Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

Prove that A800 is better than C64 or the opposite...

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=1722385

 

 

No reason to call the discussion here sterile-- it has been a lot more productive, informative, etc. than some other previous threads I have read. Your approach of experimental knowledge is inferior to a rational, logical (deductive) approach. You may make a game that is superior on Atari 8-bit now but later some one may make a better one on C64-- so it's just a relative truth rather than an absolute one. By taking a rational deductive approach as to what is achievable by the machine's chipset, the truth is established once and for all and there's no need for any change regardless of what software may be produced by the machines in the future. Going by the experimental approach is the reason why many mistakenly think C64 is the better machine-- they observe much more software with various features on C64 than they do on A8 (mostly due to non-hardware reasons).

 

 

I disagree the only way to prove that one is better than the other is to experiment. Theory is often not the truth.

 

...

 

There's theory, there's experiment and then there's logical proof. There's three things. I was talking about the latter (logical proof) as being the superior of the three.

[youki]

Prove that A800 is better than C64 or the opposite...

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=1722385

 

 

No reason to call the discussion here sterile-- it has been a lot more productive, informative, etc. than some other previous threads I have read. Your approach of experimental knowledge is inferior to a rational, logical (deductive) approach. You may make a game that is superior on Atari 8-bit now but later some one may make a better one on C64-- so it's just a relative truth rather than an absolute one. By taking a rational deductive approach as to what is achievable by the machine's chipset, the truth is established once and for all and there's no need for any change regardless of what software may be produced by the machines in the future. Going by the experimental approach is the reason why many mistakenly think C64 is the better machine-- they observe much more software with various features on C64 than they do on A8 (mostly due to non-hardware reasons).

 

 

I disagree the only way to prove that one is better than the other is to experiment. Theory is often not the truth.

 

So take a game do it on both (keeping in mind to do show your machine is the best) and let 's compare.

In that specific case. There is no time limit, commercial factor, political or economical reason that will make one version being inferior due to externel constraint .

The only factor except the hardware iwould be the skill of the programmer.

 

But get your best programmer here for the Atari and the best for the c64 . Seing your discussion it seems very is very good expert in both camp here.

 

so let start with the vertical shooter i propose. and then let's go with an horizontal one. and then may be a kind of 3d game.

 

And i think we will have a fair view of what machine is the best. no blabla , no theory , just fact.

 

 

But i agree we learned lot of thing in this thread. But surely not what is the best.

 

What do you think is better:

low res with high color depth

or

high res with low color depth?

 

The result will be subjective. There won't be an ultimate answer.

 

That's your subjective view.

1.79Mhz > 1.0Mhz unless you need to extract the 1.0Mhz crystal from your C64 for your other projects.

256 colors > 16 colors unless you are color blind.

BYTE wide joystick reads are better than 4-bit reads unless you are interfacing to 4-bit bus devices (when it doesn't matter).

4 DACs > 1 DAC unless you are deaf.

Having 56+ graphics modes is better than having a graphics mode that's an extension of a text mode.

Having a Dlist to do scrolling, bitmap ptrs, etc. is better than using a register to set the mode for the entire screen.

Having overscan with one register setting is better than wasting many CPU cycles to set it up and harder to even address the pixels.

etc.

etc.

 

Don't make absolute statements like "There won't be an ultimate answer" since that's self-contradictory.

 

 

You get stuck with technical comparison that means nothing.

 

If i follow your method , and i compare Your A800 with a MSX 2 , the MSX would be better. Is the case? I don't think.

Of course on certain point on the paper the MSX 2 will be better. but in the reality is not exactly the case.

 

as when you say having 56+ graphic mode is better. Ok, how many mode to you use at the same time ?

Having 54 mode on 56 not very usefull is it better than have only 2 you uses?

 

I repeat the only way to prove is to develop the same game outside commercial constraints and compare the result.

[jvas]

That's your subjective view.

1.79Mhz > 1.0Mhz unless you need to extract the 1.0Mhz crystal from your C64 for your other projects.

256 colors > 16 colors unless you are color blind.

BYTE wide joystick reads are better than 4-bit reads unless you are interfacing to 4-bit bus devices (when it doesn't matter).

4 DACs > 1 DAC unless you are deaf.

Having 56+ graphics modes is better than having a graphics mode that's an extension of a text mode.

Having a Dlist to do scrolling, bitmap ptrs, etc. is better than using a register to set the mode for the entire screen.

Having overscan with one register setting is better than wasting many CPU cycles to set it up and harder to even address the pixels.

etc.

etc.

 

Don't make absolute statements like "There won't be an ultimate answer" since that's self-contradictory.

 

- 1.79Mhz > 1.0Mhz: put even the same engine into different car-body and you'll get totally different results. Comparing Mhz means nothing. A faster processor in a worse architecture can performs worse (and I'm not saying that this is the case)

- 256 colors > 16 colors: means nothing if you can put only one color on the screen out of the 256 vs. 4 out of 16

- BYTE wide joystick reads are better than 4-bit: only if you want to digitize sound

...

You can compare of the elements of the system to each other, but you must look at these systems as a whole. Both platforms have strengths. Maybe one of them suits more to one kind of application, the other suits more to other. Who can decide which is more important?

[Fröhn]

They all move in x-direction fine and depending on use there's no restriction.

There is a pretty heavy restriction: The CPU.

 

They can also move in y-axis during VBlank time.

If you waste 240 rasterlines for setting PM X-positions, you got only 72 (PAL) rasterlines free for CPU use and you would have to update 2000 positions during that time. That means: 7560 clock cycles for 2000 positions = less than 4 cycles per positions = you can't even do a simple STA for each position.

 

On NTSC it's an even heavier restriction: Only 22 rasterlines free = 2310 clock cycles = ~1.15 clock cycle per position update

 

It's not possible.

[atariksi]

Prove that A800 is better than C64 or the opposite...

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=1722385

 

 

No reason to call the discussion here sterile-- it has been a lot more productive, informative, etc. than some other previous threads I have read. Your approach of experimental knowledge is inferior to a rational, logical (deductive) approach. You may make a game that is superior on Atari 8-bit now but later some one may make a better one on C64-- so it's just a relative truth rather than an absolute one. By taking a rational deductive approach as to what is achievable by the machine's chipset, the truth is established once and for all and there's no need for any change regardless of what software may be produced by the machines in the future. Going by the experimental approach is the reason why many mistakenly think C64 is the better machine-- they observe much more software with various features on C64 than they do on A8 (mostly due to non-hardware reasons).

 

 

I disagree the only way to prove that one is better than the other is to experiment. Theory is often not the truth.

 

So take a game do it on both (keeping in mind to do show your machine is the best) and let 's compare.

In that specific case. There is no time limit, commercial factor, political or economical reason that will make one version being inferior due to externel constraint .

The only factor except the hardware iwould be the skill of the programmer.

 

But get your best programmer here for the Atari and the best for the c64 . Seing your discussion it seems very is very good expert in both camp here.

 

so let start with the vertical shooter i propose. and then let's go with an horizontal one. and then may be a kind of 3d game.

 

And i think we will have a fair view of what machine is the best. no blabla , no theory , just fact.

 

 

But i agree we learned lot of thing in this thread. But surely not what is the best.

 

What do you think is better:

low res with high color depth

or

high res with low color depth?

 

The result will be subjective. There won't be an ultimate answer.

 

That's your subjective view.

1.79Mhz > 1.0Mhz unless you need to extract the 1.0Mhz crystal from your C64 for your other projects.

256 colors > 16 colors unless you are color blind.

BYTE wide joystick reads are better than 4-bit reads unless you are interfacing to 4-bit bus devices (when it doesn't matter).

4 DACs > 1 DAC unless you are deaf.

Having 56+ graphics modes is better than having a graphics mode that's an extension of a text mode.

Having a Dlist to do scrolling, bitmap ptrs, etc. is better than using a register to set the mode for the entire screen.

Having overscan with one register setting is better than wasting many CPU cycles to set it up and harder to even address the pixels.

etc.

etc.

 

Don't make absolute statements like "There won't be an ultimate answer" since that's self-contradictory.

 

 

You get stuck with technical comparison that means nothing.

 

...

That's your opinion.

 

>If i follow your method , and i compare Your A800 with a MSX 2 , the MSX would be better. Is the case? I don't think.

 

We're comparing C64 and A8. Why don't you show how MSX 2 is better so I know what spec it has than perhaps the analogy would make sense.

 

>Of course on certain point on the paper the MSX 2 will be better. but in the reality is not exactly the case.

 

On a certain point C64 is better.

 

>as when you say having 56+ graphic mode is better. Ok, how many mode to you use at the same time ?

>Having 54 mode on 56 not very usefull is it better than have only 2 you uses?

 

56 modes is better overall whether someone uses only one mode is another point. Actually, I use the three 80*200*16 modes most of the time.

 

>I repeat the only way to prove is to develop the same game outside commercial constraints and compare the result.

 

That's your speculation.

[atariksi]

That's your subjective view.

1.79Mhz > 1.0Mhz unless you need to extract the 1.0Mhz crystal from your C64 for your other projects.

256 colors > 16 colors unless you are color blind.

BYTE wide joystick reads are better than 4-bit reads unless you are interfacing to 4-bit bus devices (when it doesn't matter).

4 DACs > 1 DAC unless you are deaf.

Having 56+ graphics modes is better than having a graphics mode that's an extension of a text mode.

Having a Dlist to do scrolling, bitmap ptrs, etc. is better than using a register to set the mode for the entire screen.

Having overscan with one register setting is better than wasting many CPU cycles to set it up and harder to even address the pixels.

etc.

etc.

 

Don't make absolute statements like "There won't be an ultimate answer" since that's self-contradictory.

 

- 1.79Mhz > 1.0Mhz: put even the same engine into different car-body and you'll get totally different results. Comparing Mhz means nothing. A faster processor in a worse architecture can performs worse (and I'm not saying that this is the case)

 

...

It's not the case.

 

>- 256 colors > 16 colors: means nothing if you can put only one color on the screen out of the 256 vs. 4 out of 16

 

That's not the case either.

 

>- BYTE wide joystick reads are better than 4-bit: only if you want to digitize sound

 

That's not the only use for it either.

 

>...

>You can compare of the elements of the system to each other, but you must look at these systems as a whole. Both platforms have strengths. Maybe one of them suits more to one kind of application, the other suits more to other. Who can decide which is more important?

 

That's what I stated that A8 hardware is OVERALL superior.

[atariksi]

They all move in x-direction fine and depending on use there's no restriction.

There is a pretty heavy restriction: The CPU.

 

They can also move in y-axis during VBlank time.

If you waste 240 rasterlines for setting PM X-positions, you got only 72 (PAL) rasterlines free for CPU use and you would have to update 2000 positions during that time. That means: 7560 clock cycles for 2000 positions = less than 4 cycles per positions = you can't even do a simple STA for each position.

 

On NTSC it's an even heavier restriction: Only 22 rasterlines free = 2310 clock cycles = ~1.15 clock cycle per position update

 

It's not possible.

 

You are jumping like a monkey from one thing to another. I stated the following which you did not fully quote back for some reason:

 

>>You don't see your own point. Your first reply stated C64 can ALSO do the same. Now, you first admit that it can't before changing the subject. They can all be 8*1 using zoom on the missiles or they can be other combinations: 4*1, 2*1, 16*1, 32*1. They all move in x-direction fine and depending on use there's no restriction. At least 5 get updated during HBLank. Don't label them as bugged. You know the restrictions so you design the product accordingly. They can also move in y-axis during VBlank time.

 

>>You are now trying to promote the grapes are sour philosophy because you LOST the argument. "They are useless" YOU SHOULD HAVE STATED THAT FIRST and not stated that C64 can also do that.

 

Going back to original question-- which machine can put up more sprites simultaneously on the screen. Atari can and I specifically mentioned thousands 8*1 flooded all over the screen. You stated C64 can do the same. Now you are arguing some other point-- there's a CPU restriction or Y-axis motion does not have enough cycles. First you need to make up your mind whether you are still going to stick to C64 can do the same or not before you try to raise other issues. Sprites are still sprites even if they don't move in the y-axis.

[jvas]

That's what I stated that A8 hardware is OVERALL superior.

 

That's your opinion and obviously not true.

[atariksi]

>If you waste 240 rasterlines...

 

It's so hilarious how bias of some people shows up. He is already declaring that it's a WASTE (useless) and he expects me to answer his other point unrelated to the original question. If it's a WASTE, then stick to that point and argue that. If C64 could do it better or equal to Atari, then it's NOT a waste otherwise it's just a waste. Samething with some people denying reality regarding palette and modes; they are a WASTE (useless) unless C64 has those modes and colors. They are so conditioned into using their C64 modes, all other modes/colors are a waste for them.

 

Now, I wonder what these people would have stated if it turned out in this case that the C64 was able to put up 2000+ sprites (more or equal to Atari), if C64 had GTIA modes or text modes like graphics 1 or 2 with HSCRL/VSCRL/LMS/etc......

[atariksi]

That's what I stated that A8 hardware is OVERALL superior.

 

That's your opinion and obviously not true.

 

"obviously" in your imagination. Why don't you read the thread then and address the points rather than just popping up in the middle of the thread and blurting out your hallucinations.

[jvas]

- 1.79Mhz > 1.0Mhz: put even the same engine into different car-body and you'll get totally different results. Comparing Mhz means nothing. A faster processor in a worse architecture can performs worse (and I'm not saying that this is the case)

 

It's not the case.

 

You missed the point. I'm trying to say that no conclusion can be made by comparing the frequencies of the processors. Or any other characteristics of the elements of the system on their own.

[atariksi]

- 1.79Mhz > 1.0Mhz: put even the same engine into different car-body and you'll get totally different results. Comparing Mhz means nothing. A faster processor in a worse architecture can performs worse (and I'm not saying that this is the case)

 

It's not the case.

 

You missed the point. I'm trying to say that no conclusion can be made by comparing the frequencies of the processors. Or any other characteristics of the elements of the system on their own.

 

But they all add up. Now which do you prefer a C64 at 1.0Mhz or the same c64 at 1.79Mhz? There are cases where other hardware features can make up for the lack of speed like sprites but then your sprite hardware will show up as superior so it does make sense to compare the hardware characteristics on their own as well as together.

[jvas]

That's what I stated that A8 hardware is OVERALL superior.

 

That's your opinion and obviously not true.

 

"obviously" in your imagination. Why don't you read the thread then and address the points rather than just popping up in the middle of the thread and blurting out your hallucinations.

 

Are you really got angry because you cannot convince me that the 800XL is superior than the C64 in every aspects? And I'm telling you why I'm not convinced?

My point, as I'm previously said, is that:

- you can compare specific characteristics of the two system, but based on this no decision can be made on which is superior

- the fact, that which computer "performs" more also depends on the specific job they should done

 

They are built up differently, different approach needs to be used to solve the different problems and the solution will differs of course. Somewhere the color depth will differ, somewhere the resolution, somewhere the refresh rate, somewhere the sound. To judge which result is better (I think only this should matter) is subjective.

 

And I'm telling you that my heart is on the Atari side.

[jvas]

- 1.79Mhz > 1.0Mhz: put even the same engine into different car-body and you'll get totally different results. Comparing Mhz means nothing. A faster processor in a worse architecture can performs worse (and I'm not saying that this is the case)

 

It's not the case.

 

You missed the point. I'm trying to say that no conclusion can be made by comparing the frequencies of the processors. Or any other characteristics of the elements of the system on their own.

 

But they all add up. Now which do you prefer a C64 at 1.0Mhz or the same c64 at 1.79Mhz? There are cases where other hardware features can make up for the lack of speed like sprites but then your sprite hardware will show up as superior so it does make sense to compare the hardware characteristics on their own as well as together.

 

Comparing that 1Mhz C64 with the 1.79Mhz one makes sense of course. But because the atari and the c64 are built up differently, there are different tasks, that the processors have to done. That's why only looking at their frequencies cannot lead to any conclusion.

Based on your thoughts every game can be written better on the 800XL than on the C64.

[atariksi]

That's what I stated that A8 hardware is OVERALL superior.

 

That's your opinion and obviously not true.

 

"obviously" in your imagination. Why don't you read the thread then and address the points rather than just popping up in the middle of the thread and blurting out your hallucinations.

 

Are you really got angry because you cannot convince me that the 800XL is superior than the C64 in every aspects? And I'm telling you why I'm not convinced?

 

...

 

I am not angry. You IN FACT did not address the points in this thread and stated some things already addressed.

 

>My point, as I'm previously said, is that:

> - you can compare specific characteristics of the two system, but based on this no decision can be made on which is superior

> - the fact, that which computer "performs" more also depends on the specific job they should done

 

>They are built up differently, different approach needs to be used to solve the different problems and the solution will differs of course. Somewhere the color depth will differ, somewhere the resolution, somewhere the refresh rate, somewhere the sound. To judge which result is better (I think only this should matter) is subjective.

 

For a particular person using a computer, he may have different needs that's why you want compare system hardware -- one aspect at a time so it's objective. It's a FACT (and thus OBJECTIVE) that 256 colors is better than 16 regardless of who uses it. It's a FACT that 1.79Mhz is better than 1.0Mhz regardless of who you are. It's a FACT that 1.79Mhz timing is better than 1.0Mhz timing regardless of who you are. Etc. Etc.

 

>And I'm telling you that my heart is on the Atari side.

 

Haven't seen evidence of that yet.

[atariksi]

- 1.79Mhz > 1.0Mhz: put even the same engine into different car-body and you'll get totally different results. Comparing Mhz means nothing. A faster processor in a worse architecture can performs worse (and I'm not saying that this is the case)

 

It's not the case.

 

You missed the point. I'm trying to say that no conclusion can be made by comparing the frequencies of the processors. Or any other characteristics of the elements of the system on their own.

 

But they all add up. Now which do you prefer a C64 at 1.0Mhz or the same c64 at 1.79Mhz? There are cases where other hardware features can make up for the lack of speed like sprites but then your sprite hardware will show up as superior so it does make sense to compare the hardware characteristics on their own as well as together.

 

Comparing that 1Mhz C64 with the 1.79Mhz one makes sense of course. But because the atari and the c64 are built up differently, there are different tasks, that the processors have to done. That's why only looking at their frequencies cannot lead to any conclusion.

Based on your thoughts every game can be written better on the 800XL than on the C64.

 

Sorry, but you are speculating again. I NEVER stated that ONLY frequencies determine the conclusion. I SPECEFICALLY stated OVERALL Atari is better not just by frequencies. You haven't understood my thoughts that's why you are drawing an erroneous conclusion. I did state specifically that C64 sprites have better resolution and coverage horizontally so if games are targetting C64 and their color RAM based graphics mode and later porting to Atari, those games will be harder to recreate on Atari. Then again if you digitize imagery in gray-scale and port it over to C64, it's going to look like crap. Just giving you two examples where it's OBJECTIVE as to the analysis.

[atariksi]

You can reset/set a sprite's bit in the Y-expand register and Vic will think it's still on the first instance of the line.

 

So, cost = CPU cycles for every line you want to do it. Benefit = good for stretch effects.

For a simple large object, it's obviously cheaper to just change Y-Pos and the data pointer.

 

That's still inferior method of replicating across screen height than using GRAFn which uses 0 cpu cycles and 0 RAM.

[AB Positive]

I dunno, with blast processing I always thought that Sega had made a great machine. Sure the snes had Super Mario World and the Squaresoft releases but that didn't make the Genny...

 

oh wait - wrong argument. Sorry - nothing to see here.

[Crazyace]

Going back to original question-- which machine can put up more sprites simultaneously on the screen. Atari can and I specifically mentioned thousands 8*1 flooded all over the screen. You stated C64 can do the same. Now you are arguing some other point-- there's a CPU restriction or Y-axis motion does not have enough cycles. First you need to make up your mind whether you are still going to stick to C64 can do the same or not before you try to raise other issues. Sprites are still sprites even if they don't move in the y-axis.

 

Just to clarify - are you talking about thousands of different 8x1 bitmaps moving around the screen, or thousands of identical 8x1 bitmaps , or thousands of 8x1 lines ?

 

How many thousands? and what resolution are these 8x1 bitmaps ( 320pixel, or 160 pixel )

[sack-c0s]

Stop this thread it's getting silly.

 

I suggest you take this platform bitching to scrolly messages on the intro screens of games you've written to prove your respective points

[Fröhn]

>If you waste 240 rasterlines...

 

It's so hilarious how bias of some people shows up. He is already declaring that it's a WASTE (useless) and he expects me to answer his other point unrelated to the original question. If it's a WASTE, then stick to that point and argue that.

It's a waste because all you get is a screen plastered with 8x1 and 2x1 pixel stripes which don't move and you don't even have background graphics because that would make it impossible to get 2000 so-called "sprites".

[atariksi]

>If you waste 240 rasterlines...

 

It's so hilarious how bias of some people shows up. He is already declaring that it's a WASTE (useless) and he expects me to answer his other point unrelated to the original question. If it's a WASTE, then stick to that point and argue that.

It's a waste because all you get is a screen plastered with 8x1 and 2x1 pixel stripes which don't move and you don't even have background graphics because that would make it impossible to get 2000 so-called "sprites".

 

You just fit into exactly what I wrote-- biased and NOT a waste. They do move and on top of an image and help enhance the image.

[atariksi]

They all move in x-direction fine and depending on use there's no restriction.

There is a pretty heavy restriction: The CPU.

 

They can also move in y-axis during VBlank time.

If you waste 240 rasterlines for setting PM X-positions, you got only 72 (PAL) rasterlines free for CPU use and you would have to update 2000 positions during that time. That means: 7560 clock cycles for 2000 positions = less than 4 cycles per positions = you can't even do a simple STA for each position.

 

On NTSC it's an even heavier restriction: Only 22 rasterlines free = 2310 clock cycles = ~1.15 clock cycle per position update

 

It's not possible.

 

You are jumping like a monkey from one thing to another. I stated the following which you did not fully quote back for some reason:

 

>>You don't see your own point. Your first reply stated C64 can ALSO do the same. Now, you first admit that it can't before changing the subject. They can all be 8*1 using zoom on the missiles or they can be other combinations: 4*1, 2*1, 16*1, 32*1. They all move in x-direction fine and depending on use there's no restriction. At least 5 get updated during HBLank. Don't label them as bugged. You know the restrictions so you design the product accordingly. They can also move in y-axis during VBlank time.

 

>>You are now trying to promote the grapes are sour philosophy because you LOST the argument. "They are useless" YOU SHOULD HAVE STATED THAT FIRST and not stated that C64 can also do that.

 

Going back to original question-- which machine can put up more sprites simultaneously on the screen. Atari can and I specifically mentioned thousands 8*1 flooded all over the screen. You stated C64 can do the same. Now you are arguing some other point-- there's a CPU restriction or Y-axis motion does not have enough cycles. First you need to make up your mind whether you are still going to stick to C64 can do the same or not before you try to raise other issues. Sprites are still sprites even if they don't move in the y-axis.

 

 

Okay, frohn read the replies-- don't skip and state the same thing again and again based on your biased imperfect analysis. Here's the reply you forget to reply to again (see above).

[Bryan]

Stop this thread it's getting silly.

getting silly?

 

Did we ever settle if the rubber feet on the 800 are superior to the ones on the 64?

[Heaven/TQA]

Atariski...you should really come down to earth... you seem to have fun in terms of try to discuss in a "correct" manner like we learned in school and in philosophic course at university... but is it pratical?

 

yes...of course you can call 240x8 = 1920 sprites but in reality? can you move them around? can you at least do something practical with them in games?

 

you would need to feed in a kernal 8 hpos registers plus 4 graphpx registers plus 1 graphm register not to mention the colour registers...

 

aehm... should we now state that 800 has 1920 hardware sprites? in 256 colours? come on...

 

same goes to some of your aspects refering to a single bit of hardware... sometimes I feel you are too academic with the loose for reality...