From: laird@think.com (Laird Popkin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.video,alt.games.lynx
Subject: Re: Whaddabout the so-called Jaguar? (was Re: Atari)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 16:40:03 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: django.think.com

In article <1992Dec16.005436.22496@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu) writes:
>In article <92341.132533U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>In article <1ftevbINNff9@aludra.usc.edu>, rjung@aludra.usc.edu (Robert A. Jung)
>>says:
>>>        "The Nintendo chip will allow the Super NES to really take on
>>>        Atari's Jaguar system, which is also based on RISC technology
>
>>RISC technology?  Are you crazy?  I can understand them using a 68030 or a 386
>>but RISC technology?  Yeah right.  A game machine based on RISC technology
>>would cost more than the NeoGeo.  If Atari wanted to make any money off of the
>>Jaguar it sure as hell won't have a RISC chip in it.  Check out the price of
>>a computer based on RISC processors compared to a 486.  There is a big price
>>difference.

There are RISC chips that are plenty cheap.  The ones you see used in
high-performance workstations are certainly expensive, but there are also
low-end RISC chips that outperform many CISC chips and cost less.  In fact,
one of the nice things about RISC is that the simple design makes them
cheaper to manufacture (for a given performance level) than a CISC chip,
since there are fewer transistors.  The AMD29K series comes to mind
(they're used in many printers, for example) and the ARM RISC chip is also
supposed to be pretty inexpensive.  Sure, the Alpha (RISC) is more
expensive than a 68000 (CISC) , but the 68040 (CISC) is ,pre expensive than
a AMD 29000 (RISC).

>I think it's safe to say that the words "based on RISC technology" in the
>previous quote take a very loose interpretation of the facts...

In my experience, the Tramiels tend to loosely interpret facts, and it
was Jack Tramiel who said that the Jaguar was a "64-bit RISC machine".

>P.S.: As other folks have already noted, the Atari TT video has 64 bit access
>to memory, so it's neither an unusual nor pricey feature for Atari to carry
>on into other systems. And re: needing a "blitter from hell" to blit 64 bit
>pixels, if they are in fact using 64 bits per pixel - I've already heard
>rumors in this regard. I'm sure there will be a monstrously fast blitter in
>the Jaguar; I'd bet the cost of a new Lynx cartridge that it'll be there.

Actually, a blitter that moves 64 bits at a time on a 64-bit bus doesn't
have to be "faster" than one that moves 16 bits at a time on a 16-bit bus
-- it just does more in parallel. :) Given the number of transistors that
can be stuffed into ASICs these days, that doesn't sound too difficult.  On
the other hand, 64 bits per pixel sounds like massive overkill for a
videogame system -- they'd be better off using the same blitter to move 8x
as many 8-bit pixels, or 4x as many 16-bit pixels.  IMO, of course.  64-bit
memory access isn't too expensive, and if Atari is shooting for the
high-end of the videogame market to differentiate themslves, I can think of
worse things to be able to do than to move data 4x as fast as other
systems.  It's much cheaper to make the bus wider than to crank up the
clock speed...

>  -- Howard Chu @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

- Laird

-- 
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines

Connection Machine: Massively parallel supercomputer.  Also a cool black
cube with more blinking lights than you can shake a stick at.