5200 vs. 7800

[jbanes]

Where are you getting 256 bytes from?  A SuperCharger game has 6K of RAM/ROM (plus the 128 bytes of system RAM).  Or are you thinking of the Atari Super Chip which had 128 bytes of RAM mapped to the ROM space.

 

Yes, thank you. Superchip, not Supercharger. My bad.

 

True, although the 7800 can change resolutions (via a DLI) on different parts of the screen.  It is also possible to change between color modes on a per-sprite basis.

 

Here's an interesting question. I got the impression that games like Chopper Command (original Apple II port, not the Sega one), MiniGolf, and Backgammon were only available on the 5200 because the 5200 was better able to produce hi-res vector-like graphics. Is that a correct supposition, or is it that no one ever bothered writing a hi-res game for the 7800?

[Bryan]

or is it that no one ever bothered writing a hi-res game for the 7800?

994912[/snapback]

 

Check out Schmutzpuppe's Frogger!

 

-Bry

[supercat]

The 7800 also has two line buffers.  One for write (from memory), one for read (to screen).  It does not, however, buffer each display list so must read it for each line in the zone.

994544[/snapback]

 

Does the 400/800/5200 buffer the character data for each row between scan lines (so as to only have to load the shape data on most lines) or does it have to load character+shape each line like the 7800 does?

[supercat]

Here's an interesting question. I got the impression that games like Chopper Command (original Apple II port, not the Sega one), MiniGolf, and Backgammon were only available on the 5200 because the 5200 was better able to produce hi-res vector-like graphics. Is that a correct supposition, or is it that no one ever bothered writing a hi-res game for the 7800?

994912[/snapback]

 

A 160x200x4-color bitmap screen requires 8K of RAM. This is not a problem on a machine with 16K, but doesn't work on a machine with 4K. There would be ways of doing a game like Missile Command on the 7800 even without memory for a full-screen bitmap, but it would be--to put it mildly--"interesting".

 

To be sure, many games can be implemented in a variety of ways besides a full-screen bitmap, but if a game was originally written for the Apple II, it's much easier to port it by using a full-screen bitmap on the target system than by using sprites, display lists, etc.

[supercat]

The 7800 mainboard is pretty crowded as it is, and I'm not sure where Atari would have put even a reduced-pin-count POKEY (presumably including only the sound circuitry) without a daughterboard.

994402[/snapback]

 

Even if it wouldn't fit on the daughterboard, I'd think a 28-pin POKEY would be cheaper than a 40-pin one. The POtentiometer and KEYboard circuitry would still be included in the pin-reduced version since it would use the same die--only the lead frame bonding would be different.

 

I'll admit I don't really know how chips were packaged in the early 1980's, but my impression is that a tape would be generated with the XY coordinates of each die and lead-frame soldering point; the machine would read the tape and solder bonding wires appropriately. If that understanding is correct, I would think the development of a 28-pin part shouldn't have been hard at all. A few hours, if that, to copy the necessary coordinates to take, and then the time to load the machine for a small proto run and test the result. Would seem far less wasteful than using a huge 40-pin DIP in every Ballblazer cart.

[Almost Rice]

As an 8bit owner from the 1984, I did not feel the need to get a 7800. I had use of a 400 since 1982. So our library of games was quite extensive by 1986 when the 7800 came out. The real problem was the marginal improvement in graphics was not worth the investment for me back in the 80s.

 

Now with the CC2, I am able to play all the 7800 games and truly compare the systems. I find that the games are better, but the controllers held the system back. Ms Pacman is pretty good. Seeing the system now lets me know how poorly the Tramiels handled the 7800 in marketing and timing. If it had came out in 1984, I would have bought it instead of the 800xl. It might have been more of a success and we would have games comparable to the NES instead of comparing 7800 games to 5200 and 8bits Ataris. They knew it would have cannibalize their 8bit market, but they could have differentiated the market with different games.

 

I was not going to buy Joust, Ms. Pacman, Robotron, Pole Pos. 2 and Qbert that were marginally better than my 8bit versions. I just didnt think Galaga and Ikari Warriors were worth getting the system. I just hope there are more guys like Kenfused, Schmutzpuppe, and PacManPlus that release games that were missing from the 7800 library. 7800 is the better system, but released 2 years too late and supported poorly. It was doomed to failure. 5200 games had nearly 5 years more development because it used 8bit computer architechture. Thats why it has so many well polished games. For those of you that say 1 system is better than the other, have you tried using the other system without any bias?

[jbanes]

Check out Schmutzpuppe's Frogger!

994921[/snapback]

 

Very nice. When can I get a cart?

 

However, could you explain the graphics modes a bit? The Frogger is certainly interesting, but how does it actually compare to the 5200 hi-res mode? Choplifter, Microgammon SB, and Mini-Golf were all very detailed vector art. (They were also ported from the Apple II, so it's no wonder they all used this mode.) Can the 7800 do the same thing?

 

A 160x200x4-color bitmap screen requires 8K of RAM.  This is not a problem on a machine with 16K, but doesn't work on a machine with 4K.  There would be ways of doing a game like Missile Command on the 7800 even without memory for a full-screen bitmap, but it would be--to put it mildly--"interesting".

994936[/snapback]

 

Score one for the 5200! I knew that 16K was useful for something.

 

To be sure, many games can be implemented in a variety of ways besides a full-screen bitmap, but if a game was originally written for the Apple II, it's much easier to port it by using a full-screen bitmap on the target system than by using sprites, display lists, etc.

 

Indeed. Choplifter for the 7800, for example, eschewed the vector mode in favor of traditional bitmaps. That made it not quite like the Apple II version, and not quite like the Sega version. Sadly, it seems to be generally hated for that.

 

Personally, I find it to be a lot of fun, but the gameplay is a bit different.

[shadow460]

"Have you tried using the other system without bias?"

 

I've used both systems. It really is a hard call to say which one is better. If there had been a way for me to hang on to the 5200, I would have, but I simply could not keep it.

 

I've got a stack of 5200 games, too, in anticipation of the day when I am able to buy another one.

 

Heck, I've got games for DC, Saturn, 7800, 5200, 2600, GameGear, CGB, DMG (Gameboy Classic), PS1 and 2, and N64. I'm sure there are some games in the closet that are for other systems, too. I've even thought of picking up a CV game or two when I see them, oh, I forgot, I had an Intellivision cart at one point.

 

I can't really say which system I favor the most out of the ones I've got, let along between just two of them. Each one has their strong points, and then the age factor (was it good for its time?)

 

Geez, with so many systems, I am a junkie.

 

The 5200 was still a force to be reckoned with, but it would have been more so if the controls had been quality instead of junk. I noticed that on mine, the rubber boot actually did center the sticks (great for Bounty Bob). Still, they didn't work quite right, and I never even tried to use it seriously.

[sku_u]

Bottom line:

 

Any fan of Atari will have a decent 2600, 5200 and 7800 library. Each of those three systems are why the majority of us visit this site daily and why our community have good taste in game systems in general (we see something good and enjoy it no matter how old/new/archaic/state of the art the graphics and gameplay are).

[Bryan]

Does the 400/800/5200 buffer the character data for each row between scan lines (so as to only have to load the shape data on most lines) or does it have to load character+shape each line like the 7800 does?

994926[/snapback]

 

Antic only has to read each line of characters once. Then it only has to fetch the remainin lines of graphics after that:

 

L1: Read Chars & Gfx line 1

L2: Read Gfx line 2

.

.

L8: Read Gfx line 8

 

Also, Antic can buffer a line of graphics and repeat it for lower vertical resoluton modes.

 

-Bry

[EricBall]

However, could you explain the graphics modes a bit? The Frogger is certainly interesting, but how does it actually compare to the 5200 hi-res mode? Choplifter, Microgammon SB, and Mini-Golf were all very detailed vector art. (They were also ported from the Apple II, so it's no wonder they all used this mode.) Can the 7800 do the same thing?

994999[/snapback]

First, on the 7800, everything is a sprite or a character (which is really just a row of indirect sprites). The 7800 GPU (MARIA) reads sprite data from ROM (although RAM could be used, just not enough of it) based upon a list stored in RAM. So imagine a list for a set of rasters which says "draw sprite stored at $aaaa at X position A, then draw sprite stored at $bbbb a X postition B". Very flexible but not that efficient to update.

 

For actual graphics modes, there are two 160 pixel/line modes and four 320 pixel/line modes. (Although the 320 modes have are restricted to 160 pixel positioning and have other quirks, including color-aliasing.) The 7800 has a palette of 25 colors (8 sets of 3 + background/transparent) out of 256 (16 brightness shades of 16 colors). Sprites in the basic 160 mode may be one of the 8 sets of 3 colors + background. For the other modes see http://atari7800.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/GraphicsModes, although there seem to be some strange quirks with 320B & 320D.

 

What do you mean by vector art? I always thought SpaceWar! 7800 (which uses 320 resolution) did a decent job of emulating vector graphics. Microgammon SB & Miniature Golf simply duplicate the look of the B&W arcade originals, which were raster based.

[shadow460]

Bottom line:

 

Any fan of Atari will have a decent 2600, 5200 and 7800 library.  Each of those three systems are why the majority of us visit this site daily and why our community have good taste in game systems in general (we see something good and enjoy it no matter how old/new/archaic/state of the art the graphics and gameplay are).

995053[/snapback]

 

That's right.

2600 is better because in this regard, 5200 is better in that regard, and 7800 is better at something else, but it won't matter to the average fan.

 

I pass on 2600 games more often than the others, and I don't own a 5200. If I find a game I like (and don't have) on any of the three systems, I'm going to buy it. If it's a 2600 game, then it was probably a lucky find, and I can play it as soon as I get home. If it's a 5200 game, I'll buy it and save it for when I get that system. I collect 7800 games anyway, so if I don't have that game, I will buy it whether it sucks or not.

[ZylonBane]

Indeed. Choplifter for the 7800, for example, eschewed the vector mode in favor of traditional bitmaps. That made it not quite like the Apple II version, and not quite like the Sega version. Sadly, it seems to be generally hated for that.

WTF are you talking about? Vector mode? The Apple II version of Choplifter uses bitmaps, just like every other version.

 

And the 7800 version is generally hated because the gameplay sucks. It was ported by the same idiots who butchered 7800 Karateka.

 

 

I was not going to buy Joust, Ms. Pacman, Robotron, Pole Pos. 2 and Qbert that were marginally better than my 8bit versions.

Marginally better? Games like Joust, Robotron, Asteroids, and Ballblazer are fantastic compared to their clunky, flickery, low-color computer cousins.

Edited January 7, 2006 by ZylonBane

[Almost Rice]

I was not going to buy Joust, Ms. Pacman, Robotron, Pole Pos. 2 and Qbert that were marginally better than my 8bit versions.

Marginally better? Games like Joust, Robotron, Asteroids, and Ballblazer are fantastic compared to their clunky, flickery, low-color computer cousins.

995784[/snapback]

 

 

I have both versions of all these games. If read the line within the context of my message. The statement means I did not want to put out extra money on my Middle School student budget for games that are marginally better than their 8bit counterparts. I prefer the 7800 versions now, but in 1986 the money was better spent on other things. I saw no difference in Ballblazer. Robotron looks the same to me. Joust has only 1 color for each player on the 8bit and the bounce on the ceiling is different from the 7800. Pole Pos. well did not look like they tried very hard ad improving this game. The only one of the above with much more improvement compared to the 8bit is Asteroids, but 3D rocks are not worth the outlay I would have to put out for these games alone.

 

By that time. I had amass maybe a $1000 worth of 8bit equipment and software. I was not about to do it for the 7800. Especially when I saw the writing on the wall with the NES dominating from 1986. I was hoping thing would have improved softwarewise on the 7800, but it didn't and I just gave up waiting for the 7800 to have games worth upgrading for.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Almost Rice

[Danno]

I was not going to buy Joust, Ms. Pacman, Robotron, Pole Pos. 2 and Qbert that were marginally better than my 8bit versions.

Marginally better? Games like Joust, Robotron, Asteroids, and Ballblazer are fantastic compared to their clunky, flickery, low-color computer cousins.

995784[/snapback]

 

 

I have both versions of all these games. If read the line within the context of my message. The statement means I did not want to put out extra money on my Middle School student budget for games that are marginally better than their 8bit counterparts. I prefer the 7800 versions now, but in 1986 the money was better spent on other things. I saw no difference in Ballblazer. Robotron looks the same to me. Joust has only 1 color for each player on the 8bit and the bounce on the ceiling is different from the 7800. Pole Pos. well did not look like they tried very hard ad improving this game. The only one of the above with much more improvement compared to the 8bit is Asteroids, but 3D rocks are not worth the outlay I would have to put out for these games alone.

 

By that time. I had amass maybe a $1000 worth of 8bit equipment and software. I was not about to do it for the 7800. Especially when I saw the writing on the wall with the NES dominating from 1986. I was hoping thing would have improved softwarewise on the 7800, but it didn't and I just gave up waiting for the 7800 to have games worth upgrading for.

996159[/snapback]

 

 

You see this is where I plug my ears and stop listening.

 

The NES is a giant steaming pile of cutesy mushroom and fat plumber infested crap.

[Almost Rice]

Wow, there sure are a lot of people who like to criticize how a 12 year old should spend his money.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Almost Rice

[jetset]

Indeed. Choplifter for the 7800, for example, eschewed the vector mode in favor of traditional bitmaps. That made it not quite like the Apple II version, and not quite like the Sega version. Sadly, it seems to be generally hated for that.

WTF are you talking about? Vector mode? The Apple II version of Choplifter uses bitmaps, just like every other version.

 

And the 7800 version is generally hated because the gameplay sucks. It was ported by the same idiots who butchered 7800 Karateka.

 

 

I was not going to buy Joust, Ms. Pacman, Robotron, Pole Pos. 2 and Qbert that were marginally better than my 8bit versions.

Marginally better? Games like Joust, Robotron, Asteroids, and Ballblazer are fantastic compared to their clunky, flickery, low-color computer cousins.

995784[/snapback]

HUH???

Asteroids certainly...but Ballblazer is nearly identical on the 5200 as it is on the 7800! Robotron is slightly better graphicially but gameplay and character movement are damn close considering. Joust too is only slightly better on the 7800.

Have you ever played the 8-bit versions of the games you mentioned???

[ZylonBane]

I saw no difference in Ballblazer.

Then, and I mean this in the most objective way possible, you're not very observant. Neither is jetset.

 

7800 Ballblazer has two major advantages over the 5200 and computer versions. First, the rotofoils do not become hideously blocky up close (the plasmorb is higher-res too). Second, it runs at a much higher frame rate. Yes, the 5200 version has a very playable frame rate, but put in a few rounds of 7800 Ballblazer, then immediately boot up the 5200 version, and you'll easily see the difference.

 

As for Robotron, I found the 5200 version to be chunky and slow compared to its 7800 counterpart. Again, the 5200 version wasn't bad (though I hated the double-wide player sprite), but the 7800 version was just so much smoother and colorful.

Edited January 8, 2006 by ZylonBane

[jetset]

Sure there's minute differences, but not very noticeable.

 

5200

 

7800

 

When you compare, if you look REALLY closely you can pick out the difference.

 

I really dont pay attention to the technical sprite this and framerate that...I look at how the game looks and plays, and for a newer, more advanced system, the 7800 made little improvement.

[ZylonBane]

Posting those screenshots was fairly pointless, because it doesn't show the rotofoils close to each other. When they are, the difference is extremely noticeable.

[jetset]

Posting those screenshots was fairly pointless, because it doesn't show the rotofoils close to each other. When they are, the difference is extremely noticeable.

996366[/snapback]

 

I actually played them both this morning on the same TV, flipping my switchbox back and forth and I saw little difference.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[ZylonBane]

Yeah, I think we can go with the "Not Very Observant" theory.

[jetset]

Yeah, I think we can go with the "Not Very Observant" theory.

996411[/snapback]

 

You're proving my point with those shots. Thanks.

[Danno]

Yeah, I think we can go with the "Not Very Observant" theory.

996411[/snapback]

 

You're proving my point with those shots. Thanks.

996423[/snapback]

 

Not by a long shot.

[ZylonBane]

You're proving my point with those shots. Thanks. 

Do you have any clinical vision problems that we should know about?