Jump to content
IGNORED

Which 5200 would you recommend to a new owner in 2023? The 4 port, 2 port or something else?


RockLobster

Recommended Posts

Please correct me:

 

The 2 port version's main advantages are 2600 adapter compatibility (w/o mod), cheaper and more readily available.

 

Otherwise, the 4 port version can at least play the limited number of retail and homebrew 4 player games.

 

I also understand there's a difference in the power supply.  Is this a material difference for someone in 2023?

 

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

The 2 port version's main advantages are 2600 adapter compatibility (w/o mod), cheaper and more readily available.

I don't know that I'd necessarily call the 2-port models cheaper than the 4-port ones.  With the exception of eBay sellers looking to make a quick buck, both seem to go for around the same money.  Condition - particularly if the translucent smoked plastics over the controller storage tray and nose of the machine are intact - counts for a lot.

 

Also, in this day and age, a 2600 Jr. (or any 2600, really) is a better bet than the CX-55 adapter, and I'm saying this as someone with a weird love of that particular device.  If you want one for the sake of having one, by all means go for it.  Just be aware that if you A/V mod your 5200, the 2600 adapter will still only output video and audio over RF.  Without getting into the nitty-gritty of why, it's not something where there's a good solution for it, just a lot of ones that suck for different reasons ;)

 

Incidentally, 4-port models with an asterisk in the serial number have been factory-modified for CX-55 compatibility.

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

Otherwise, the 4 port version can at least play the limited number of retail and homebrew 4 player games.

So can the 2-port - I run them on mine regularly via an Atarimax SD cartridge, and they work fine.  Obviously you're limited to two players, but that isn't something that really affects gameplay for the most part.

 

If you're concerned about software compatibility differences between a 4-port and a 2-port, for around $7 the 4-port BIOS can be installed in a 2-port machine.  That said, the games with compatibility issues are Pitfall, K-Razy Shootout, and Mountain King - so if they're not ones you're wild about, the BIOS swap is completely optional.  Besides, there are versions out there that have been hacked for 2-port compatibility, so they are playable on those machines.

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

I also understand there's a difference in the power supply.  Is this a material difference for someone in 2023?

Not really.  I'm using a generic 12V, 5A supply with surprisingly clean power output on mine, and it works perfectly fine.  12V will not harm the 5200, despite its claims of requiring 9V.  While technically correct, the stock Atari supplies will output up to 14V with no load on them; under load, they go down closer to 9V.  Even at 14V, it's still within spec for the voltage regulators in the 5200 to drop it down to the 5V the PCB needs.

 

So, 2-port or 4-port?  Your call.  Both are perfectly good machines, and there really isn't a lot between them.  Just be prepared to rebuild controllers (if it's not a 100% certainty that you'll need to, it's close enough) and possibly replace the CPU if it has a Rockwell-manufactured one in there.  CPUs are cheap, fortunately.  Rebuild kits for the controllers...  Not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Condition - particularly if the translucent smoked plastics over the controller storage tray and nose of the machine are intact - counts for a lot.

Thank you, this is helpful.

 

15 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Also, in this day and age, a 2600 Jr. (or any 2600, really) is a better bet than the CX-55 adapter, and I'm saying this as someone with a weird love of that particular device.  If you want one for the sake of having one, by all means go for it. 

Yeah, not so different than my response to @Keatah's emulation comment, there are certainly 30k ways to play 2600 games.  However, I'm enjoying collecting/repairing/modding some of these systems for the sake of experiencing them in both nostalgic and novel new ways like many others here.  I'm trying to learn which choices will give me more play time options.

 

20 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Just be aware that if you A/V mod your 5200, the 2600 adapter will still only output video and audio over RF.  Without getting into the nitty-gritty of why, it's not something where there's a good solution for it, just a lot of ones that suck for different reasons ;)

Thank you.  My guess is that the 2600 adapter is a passthrough device similar to the ColecoVision's Expansion Module.   That is, sharing little but just power and other minor things rather than requiring any heavy lifting by 5200 guts.

 

22 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

If you're concerned about software compatibility differences between a 4-port and a 2-port, for around $7 the 4-port BIOS can be installed in a 2-port machine.  That said, the games with compatibility issues are Pitfall, K-Razy Shootout, and Mountain King - so if they're not ones you're wild about, the BIOS swap is completely optional.  Besides, there are versions out there that have been hacked for 2-port compatibility, so they are playable on those machines.

This is the type of info I was hoping to learn.   So other than the number of controller ports/player differences, do you mean that the 4 port version via its BIOS has a larger library / compatibility list of games than the 2 port version?   ...or the opposite?

 

24 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Not really.  I'm using a generic 12V, 5A supply with surprisingly clean power output on mine, and it works perfectly fine

This is great to know.  Too bad the 5200 doesn't allow for 5V power like some of the atari8bit computers.

 

25 minutes ago, x=usr(1536) said:

and possibly replace the CPU if it has a Rockwell-manufactured one in there

Oh, I knew about OEM controller reliability but didn't know about chips inside going bad.   What would you say is the failure rate for this or other chips 40 years out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been one to like "system changers" and "cartridge adapters". I had them all back in the day. And I always went back to the original dedicated console.

 

My experience was that they were another layer of connections and sometimes the slightest bump would crash everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

Yeah, not so different than my response to @Keatah's emulation comment, there are certainly 30k ways to play 2600 games.  However, I'm enjoying collecting/repairing/modding some of these systems for the sake of experiencing them in both nostalgic and novel new ways like many others here.  I'm trying to learn which choices will give me more play time options.

Totally understood.  Two of them are sitting around here almost never seeing use, just because I like them.  I get it ;)

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

Thank you.  My guess is that the 2600 adapter is a passthrough device similar to the ColecoVision's Expansion Module.   That is, sharing little but just power and other minor things rather than requiring any heavy lifting by 5200 guts.

Pretty much.  The CX55 is basically a complete 2600 in a compact shell and only uses the 5200 to provide power and output audio and video over RF.  The 5200 does literally nothing in terms of processing, etc. when it's plugged into the cartridge port.

 

As it stands, this means that there's no good way to take CX55 audio and video from inside the 5200.  Doing the usual A/V mods (such as a UAV) inside the CX55 isn't outside the realms of possibility, but space is really tight in there and fitting jacks would be challenging.  It would also make for a messy setup when being used with the 5200.

 

This is something I've been on-again, off-again working on over the past few months, but I haven't come to a decision as to which awful way to do it is the least terrible ;)

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

So other than the number of controller ports/player differences, do you mean that the 4 port version via its BIOS has a larger library / compatibility list of games than the 2 port version?

Yes, but 'larger' in this case really means 'three or four additional titles' - and the workarounds I mentioned make it pretty much a moot point as to which console you use.  That said, 4-player M.U.L.E. is pretty awesome.

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

Oh, I knew about OEM controller reliability but didn't know about chips inside going bad.   What would you say is the failure rate for this or other chips 40 years out?

It's typically not so much that the chip just outright fails (which it can), but rather that there was a reasonably involved back-in-the-day field service procedure from Atari to fix timing problems with some of the Rockwell CPUs.  Now, while you can still perform this fix today and it will work, just replacing the Rockwell CPU with (typically) a Synertek is carries less risk of damage, and is several orders of magnitude easier.  Pop out the old CPU, insert the new one, and you're good to go.

 

Here's a video that @ctrl_alt_rees put out a while back where he decided to do the field fix just to see what the procedure was like:

 

 

Not awful, but not worth bothering with when CPUs are cheaper than the bench time to perform the modification.

 

As for the other ICs, they're generally pretty robust as long as the machine hasn't been abused.  Bear in mind that most everything in there that isn't RAM or 74-series logic is Atari-specific, so if one goes bad expect pricing for a replacement to follow accordingly.  POKEYs are anywhere from $40 and up; GTIAs are getting up there as well; ANTICs are still reasonably priced but that's becoming increasingly variable.  Quite honestly, buying a machine to cannibalise for parts may be a better bet than trying to acquire them individually.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, RockLobster said:

whoa whoa whoa.   M.U.L.E. exists on the 5200?!?

Yep.  It's a straight port of the A8 version, and is pretty much identical.

21 minutes ago, RockLobster said:

we've been doing the everyone has a couple of keys and take turns w/ the joystick on the C64 forever!

Been there, done that (on the A8) :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

As it stands, this means that there's no good way to take CX55 audio and video from inside the 5200.  Doing the usual A/V mods (such as a UAV) inside the CX55 isn't outside the realms of possibility, but space is really tight in there and fitting jacks would be challenging.  It would also make for a messy setup when being used with the 5200.

I think the only way to get a CX55 working with an AV mod is to use one of those cheap AV mods you see all the time for the 2600 and 7800. The 5200 actually uses the exact same RF modulator as the 2600, so it would definitely be doable. The video quality wouldn't be all that great but beggars can't be choosers I suppose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2023 at 1:41 PM, ApolloBoy said:

I think the only way to get a CX55 working with an AV mod is to use one of those cheap AV mods you see all the time for the 2600 and 7800. The 5200 actually uses the exact same RF modulator as the 2600, so it would definitely be doable. The video quality wouldn't be all that great but beggars can't be choosers I suppose.

Yep, and I completely agree. As you point out, though, the video quality wouldn't be particularly great.  My goal has been to get something on par with (or at least close to) a UAV.

 

@ApolloBoy: the following is just general commentary for anyone wondering about the background - it's not specifically in reply to you ;-)

 

The big issue is that there's no access to the CX55's LUM0, LUM1, LUM2, sync, and colour signals from the 5200 side - they're not carried on the cartridge port, and since the 5200's GTIA (and ANTIC) have no part in generating the display, they can't be tapped there, either.  These are the fundamental limitations that dictate how video is provided by the adapter and carried by the system.

 

What the CX55 does provide, however, is a composite video signal.  This signal completely skips the 5200's video processing circuitry and is injected into the RF modulator at about the last possible moment that it can be.  It may be able to be tapped to provide video, but that means that it's the only video output option.  There would also need to be a middleman board in place to handle switching that video onto what would normally be the 5200's composite output unless a second set of cables, dedicated to the CX55's outputs, is installed.

 

In theory, the combined Chroma and Luma signals providing the adapter's composite video output could be separated back into their individual states, but the output wouldn't be much better than RF.

 

Now, recall that the CX55 is basically a small-form-factor 4-switch 2600.  This means that it contains 2600's TIA chip, which generates the signals used to create S-Video and composite video.  This also provides a pickup point for the signals needed to get the best possible quality composite and S-Video output, which in turn means that an off-the-shelf solution such as a UAV could work.  There is enough physical space inside of the adapter to install a UAV; I've checked ;)

 

The downside to this is that this would require running a separate set of cables directly from the CX55 itself specifically to carry its audio and video.  While not necessarily a problem in and of itself, the case design and internal physical layout of the adapter make available space for installing jacks extremely tight.  A ribbon cable running to breakout jacks outside of its case would likely be the best bet.

 

So, at this point, the two best ideas that I have for running something other than RF with a CX55 are as follows:

  1. Least intrusive: tap the CX55's composite and audio signals from a convenient point downstream of the cartridge port and switch them to the 5200's existing A/V outputs, circumventing any video modifications that may be installed in the 5200.  Add caps and resistors in-line as necessary to calm things down.
    1. May be acceptable if you can live without S-Video.  In my particular video switching setup, that would be substantially less than preferable due to limitations of the inputs on the TV that everything connects to; it's not inconceivable that this might also be an issue for others.
  2. Very intrusive: send the necessary TIA signals down cartridge port pins not used when the CX55 is inserted. Redirect those signals to a UAV or similar in the 5200 and have them processed by the 5200's video modification in the same way that the 5200's signals would be handled.
    1. Complex, and requires modification - some of it not easily reversed - to both the CX55 and 5200.  It would be slick, but traces would have to be cut and switched, either manually or in additional logic (i.e., another board just to handle the switching).

This is something that I've been fiddling with on and off for a few months at this point, and that is the best I've been able to come up with.  If anyone else has ideas that might take this further, by all means share them :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2023 at 4:35 PM, RockLobster said:

Please correct me:

 

The 2 port version's main advantages are 2600 adapter compatibility (w/o mod), cheaper and more readily available.

 

Otherwise, the 4 port version can at least play the limited number of retail and homebrew 4 player games.

 

I also understand there's a difference in the power supply.  Is this a material difference for someone in 2023?

 

Thank you!

 

I'd recommend just using an Atari 8-bit computer and a good ol' fashion 2600 joystick (or Sega gamepad) unless you really want to play a game that takes advantage of the Trakball or non-centering joystick.

 

On 4/29/2023 at 5:49 PM, Keatah said:

Something else, an emulator, that way I don't have to fart around with mods and wonky controllers.

 

With 5200 emulation, I'm always farting around with getting wonky control schemes to work on an Xbox controller.

 

Either something's wrong with my Altirra setup or I'm getting massive controler drift on my thumbsticks which makes playing 5200 Pac-Man a real pain.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MrMaddog said:

I'd recommend just using an Atari 8-bit computer and a good ol' fashion 2600 joystick (or Sega gamepad) unless you really want to play a game that takes advantage of the Trakball or non-centering joystick.

Well I want to play on original hardware which includes the original controllers.   I have an Atari XEGS with many of the Atari 5200 games ported/hacked/modded so that they run on atari8bit computers.

 

Otherwise, I could just run 5200 games on FPGA but the current MiSTer core does not support SNAC 5200 controllers.

 

4 hours ago, MrMaddog said:

Either something's wrong with my Altirra setup or

That's the thing w/ emulators.  There's always something that doesn't quite replicate the original experience.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RockLobster said:

That's the thing w/ emulators.  There's always something that doesn't quite replicate the original experience.

True enough. And that's ok. Playing the classics via emulation is a uniquely different experience. In some ways not quite there. In others, way over the top exuding goodness with every clock cycle.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Keatah said:

Playing the classics via emulation is a uniquely different experience.

Yeah, the 5200 is one of the last retro systems I wanted because many of the games play converted on an Atari 8bit computer perfectly fine.  However, I got a good deal on about 15x 5200 cartridges in excellent condition.   So that and how some of the games like Countermeasure don't feel quite the same without that funky controller... even if it runs perfectly on the computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize this may be a weird answer lol.

 

For aesthetic purposes the 4 port is nicer as it provides you with that really old school authentic 1982 launch day look.

 

For practicality purposes the 2 port is better, as I use the CX55 exclusively to play my 2600 games.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Flyindrew said:

For aesthetic purposes the 4 port is nicer as it provides you with that really old school authentic 1982 launch day look.

Not a weird reason at all!   I totally get it.  Other than the 4 ports in the front, are there any other visual styling differences?

 

3 minutes ago, Flyindrew said:

For practicality purposes the 2 port is better, as I use the CX55 exclusively to play my 2600 games.

I think others have covered it but is being able to use the CX55 unmodified the only reason it's better?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RockLobster said:

Not a weird reason at all!   I totally get it.  Other than the 4 ports in the front, are there any other visual styling differences?

 

I think others have covered it but is being able to use the CX55 unmodified the only reason it's better?  

I guess everyone has their reasons, but for me, yes. I really enjoy having one system where I can choose to play 5200 or 2600 games. I realize there are probably much better means out there to play 2600 cartridges, but there is something about the CX55 and the 5200 that has a certain charm to it. I cant explain it, but Im sure many people reading this "get it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Flyindrew said:

I cant explain it, but Im sure many people reading this "get it".

I think a lot of us on Atariage can relate.

 

Funny enough, of the real consoles (not clones), I prefer using a real 2600 the least for actual game play.  I tend do not have my controllers plugged in when the system isn't in use and I enjoy having the controller ports in the front like they are on the ColecoVision Expansion Module #1 and the Atari 7800.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Other than the 4 ports in the front, are there any other visual styling differences?

Nope, with the exception of what would have been the middle two joystick ports - they're now covered.

 

Otherwise, apart from eliminating the RF switchbox (a PITA all its own) and moving the power connector to the rear of the machine, they're ostensibly no different.

3 hours ago, RockLobster said:

I think others have covered it but is being able to use the CX55 unmodified the only reason it's better?  

As stated earlier in the thread:

On 4/29/2023 at 5:09 PM, x=usr(1536) said:

Incidentally, 4-port models with an asterisk in the serial number have been factory-modified for CX-55 compatibility.

So it is possible to have a 4-port, CX55-compatible 5200 that won't require modification on your behalf to achieve that compatiblity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find that the earlier 4 port units with the glossy piano finish trim looks better to me vs the textured that was used on most of the 2 port and later made 4 port units.

 

But that is the only real physical difference aesthetically.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, -^CrossBow^- said:

earlier 4 port units with the glossy piano finish trim

Oh that's right!  I do like that better. 

Seems like with all the weigh-ins, I'm gonna gun for a 4-port (either variety) unless I come across a 2-port for a ridiculously lower price.

 

Thanks everyone!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, x=usr(1536) said:

 

So it is possible to have a 4-port, CX55-compatible 5200 that won't require modification on your behalf to achieve that compatiblity.

My question. Does anyone exist in the year 2023 who would do the 4 port modification for the CX55?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...