Atari Jaguar and Sega Saturn


Yes, but it looks worse imho ;) .


It is not about raw performance, but what visuals you can achive with this performance.
We are saying the same thing. Its art direction. This being said, while starfox is fun to play, i never considered it beautiful. The ship is a fricking triangle!
I kind of agree - when it first came out my initial reaction was that it was ugly as sin... Looking back I appreciate it more but back then it took me a while to get used to the advanced 3D graphics...
 
Umm maybe 3DO could be more achievable in Pandora? at least there is a decent open source emulator for it (4DO)
If I remember well, the source code of the best 3D0 emu is difficult to find, and likely not supported yet by ubuntu nor debian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Still the 3D0 is based on a 32 bit ARMv3 processor, which the Pandora should have no trouble emulating with a bit of JIT rewriting. Unfortunately it also has a unique maths copro and a couple of graphics co processors doing god knows what between them. Presumably it's all been reverse engineered by the FreeD0/4D0 teams, but it's taken them a while which I guess is largely down to the fact that hardly anyone cares about the 3D0 any more, even in the Windows domain where there must be oodles of coders working on interesting emulation projects.
 
Do any of you remember the FreeDO guy who kept giving out release dates for a magical GP2X port but never delivered? :p I still wonder what that was all about..
 
I still wonder about the Dreamcast...which was dangled as a possibility. I was going to include the Dreamcast when I started this topic but there never was an emulator made to my knowledge.

I do think a time ago I saw a youtube showing a prototype Pandora displaying the Dreamcast start up screen....or was this a dream??.........with no cast.. :p
 
Last edited:
It wasn't as there was a very early version that ran about half speed on the Pandora. But it was never released. :(
 
Those Dreamcast videos were probably one of the main reason I pledged my money to Craig's two-bit operation. Of course, I couldn't play my Dreamcast games at 30fps, and given how hard it's been getting N64 reasonably performant, even if we had the DC emulator source it'd likely never run spectacularly well on this gen's hardware but still, I can dream.
 
There's no 64-bit CPU on the Jaguar. It has a 64-bit bus and the graphics chips can utilize it. But the CPUs consist of two 32-bit custom RISCs and a 16/32-bit 68k. Some Jaguar fans will argue night and day that this makes it 64-bit but no one in the computer industry ever used the term this way (and indeed even the original Pentium had a 64-bit data bus to main RAM but no one considers it to be powering 64-bit systems)

But like you say, it doesn't really matter, 64-bit CPU is nearly completely pointless for these systems.
Like you say the Jaguar has no 64-bit CPU but it is not only the databus that is 64-bit. To be more exact, the Jaguar has the following systems:

  • Motorola 68000 CPU (16 bits internally but to the programmer it looks 32 bits logically): General purpose processor. Used to orchestrate the other parts of the system.
  • Jerry DSP RISC CPU (32 bits): Usually used for sound generation but since it is a general purpose CPU it can be used for other things as well.)
  • Tom RISC CPU (32 bits): Used for controlling the graphics sub system and performing graphics effects. But since it is a general purpose CPU it can be used for other things as well, e.g. decompression).
  • Tom Blitter (64 bits): Manipulates graphics data (moving, transformation, filling, etc) in 64 bits at the time.
  • Tom Object Processor (64 bits): Programmable graphics system. Uses object lists to generate display. Supports transparency, scaling.

So it indeed has two 32-bits processors (+ one 16-bit processor) but also a 64-bit Blitter and 64-bit object processor. The blitter and object processor have a 64-bit data bus to the memory and process data at 64-bits at the time. As you can see, it is not like a Pentium with only a 64-bit bus but the "programmable" graphics system performs graphics operations in 64-bit too.

So depending on your definition you could consider it a 32-bit system if you only look at the general purpose CPU's. Or a 64-bits system if you look at the graphics system where 64bit transfers are really relevant. As you said you don't need 64 bits to store the number of lives you got or a 64-bit audio system but when manipulating graphics data more bits mean that more data can be processed at the time.


So Atari did not call it 64-bits because it added two 32-bits CPUs but because of its 64-bit Blitter and Object Processor.

Atari is not the only one who used the bitness of the graphics system to market the machine. The TurboGrafx-16/PC-Engine has a 8-bit 65SC02 CPU but is considered a 16-bit system because of its 16-bit graphics chip. Even with its 8-bit CPU, it is considered in the same league as the "full" 16-bit systems like SNES and Genesis.

In general, bitness of a system (in particular the CPU) is a weak indicator for its graphics performance. So overall the bitness of the general purpose CPU is not that important for the performance of a gaming system.


The TI-99/4A has a 16-bit TMS9900 CPU but it had the same graphics chip as the ColecoVision and MSX1. So graphics wise it is less advanced than later 8-bit consoles like NES/SMS. And the graphics capability of the IntelliVision that also had a 16-bit CPU was

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-zh3itsiAH0?feature=oembed than an Atari 2600.

Robert
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Like you say the Jaguar has no 64-bit CPU but it is not only the databus that is 64-bit. To be more exact, the Jaguar has the following systems:

  • Motorola 68000 CPU (16 bits internally but to the programmer it looks 32 bits logically): General purpose processor. Used to orchestrate the other parts of the system.
  • Jerry DSP RISC CPU (32 bits): Usually used for sound generation but since it is a general purpose CPU it can be used for other things as well.)
  • Tom RISC CPU (32 bits): Used for controlling the graphics sub system and performing graphics effects. But since it is a general purpose CPU it can be used for other things as well, e.g. decompression).
  • Tom Blitter (64 bits): Manipulates graphics data (moving, transformation, filling, etc) in 64 bits at the time.
  • Tom Object Processor (64 bits): Programmable graphics system. Uses object lists to generate display. Supports transparency, scaling.
So it indeed has two 32-bits processors (+ one 16-bit processor) but also a 64-bit Blitter and 64-bit object processor. The blitter and object processor have a 64-bit data bus to the memory and process data at 64-bits at the time. As you can see, it is not like a Pentium with only a 64-bit bus but the "programmable" graphics system performs graphics operations in 64-bit too.So depending on your definition you could consider it a 32-bit system if you only look at the general purpose CPU's. Or a 64-bits system if you look at the graphics system where 64bit transfers are really relevant. As you said you don't need 64 bits to store the number of lives you got or a 64-bit audio system but when manipulating graphics data more bits mean that more data can be processed at the time.

So Atari did not call it 64-bits because it added two 32-bits CPUs but because of its 64-bit Blitter and Object Processor.
I did say that the graphics chips were 64-bit, didn't I? This and the bus-width go hand in hand (if you have a 64-bit bus it implies at least something can write to it 64-bits at a time). But nobody (outside of console marketeers) uses bit-width for anything but CPU. I agree that CPU bitness is a poor indication of graphics performance or general performance really, but so is GPU bitness, only the latter is even more poorly defined. It's just marketing games. The fans who are hung up on arguing it are just playing into a now ancient marketing convention directed at ignorant consumers. They'd may as well be arguing the merits of blast processing.

Atari is not the only one who used the bitness of the graphics system to market the machine. The TurboGrafx-16/PC-Engine has a 8-bit 65SC02 CPU but is considered a 16-bit system because of its 16-bit graphics chip. Even with its 8-bit CPU, it is considered in the same league as the "full" 16-bit systems like SNES and Genesis.
Personally I don't see PCE as in the same league as SNES or Genesis, but not because of the CPU per se.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see the PCE as being 16-bit either, but clearly they tried to market it as such by naming it the TG16 in America. Ordinary consumers talked about how many bits things had then, and since it released after the Megadrive there (which proudly claimed it was a 16-bit machine on the lid), it seems the marketers felt they had to claim it counted as a 16-bit system (though according to Wikipedia, that kind of backfired on them).


Seems directly analogous to Atari's marketing claims about the Jag being 64 bit to me. Both are stretching the truth. Both have one double-width chip which wasn't the CPU.


Course it's a silly argument anyway, since you said no-one in the computer industry considered such setups to be 64/16 bit, and the marketing department of games firms hardly counts as such. Somehow I don't think Robert counts as such either.
 
Just curious if these emulators will ever be refined?


Seems to be a close but no cigar status at this point yes?  :lol: _,.,.
As said many times, saturn emulation is difficult. Dont expect anything to move there. For the jaguar whats the point? Tere are only shitty games on that sytem.
I have to disagree. There are some outstanding Jaguar games such as, Alien vs Predator, Tempest 2000 ,Protector SE,Cannon Fodder ,Raiden,Runier Pinball and a fine version of Rayman. I do not consider these to be shitty games and I would love to be able to play them on the Pandora.
Hey I agree with you 100%. I have two Jaguars and about 70 games. It is one mean system. Too bad is it was abandoned. Oh, do not forget Battlesphere. One heck of a game. I would love to be able to play Jag games on the Pandora also.
 
I did say that the graphics chips were 64-bit, didn't I? This and the bus-width go hand in hand (if you have a 64-bit bus it implies at least something can write to it 64-bits at a time). But nobody (outside of console marketeers) uses bit-width for anything but CPU.
Well, yes, but by comparing it to the 64-bit bus of a Pentium I thought you were implying that it only did 64-bit data transfers while the Jaguar is also capable of doing 64-bit operation on data. I'm sorry if this was not what you meant.

Somehow I don't think Robert counts as such either.
All the bitness in game consoles is mostly marketing to me. The NeoGeo was even marketed as 24-bit  while it has no 24-bit component at all (unless you count the 24-bit address bus of the 68000 :p ). Seems the just added the 16-bits of the 68000 with the 8-bit of the Z-80 to make that claim.

I like to find out the real specs of the components the system is made of thus the marketed bitness is irrelevant to me. The speed is an important factor too. A 32-bit system at a higher clock speed could perform better than a 64-bit system at a lower clock speed.

The Jaguar chip set had great potential as high-color 2D sprite pusher. But to make use of that potential you need lots of storage memory. Unfortunately the ROM prices at that time limited the cartridge size to 4MB which is not much if you want to have big colorful sprites with many frames of animation. CD-games offered far more storage space but the Jaguar only had 2MByte of ram to load the CD-data into. This ram was shared between code, audio and graphics data thus leaving even less memory for graphics data for a single load from the CD-rom.

Another problem for the Jaguar was that is was a machine on the transition from 2D games to 3D games. While the Jaguar was great for 2D games and could do flat or shaded polygon games very well, the games industry was moving to 3D games with texture mapping. The Jaguar lacked hardware for doing texture mapping. So the Jaguar was to late as a 2D games machine and too early as 3D games machine.

Lots of the Jaguar game titles are indeed not much better than 16-bit consoles. Many because they were direct conversions from the Amiga (Pinball Fantasies, Cannon Fodder, Syndicate, ThemePark, etc.) that did not enhance the game for the Jaguar's capabilities.

But there are some gems too like AvP, Iron Soldier, Tempest 2000, Wolfenstein, Doom, BattleSphere and my personal favorite Rayman. And I like Raiden and Evolution Dino Dudes as well even when they do not showcase the Jaguar's capabilities.

Robert
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is some newer version of virtualjaguar. If someone wants to compile and try that...
 
Well, yes, but by comparing it to the 64-bit bus of a Pentium I thought you were implying that it only did 64-bit data transfers while the Jaguar is also capable of doing 64-bit operation on data. I'm sorry if this was not what you meant.
The reason why I said that is because the bus is the number one justification Atari fans (like those on AtariAge) use for calling the thing 64-bit.

Of course a Pentium MMX is capable of doing 64-bit operations on data.. and so is an x87.. but yeah :p

Interesting note: Atari themselves actually claimed it had a 64-bit RISC CPU, not just support chips - and this was in a technical publication with various other details that were beyond the scope of consumer marketing.

http://www.atarimuseum.com/articles/ibm-jag.html

How they justified this description is anyone's guess. Maybe they were referring to the ability of the CPU to access the 64-bit bus with double register loads/stores. Or maybe they really were just adding 32 + 32 between the two custom CPUs.

The Jaguar lacked hardware for doing texture mapping. So the Jaguar was to late as a 2D games machine and too early as 3D games machine.
It had hardware texture mapping, you just had to set it up the edges on every scanline. That and it utilized the bus very poorly, so it was very slow. It would have benefited tremendously from having a small texture cache. But if you ask me, the biggest problems with the Jaguar were that the two 32-bit processors were effectively limited to using tiny scratchpads for code (there was a bug that prevented code from running from main RAM.. years later homebrew developers figured out what to avoid to make it work but Atari never did or never documented it, they just said don't do it) and that the 68k tanked performance by stealing bus cycles. You got the best performance by turning the 68k off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Umm maybe 3DO could be more achievable in Pandora? at least there is a decent open source emulator for it (4DO)
No, it's not an option. It's a x86 based emulator, and for windows on top of that. It's not made to run on Linux and even less on ARM. So forget this one. 
Looks like this situation has changed. There is a new emulator in town based in freedo and 4do for Linux that is coded in C and uses SDL. It is all about portability. You can read the whole story (and visit this guy's source) here:

http://www.3do.cdinteractive.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3220
 
I will say what I said when I originally started this thread...it seems things are so close but no cigar as of yet. :(

These emulators refined would really round out the Pandora IMHO.

For whatever it is worth I would contribute for the process to happen or accelerate if possible...which seems so.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top