• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Atari 2600 -- "4 Bits"???

D

DDayton

(more a nerd than a geek)
A question for folks smarter than I am.

I've seen a variety of people across the internet describe the Atari 2600 (and similar system) as being "4 bit". Now, my assumption is that this is a simplistic misunderstanding of "generations" of gaming consoles... the SNES/Genesis were "16 bit", the NES/SMS were "8 bit", so the assumption is the 2600 was "4 bit". Given that the 2600 used an 8-bit processor, that's patently absurd. (Unless I'm an idiot, of course).

However, I've also seen folks talk about the 2600 having "4 bit graphics". My first instict is to respond with my standard spiel about 8-bit processors, but then it occurred to me that "8 bit graphics" could refer to the color depth of an image, as well as the processing chip used to create them.

Am I right in saying the 2600 was an 8-bit system, and thus had 8-bit graphics? Or am I wrong about this? Are other folks justified in claiming it had "4 bit graphics" if the game(s) in question were limited to a 16 color palette?
 
ComputerNerd said:
It's 8-bit.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I know ... but would someone be correct in calling the graphics something else, due to the fact they are using a very limited palette? That's what I'm curious about -- I know the system is an 8-bit system, I'm just wondering if folks are accidentally right in referring to the "graphics" with a silly name... at least from a certain point of view.
 
4 bit graphics is 16 colours.
5 bit graphics is 32 colours.
..
8 bit graphics is 256 colours.

You get the idea.
 
Lee N said:
4 bit graphics is 16 colours.
5 bit graphics is 32 colours.
..
8 bit graphics is 256 colours.

You get the idea.
Click to expand...

The 2600 had a max of "128 colors on screen, 4 on a line" -- so the 2600 could be described as an 8-bit system with 8-bit graphics in... 7-bit color?

I feel a bit better, then. This is what I had thought, but I found myself puzzled when it occurred to me that one COULD use "bit" to refer to the processor and/or the color depth.
 
You don't use color depth as a way to determine how many "bits" a system is.

That'd be stupid. If that were the case, the Nintendo 64 (which used 24-bit color), would be called the Nintendo 24.

It's always the CPU bit-rate (although the TurboGrafx 16 wanted to be special, I believe it used two 8-bit processors. They used number fudging.)
 
Hell, the 32-bit generation never would be.

There is currently no true 32-bit color depth. When you select 32-bit color, it's actually 24-bit color with an 8-bit alpha.

Edit - Color currently maxes at 24-bit because of how RGB works. RGB is 3 values. Each value varies from 0-255.

That's 8 bits per value (2^8 = 256). Thus 24-bit for the 3 values.
 
n-bit generally refers to the size of the data grabbed by the processor to process.
6502, 6800=8bit
8086=16-bit
68000, 80386=32-bit

On that scale, the Atari 2600 doesn't even register. The thing was amazingly simplistic and it was amazing what people at the early activision were able to make it do.

It didn't have 256mb, 256K, or even 256bytes . . . it had something like 128 bytes of memory.

Edit: I stand corrected . . . it is a chopped down version of an 8-bit processor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_6507
 
Atari 2600 - 8-Bit
Atari 5200 - 8-Bit
Atari 7800 - 8-Bit
Atari Jaguar - 16-Bit
(not only was Jaguar *not* a 64-bit system, it wasn't even a true 32-bit system because the main CPU was 16-bit)
puts on flameproof suit
NEC TurboGrafx-16 - 8-Bit
Sega Genesis - 16-bit
NEC SuperGrafx - 8-Bit
NEO-GEO - 16-bit
 
ComputerNerd said:
You don't use color depth as a way to determine how many "bits" a system is.

That'd be stupid. If that were the case, the Nintendo 64 (which used 24-bit color), would be called the Nintendo 24.

It's always the CPU bit-rate (although the TurboGrafx 16 wanted to be special, I believe it used two 8-bit processors. They used number fudging.)
Click to expand...

Well, I know, but I was specifically referring to folks saying things like "The 2600 had 4-bit graphics". It would seem like you COULD interpret that either way... the correct way would be 8 bit graphics (based on the chip) with "something-bit color", I'd assume.

I just wanted to make sure that when I obnoxiously correct people, I'm standing on firm ground.
 
speculawyer said:
n-bit generally refers to the size of the data grabbed by the processor to process.
6502, 6800=8bit
8086=16-bit
68000, 80386=32-bit

On that scale, the Atari 2600 doesn't even register. The thing was amazingly simplistic and it was amazing what people at the early activision were able to make it do.

It didn't have 256mb, 256K, or even 256bytes . . . I believe it had something like 256 bits of memory.
Click to expand...

The Atari 2600 had a 6507 processor -- a "stripped down" 6502.
 
The only time I've ever heard of "n-bit graphics" would be if the system had multiple processors but the one handling the graphics was being bragged about. For example, a 32-bit main processor with a 64-bit graphics processor might choose to advertise itself as having 64-bit graphics.

The Atari VCS (2600) was simply an 8-bit computer. I find it very difficult to believe that it ever displayed 128 colors on-screen simultaneously, but if so that would be 7-bit color. I find it more likely that it had a 7-bit color palette.
 
DavidDayton said:
Well, I know, but I was specifically referring to folks saying things like "The 2600 had 4-bit graphics". It would seem like you COULD interpret that either way... the correct way would be 8 bit graphics (based on the chip) with "something-bit color", I'd assume.

I just wanted to make sure that when I obnoxiously correct people, I'm standing on firm ground.
Click to expand...

8 bit graphics with something-bit color?

What? You're confusing yourself. Dude, just tell people it's an 8-bit system. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. The conversation will be over.
 
ComputerNerd said:
8 bit graphics with something-bit color?

What? You're confusing yourself. Dude, just tell people it's an 8-bit system. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. The conversation will be over.
Click to expand...

Eh... I think too much. Death to the "4 bit" infidels.

(Don't even get me started on the "INTELLIVISION WAS 4 BIT, ATARI WAS 2 BIT" fools.)
 
2600 was an 8-bit system. The 6507 drove the TIA, and the 6507 was an 8-bit processor.

2600 could display 128 colors easily, as could the CTIA/GTIA derivatives. Manipulating color registers per scan line, the famous "Atari rainbow" effect.

Turbografx-16 used dual 16-bit processors for graphics.
 
S. L. said:
wah whats this color stuff?
i thought the "bits" were register sizes?
Click to expand...
a bit is a 2x2 block of pixels

not really. hey look, I didn't use a retarded spoiler tag!
 
S. L. said:
wah whats this color stuff?
i thought the "bits" were register sizes?
Click to expand...


We describe color depth in terms of bits as well. Basically n-bit color is 2 ^ n. So...

2 bit color = 2 ^ 2 = 4 colors
4 bit color = 2 ^ 4 = 16 colors
15 bit color = 2 ^ 15 = 32,768 colors (32X represent)
16 bit color = 2 ^ 16 = 65,536 colors

And so on.
 
there are 4 bit processors (4 bit bus access, 4 bit registers). like many 8/16 bit processors, they use combinations of registers to address memory and extend some other required operations, but they do act like true 4 bit cpu's in most operations.

the old intel 4004, predecessor to the 8008 (predecessor to the 8080, then the 8086, the first chip in the x86 line which extends compatibility wise all the way to current intel and AMD chips)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004

the cpu in the 2600 was 8 bit, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_6507
 
camineet said:
Atari Jaguar - 16-Bit
(not only was Jaguar *not* a 64-bit system, it wasn't even a true 32-bit system because the main CPU was 16-bit)
puts on flameproof suit
Click to expand...
You know, willful ignorance doesn't make you a better person.

John Carmack said:
The memory, bus, blitter and video processor were 64 bits wide, but the processors (68k and two custom risc processors) were 32 bit.
Click to expand...
Source.
And, yes, that is John Carmack's Slashdot account. Thanks for playing.
 
jvm said:
Source.
And, yes, that is John Carmack's Slashdot account. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Carmack said:
The little risc engined were decent processors. I was surprised that they didn't use off the shelf designs, but they basically worked ok. They had some design hazards (write after write) that didn't get fixed, but the only thing truly wrong with them was that they had scratchpad memory instead of caches, and couldn't execute code from main memory.I had to chunk the DOOM renderer into nine sequentially loaded overlays to get it working (with hindsight, I would have done it differently in about three...).

The 68k was slow. This was the primary problem of the system. You options were either taking it easy, running everything on the 68k, and going slow, or sweating over lots of overlayed parallel asm chunks to make something go fast on the risc processors.
Click to expand...

Oh shits, does that sound familiar to anyone. ;-)

Replace "68K" with "PPU" and "risc processors" with "SPU".... lolz.
 
aaaaa0 said:
Oh shits, does that sound familiar to anyone. ;-)

Replace "68K" with "PPU" and "risc processors" with "SPU".... lolz.
Click to expand...
Yep. I almost wrote something a while back drawing some parallels between the two. I thought better of it, however. There just isn't much room for rational discussion about the Jaguar or the PS3.
 
ComputerNerd said:
You don't use color depth as a way to determine how many "bits" a system is.

That'd be stupid. If that were the case, the Nintendo 64 (which used 24-bit color), would be called the Nintendo 24.

It's always the CPU bit-rate (although the TurboGrafx 16 wanted to be special, I believe it used two 8-bit processors. They used number fudging.)
Click to expand...

Just sliding in for a comment. I guess the N64 can output in 24bits color but a large majority of games were in 16bits color. :(
 
jvm said:
You know, willful ignorance doesn't make you a better person.


Source.
And, yes, that is John Carmack's Slashdot account. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

that's nice but can Jaguar keep up with 32-bit consoles like Saturn and PlayStation?
 
the "bit wars" were silly creations of Sega's PR and uninformed journalists kept the tradition going

NES/SMS/TG16 = 8bit
SNES/SMD/JAGUAR = 16bit
SATURN/PSX = 32bit
N64/DC = 64bit
Xbox = 32bit (!!??)

and on and on
 
camineet said:
that's nice but can Jaguar keep up with 32-bit consoles like Saturn and PlayStation?
Click to expand...

Dude, you made a definitive statement that the Jag had a 16-bit CPU and you got owned. Don't try to change the subject. :lol
 
beermonkey@tehbias said:
Dude, you made a definitive statement that the Jag had a 16-bit CPU and you got owned. Don't try to change the subject. :lol
Click to expand...

okay well I'll just "bow out" of this thread before I embarrass myself any further :|
 
JoeyJojoShabadoo said:
the "bit wars" were silly creations of Sega's PR and uninformed journalists kept the tradition going

NES/SMS/TG16 = 8bit
SNES/SMD/JAGUAR = 16bit
SATURN/PSX = 32bit
N64/DC = 64bit
Xbox = 32bit (!!??)

and on and on
Click to expand...
the dreamcast was a 32 bit machine, and the n64 is a strange beast in that regard, in any case, it's not on and on :p.

p.s.
not sure why are you surprised/shocked about the xbox.
 
To clarify, I just wanted to make sure that when I told some idi-- I mean, uninformed person that the 2600 was an 8-bit system, there is no way they can say it had "1/2/4-bit graphics" and be correct. Not that it would mean anything of importance, I just wanted to make sure I understood everything. The only way to argue that would be the color depth thing, but that's different than the processor instruction size, which is what the public should be understanding the "bit" thing to be.

(This has very little to do with correcting some fool who claimed that a particular 2600 game had "4 bit graphics".)
 
Could also add that the GB and GBC were 8-bit, and the GBA and Virtual Boy 32-bit.

the dreamcast was a 32 bit machine,
Click to expand...

Really? Xbox-style, with a 32-bit CPU? Didn't remember that...

The PS2 and GC are 128-bit, though, right?

and the n64 is a strange beast in that regard, in any case, it's not on and on :p.
Click to expand...

How so? I thought it was pretty clearly 64-bit...

As for the Turbografx and Jaguar... well, at least part of the Jaguar was 64 bit, and 8+8=16, right? :)

NEO-GEO - 16-bit
Click to expand...

Well, 16-bit main processor plus 8-bit second processor, hence "24-bit" as it is sometimes called.
 
ComputerNerd said:
Color currently maxes at 24-bit because of how RGB works. RGB is 3 values. Each value varies from 0-255.
Click to expand...

Color goes way beyond 24-bit, both in formats like this

http://www.openexr.com/ Up to 96-bit not counting alphas.

and in "HD console" games that use HDR.
 
DavidDayton said:
Am I right in saying the 2600 was an 8-bit system, and thus had 8-bit graphics? Or am I wrong about this? Are other folks justified in claiming it had "4 bit graphics" if the game(s) in question were limited to a 16 color palette?
Click to expand...
It's a measure that has been made meaningless by marketing.
So just go ahead, call as many bits as you want, you can always find a way to make it appear correct anyway.
 
TAJ said:
Color goes way beyond 24-bit, both in formats like this

http://www.openexr.com/ Up to 96-bit not counting alphas.

and in "HD console" games that use HDR.
Click to expand...


It's true that there are many floating point color formats, RGB each containing a floating point value ranging from 0-1 ranther than 0-255, and there are many formats that support deep rasters or AOVs, meaning you can have additional channels not just the customary RGB and A, but your HD consoles using HDR textures and computing color in a 128 bit or 256 bit color space are still outputting color at 24 bits because that's what your display device is limited to. The are some 10 and 12 bit display adapters and HDR displays out there, but none of them are at the consumer level that I am aware of.
 
The Atari 2600 has 256 color entries (and thus represented by an 8-bit value), unfortunately you can't change the palette. Each (visibly) unique color is duplicated though, so color 0 and color 1 is black, color 2 and 3 is dark grey etc. So in practice it could only display 128 (visibly) unique colors.

Saying the Atari 2600 has 8-bit graphics is technically correct, but most people would therefore assume they'd have a 256 color palette to work with. Alas, things are a bit more rigid with the little 2600.
 
A processor is complicated enough that no single hardware description like clock speed or bus width can adequately describe it.

If you're not a technical person, you pretty much have to rely on what reputable people tell you. Even if you are a technical person, this is probably what you have to do. Few people have enough time to familiarize themselves with anything more than the basics (if that). Particularly so if it's just a passing curiosity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Raiders of the Lost Ark for the Atari 2600 has been fully disassembled and reverse engineered
News 
4
240
Deerock71 replied
Alien Abduction (Atari 2600)
5
888
Darkmakaimura replied
Will PS6 have 2,048 bits?
2 3
100
163
German Shocks replied
Atari Acquires Rights to the Legendary Wizardry RPGs
0
137
falconhoof replied
The Rebirth of Atari, how the old giant has rebuilt itself during the 2020s
Opinion 
25
480
IbizaPocholo replied
Top Bottom