Lazy Bum

I remember the days not so long ago when the power of a system was measured by me, Joe Six-pack, in terms of bits. From 8 bits to 64. Then it sort of disappeared. What would todays systems be in terms of bits. Or is this not even applicable anymore?

devynal

I was wondering this exact same thing the other day. I remember the last big one was the N64. I thought someone had muttered something about the Gamecube being 128 but not sure.

SteelgearX

Doesn't apply anymore. I don't know how to explain it. I just know that whatever the bits referred to back then is no longer an issue anymore.

Groucho

It more or less stopped being an issue when the PS (a 32-bit console) dominated the N64 (a 64-bit console).

The last console I saw advertising this was the 128-bit Dreamcast.

sniper308

Since PC's are 32 bit for the most part (some now being 64) its not the best descriptor of a console's power.

I'm not sure its even referring to the same things on a console, but 32 bit vs 64 bit in PC's/Servers, etc deals with the word size (how many bits) that can be handled in a single cycle. I also know that the amount of memory that a computer can address is dictated by it being 32 bit or 64, etc...

From whatis.com:



A 64-bit processor is a microprocessor with a word size of 64 bits, a requirement for memory and data intensive applications such as computer-aided design (CAD) applications, database management systems, technical and scientific applications, and high-performance servers. 64-bit computer architecture provides higher performance than 32-bit architecture by handling twice as many bits of information in the same clock cycle.

The 64-bit processor is backwards compatible with older applications and operating systems; it detects whether an application or operating system is 16-bit, 32-bit, or 64-bit and computes accordingly. This is essential for enterprise situations where purchasing new software is not feasible.

Intel, IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett Packard, and AMD currently develop or offer 64-bit processors.

Mordred

Bits refers to the "word" size that the computer/console's processor can handle or hold in a single register (which is where the processors stores the numbers it is using). 8 bit consoles meant that the processor could only use integers of 8 bits, which range from 0-127. While there are obviously ways to generate larger numbers (otherwise high scores would be rather boring), it's slower and basically shows that the processor isn't as powerful. It's also one of the reasons that 8 bit consoles have primitive looking graphics.

16 bit consoles allow integers in the range of 0-65536 which allows for sharper graphics and faster processing of larger numbers.

32 bit consoles allow single integer handling of 0-4294967295 (2^32-1). Most PCs until recently have used 32-bit processors. Just coming to market are 64-bit PCs but this is really only needed for addressing large amounts of data.

While the jump from 32-bit to 64-bit is major, the returns diminish greatly. Some of the consoles these days might be 64 bit, but jumping to 128 bit wouldn't really offer anything for the console user other than requiring a more complicated processor and probably wasting some minor space on your media of choice due to minimum address sizes.

The 128-bit Dreamcast did have a 128-bit Floating Point unit for some graphics functions but the processor itself used 32-bit words if I'm understanding Wikipedia correctly.

porieux

N64 dominated the PS in my opinion. Not even close.

Joe Molotov

Bits were always just a PR catch-phrase anyway. I remember when the Jaguar claimed to be the first 64-bit system, when in reality it was barely more than a souped-up SNES with 3D capabilities. There's alot more that goes into judging a system's power than bits these days.

Drexl

Yeah, and the graphics hardware is just as important, if not more important now than the CPU anyway, at least when considering a console's "power."

Superboy

It's all about the FLOPS now baby!

Liver&Onions

It's like how speed of a CPU is essentially useless. You could have a 6 gigahertz PC but since the pipe is a mile long, the hertz mean jack.

Groucho

By "dominated" I was referring to sales rather than power (or my own subjective opinions about the two consoles).

taffer

If Nintendo had not been so stuck up and ignored everyone that told them they needed to go to a CD format, the N64 would have dominated the PS2 in absolutely everything including sales.

I wonder how different the video game world would be today if that had happened. Sega was destined to go out of the hardware business no matter what. None of their hardware ever really gave Nintendo a run for their money. Sony would have lost to Nintendo if Nintendo had made the N64 a CD-based console. If the PS1 had failed, Sony probably would not have continued on and released a PS2. Would Microsoft have dared to compete against Nintendo alone? Would Nintendo have now had a monopoly on the video game market? If only Nintendo had listened to everyone and gone with a ****ing CD format.

KingSmoth

I think we're better off without a monopoly, Nintendo or not.

The Cow

Why would making a CD format be any different? So you could more easily copy the games?

Nintendo is on it's own doing it's own thing with it's own type of games, and always has.

Jimmy James

There is no way we'd be looking at a monopoly. The market is just too big, and it would be big pretty much no matter who was in the lead. The number of players and their identities may have changed, though. Could you imagine a strong Nintendo in the lead with Sony and M$ teaming on a competitor? I could see it. Maybe you even get say Apple and Toshiba teaming up. You never know...

Drexl

No, it would be for the space and cheaper media. Certain games like Resident Evil and Final Fantasy VII would not have been made without the storage space afforded by the CD, and the high cost of manufacturing the cartridges was a factor in developers not wanting to support the system.

ranspang

CD's would have meant more 3rd party support. From what I remember, to make a cartridge game you had to pay Nintendo a substantial fee for manufacturing the cartridge.
CD's are easy to make, thus reducing the cost of making the game, making sales more profitable for the 3rd party.

taffer

But back in the pre-PS1 days, the video game market wasn't that big. It wasn't until after the PS1 that the video game market exploded into the huge thing that it is today. The PS1 was the console to bring video games into the mainstream and make them a "cool" hobby. Maybe if the PS1 had failed, video games would still be considered a "nerdy" hobby today like it was back in the '80s/early '90s.

Exactly. The expensive cartridge format was the main reason that developers started falling away from Nintendo. Squaresoft actually flat out admitted the reason they dropped support for Nintendo was because of the lack of a CD format. Remember FFI-VI were NES/SNES games only. FFVII did indeed start out as an N64 game. Squaresoft had a working demo of the game. Do a google search for "Final Fantasy 64" and you will find some screenshots and maybe a video or two. Squaresoft later realized that the cartridge format's limited storage space was a huge problem, so they dropped Nintendo and moved to Sony's camp. They released Final Fantasy VII on the PS1 instead. Nintendo's refusal to go to CD was literally what killed them with the N64.

Jimmy James

I think you'd need to see every system fail to make that happen. There were just bigger factors at play than who was in the lead. A bunch of kids who grew up on games became developers and made damned good games. Those games would have been around on whatever was out there. Similarly, the earliest video game players started growing up which meant two things:

1) More disposable income
2) Introducing their kids to the hobby

Something like a terrorist attack on several plants that pressed CDs may have changed things. Putting Nintendo in the lead versus Sony? I don't see it.

taffer

You really think that if Nintendo had made the N64 a CD-based console, it would still have lost to the PS1? I highly doubt it.

If the N64 had used CDs, they would not have lost all their 3rd party support. They would not have lost Squaresoft. FFVII would have been an N64 exclusive. You would have a 64 bit CD console by Nintendo, the king of video games, versus a 32 bit CD console by a company who was an unknown in video games. Nintendo would have killed Sony.

In actual reality though, while the N64 was technically superior to the PS1, it was VERY held back because of the cartridge format's small amount of storage space. Plus, the loss of 3rd party support and Squaresoft was the final nail in the coffin.

Trevor

There are so many what-ifs in video game history. Huge marketing blunders by Atari lead the list IMO. Didn't they have a chance to team up w/ Nintendo?

Joe Molotov

They had a deal to distribute the NES in the United States, but it fell through at the last minute when Atari found out that Nintendo had developed a version of Donkey Kong for the Colecovision.

Jimmy James

No -- that's not what I was saying at all. I'm frankly unqualified to say either way how that would go seeing as how I didn't own a N64, GC, PS1, PS2, or pretty much anything other than PC games during those generations. My comment was directed at the idea that if Nintendo *was* in the lead, video games might not be mainstream today. I don't see the brand in the lead having any bearing on that.

PopcornTreeCt

It's interesting with all the what if scenarios. I'm very happy with the way things are now. If Nintendo was somehow the only console maker I'd doubt we'd have any M-rated games. I doubt we'd ever see GTA 3 or any of its clones.

I think that Nintendo does make great games, but it's nice to have other systems try to be a little "cool" and not let you play as fat plumbers all the time.