Math You Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I was just reading that (technically speaking) the Atari Falcon was a 16 bit computer and the Atari TT was a 32 bit computer. Is this correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Yes that is correct. The TT030 was the only true 32-Bit machine that Atari released. The Falcon was actually 16-bit (or so I understand). Tempest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunstar Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 To put this in perspective, PC's were technically still 16-bit until at least the first Pentium chip came along, IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christos Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Actually, the falcon being 16-bit is semi correct and semi wrong. I.E. the microprocessor is 32-bit, the data bus is 16-bit. The bus from RAM to the videl is 32-bit etc. It's the same argument as with the 64-bitness of the jaguar in reverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunstar Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Actually, the falcon being 16-bit is semi correct and semi wrong. I.E. the microprocessor is 32-bit, the data bus is 16-bit. The bus from RAM to the videl is 32-bit etc. It's the same argument as with the 64-bitness of the jaguar in reverse. It's a similair situation with 90's PC's, 16-bit bus, CPU and other processors that could be 8, 16 or 32-bit. IIRC, the 286 and 386 PC systems still had an 8-bit bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Math You Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 Does this mean the TT is 4 times faster (TT 32 bit bus + 32mhz Vs Falcon 16 bit bus + 16 mhz)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christos Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 No, not quite, I'd say about 2-3 times depending on application. There are applications where the Falcon's DSP makes it fly circles around the TT. There are some benchmark results around... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppera Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 To put this in perspective, PC's were technically still 16-bit until at least the first Pentium chip came along, IIRC. That's incorrect and stays only for 386SX machines. 386DX was true 32-bit CPU and required true 32-bit MBO. What you think why it needed 32-bit wide RAM ? And 386DX was actually what killed Atari and Commodore - Amiga. At 40MHz it was able to run textured 3D games pretty fast (Doom, then Quake), and for price less than Falcon or A1200. Pentium is actually 64/32 CPU - external data bus is 64 bit wide - solution against slowest part of system . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunstar Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 (edited) To put this in perspective, PC's were technically still 16-bit until at least the first Pentium chip came along, IIRC. That's incorrect and stays only for 386SX machines. 386DX was true 32-bit CPU and required true 32-bit MBO. What you think why it needed 32-bit wide RAM ? And 386DX was actually what killed Atari and Commodore - Amiga. At 40MHz it was able to run textured 3D games pretty fast (Doom, then Quake), and for price less than Falcon or A1200. Pentium is actually 64/32 CPU - external data bus is 64 bit wide - solution against slowest part of system . Your talking about processors, I'm talking about system BUS. Completely different terms of "bitness" which brings back all the "true bit-ness" arguments. Which is EXACTLY what THIS thread is about, the Atari Falcon has 32-bit processors, but on a 16-bit BUS. Pentium One PC's had 32-bit processors on a 16-bit BUS! I'm of the camp that the bitness of a system is only as good as it's system BUS bitness (the throughput to accomplish the end result). Pentium's external 64 bit wide bus then runs smack into a 16-bit MOBO system bus! So, we could probably argue back and forth until you turn blue in the face. Edited March 14, 2008 by Gunstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasholzer Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Yes, I reckon it should be the CPU what decides, not the bus, eg making ST and Amiga 32-bit judging by their CPU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christos Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Gunstar, same argument.. you put a 16-bit microprocessor on a 64-bit bus.. What is the system? Basically, the thing is not that simple. It's very complicated. For example, the falcon to a programmer is 32-bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunstar Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 (edited) Gunstar, same argument.. you put a 16-bit microprocessor on a 64-bit bus.. What is the system? Basically, the thing is not that simple. It's very complicated. For example, the falcon to a programmer is 32-bit. I know it's not that simple. To a electronics technition the Falcon is 16-bit. The bottom line is that micro processors are entire computer circuits miniturized and reduced to a single chip, but that's too small for a human to manipulate, so it's put back onto a large motherboard. If that motherboard has a smaller bus than the processor, it externally negates the bitness of the processor becuase it bottlenecks the system to final throughput. With something like the Jaguar, which has 2 64-bit processors, 2 32-bit processors and a 16-bit processor, on a 64-bit system bus, the processors, if programmed properly, can run in parallel, creating a 64-bit system. You could reduce the entire Jaguar to a processor these days and guees what? it would be a 64-bit processor becuase it has to be to work like an entire Jaguar system. So it's 64-bit, but if you have 32-bit or 64-bit processors on a 16-bit bus, you get a bottleneck in the final system throughput. The Falcon is a 16-bit system due to it's bus that constricts it's 32-bit processors. Same with older PC's with 16-bit motherboards. But of course, as you said, that oversimplification, when it comes to overall system power, which has to take into account the processors internally and external output, the system bus, the memory bandwidth and inherant processor ability in accomplishing it's tasks, which is why a Falcon can, under certain conditions, run circles around a TT, as was said, for example, with it's DSP. I'm a hardware man, not a programmer, and to me, the Falcon is a 16-bit SYSTEM because it is restricted to a 16-bit system bus, but of course it's a better 16-bit system than the ST becuase it has the 32-bit processor instead of a 16-bit one. But that doesn't mean it can't outdue a 32-bit system in certain areas, due to the speed it can process at. A 16Mhz 32-bit system can have a final throughput that is equal to a 32Mhz 8-bit system for example, but we all know it's to complicated to explain all the in's and out's in one little post. It takes entire text books to explain it all. But programmers see things one way, and hardware engineers see them another. I chose to study hardware becuase software is restricted by the hardware it can access, but with hardware, you can make it "bigger and better" and hardware can always bypass software. Edited March 15, 2008 by Gunstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christos Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 You do seem to forget that the 68030 has a cache, which is 32-bit by default. Basically, it all comes down to what you do. Unzipping a file takes half the time it takes on the TT for example. The falcon's bus bandwidth is faster than that of the amiga 1200 (32-bit bus). As you already said, the slowest part of the system is the bottleneck. You say that to an electronics technician the falcon is 16-bit. That maybe true to you, but to others, that is not the case, they will consider the system 32-bit. By the way, the TT shifter and its bus are 64-bit. It all comes down to perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunstar Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 It all comes down to perspective. This is true, which is why it's a never ending argument on system specs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppera Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 [ Your talking about processors, I'm talking about system BUS. Completely different terms of "bitness" which brings back all the "true bit-ness" arguments. Which is EXACTLY what THIS thread is about, the Atari Falcon has 32-bit processors, but on a 16-bit BUS. Pentium One PC's had 32-bit processors on a 16-bit BUS! I'm of the camp that the bitness of a system is only as good as it's system BUS bitness (the throughput to accomplish the end result). Pentium's external 64 bit wide bus then runs smack into a 16-bit MOBO system bus! So, we could probably argue back and forth until you turn blue in the face. Where you get this nonsense? Pentium I systems have 64-bit RAM bus. There is + 32bit PCI bus and 16-bit ISA. But what determines speed mostly is RAM bus. For instance we have some 8-bit peripherals in Atari ST (so, in Falcon too) - eg. YM chip. Is that means that machine has 8-bit bus? You should read more about subject before going in discussion about... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunstar Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 [ Your talking about processors, I'm talking about system BUS. Completely different terms of "bitness" which brings back all the "true bit-ness" arguments. Which is EXACTLY what THIS thread is about, the Atari Falcon has 32-bit processors, but on a 16-bit BUS. Pentium One PC's had 32-bit processors on a 16-bit BUS! I'm of the camp that the bitness of a system is only as good as it's system BUS bitness (the throughput to accomplish the end result). Pentium's external 64 bit wide bus then runs smack into a 16-bit MOBO system bus! So, we could probably argue back and forth until you turn blue in the face. Where you get this nonsense? Pentium I systems have 64-bit RAM bus. There is + 32bit PCI bus and 16-bit ISA. But what determines speed mostly is RAM bus. For instance we have some 8-bit peripherals in Atari ST (so, in Falcon too) - eg. YM chip. Is that means that machine has 8-bit bus? You should read more about subject before going in discussion about... Whatever...look, I said in the beginning IIRC (If I remember correctly) maybe I didn't, I just kind of got caught up in the discussion, maybe I'm remembering the 386 or 486...whatever. As usual it's all a pretty pointless discussion as I also said in the beginning, as everyone seems to have their own "perspective" on what is the standard for "bitness." And even if I'm wrong about Pentium system specs, it won't doesn't change my "perspective" on what I consider to be the proper measure of a systems "bitness." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppera Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Whatever...look, I said in the beginning IIRC (If I remember correctly) maybe I didn't, I just kind of got caught up in the discussion, maybe I'm remembering the 386 or 486...whatever. As usual it's all a pretty pointless discussion as I also said in the beginning, as everyone seems to have their own "perspective" on what is the standard for "bitness." And even if I'm wrong about Pentium system specs, it won't doesn't change my "perspective" on what I consider to be the proper measure of a systems "bitness." You was simply wrong, and all your talk here shows that you should turn to political carrier instead computers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunstar Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 (edited) Whatever...look, I said in the beginning IIRC (If I remember correctly) maybe I didn't, I just kind of got caught up in the discussion, maybe I'm remembering the 386 or 486...whatever. As usual it's all a pretty pointless discussion as I also said in the beginning, as everyone seems to have their own "perspective" on what is the standard for "bitness." And even if I'm wrong about Pentium system specs, it won't doesn't change my "perspective" on what I consider to be the proper measure of a systems "bitness." You was simply wrong, and all your talk here shows that you should turn to political carrier instead computers No, I wasn't, I just had the wrong machine, it was probably the 486 I was thinking about. Your just simply an ass. I am less familiar with PC clones becuase they SUCK (Souless number crunching POS's)and so I never took the time to really learn their specs, or remember them. I can never be enthusiastic about them like with Atari, Commodore and Apple Macs. In my opinion they have ruined the industry, not brought it together. All that's left is the console industry where there is still some uniqueness from console to console. Edited March 17, 2008 by Gunstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppera Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 ... No, I wasn't, I just had the wrong machine, it was probably the 486 I was thinking about. Your just simply an ass. I am less familiar with PC clones becuase they SUCK ... Haha... You are dumb and dare to say something to me... Wrong machine... Your attitude is wrong. You know nothing about 486, even don't remember what was it... Computers with soul???? Yes, we need digital souls in our homes, hearts People wants power. Even Atari was sold with slogan 'Power without price' . Amen (for this spoiled thread) . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Math You Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 It sounds like the 16bit Falcon had more in common with the ST than the TT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christos Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 As far as I know, the 16-bit falcon was never released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Math You Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 Sorry, I meant 16bit bus Falcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christos Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 It's much more compatible than the TT is if that's what you mean. Yes you could say it's true. After all it started it's life as a daughterboard on the STE. Originally it was thought of as a 68000 machine too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjlazer Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Actually, the falcon being 16-bit is semi correct and semi wrong. I.E. the microprocessor is 32-bit, the data bus is 16-bit. The bus from RAM to the videl is 32-bit etc. It's the same argument as with the 64-bitness of the jaguar in reverse. The Falcon 030 should of been called the Atari TS. lol (Thirty Two Sixteen) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Math You Posted March 19, 2008 Author Share Posted March 19, 2008 The Falcon 030 should of been called the Atari TS. lol (Thirty Two Sixteen)They should have made a portable version called the Atari XTC/Exstacy (EXpanded STacy) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.