8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit, 128-bit.......256-bit?????

Vyse

I've been thinking about it lately and every console generation has been defined as XX-bit. I know it is a minor point but is this generation the same? I mean are the XBox 360 and PS3 classed as 256-bit machines?

I know this classification is rather pointless but this has been the norm up until now.

steviec

Nope not at all. 'Bits' is the number of 1s/0s the processor could hold in a registry at once. When it was only 8 bit and 16 bit the increase was very welcome, however beyond that it's not really too necessary. PCs have happily been 32 bit for a long time and even the 64 bit processors out today are running in 32 bit mode most of the time.

The PS2 is 128 bit and the xbox is 32 bit, which shows there's a lot more important ways of measuring things!

As far as I know the next gen consoles are 64 bit, I could be wrong though I'm just basing that on the fact their closely related to the 64-bit processors that power current Apple Macs.

tman

people stopped giving a crap soon after the nintendo 64 was released.
it means absolutely NOTHING

madrab

tman wrote:

people stopped giving a crap soon after the nintendo 64 was released.
it means absolutely NOTHING

it means EVERYTHING 4 1m t3h 1337 w1th m7 128 b1t ps2 & y0ur 32 81t x80x 5ux

astrofool

the bits referred to the memory bandwidth, not the cpu.

The dreamcast was the first 128bit console, and the original xbox was also 128bit.

The 360 has a 256bit link to main memory, afaik, but a much larger link to the embedded memory.

The ps2 uses rambus memory (as will the ps3), which generally uses lower bus width (bits), but higher frequency memory instead, someone can probably google to find out.

Its generally nothing at all to do with the type of code being executed.

Vyse

Yeah, I know the bit terminology is arbitary (to a certain extent) but it's strange when you're so use to console generations being defined as. Then again I suppose the Jaguar was 64-bit!!!

RotalicaV

You're all in bits

Cake Fiend

tman wrote:

it means absolutely NOTHING

That's just stupid, if the number is bigger, the console is obviously better.

Rolleyes at you sir.

The Bollox

RotalicaV wrote:

You're all in bits

byte me!

madrab

i tried to group them before but i never finished

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054859282

AARRRGH

I remember thinking my neighbour was sad because he only had a 16 bit mastersystem and I had a 32 bit megadrive...!

Rollseyes at me!

The Bollox

the Megadrive is 16bit :rolleyes:

RotalicaV

There was a 32 bit version of the Mega Drive aswell.

Look who tried to be a Marty Pants and failed!

Balfa

Yeah, but the master system was definitely only 8bit :P

madrab

take that marty pants

Dont be at yourself

There wasn't really a 32bit megadrive. There was the 32X, which was an add-on for the megadrive, costing upwards of £100 at the time, which never took off. Seeing as it played all of about, ooh, 10 games.

flogen

My Amiga A500+ Rulez U all!!!!

I actually remember that my next door neighbour had an amiga A500, and we had an A500+, and I used to slag her saying mine was better and newer etc., and she would argue it made no difference.
We were both kind of right, because the A500+ was a more enhanced version of the A500, but in real terms it made no difference, in fact games wouldn't work on the 500+ that did work on the 500, due to the OS change.
The start up screen was much better on my one though.

Lord Oz

Was the Atari Jaguar 32bit or 64bit?

AARRRGH

Marts wrote:

the Megadrive is 16bit :rolleyes:

Whoa the nerd is upset I mistook 32/16 for 16/8.

Stephen

:rolleyes:

calling someone a nerd, on a thread about memory bus sizes, on an internet forum... does that strike you as even slightly ironic?

Laguna

Stephen wrote:

:rolleyes:

calling someone a nerd, on a thread about memory bus sizes, on an internet forum... does that strike you as even slightly ironic?

Pfft... no

Patricide

Stephen wrote:

:rolleyes:

calling someone a nerd, on a thread about memory bus sizes, on an internet forum... does that strike you as even slightly ironic?

For that my kind sir i take my hat off to, best comeback EVER!!

Retr0gamer

Lord Oz wrote:

Was the Atari Jaguar 32bit or 64bit?

By the time the Jaguar came out the line between a 32bit and 64bit consoles was already blurred but it is generally considered a 32bit console. Atari tried to pass it off as a 64bit machine because it had 2 32bit processors. There are other reasins that it could be considered 64bit but they are pushing it a bit and are too nerdy and boring to consider.

Today how many bits a console has doesn't make any difference to the power.

The Bollox

dublindude wrote:

Whoa the nerd is upset I mistook 32/16 for 16/8.

you're damn right I am! *pushes glasses up on bridge of nose* and the SNES is teh best invention in the gaming world ever!

sprinkles

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

There wasn't really a 32bit megadrive. There was the 32X, which was an add-on for the megadrive, costing upwards of £100 at the time, which never took off. Seeing as it played all of about, ooh, 10 games.

and most of them were fmv if I remember correctly..in fact most peeps at the time thought that was the direction that the gaming industry was heading towards....actors playing out parts in games. Proved far too costly to produce, making sets paying "proper" actors etc... In the end it all failed....and so nearly did the Ninty experiment with cd's, though we all know where that ended up.

Retr0gamer

32X was a cartridge based system. Not many decent games at all (in fact can't think of any classics) although notably it did have arguably the worst version of Doom ever (the Saturn version was a worse game but did have the third chapter). Even the Snes version is a better game. None of the games were FMV based. I think you are talking about the Mega CD which was a complete mess of a system. It was CD based but was a 16bit system. It added SNES like mode 7 effects and a small bit of extra processing power to the Mega drive. However it kept the mega drives disgracefully small colour palette meaning FMV appeared grainy and dull and ,due to a lack of processing power, usually in a quarter size screen. It did have some classics like Popful Mail, Lunar 1+2, the definitive english version of Hideo Kojimas Snatcher (really recommended to Lucasarts adventure fans and anyone who enjoyed Pheonix Wright, it's also easy to pick up on abandonware sites), Robo Aleste and Sonic CD (which I never liked, remeinds me of the soulless Sonic advance). It even had some decent FMV games which were few and far between. Ground Zero Texas is meant to be very good.

sprinkles

Your right, it was the combination of the 2 systems that I was thinking of.

Googling it I found a sega star wars game for it....looked ok.

Retr0gamer

Played it on an emulator and it's terrible.

Dont be at yourself

There was a Knuckles game too right? Supposed to be alright. Still a 2d side-scroller though.

The mind boggles with Sega.

Retr0gamer

Yep. Called chaotixs. Not great at all either. Feels like a tech demo idea that didn't work tacked on to a full game. Found a release list and the only good game on it is virtua racing which is supposed to be the best home conversion. I remember really wanting one just to play Doom when I didn't own a PC. Got a PC instead, thank god.

There were 5 32X Sega CD games released. All crap and all available on the Mega CD anyway. Everyone of them an 'interactive movie'.

The mind boggles with Sega as well. Got a Sega Saturn with action replay 4 in 1 and it's amazing how many stupidly good games they had for it but didn't release outside japan. However the Dreamcast really didn't deserve to fail.

Cuddlesworth

What did that cartridge at the front of the n64 do? And wasnt that supposed to have a dvd attached on the bottom.