Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

I already said it looks like crap on my TV so usually have to do 2/320 scroll anyway. Why did you state for C64:

 

"- no HW scrolling, but you can do it with the cpu"

 

my tv has a very big afterglow, so I usually dont scroll at all anyway, because scrolling looks like crap it makes no sense, so speccy is better because it cant

 

2nd part: I meant the >1 char HW scrolling.

 

No the point is even with 1/320 hscroll it does not mean scrolling hardware is better on C64. So I never made the point of which is superior. For my application, it looks bad so I did not find any use in it. It's the same result on several people's TVs so can't use it not mentioning the Atari version was in overscan.

[emkay]

That's subjective. You don't know what everyone on the planet likes. Some applications can get away with simpler graphics modes which can be refreshed faster and use less memory.

 

ah, so a 1 bit screen is the best. the worse the better, awesome point really

 

 

... Finally the troll is awaken....

[Oswald]

No the point is even with 1/320 hscroll it does not mean scrolling hardware is better on C64.

 

just like "atari has 128 colors" doesnt mean its better or anything without diving into context.

[atariksi]

>atari:

 

>- 128 colors

>- copper precursor, DLI

>- many screen modes with flexible size and layout.

>- HW scrolling

>- simple sprites

>- faster cpu

 

It's 256 colors max. We are looking at maximum hardware potential of both machines. I hope this list is not complete because your forgot many things include I/O.

 

>- 16 colors, but you can use all of them on the same scanline without problems, thats about 4x the colors the atari can display on a line.(without sprites)

 

I already addressed this, and now I'll prove it. You can change the color index 17 times per scan line at exact points:

 

10 POKE 54286,0

20 POKE 54272,0

30 FOR T=1536 TO 1536+16*5 STEP 5

40 POKE T,169:POKE T+1,T-1536:POKE T+2,141:POKE T+3,26:POKE T+4,208

50 NEXT T

60 POKE T,208:POKE T+1,256-87:D=USR(1536)

 

Show me the equivalent on C64. I could use it.

 

>- sid: I hope no comment needed.

 

How about 4 DACs running simultaneously for one thing?

 

>- IO chips: I bet c64's 2 cia chip outperforms whatever the atari has. anyone can post a link with the specs?

 

No need for specs. I already played around with both. CIA is better chip with inferior implementation and slower. Agnus on Amiga would be less useful if it only had a 4-bit data bus entering it so each R,G,B had to be fed via 3 I/O port writes.

 

>so when it comes to gfx/sound/2d games the c64 can perform better. when its all about cpu power atari wins.

 

Sorry, I have already disproved that C64 can perform better in GFX/Sound/2D graphics.

[Oswald]

I already addressed this, and now I'll prove it. You can change the color index 17 times per scan line at exact points:

...

Show me the equivalent on C64. I could use it.

 

40 times per scanline on c64, just filling up the color memory:

 

10 for x=0 to 39: poke$d800+x,rnd(1)*16:next x

 

 

>- sid: I hope no comment needed.

 

How about 4 DACs running simultaneously for one thing?

 

does it improve the sound quality over sid or anything ?

 

>so when it comes to gfx/sound/2d games the c64 can perform better. when its all about cpu power atari wins.

 

Sorry, I have already disproved that C64 can perform better in GFX/Sound/2D graphics.

 

really? any turricans, armalytes, creatures, mayhem in monsterlands on a8?

 

as I wrote the VICII uses about 3 times ("best case") the data to display pictures as antic, disprove that. or rather check the latest sid invention, 8 bit digis with filters.

 

edit: http://www.scs-trc.net/x08/music/vicious_sid_mp3.zip

Edited November 22, 2008 by Oswald

[Artlover]

"More powerful" is not a subjective term.

 

A 1Ghz PC is faster than an Atari is NOT subjective.

Wow, can you say apples and oranges.

 

Lets get a little closer to reality of the time.

 

A 1981 IBM PC using an 8088 running at 4.7mhz is faster then an Atari too, does that make IT more powerfull?

 

CPU speed by itself does NOT measure how "functional" or "powerfull" a CPU is. That is determined by what it is actually capable of doing.

 

(And before you answer yes - The fact is, an 8088 running at 5mhz and a 6502 running at 2 mhz are actually more or less equal in processing power because the architecture of the 6502 and how it uses clock cycles is different then that of the 8088. - So no, it's not more powerfull.)

 

No, 256 > 16. Keep it simple. Hardware has more colors; gives you more choice. How many you get in various graphics modes is different.

How many you get in various graphics modes IS THE POINT. The graphics capabilities of a machine are judged by the best graphics you can visualy produce with it.

 

If you're talking stock machines with stock programing techniques then both machines are limited to 16 colors at a time. (160x200/16 C64 - 80x192/16 Atari).

 

Virtual capabilities mean nothing if they can't be utilizied.

 

Number of sound channels: Atari > C64

 

>What you can do with those channels: C64 > Atari

 

Err, that's not a hardware feature. You need to specify the hardware registers of C64 sound hardware that don't exist on Atari and show that Atari's sound registers all are subset of C64's.

Didn't even have to read this far to know you would make this argument. Pokey is better then Sid because it's 4 voices instead of 3. Of course it's totaly irrevelant what kind of sound you can make with them.

 

Seriously, would a 2 pound bag of turds be better to you then a 1 pound bag of marshmellows simply because it's "more"?

 

Sorry to say, you're not exactly disproving my previous point about picking and choosing specifics and arguing raw numbers with no worth in real-world application to justify a position.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Artlover

[Oswald]

Seriously, would a 2 pound bag of turds be better to you then a 1 pound bag of marshmellows simply because it's "more"?

 

sure if they are atari turds, they are definitly better .)

[atariksi]

I already addressed this, and now I'll prove it. You can change the color index 17 times per scan line at exact points:

...

Show me the equivalent on C64. I could use it.

 

40 times per scanline on c64, just filling up the color memory:

 

10 for x=0 to 39: poke$d800+x,rnd(1)*16:next x

 

 

>- sid: I hope no comment needed.

 

How about 4 DACs running simultaneously for one thing?

 

does it improve the sound quality over sid or anything ?

 

>so when it comes to gfx/sound/2d games the c64 can perform better. when its all about cpu power atari wins.

 

Sorry, I have already disproved that C64 can perform better in GFX/Sound/2D graphics.

 

really? any turricans, armalytes, creatures, mayhem in monsterlands on a8?

 

as I wrote the VICII uses about 3 times ("best case") the data to display pictures as antic, disprove that. or rather check the latest sid invention, 8 bit digis with filters.

 

edit: http://www.scs-trc.net/x08/music/vicious_sid_mp3.zip

 

You can't have 17 unique colors on a scanline on C64. If you repeat same colors, that's another argument. You can construct any waveform you want with DACs and they run faster on Atari. Sorry, I'm not a musician-- perhaps someone can answer from the perspective of playing notes-- but I never made the argument one is better than the other. If you want to make the argument that Sid > POKEY then I am giving you an argument against that assertion.

[atariksi]

No the point is even with 1/320 hscroll it does not mean scrolling hardware is better on C64.

 

just like "atari has 128 colors" doesnt mean its better or anything without diving into context.

 

There's no context to dive into. Atari has more color choices. With scrolling, I can do some hw scrolls on Atari in various modes that you can't do on C64 and you can do 1/320 hscroll; so this does not establish C64 scrolling hardware > Atari hardware.

[Oswald]

You can't have 17 unique colors on a scanline on C64. If you repeat same colors, that's another argument. You can construct any waveform you want with DACs and they run faster on Atari. Sorry, I'm not a musician-- perhaps someone can answer from the perspective of playing notes-- but I never made the argument one is better than the other. If you want to make the argument that Sid > POKEY then I am giving you an argument against that assertion.

 

c64 can have 16, placed anywhere, with 0 cpu usage. unlike your "17". ofcourse 17 bags of shit is better than 1 bag of gold .) I rather go and play doom2.

[peteym5]

oh great, another one of these that will go on for 15+ pages of posts.

[atariksi]

>>A 1Ghz PC is faster than an Atari is NOT subjective.

>Wow, can you say apples and oranges.

 

I was giving one example of a piece of hardware you can objectively agree on. That a 1GHZ PC is faster than 1.79Mhz Atari (or 1Mhz C64). However, there's other hardware. Atari's timer accuracy is 1.79Mhz as well whereas PCs standard timer is 1.19318Mhz so there Atari would win.

 

>How many you get in various graphics modes IS THE POINT. The graphics capabilities of a machine are judged by the best graphics you can visualy produce with it.

 

Judged by who? Some people can live with 80*200*16 grayscale, some people can live with 160*200*5, etc. Sometimes you need lower resolutions to speed up things and use less memory. I have seen PC games switch to lower resolutions like 320*200 to make things real-time. Are you stating that if I buy a PC that no longer supports 320*200 but has 2048*1536*16777216 that I'm better off? That's subjective. Some people have more use for lower resolutions so allowing for that capability in hardware is better than trying to emulate it. Plus, you can mix the modes with ANTIC at any scanline.

 

>If you're talking stock machines with stock programing techniques then both machines are limited to 16 colors at a time. (160x200/16 C64 - 80x192/16 Atari).

 

No the potential is 160*200*30 shades on Atari. There's no modes built into Atari-- all modes are programmed via display lists.

 

>Virtual capabilities mean nothing if they can't be utilizied.

 

It depends on your creativity how to utilize it.

 

>Didn't even have to read this far to know you would make this argument. Pokey is better then Sid because it's 4 voices instead of 3. Of course it's totaly irrevelant what kind of sound you can make with them.

 

You are misunderstanding. I never compare the sound chips. He's claiming SID>Pokey so if I state something you can do with POKEY that you can't do with SID then that statement SID>POKEY is denied. It does not follow that I stated that POKEY>SID. I guess that must be the cause of the problem here.

 

>Sorry to say, you're not exactly disproving my previous point about picking and choosing specifics and arguing raw numbers with no worth in real-world application to justify a position.

 

I have a real-world application, but I am arguing in general that not everyone is looking for the highest resolution and the most colors or the musical notes.

[Oswald]

No the point is even with 1/320 hscroll it does not mean scrolling hardware is better on C64.

 

just like "atari has 128 colors" doesnt mean its better or anything without diving into context.

 

There's no context to dive into. Atari has more color choices. With scrolling, I can do some hw scrolls on Atari in various modes that you can't do on C64 and you can do 1/320 hscroll; so this does not establish C64 scrolling hardware > Atari hardware.

 

so now show me some scrolling games which outperform c64's scrolling games, to proove your case.

[Fröhn]

Ignores the fact that there are countless possibilities of software driven modes (not counting any interlace crap, i hate the flicker), and the sprites are big enough to display 192x280 pixels additionally to the normal background graphics.

Yes, the interlace is crap when colors are far apart but Atari has shades that so that shade 2 interlaced with shade 3 produces shade 2.5 which is perfectly useable. Software driven modes are essentially something the hardware is allowing you to do.

128 color palette on Atari has 8 different luminances, 16 color palette of C64 has 9 luminances. Pretty much the same when it comes to interlace. And with the half-pixel shift you can do true horizontal interlace on C64 too.

 

Three typical software driven modes are FLI which has a color cell size of 4x1 pixels (lores, 160x200 pixels) or 8x1 pixels (hires, 320x200 pixels). Another mode based on color cell size modification is the big pixels @ 16 colors mode seen in demos. And then there is any combination of those modes with sprite layers which gives a hell lot of possibilities.

Don't combine sprites with modes yet. That's another hardware feature. Just compare the graphics modes and text modes, there's more choices again on Atari.

So what's a "mode" anyway? Most Atari modes are just bigger pixel modes of other modes. I have never seen those 4 color huge pixel modes used btw, usually only a fraction of modes is used (and that's also the modes which were chosen for the C64 btw, except for the 80x192 modes).

 

And why shouldn't I be allowed to use sprites? Sprites on C64 can be used as own graphic layer, and has multicolor/hires etc per sprite too. You can display a "bitmap" screen without bitmaps.

 

No, I am talking all I/O not just the SIO port. SIO is the slowest port on the Atari, but good for booting.

Well what other port are you talking about? C64 has user port with 8 bit parallel bus too, and expansion port which connects directly to the C64 internal bus where you can do 1 byte per clock cycle DMA (for example, the Commodore RAM expansion units do that).

 

Number of sound channels: Atari > C64

What you can do with those channels: C64 > Atari

Err, that's not a hardware feature. You need to specify the hardware registers of C64 sound hardware that don't exist on Atari and show that Atari's sound registers all are subset of C64's.

 

Osciallator frequency for every channel on C64: 16 bits / Atari: 8 bits

ADSR registers which produce an envelope at 1 MHz and not 50 Hz like usually on Atari.

Low pass/high pass/band pass/notch filters with 12 bit cutoff frequency, each channel can be filtered or not.

Pulse width modulation for rectangle (square) wave, pulse width register is 12 bits wide.

Triangle + sawtooth waveforms

Noise waveform with hardwired polynom, but can be modified by timed oscillator restarts etc.

 

Quite some features which you cannot reproduce on Atari.

 

Smooth scroll: C64 > Atari (C64 has twice the scroll resolution)

I guess you mean in X-direction. If so, then good, perhaps someone else wants to comment on C64/Atari HScroll. I can't see the difference on my TV.

It's easy to see the difference. You can scroll 1 hires pixel per frame instead of 2 every second frame like I've seen often on Atari (or default to minimum 2 hires pixel scrollspeed). Also accelerations of scrolling look much smoother.

 

CPU overhead for scrolling: Atari > C64

Err, that's not a hardware feature.

Ofcourse it is.

 

I/O flexibility: C64 > Atari (completely programmable on C64 + doesn't waste sound channels while SIO access + has four 16 bit timers)

Ah, the 8 POTs are also useable as timers, there are four AUDF timers (3 with IRQs) with higher accuracy than C64, you can time the DLI itself and use CPU as a timer at higher accuracy than C64 along with VBI.

Higher accuracy than C64? How can a timer be more accurate than "1 clock cycle per timer step"? Also, you can combine two timers to a 32 bit timer, or you can use one timer as clock for the 2nd timer so you can have any accuracy you want. And ofcourse the timers are timers only, if you use them you don't lose any sound channels.

 

In fact, you can cause in IRQ to occur on certain color clocks midscreen.

You can have raster IRQs at the beginning of any scanline you want, and you can have timer IRQs and NMIs at any clock cycle on screen.

 

Expandability: C64 > Atari (bus completely available at the expansion port, allows for DMA and external CPU/sound/gfx stuff without even opening the C64)

We need to stick to standard hardware so only thing that matters with I/O is the speed of transfers for standard peripherals like disk drives, joysticks, trackballs, etc. Joystick port is faster on Atari.

Says somebody who probably has 320k expansion soldered into his Atari. On C64 you simply plug a memory expansion into the expansion port, no soldering required (and it's even made by Commodore and no homebrew stuff).

 

You can construct any waveform you want with DACs and they run faster on Atari.

SID can play samples too, and feeding 4 DACs is actually much more troublesome than mixing and then output via one DAC (where the C64 can do 8 bit replay).

[atariksi]

You can't have 17 unique colors on a scanline on C64. If you repeat same colors, that's another argument. You can construct any waveform you want with DACs and they run faster on Atari. Sorry, I'm not a musician-- perhaps someone can answer from the perspective of playing notes-- but I never made the argument one is better than the other. If you want to make the argument that Sid > POKEY then I am giving you an argument against that assertion.

 

c64 can have 16, placed anywhere, with 0 cpu usage. unlike your "17". ofcourse 17 bags of shit is better than 1 bag of gold .) I rather go and play doom2.

 

Original argument was maximum colors per scanline w/o sprites. If I use GTIA, I can show 80 colors/scanline but then the palette is restricted. How do you set up a 160*200*16 mode where I can pick any of the 16 colors at any pixel?

[emkay]

CPU speed by itself does NOT measure how "functional" or "powerfull" a CPU is. That is determined by what it is actually capable of doing.

 

This time it does measure...

 

No, 256 > 16. Keep it simple. Hardware has more colors; gives you more choice. How many you get in various graphics modes is different.

How many you get in various graphics modes IS THE POINT. The graphics capabilities of a machine are judged by the best graphics you can visualy produce with it.

 

It's ONE point of two. Well, you can use all programming techniques on the C64 but you will never have any depth in a picture and/or a good light source effect. On the Atari you get a good light source effect with 4 colour registers per line already.

If you're talking stock machines with stock programing techniques then both machines are limited to 16 colors at a time. (160x200/16 C64 - 80x192/16 Atari).

 

The difference is: You are always limited to 16 colours on the C64.... alike which time and period...

On the Atari you can build scenes that change colours for better presentations.

 

Virtual capabilities mean nothing if they can't be utilizied.

 

The usage of 128 (or 256) colours is utilized in very much demos. But it seems not reconized by C64 freaks?

 

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=vAZkiR7MV3s&...feature=related

 

 

have a closer look at 45sec(lightsourcing makes the objects making it rising from the background) and 2min11sec (colour correct shinethrough) or 2min24sec (different colours but correct).

[Crazyace]

In HW terms the C64 is way more powerful than the Atari 8 bit - but it did come out four years later ( 1982 vs 1978 ) . In modern terms that's the difference between the Xbox and the Xbox360

You cant argue with the 12 bit character format ( 8+4bit colour ram ) and the far superior sprites. But the Atari does seem to hold it's own quite well - and it trashes the Vic20 ( which was introduced 2 years later ) and still wins out on colour range and 'hires' scrolling.

 

I was thinking that it would have been a 'tiny' change to make the Atari missiles 8 bits wide rather than 2 , and that would have made a major difference to the sprite capabilities.

 

12-bit character is just one mode. I can keep repeating GTIA but that's not the point. In general you have more choices on Atari with graphics modes. We are not only looking at some applications that may take advantage of 12-bit characters but everything that can possibly be done on each machine so all choices have to be taken into account.

 

Just looking at sprite hardware, C64 is superior. Now if you start mixing things up like some are trying to do by claiming C64 has more colors per scanline so it has more colors then I can start mixing DLIs and timer IRQs and claim Atari has more sprites per scanline as well.

 

Why are you claiming C64 HW is way more powerful?

 

GTIA is the strengh of the Atari in the colour sense ( I did mention in the original post about colour range )

I think the C64 sprite h/w is a large portion of the chip - it's actually almost competitive with the NES in someways - it wasn't till the SNES/Megadrive that you could cover a complete scanline with sprites! ( I know you can retrigger the pm graphics - but you'd have to retrigger them a lot before you matched the standard C64 sprites, and there would be difficulties in a game situation )

 

 

The colours per scanline is the other improvement - that's the big win from the colour ram. It doesn't really matter if you can get 17 colours per scanline with a software loop ( I can do that with a 2600 )

[emkay]

You can have raster IRQs at the beginning of any scanline you want, and you can have timer IRQs and NMIs at any clock cycle on screen.

 

You know the external "halt" of antic doesn't waste even one cycle. A DLI initialization is immediatly. And the cpu can finish a command in its own buffer, if the DMA reading occurs.

After the Displaylist says "this is a DLI line", the DLI is starting directly and you can set the first command.

 

What is needed on the C64 to handle those raster interrupts?

 

Not to forget "wsync" ... with this command you can set colours bit-exact on the whole screen, if you want ...

Edited November 22, 2008 by emkay

[Fröhn]

GTIA is the strengh of the Atari in the colour sense ( I did mention in the original post about colour range )

I think the C64 sprite h/w is a large portion of the chip - it's actually almost competitive with the NES in someways - it wasn't till the SNES/Megadrive that you could cover a complete scanline with sprites! ( I know you can retrigger the pm graphics - but you'd have to retrigger them a lot before you matched the standard C64 sprites, and there would be difficulties in a game situation )

It's not possible to retrigger that much. C64 sprites are 192 hires/96 lores pixels wide. That's the equivalent of 24 players! You would have to retrigger players 19 times -> completely impossible.

[TMR]

There's nothing subjective in comparing hardware specs. Atari has more colors. You are mixing up graphics modes with Atari colors.

 

No, i'm talking about the use of colours which is to a lot of people's minds more important than how many a machine has; you don't agree, but as i've been saying that's subjective.

 

Having 1/320 Hscroll does not mean scrolling hardware is superior on C64. It would only make sense in a luminance only mode since the colors would get shifted on a TV which uses a color clock of 1/160 pixel.

 

Sorry no, there are literally thousands of C64 games scrolling and moving sprites at that resolution without issues including several i've written myself - the hardware suffers significantly less from artefacting since it was designed not to.

 

In general I/O is superior on Atari. If you go by bootable devices then you would be restricted to SIO at standard rate. If you go by software driven I/O, you can also accelerate SIO or use joystick ports in conjunction with SIO. Your "friend" was mentioning CPU cards and sound cards which I was claiming would make the comparison non-standard.

 

As would using joystick ports in conjunction with the SIO. You have to apply your "keep it simple" rule both ways if we're being objective.

Edited November 22, 2008 by TMR

[Crazyace]

GTIA is the strengh of the Atari in the colour sense ( I did mention in the original post about colour range )

I think the C64 sprite h/w is a large portion of the chip - it's actually almost competitive with the NES in someways - it wasn't till the SNES/Megadrive that you could cover a complete scanline with sprites! ( I know you can retrigger the pm graphics - but you'd have to retrigger them a lot before you matched the standard C64 sprites, and there would be difficulties in a game situation )

It's not possible to retrigger that much. C64 sprites are 192 hires/96 lores pixels wide. That's the equivalent of 24 players! You would have to retrigger players 19 times -> completely impossible.

 

c64 sprites have double width as well - so you can cover the screen with single colour sprites at the same res given by players. - even the Amiga H/W sprites weren't actually that much of an improvement over the C64

 

Something like this would be difficult to reproduce as well on the 8 bit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcTQarRrTjM...feature=related just because of the number of sprites on a single line ( I think even the NES/SMS versions have some flicker in these situations )

[Crazyace]

retriggering isn't that practical for players anyway - to retrigger you'd also want to reload data as well as a new x position

[atariksi]

>>Yes, the interlace is crap when colors are far apart but Atari has shades that so that shade 2 interlaced with shade 3 produces shade 2.5 which is perfectly useable. Software driven modes are essentially something the hardware is allowing you to do.

>128 color palette on Atari has 8 different luminances, 16 color palette of C64 has 9 luminances. Pretty much the same when it comes to interlace. And with the half-pixel shift you can do true horizontal interlace on C64 too.

 

You can have 16lums+16lums (31 shades) or 16lums+8lums (30 shades) of any of the 16 colors. Now tell me which 9 luminance levels you are talking about on the C64?

 

>So what's a "mode" anyway? Most Atari modes are just bigger pixel modes of other modes.

 

For some scanlines, it works out great. And for some they don't need the high resolutoins.

 

>And why shouldn't I be allowed to use sprites?

 

I already granted you the hardware sprite advantage now if you bring that over into the graphics modes then I'll start mixing DLIs, IRQs, etc. and state that Atari has more sprites and sprite overlays as well and they are more colorful. But if you treat each hardware feature independently and leave it to the creativity of the coders how they combine the varous hardware features, we can draw some objective conclusions.

 

>Osciallator frequency for every channel on C64: 16 bits / Atari: 8 bits

>ADSR registers which produce an envelope at 1 MHz and not 50 Hz like usually on Atari.

...

 

I can construct any waveform using just two DACs and playback is 21Khz which is impossible on the C64. So you cannot establish SID>POKEY.

 

>Quite some features which you cannot reproduce on Atari.

 

Even granting that, reverse is also true so you cannot establish SID>POKEY.

 

>It's easy to see the difference. You can scroll 1 hires pixel per frame instead of 2 every second frame like I've seen often on Atari (or default to minimum 2 hires pixel scrollspeed). Also accelerations of scrolling look much smoother.

 

Again, you can have overscanned scrolling displays horizontally and vertically so there's scrolling hardware features you can't do on C64.

 

>>>CPU overhead for scrolling: Atari > C64

>>Err, that's not a hardware feature.

>Ofcourse it is.

 

Overhead is not a hardware feature argument. Both machines have scrolling hardware. How is the C64 have less overhead?

 

>Higher accuracy than C64? How can a timer be more accurate than "1 clock cycle per timer step"?

 

By having more steps per second. Which is more accurate a ruler with centimeter markings or one with inch markings?

 

>Also, you can combine two timers to a 32 bit timer, or you can use one timer as clock for the 2nd timer so you can have any accuracy you want. And ofcourse the timers are timers only, if you use them you don't lose any sound channels.

 

That plays no role as you can extend any timer with IRQs, DLIs, VBIs, etc. and that's already built into the OS.

 

>>In fact, you can cause in IRQ to occur on certain color clocks midscreen.

 

>You can have raster IRQs at the beginning of any scanline you want, and you can have timer IRQs and NMIs at any clock cycle on screen.

 

I want to see that-- an C64 IRQ that occurs on an exact point on screen. I thought your timer is not evenly divisible with CRT's colors clocks.

 

>Says somebody who probably has 320k expansion soldered into his Atari. On C64 you simply plug a memory expansion into the expansion port, no soldering required (and it's even made by Commodore and no homebrew stuff).

 

Sorry I don't have a memory expansion nor are expansion hardware being debated by me.

 

>SID can play samples too, and feeding 4 DACs is actually much more troublesome than mixing and then output via one DAC (where the C64 can do 8 bit replay).

 

No trouble at all, You have the hardware available with 4 DACs and 1 1-bit DAC so that's a plus for Atari; you can use one if you want.

[atariksi]

>GTIA is the strengh of the Atari in the colour sense ( I did mention in the original post about colour range )

I think the C64 sprite h/w is a large portion of the chip - it's actually almost competitive with the NES in someways - it wasn't till the SNES/Megadrive that you could cover a complete scanline with sprites! ( I know you can retrigger the pm graphics - but you'd have to retrigger them a lot before you matched the standard C64 sprites, and there would be difficulties in a game situation )

 

Yeah, sprites don't have to be triggered vertically but horizontally. Whereas on C64 they would have to be retriggered vertically. So there are tradeoffs. But if you just want to cover the screen, you can do that with Atari by quad width and using just the 5 players without any DLIs and use it to give a background color in text mode.

 

>The colours per scanline is the other improvement - that's the big win from the colour ram. It doesn't really matter if you can get 17 colours per scanline with a software loop ( I can do that with a 2600 )

 

Colour RAM is in text mode. I haven't seen any program on C64 that allows you to show any of the 16 colors on any pixel in 160*200. There are restrictions so with restrictions you can show more than 16 unique colors/scanline. I just gave a simple example.

[atariksi]

>>There's nothing subjective in comparing hardware specs. Atari has more colors. You are mixing up graphics modes with Atari colors.

 

>No, i'm talking about the use of colours which is to a lot of people's minds more important than how many a machine has; you don't agree, but as i've been saying that's subjective.

 

That argument of Atari colors more than C64 is always true. When you want to argue how many colors can you show in 160*200 on one scanline, that's a different argument. Do you want to argue this?

 

>Sorry no, there are literally thousands of C64 games scrolling and moving sprites at that resolution without issues including several i've written myself - the hardware suffers significantly less from artefacting since it was designed not to.

 

Perhaps, you want to explain how NTSC scrolls a colored pixel 1/320 pixel while retaining the same color.

 

>>In general I/O is superior on Atari. If you go by bootable devices then you would be restricted to SIO at standard rate. If you go by software driven I/O, you can also accelerate SIO or use joystick ports in conjunction with SIO. Your "friend" was mentioning CPU cards and sound cards which I was claiming would make the comparison non-standard.

 

>As would using joystick ports in conjunction with the SIO. You have to apply your "keep it simple" rule both ways if we're being objective.

 

I/O was one argument so it's all under I/O. If you want to split it up, I can just do joystick I/O on both if you want and Atari will be >2X faster than C64. What's your maximum transfer rate on the 1541 drive so we can compare with SIO max. rate?