another.

 

The jag comunity will hopefully benefit greatly as we have also agreed to eventually release the info.

We just want to be comfortable with it ourselves first. SO far I have noproblems whatsoever with the

significant workarounds recently discovered by Owl and I.

 

The Jaguar is no PS1 but the PS1 is no Jaguar either.

 

 

@ Exophase.....No hard feelings buddy....you are correct on some stuff but the Jag

stuff need some brushing up on.

[Exophase]

LOL! So far most of what you posted, sound techincal but is just plain wrong...shall we proceed? Excellent then....

 

Yeah, you wish.

 

Um that was NOT from wikipedia and every spec I've ever read on the system sugests otherwise.

 

Nice try, I searched this out beforehand just to see where the misinformation was coming from and the only thing that came up was the exact Wikipedia quote. There is no 8x8 limit on size on sprites for PS1, that's rubbish.

 

The machine is not a 2D power house and it WONT out do the Jaguar in 2D. IT is powerful at 2D

but the Blitter and the OPL together with kick its ass in 2D anyday. The PS1's strong point is 3D

trips, and not 2D....at least not more able than the Jaguar. There is no game on the PS1 to indicate

this to be true. The point of this is simply the PS1 is not as flexible or capable in 2D as the Jaguar.

It was not meant to be and it did not need to be. Clealy it did fine without it.

 

The problem with everything you've said here is that I never even compared its 2D power to the Jaguar - what I did say is that you were wrong to claim that PS1 can only do 8x8 sprites. This suggests that you actually know next to nothing about PS1's graphical hardware.

 

Similarities do not make it the same, that's just silly. The Jaguar can draw trips but its still not the same as

how the PS1 does it. I've never heard anyone try to compare the two.

 

I never said it was the same, but let's see. A linked list of commands to draw graphics primitives that the GPU processes. Maybe the reason no one has ever tried comparing the two is because very few people care about the Jaguar?

 

Quite weaker? Talk about absurd! What does an instruction width have to do with anything? IT has NOTHING

to do with anything. 32 bit wide instructions are less efficent becasue you need a long instead of a word.

 

Wow. Okay, 32bit instruction width over 16bit instruction width means you can ENCODE MORE IN A SINGLE INSTRUCTION. Therefore you can have more powerful instructions. Look at ARM vs Thumb, MIPS vs MIPS16 (if you're even familiar with any of these space saving technologies). If the instruction width meant nothing then we should all start using 8bit wide instructions, let's see how far that gets us.

 

At the time

of Tom& Jerry the Mips processor instruction were no more complex by any stretch of the imagination. The idea of

RISC is a reduced simple instruction set. The SH2 is a very powerful processor and can keep up with just about any

MIPS of its time. Immediates are a bit of a pain but no where near like you are trying to tell everyone. nice try

but try again......after you do some REAL homework....

 

See, here's yet another problem - you clearly said a SINGLE Saturn SH2 can vastly outperform the PS1's R3000a (this is even considering that the R3000a is clocked higher), not that it can "keep up." Quite a different statement, do you want me to go dig out the original quote? It was probably in the vs. 3DO thread.

 

Lets see 4k of local ram.....thats 2k worth of GPU instructions at 16 bit wide.

4k of local ram.....thats 1k worth of RISC instructions at 32 bit wide.

 

This is efficient? Come now!

 

The smaller cache footprint is the only benefit that these instructions will give you (and of course something like Jaguar desperately needs it with its gimped cacheless architecture). If you can fit it in cache then the R3000a will have better code that will get things done, on average, faster.

 

No this is NOT faulty because even John Carmack did not know what we now know about the Jaguar.

Doom is Using ALOT of 68k code BTW, and is exactly why id software had the issues they had with the

Jaguar. Run everything off the GPU and its going to be mostly 32 64 bits. run it off the 68k and you will

choke the bus and the system. Hats off to Carmack but he is hardly a Jaguar expert. A lot of that code

was C code...the source is available for you to see for yourself. John Carmack also admitted he approached

the jaguar like a PC or DOOM would have never be ready. It helps to be accurate when you quote some

one and even understand their level of understanding on a particular system. Carmack admitted he could

have double the resolution and gotten a faster frame rate if he coded doom specifically for the JAguar.

The texture mapping is the fault of the blitter, not the bus. the blitter had bugs and this was one that only

allowed PIXEL mode texturing....even this has a work around now, so this is not even true anymore.

 

How is the texture mapping having poor bandwidth not a problem of the bus when the blitter has to read off of (guess what) the bus to actually blit anything? It doesn't have dedicated RAM, and it only reads one word at a time. So unless your pixels are 64bit wide (and they aren't) you're wasting a lot of bandwidth. What he said was perfectly valid, no matter how many other stabs you throw at him.

 

 

It's very relevant.

 

I agree with you that there should have been seperate buses(which actually is true anyway, as the GPU and DSP have

their own internal local bus and can run in parralel with the 68k and the DSP with someone who REALLY understands

the machine that is). The instructions are pipelined in and out of the local and the speed difference is only effected

when there is a page hit or some one else has the bus.

 

Yes, there is tiny local SRAM. Obviously I wasn't referring to that (for comparison Saturn/PS1 have local cache, which is significantly more useful...)

 

Read the docs...the JAguar GPU can run out in main

as fast as it does in local, outside of the dram pitfalls(page hits and refresh). The Apline development board has

SRAM and the GPU runs quite efficently from there.

 

Nice wording there, "as fast as it does in local, outside of the dram pitfalls." Why don't you come back with some benchmarks and I'll listen to what you have to say about that. Or I suppose you think that Atari told everyone to not run code RISC out of main RAM just for the hell of it?

 

The MMU helps this to take place. It always sees the bus

as a physical 64 bit wide bus and internally redirects the smaller parts out to the smaller widths.

 

Yes, which without a buffer is completely wasteful. I think I already went over this?

 

"First, there is no such standard to rate systems other than in your mind and unfortunately a bunch of stuborn others

who think the ALU is the ONLY part of a computer.

 

Or in your mind where you think it's whatever you please? As far as I see it you're the ones being ridiculously stubborn about the issue, going so far as to put in your sig that it's "illogical" for anyone to suggest otherwise. So you start off this paragraph saying that it's impossible to actually make a claim as to what the bit rating is, then you go on to:

 

The Jaguar moves and manipulates data 64 bit at a time. It is a 64 bit system. Where it is not 64 bit is does not need to be 64 bits. I wont rehash this utter nonsense or a supposede bitness standard that just does not exsist. You want to be a fool and stick to an old out dated definition then be my guest. Again the Jaguar doe not have a MAIN processor so your whole argument is shot there. The Jaguar reads

modifies and writes data at 64 bits wide. How is this not a 64 bit procces?

 

And again. How are the Pentium 1 machines (which is contemporary to Jaguar) not 64bit? Because no one was calling them that. Obviously it's an accepted convention, not just what you're referring to.

 

Personally, I don't care at all. I just find it hilarious to watch people get in a huge fit over it, especially if you tell them their precious Dreamcast isn't 128bit. It's marketing. Get over it.

 

 

Fine, they process data. I only ever said that 3 of these processor are general pupose. If a piece of silicon

reads, modifies and writes data then that silicon is a processor. Please tell me how it is not.

 

Then don't even bother mentioning it. Lots of platforms have lots of ICs that process data. Does Jaguar really have to artificially have more to look better?

 

IT does matter becasue it has been proven...I know tho....never mind the facts.....you are as wrong as can be.

Believe this folly all you want but its cleary a lack of necessary Jaguar experience. There is NO obvious reason and

one of the more common complaints of the developers is the inablilty to run from main ram. That inability has been

erased. It makes a MAJOR difference in speed.

 

I never even said that it couldn't be, I don't care about your rants about it.

 

Yes and eat up a heck of alot MORE cycles flipping code int he cache than running it out in main.

I have proved this to myself so it really does not matter ifyou beleive me or not. Keep beleiving

the Jaguar as conventional and you will always be wrong.

 

Wow, if you eat more cycles moving it back and forth then it's an even more gimped system than I thought. If only they did a cache controller we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, and a lot more people would have used the CPUs.

 

I'll be waiting for those benchmarks, by the way.

 

I bring the lack of cache all the time but you obviously are not a very thorough reader.

 

No, I haven't read your however many years history of posting (thank God..), just the recent stuff from about the past few months. Of the things you've repeat over and over in that time period that wasn't on the list.

 

Also The tools were not even

geared toward the RISC's other than a simple assembler. NOt a great way to try to compete against C compilers.

 

And I never said that the tools didn't suck, did I.

 

I can understand why you bleive some of the crap you do but until you have coded the JAgur for 12+ years, you

should pick your battles better. You may have read this and that, butIm telling you from first hand experience.

12+ years of it, thank you very much.

 

What I HAVE noticed is that you always start talking about how many years you've done something to validate everything you've said (rather than things like, I don't know, sources). Then here's a tip you might understand a little better - until you've programmed on any of the consoles you constantly slag in comparison to the Jaguar why don't you shut up about what they can and can't do? Okay, enjoy!

 

The only thing I've read about Jaguar is in actual technical docs written by people with a genuine interest in documenting the thing. I've ignored the BS gleaned from places like Wikipedia (like the RISC CPUs having 64 registers, that's a good one)

 

You're a real cocky individual who is full of a lot of crap (maybe on purpose because you know you can get away with it). Right now I'm more interested in instilling a bit of doubt in the minds of your readers on this forum than actually getting you to admit you're wrong about anything.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Exophase

[Artlover]

Right now I'm more interested in instilling a bit of doubt in the minds of your readers on this forum

There already is and has been, most of us just know better then bothering to try and argue the point with him.

[sd32]

Wow, Atari Owl and Gorf joining forces . The future is looking bright for the Jaguar, even if it is a distant one. I dont mind the waiting, just keep in contact with us guys.

I wish more games had come out on all this platforms (3DO, JAG, SAT, PS1, N64), to see how they compared. The closest is Doom, but some ports were just bad (SAT, 3DO), and it didnt come out on N64. Duke Nukem 3d came out on the later 3 systems, but sadly there is no Jag and 3DO version.