Stupid question about 5200 VS 7800

[82-T/A]

Hope I don't offend anyone here, because I'm a fan of ALL Atari stuff. I've got two 7800s (with with an AUX jack on the side) and two 5200s (a 2 and a 4 port one).

 

I haven't played anything other than my Jaguar in probably 2 years, and the last time I played my Jaguar was 6 months ago, just really busy.

 

However, I seem to recall (correct me if I'm wrong) that the 5200 was a FASTER machine? Is this true? I mean, I'm well aware of the fact that the 7800 is the improved system. The 5200 seemed to me at least to be much more of an "arcade" system. I mean the games on that system were MUCH more like what I was used to seeing at the arcade.

 

I've of course played Ball Blazer on the 7800 and it certainly was fast, but I seem to recall that has more to do with some fancy chip on the cartridge as apposed to the system itself? The 5200 and 7800 are BOTH 8 bit systems, correct?

 

Did one have a faster processor?

[+Mitch]

They have the same processor though the 7800s graphic chip is clocked higher.

 

Mitch

[DracIsBack]

I've of course played Ball Blazer on the 7800 and it certainly was fast, but I seem to recall that has more to do with some fancy chip on the cartridge as apposed to the system itself? The 5200 and 7800 are BOTH 8 bit systems, correct?

 

Did one have a faster processor?

 

As Mitch noted, the SALLY is the same in both (and Atari 8-bit computers).

 

The special chip is actually a POKEY sound chip which the 5200 had onboard but was omitted from the 7800 for space/cost reasons. The 2600 compatability required the 7800 to include 2600 chips and they literally ran out of space. As such, games were intended to feature special sound chips when required. Jack pretty much killed their use though.

[Mot]

The 2600 compatability required the 7800 to include 2600 chips and they literally ran out of space. As such, games were intended to feature special sound chips when required. Jack pretty much killed their use though.

 

Would they have had enough space if they didn't have the expansion port?

[DracIsBack]

The 2600 compatability required the 7800 to include 2600 chips and they literally ran out of space. As such, games were intended to feature special sound chips when required. Jack pretty much killed their use though.

 

Would they have had enough space if they didn't have the expansion port?

 

Dunno. Good question though. Of course, Jack killed everything that would have used the expansion port too, along with GUMBY, use of POKEY, 7800 ads, color labels, the keyboard, Track and Field, Rescue On Fractalus ...

[gdement]

The 7800 CPU has to halt whenever graphics are being rendered. I don't know if the 5200 has a similar issue, or something else that would eat up a lot of it's CPU time. So depending on the details it's possible the 5200 ends up being faster.

 

Less importantly, the 7800 CPU does have to slow down to 1.2MHz whenever some of the legacy 2600 chips (TIA and the 6532) are being accessed, but I don't think that happens enough to be significant.

It's odd they do this in the case of the 6532, because a 2MHz version of that chip does exist. Atari just didn't use it for some reason. I assume it's because they didn't think it would make much difference and they already were stocking the 1MHz version for 2600's.

[82-T/A]

The 7800 CPU has to halt whenever graphics are being rendered. I don't know if the 5200 has a similar issue, or something else that would eat up a lot of it's CPU time. So depending on the details it's possible the 5200 ends up being faster.

 

Less importantly, the 7800 CPU does have to slow down to 1.2MHz whenever some of the legacy 2600 chips (TIA and the 6532) are being accessed, but I don't think that happens enough to be significant.

It's odd they do this in the case of the 6532, because a 2MHz version of that chip does exist. Atari just didn't use it for some reason. I assume it's because they didn't think it would make much difference and they already were stocking the 1MHz version for 2600's.

 

 

Man, that's crazy. That really makes me wonder why they even bothered? I probably shouldn't, but I consider the 7800 as one of the Nintendo's competitors (for the NES 8 Bit). I remember reading of course that the 7800 came out a LONG time ago, and they had actually released it, and then they immediately pulled it off the shelves for whatever reason. THEN the 8-Bit Nintendo came out, and then they finally re-released it... but at that point, it was basically dead. Isn't that the case?

 

Anyway, I'm really surprised that Atari came out with the 7800 when it wasn't that much better than the 5200. Did the 7800 maybe hold more storage? Is that what the big benefit was? Of course the 7800 is newer, but it seems that the 7800 had several PC games on it. For example, Ace of Aces, Rampage, etc... they didn't have anything like that on the 5200, did they? What was the biggest defining point of the 7800 that made it an improvement over the 5200?

 

 

 

Thanks,

[supercat]

Less importantly, the 7800 CPU does have to slow down to 1.2MHz whenever some of the legacy 2600 chips (TIA and the 6532) are being accessed, but I don't think that happens enough to be significant.

 

I wonder why they did that? The TIA's design really shouldn't care about when the AUDxx registers are modified, and they're the only thing a 7800 game would be using. The lack of a stable clock to the RIOT chip, or of any scan line counter to replace it, is simply annoying.

 

Incidentally, the 7800 probably has more different cycle durations than any other 6507 device I can think of: compared to the 2600, various cycles run at 3x, 2x, 1.5x, and 1x speeds.

[DracIsBack]

Man, that's crazy. That really makes me wonder why they even bothered? I probably shouldn't, but I consider the 7800 as one of the Nintendo's competitors (for the NES 8 Bit). I remember reading of course that the 7800 came out a LONG time ago, and they had actually released it, and then they immediately pulled it off the shelves for whatever reason. THEN the 8-Bit Nintendo came out, and then they finally re-released it... but at that point, it was basically dead. Isn't that the case?

 

The 7800 was ready to go in 1984 and released into test markets quickly about a month before Jack Tramiel took over. When he took over, he wasn't really that interested in video games, the company was in shambles, the video game market was in shambles and there was a major contract with GCC that was needed to be worked through. He did release the system after those issues were resolved and after the market had been ressurected by the NES.

 

The NES, incidentally, was in the running to be an Atari property itself. Released in 1983 as the Famicom in Japan, Nintendo wanted to OEM the system to Warner Atari for release in the rest of the world. Those negotiations fell apart when Atari themselves kinda fell apart. Nintendo decided to go it alone by releasing the North American version in test markets in 1985.

 

Anyway, I'm really surprised that Atari came out with the 7800 when it wasn't that much better than the 5200. Did the 7800 maybe hold more storage? Is that what the big benefit was? Of course the 7800 is newer, but it seems that the 7800 had several PC games on it. For example, Ace of Aces, Rampage, etc... they didn't have anything like that on the 5200, did they? What was the biggest defining point of the 7800 that made it an improvement over the 5200?

 

The space issue wasn't really an advantage as the 7800, 5200, NES and Sega Master System all go about it in the same way. They address a certain amount of memory in cartridge at one time and then switch to other memory banks.

 

In the days of the 5200 and Colecovision, bank switching wasn't typically used due to cost and the fact that games didn't typically demand it. However, there's nothing to prevent the Colecovision or 5200 from having bankswitched titles. In fact, a common criticism of the 7800 was that Atari didn't spend enough money on games that TOOK ADVANTAGE of bankswitching. NES and SMS games are typically larger than 7800 titles even though there's no technical limitation there. Quite simply, Atari didn't want to pay for bigger games (openly discouraging developers) or the cartridges to store them. This was especially true in 1986 and 1987 where 7800 games basically didn't employ bankswitching at all. Meanwhile the NES and SMS were getting 2 and 4 megabit titles. Atari loosened up somewhat later, but never as much as the competition.

 

Back to the other topic. Atari had been lamblasted by the press for not making the 5200 backwards compatible out of the box. They assumed (not sure whether correctly or not) that this issue and the issue of its controllers were the causes of the 5200's failure and they discontinued it in 1984. The 7800 was built to be backwards compatible with the Atari 2600 *AND* offer graphics that were roughly comparable to computers/arcade machines of the day.

 

I'm not sure they were really concerned with migrating 5200 upwards, but rather migrating 2600 owners that didn't touch the 5200. The 7800 does have graphics capabilities that exceed the 5200's in many respects ... particularly in the sheet number of objects it can throw around the screen at one time, the number of colors it can put on screen at once, the resolution it displays etc. You wouldn't, for example, see a game with graphics like ALIEN BRIGADE on the 5200. But no, it wasn't a monumental leap in the way the 5200 was over the 2600.

 

One thing I have noticed is that people often assume "processing power" and "memory" are primary drivers of system improvements. In fact, the 5200, 7800, NES (and Commodore 64, Apple II and Atari computers) all are powered by 8-bit MOS 6502 technology. I think all of them (not sure about the C64) all run at 1.79 MHZ. The Atari 2600 is often mislabelled as a "4-bit" machine but it's also an 8-bit ... albeit a bit slow at 1.19 MHZ.

 

Even more interesting is that the 7800 and NES actually have LESS RAM than the 5200. Not sure why this is, but guessing that the cost of RAM at the time led Atari and Nintendo to find ways to produce more detailed graphics without needing as much RAM to do so.

The biggest difference between the NES, 7800 and 5200 is that they all produce graphics in completely different ways. The NES does everything in tiles and excels at side scrollers that make use of tiles. The 5200 has display lists and an enhanced form of player-missile graphics ... kind of an evolution of the Atari 2600 ... but with more detailed graphics and a really flexible display. The 7800 builds everything line by line ... has flexibility and can move around an insane number of objects at once. Each has advantages and disadvantages.

[rockman_x_2002]

One thing I have noticed is that people often assume "processing power" and "memory" are primary drivers of system improvements. In fact, the 5200, 7800, NES (and Commodore 64, Apple II and Atari computers) all are powered by 8-bit MOS 6502 technology. I think all of them (not sure about the C64) all run at 1.79 MHZ. The Atari 2600 is often mislabelled as a "4-bit" machine but it's also an 8-bit ... albeit a bit slow at 1.19 MHZ.

 

The C64 used the MOS 6510, a variant of the 6502, which ran at 1.09MHz (NTSC) and 0.985MHz (PAL) (source: wikipedia). Generally speaking though, what you're saying is correct. All these machines are, more or less, the same computer with varying amounts and types of supporting hardware (RAM, video, audio, etc.). It's the supporting hardware, then, that seems to put the icing on the cake. And the better the supporting hardware combination, the sweeter the icing.

[supercat]

The C64 used the MOS 6510, a variant of the 6502, which ran at 1.09MHz (NTSC) and 0.985MHz (PAL) (source: wikipedia).

 

The Apple and the C64 both run at the same speed, which is chroma (3.579545Mhz) times two, divided by seven. Both the Apple II and the C64 run the memory at twice the CPU clock rate, alternating cycles between video and CPU. The Apple II has a pixel clock of chroma times two, and runs one cycle every eight pixels (there's also a half-clock shift circuit). The C64 doesn't have any intrinsic meaning for chroma (other than color generation) but it generates chroma/7 and then multiplies that by 16. I'm not quite sure why they did things that way--seems bizarre.

[gdement]

What was the biggest defining point of the 7800 that made it an improvement over the 5200?

Well clearly if Atari was doing everything right, then the 5200 and 7800 wouldn't have both existed. It's an example of the company's lack of direction in the 80's.

 

The 5200 was an expensive machine, and although I've seen this point debated, I don't think they considered it much of a market success. And like Drac was saying, backwards compatibility was a big issue in the years when the 2600 still dominated the stores. The 7800 addressed the problems of the 5200, was less expensive, and further improved the graphics, thus giving it a chance of being more successful in the market (in a world without the Japanese imports anyway). The sound was a pretty unfortunate downgrade though. If not for the sound problem then I don't think there'd be much debate about it being an improvement.

 

Did the 7800 maybe hold more storage?

The 7800 does have a more forward-looking cart port. While it's always possible to come up with clever hacks to allow extra chips and bankswitching on older machines (2600 had plenty of this stuff), it's more straightforward to do these things on the 7800.

I'm not sure if there's a difference in the non-bankswitched cart space on the 5200. I think the A8 computers have a pretty small window compared to the 7800, but the 5200 might be different.

 

 

Both the Apple II and the C64 run the memory at twice the CPU clock rate, alternating cycles between video and CPU.

It bugs me that GCC didn't design the Maria chip to work this way. My understanding is that the 6502 was deliberately designed to allow for alternating access like this, but the 7800 just halts the CPU instead.

[kroogur]

So if i'm getting all this right if they(Atari) took a better look at the market and the competition then they should have did a redesign on the 7800 before re-release making the board and thus the console slightly bigger to accommodate a larger board with enough room for the 2600 stuff, better sound capability, and threw a few more bucks into cartridge design and programming they would have had a machine that would have trounced NES and SMS?

[DracIsBack]

they would have had a machine that would have trounced NES and SMS?

 

While we've debated technical aspects endlessly in this forum, there were a lot of strategic issues at work here too:

 

- Atari royally, royally pissed off the channel. Nintendo had to do significant work to appease the channel that Atari had essentially destroyed. They made the NES look like a different kind of machine than a "video game console" quite deliberately. Nintendo had the advantage of being relatively unknown and not carrying the big Atari 'target' on their head. This is one case where brand equity probably wouldn't have worked in Atari's favour.

- Atari spent nothing on advertising. $300K is peanuts when competitors are spending a hundred times that.

- Games, games, games. The 7800's library for 1986 and 1987 was either better versions of old arcade games or computer ports. Remember ... in a world without Nintendo, Atari thought their enemy was the Colecovision and the dropping price of the home computer. The games and licenses reflect that. The NES and SMS redefined the types of games people wanted to play. Atari didn't pay to make games like that until years later.

- Atari divided their limited resources between the 7800, 2600jr and XE Game System. Talk about brand confusion. The same games were often on each at the same time. 2600 games were advertised as being "for the 2600 and 7800", then 7800 versions of the same title were advertised as "for the 7800".

[gdement]

So if i'm getting all this right if they(Atari) took a better look at the market and the competition then they should have did a redesign on the 7800 before re-release making the board and thus the console slightly bigger to accommodate a larger board with enough room for the 2600 stuff, better sound capability...

 

I'm not convinced they would have even needed to make the board any bigger. It had been assumed that there'd be sound in the Maria, so I bet that's the only reason the layout ended up as it did. My guess is that when GCC found out they needed a separate sound chip they probably just didn't have time to revise the design.

Even if there was absolutely no way to make room for another chip, then they could have tried integrating with one of the simpler legacy chips, like the RIOT or something. Nintendo's sound was integrated with the 6502 processor.

 

If they had designed an upgraded model for 86, as you suggest, then I think they could have done it without changing the shell.

[Bruce Tomlin]

Even more interesting is that the 7800 and NES actually have LESS RAM than the 5200. Not sure why this is, but guessing that the cost of RAM at the time led Atari and Nintendo to find ways to produce more detailed graphics without needing as much RAM to do so.

That's because it used dynamic RAM (DRAM) which was much cheaper, BUT you had to take up board space for 8 chips, plus you needed circuitry to handle the refresh cycles. The Z80 was the only CPU with any DRAM support built-in (and then only for 4K/16K), though the Colecovision hung the DRAM on the video bus, and the VDP had the refresh support.

[supercat]

It bugs me that GCC didn't design the Maria chip to work this way. My understanding is that the 6502 was deliberately designed to allow for alternating access like this, but the 7800 just halts the CPU instead.

 

In most games, the ability of the Maria chip to clock out enough data is apt to be more of a limiting factor than the number of available CPU cycles. The Maria chip can crank out 8-byte objects at a rate of 16 chroma clocks each (that's twelve bytes in 16 chroma clocks). It would not be able to crank out data that fast if it were interleaving cycles with the CPU. I used to be annoyed that the 7800 didn't interleave cycles, until I realized that the Maria chip is running about 1.5x as fast as it would be able to if it were interleaving.

[82-T/A]

While we've debated technical aspects endlessly in this forum, there were a lot of strategic issues at work here too:

 

- Atari royally, royally pissed off the channel. Nintendo had to do significant work to appease the channel that Atari had essentially destroyed. They made the NES look like a different kind of machine than a "video game console" quite deliberately. Nintendo had the advantage of being relatively unknown and not carrying the big Atari 'target' on their head. This is one case where brand equity probably wouldn't have worked in Atari's favour.

- Atari spent nothing on advertising. $300K is peanuts when competitors are spending a hundred times that.

- Games, games, games. The 7800's library for 1986 and 1987 was either better versions of old arcade games or computer ports. Remember ... in a world without Nintendo, Atari thought their enemy was the Colecovision and the dropping price of the home computer. The games and licenses reflect that. The NES and SMS redefined the types of games people wanted to play. Atari didn't pay to make games like that until years later.

- Atari divided their limited resources between the 7800, 2600jr and XE Game System. Talk about brand confusion. The same games were often on each at the same time. 2600 games were advertised as being "for the 2600 and 7800", then 7800 versions of the same title were advertised as "for the 7800".

 

 

You know what? This is probably the best explanation I've read so far. You're totally correct. Atari was trapped in the past. They never really had the kind of competition that Nintendo provided for them at any time in their past. The games that Nintendo had weren't necessarily better (although most would probably disagree), they were just completely different. I guess it took a completely different culture than from the US and Western Europe to design different types of games that people had never really seen before.

 

I mean, even a game like Dragon Warrior. The 7800 could have easily supported a game like this (except without maybe the save-game feature???). Dragon Warrior by Enix was a land-mark game. There was nothing out there like that on any of the other systems (Coleco, Intellevision, Atari, Magnavox). I mean, you could hardly compare "Adventure" with Dragon Warrior. All of those games were just nothing more than "Beat Your High Score" type of games.

 

Did any Atari (other than Jaguar) ever have save game capability?

 

I will say that many of the computer-ports to the Atari were pretty decent... like Ace of Aces, Rampage, Choplifter, etc... but man, Atari desperately needed an adventure game like that. And the Nintendo had a bunch of them... Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy, etc...

[gdement]

Atari was trapped in the past. They never really had the kind of competition that Nintendo provided for them at any time in their past. The games that Nintendo had weren't necessarily better (although most would probably disagree), they were just completely different. I guess it took a completely different culture than from the US and Western Europe to design different types of games that people had never really seen before.

I agree, the reason the NES became such a phenomenon is because it was a revolutionary change in the style of games. Early on the games weren't much different (Popeye, Balloon Fight etc), but by 1987 they started to have lots of scrolling adventure games and people began drooling over the system.

 

I remember a friend of mine saying this to me at school when we were arguing about Atari vs Nintendo, I believe in 87: <cue the high pitched kid voice>

"I have another friend who says that someday Nintendo is gonna get old and people won't like it anymore. But with the games it has, how could it?"

 

 

I mean, even a game like Dragon Warrior. The 7800 could have easily supported a game like this (except without maybe the save-game feature???). Dragon Warrior by Enix was a land-mark game. There was nothing out there like that on any of the other systems (Coleco, Intellevision, Atari, Magnavox). I mean, you could hardly compare "Adventure" with Dragon Warrior. All of those games were just nothing more than "Beat Your High Score" type of games.

I guess it's a landmark in the sense that it was most console gamers' first RPG. So it was very significant in establishing the genre here. But predating Dragon Warrior on the NES, at least in the US market, was Ultima 3 (Exodus) - originally an American game. I think Wizardry (Canadian) might have been out earlier as well. Dragon Warrior came out something like 6 months after Ultima and was much simpler, but it's more well known and got more promotion from Nintendo. I wasn't particularly impressed with it, having played Ultima first. DW is such a simple and linear game that I have the feeling they were using it as a quick market test to decide whether to translate Final Fantasy.

 

I will say that many of the computer-ports to the Atari were pretty decent... like Ace of Aces, Rampage, Choplifter, etc... but man, Atari desperately needed an adventure game like that. And the Nintendo had a bunch of them... Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy, etc...

Japan didn't really invent the RPG genre and there's no reason Atari couldn't have beaten Nintendo to it. RPG's like the Ultima and Wizardry series were all over the 8-bit computers. If Atari wasn't late to market and put more effort into mining the domestic computer game industry, they could have had games like that on the 7800.

 

 

Did any Atari (other than Jaguar) ever have save game capability?

Save states aren't a feature of the NES console, it's all in the cartridge. The cart has RAM on it and a battery to keep the RAM alive when the power is turned off. You can do that on any cartridge system.

N64 carts sometimes use Flash memory instead of a battery - that's the more modern and cheaper method.

[DracIsBack]

Did any Atari (other than Jaguar) ever have save game capability?

 

A couple of 7800 and Lynx games have passwords to get to certain points. On the 7800, FATAL RUN and Meltdown have them. I think with both systems, there was the initial thought of doing battery backup games as well but they were vetoed due to cost.

[82-T/A]

I guess it's a landmark in the sense that it was most console gamers' first RPG. So it was very significant in establishing the genre here. But predating Dragon Warrior on the NES, at least in the US market, was Ultima 3 (Exodus) - originally an American game. I think Wizardry (Canadian) might have been out earlier as well. Dragon Warrior came out something like 6 months after Ultima and was much simpler, but it's more well known and got more promotion from Nintendo. I wasn't particularly impressed with it, having played Ultima first. DW is such a simple and linear game that I have the feeling they were using it as a quick market test to decide whether to translate Final Fantasy.

 

Yes, yes... definitely. I started with Ultima 4 though, I wasn't really into games that early. But yeah, there were several dozen awesome PC games back in the day. Even the AD&D Gold Box series games (which I still play), but at least on a console, the Nintendo just had everyone beat.

[CV Gus]

Actually, you have a point.

 

There were several things involved here...

 

First and foremost, programming style. Opcode has proven that ability is just as important as a system's ability; compare his CV Pac-Man to even that of the NES.

The 5200 games, overall, did have a more, well, "arcade" look about it. Compare 5200 Robotron to that of the 7800. The explosions on the 5200 are far better, and I like the fact that the 5200 has the border. Movement is smoother on the 7800 and it has the color green, but overall, I actually like the 5200 better. Not to mention sound. Likewise 5200 Centipede is just more like the arcade version than the 7800.

 

Secondly, and this is probably more important for older gamers, was the game selection available at the time. The 5200 had games that were current, while the 7800, overall, did not. In the 5200's time Atari was big, a real powerhouse, with its arcade division and all. By the time the 7800 was "widely" released, it was the time of Nintendo, and Atari had been split up. This was significant: with the 5200, it was reasonable to expect "Atari" arcade games to appear on it. With the 7800, "Atari" arcade games were from an entirely different company.

 

The 7800 had pitiful support. I never felt as though the Tramiels really gave a damn about us 7800 owners- the same could NOT be said for the 5200 owners.

 

In short, overall, it was just better having a 5200 in its time than a 7800 in its time.

[82-T/A]

Actually, you have a point.

 

There were several things involved here...

 

First and foremost, programming style. Opcode has proven that ability is just as important as a system's ability; compare his CV Pac-Man to even that of the NES.

The 5200 games, overall, did have a more, well, "arcade" look about it. Compare 5200 Robotron to that of the 7800. The explosions on the 5200 are far better, and I like the fact that the 5200 has the border. Movement is smoother on the 7800 and it has the color green, but overall, I actually like the 5200 better. Not to mention sound. Likewise 5200 Centipede is just more like the arcade version than the 7800.

 

Secondly, and this is probably more important for older gamers, was the game selection available at the time. The 5200 had games that were current, while the 7800, overall, did not. In the 5200's time Atari was big, a real powerhouse, with its arcade division and all. By the time the 7800 was "widely" released, it was the time of Nintendo, and Atari had been split up. This was significant: with the 5200, it was reasonable to expect "Atari" arcade games to appear on it. With the 7800, "Atari" arcade games were from an entirely different company.

 

The 7800 had pitiful support. I never felt as though the Tramiels really gave a damn about us 7800 owners- the same could NOT be said for the 5200 owners.

 

In short, overall, it was just better having a 5200 in its time than a 7800 in its time.

 

 

I still remember when I was a kid... we had our 2600 for a while, and I think I was like 5 or 6 years old and my parents bought my brother an Atari 5200 for christmas. It came with Pac Man. We hooked it up and started to play it, and within like 15 minutes of playing it, something went wrong with the controllers. We literally couldn't get Pac Man to move in certain directions. I was pissed. My mom said she was going to return it and sure enough, she did, but she never got a replacement for it. :\

 

So, I didn't end up getting a 5200 until maybe 7 years ago.

 

From what I understand, this happened to a LOT of families. The controllers were just bad from the factory.

 

I was sooo man, because the 5200 just sounded so superior in every way to the 2600 that I was used to playing.

 

I quickly forgot about though because a year or two later (I think in 1987) I bought a Nintendo 8 bit for $174 bucks. My parents wouldn't let me have one, so I mowed lawns and stuff for a year, and went to Toys R' Us with my bike, $80 bucks in mostly ones, fives, and tens, and the rest in a change (in a big zip lock back). They closed down that isle and spent the next 10 minutes counting all my change.

 

My parents were so pissed when they came home and I had one. But... they let me keep it since I had worked for it. hahah...

[Math You]

Just out of interest, how do the graphics compare on the 5200 and 7800? Don't they both have the same screen resolution?

[jetset]

Just out of interest, how do the graphics compare on the 5200 and 7800? Don't they both have the same screen resolution?

 

Uh-oh.