Get Nintendo 64 emulator HERE! -the year 2000
Matt McDevitt
It is quite simple!
1) To emulate a system on a PC the system has to be far inferior to the PC
because emulation by its very nature consumes quite a bit of power just for
the translation. (From game hardware to computer hardware) Sort of like
Qbasic, if you've ever used it...you could never write a game in it because
it's so slow. That's because it's interpreted on the fly, like an
emulator.
2) Right now, we can only play N64 quality games on our PC during the hours
we're ASLEEP! In maybe a year or more, PC's will CATCH UP to N64 power.
But then you have to wait another year or so while PC's actually PASS UP
the N64.
3) The best 3-D cards are only capable of around 400-500,000 polygons per
second. Also very few of them have all the bells and whistles like alpha
blending, perspective-correct texture mapping, etc. Most cards are not
capable of some of N64's features as of yet. Meanwhile N64 can do about
700-800,000 polygons per second, plus it has a seperate chip that is ALONE
a match for a pentium...a 97 MHz RISC chip.
4) Besides it will be a year or more (that's being optimistic) before the
average joe has a 3-D card in his computer!
5) There are a lot of Pentiums (millions of them) on the market..but we'll
need stuff like MMX, Accelerated Graphics Port, and 3-D accelerators, in
conjunction with faster and more efficient motherboards to approach
N64-esque power. The number of machines like this right now is 0! (AGP
isn't out yet, and MMX just came out)
If you have anything to add...please e-mail me below. If I'm in error in
any respect...you might as well let me know. I'm very sure about most of
these things. I hope this clears up any confusion about N64 power.
P.S. I don't own a console system, but I have 2 Pentium 133 PC's.
Also, YES Tomb raider 3-D for matrox mystique 3-D is great. I played it on
my machine with a 3-D accelerator and it's very smooth. A bit slow though
and this is HARDLY a typical game for the PC!
--
Matt McDevitt
mak...@ix.netcom.com
Eric Krueger
"Matt McDevitt" <mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>It is quite simple!
>1) To emulate a system on a PC the system has to be far inferior to the PC
>because emulation by its very nature consumes quite a bit of power just for
>the translation. (From game hardware to computer hardware) Sort of like
>Qbasic, if you've ever used it...you could never write a game in it because
>it's so slow. That's because it's interpreted on the fly, like an
>emulator.
Finally someone who doesn't have their head up their ass!
Point well taken.. Take for example the SNES, the emulators that are
out now, do a good job of emulating this machine, but what is it
really? The SNES runs at what 3 mhz? The genesis what 7? And it takes
the power of a P-166 to do it justice, turn on full sound, and your
still not at the full speed of a real SNES! So emulating a N64 is VERY
much a dream...
>2) Right now, we can only play N64 quality games on our PC during the hours
>we're ASLEEP! In maybe a year or more, PC's will CATCH UP to N64 power.
>But then you have to wait another year or so while PC's actually PASS UP
>the N64.
Well, actually the 3dFX are comparible to a N64 in terms of raw speed.
But, the system would have to be sheesh 30 times the speed of a N64 to
emulate it... And then comes the question of wether it could even be
done properly, and we know it would have to be shareware. So, it'll be
frought with updates, and bugs... Who knows, maybe our grandchildren
will be able to play Mario 64 on a P-10,000???? ;)
>3) The best 3-D cards are only capable of around 400-500,000 polygons per
>second. Also very few of them have all the bells and whistles like alpha
>blending, perspective-correct texture mapping, etc. Most cards are not
>capable of some of N64's features as of yet. Meanwhile N64 can do about
>700-800,000 polygons per second, plus it has a seperate chip that is ALONE
>a match for a pentium...a 97 MHz RISC chip.
Well, I've seen some VERY impressive stuff on the 3dFX cards. You
might be able to do mario 64 on them now. (Remember the N64 runs in
360x240 or some variant of that)
>4) Besides it will be a year or more (that's being optimistic) before the
>average joe has a 3-D card in his computer!
Agreed.
>5) There are a lot of Pentiums (millions of them) on the market..but we'll
>need stuff like MMX, Accelerated Graphics Port, and 3-D accelerators, in
>conjunction with faster and more efficient motherboards to approach
>N64-esque power. The number of machines like this right now is 0! (AGP
>isn't out yet, and MMX just came out)
Nah. I have N64 power here on my desk, but emulating one is another
question. (P-200MMX (o/c 225) Monster 3D) You should see quake on this
baby... Not to mention Tomb Raider!! N64 kiss my ass... (Hmm... maybe
I shouldn't of bought one?) hehehe
>P.S. I don't own a console system, but I have 2 Pentium 133 PC's.
>Also, YES Tomb raider 3-D for matrox mystique 3-D is great. I played it on
>my machine with a 3-D accelerator and it's very smooth. A bit slow though
>and this is HARDLY a typical game for the PC!
We should see some really cool games coming out very soon now that the
3dfx cards are being accepted as the standard...
Eric Krueger
Brian Williams
On 21 Feb 1997 02:53:19 GMT, "Matt McDevitt" <mak...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>
>3) The best 3-D cards are only capable of around 400-500,000 polygons per
>second. Also very few of them have all the bells and whistles like alpha
>blending, perspective-correct texture mapping, etc. Most cards are not
>capable of some of N64's features as of yet. Meanwhile N64 can do about
>700-800,000 polygons per second, plus it has a seperate chip that is ALONE
>a match for a pentium...a 97 MHz RISC chip.
Even if the 3D cards had the capabilities of the N64, (some are
getting close) they would still have the 33Mhz PCI Bus bottleneck
holding up the data that needs to get to them. PC's are working on
this.... see below.
>5) There are a lot of Pentiums (millions of them) on the market..but we'll
>need stuff like MMX, Accelerated Graphics Port, and 3-D accelerators, in
>conjunction with faster and more efficient motherboards to approach
>N64-esque power. The number of machines like this right now is 0! (AGP
>isn't out yet, and MMX just came out)
AGP will help the PC's out quite a bit. They will get rid of the
33Mhz bottleneck that the PCI bus has now. Although I don't think
that it will be running any where near the 500Mhz that the N64 Bus is
running at. Even then, the PC's are still 32bit systems.
>P.S. I don't own a console system, but I have 2 Pentium 133 PC's.
>Also, YES Tomb raider 3-D for matrox mystique 3-D is great. I played it on
>my machine with a 3-D accelerator and it's very smooth. A bit slow though
>and this is HARDLY a typical game for the PC!
There are many PC games that are coming out for the N64 and the
developers are stating that it will actually look and play better.
Included in this list is Quake, Duke Nukem 3D, Doom 64, and the soon
to be released, PC game, Unreal.
Shadow
In article <01bc1fa2$2b1523e0$7696d9ce@linna>, "Matt McDevitt"
<mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
the power pc chips that mac have are strong enough to run n64 games!
really a 604epowerpc chip is 25% faster then a pent pro. no joke. ...I
have both...
--
Shadow out...
Matt McDevitt
That's like saying "Yes, a person can't jump and touch the moon, but
Michael Jordan can jump 25% higher than the average man!"
True, but we're still way off, no?
Raw CPU power was not the point of my post. Even your "25% faster" chip
would pale in comparison with the RENDERING ability of the N64's graphics
engine, nevermind having 10 X more power than N64, so that it can EMULATE
it!
Matt McDevitt
mak...@ix.netcom.com
?
absolutely no chance of a nintendo 64 emulator, MAYBE by the year 2000....
the snes has been out since about 1990 and that isnt even been emulated correctly yet
there are no computer system based chips available yet that will come close to emulating an n64, it is a videogames system and ALL its power is used for just that....on a pc there are drivers, os's and stuff like that to bog it down............
Shadow <hacks...@aol.com> wrote in article <hackshadow-21...@pool046-max4.pasadena-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net>...
> In article <01bc1fa2$2b1523e0$7696d9ce@linna>, "Matt McDevitt"
Brian W.
On 22 Feb 1997 00:16:14 GMT, hacks...@aol.com (Shadow) wrote:
>In article <01bc1fa2$2b1523e0$7696d9ce@linna>, "Matt McDevitt"
><mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>the power pc chips that mac have are strong enough to run n64 games!
>really a 604epowerpc chip is 25% faster then a pent pro. no joke. ...I
>have both...
>
>--
>Shadow out...
The Mac does have a faster internal bus than a Pentium PC but it is
still only 32bit. THE N64 IS 64 BIT WITH A 500 MHZ BUS. There is no
pc out there with this kind of power........YET!
Michael Schuller
There is a new kind of memory chip for the PC's that are supported by the
Intel MMX, the Cyrix PR, and Intels workstation models. This memory chip is
the DIMM chip, opposed to SIMM's 32 bit processing power, the DIMM can
process 64-bits. That, combined with a workstation that has an Alpha chip
running at 600 MHz (Which costs about $15,000) it is quite possible to
emulate the Nintendo64.
Brian W. <bri...@gte.net> wrote in article
<330fd87f...@news.gte.net>...
Dave k
In article <01bc21c7$fbb0ae80$bd9961cc@Pbango>, "Michael Schuller" <mi...@divafarm.com> wrote:
>There is a new kind of memory chip for the PC's that are supported by the
>Intel MMX, the Cyrix PR, and Intels workstation models. This memory chip is
>the DIMM chip, opposed to SIMM's 32 bit processing power, the DIMM can
>process 64-bits. That, combined with a workstation that has an Alpha chip
>running at 600 MHz (Which costs about $15,000) it is quite possible to
>emulate the Nintendo64.
lets think about this for a mnute your saying a 15,000 dollar proccessor would
be required to equal a n64? thats silly i have both a n64 and a well built
pentium system my pc has much more power and graphics capability BUT the n64
is better at arcade style games which is why i own one but the n64 isnt even
close to the machine my pc is lett alone a 15,000 chip
if it was i'm sure someone would have the n64 wired up to replace the pc
lets get it steraight the n64 is a game machine good at what it does but it is
nothing more and nothing less it is not a graphics workstation and is not
ment to be.
Matt McDevitt
Hey if money's no object, of course there's an N64 emulator....an SGI
workstation, the same kind that developers of N64 games use!
Matt
Michael Schuller <mi...@divafarm.com> wrote in article
<01bc21c7$fbb0ae80$bd9961cc@Pbango>...
> There is a new kind of memory chip for the PC's that are supported by the
> Intel MMX, the Cyrix PR, and Intels workstation models. This memory chip
is
> the DIMM chip, opposed to SIMM's 32 bit processing power, the DIMM can
> process 64-bits. That, combined with a workstation that has an Alpha chip
> running at 600 MHz (Which costs about $15,000) it is quite possible to
> emulate the Nintendo64.
>
Jeremy
hacks...@aol.com (Shadow) wrote:
>In article <01bc1fa2$2b1523e0$7696d9ce@linna>, "Matt McDevitt"
><mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>the power pc chips that mac have are strong enough to run n64 games!
>really a 604epowerpc chip is 25% faster then a pent pro. no joke. ...I
>have both...
Just one problem....I know folks who overclock their P200's as far as
300 Mhz....lets see a power PC handle a 50% overclock. Sure the chip
will be toast in about 3 years.....by then it's worth 50 bucks anyway.
God I love a flexible architecture.
>--
>Shadow out...
Ian Farquhar
Eric Krueger wrote:
> "Matt McDevitt" <mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >It is quite simple!
> >1) To emulate a system on a PC the system has to be far inferior to
> > the PC because emulation by its very nature consumes quite a bit
> > of power just for the translation. (From game hardware to computer
> > hardware) Sort of like Qbasic, if you've ever used it...you could
> > never write a game in it because it's so slow. That's because it's
> > interpreted on the fly, like an emulator.
> Finally someone who doesn't have their head up their ass!
True. The level of disinformation, or rather total lack of
information in this thread, has been really amusing. The
commonest mistake has been to talk about the difficulty
of emulation as being the difficulty of emulating the CPU.
It is not completely true that the emulated system has
to be "far inferior" to the emulator's system. There is a technique
usually known as "just in time compilation" which can address
this gap somewhat. The basic idea is to convert the original
machine code into a form which can be executed more quickly, and to
do that on the fly (hence the term: "just in time"). Many people
will have heard of this technology in many of the newer Java
implementations, which themselves are essentially emulators.
Once you have compiled the code into the faster version on the
emulating system, you then have the option of optimizing it to
run faster. For example, in early 8-bit CPU's (eg. the Z-80)
there were often limitations on the use of registers, meaning
that to move values from some registers to others, you had to
go through an intermediate register. An optmizing JIT compiler
would recognise the intermediate step as optional, and remove
it.
The tradeoff is, of course, that optimization takes a lot of time.
This is true, but you do it only once, then cache the output.
Many commercial JIT compilers have threshholds that count the
number of times a piece of code is executed, and then optimize
it when the number passes a certain limit.
> Point well taken.. Take for example the SNES, the emulators that are
> out now, do a good job of emulating this machine, but what is it
> really? The SNES runs at what 3 mhz? The genesis what 7? And it takes
> the power of a P-166 to do it justice, turn on full sound, and your
> still not at the full speed of a real SNES! So emulating a N64 is VERY
> much a dream...
It is not the CPU emulation that is the difficult part. For example,
a common Pentium could probably emulate a 6502 running at 50-100MHz
or faster.
Unfortunately for emulation writers, they also have to emulate
the other hardware of the box, which even for the original 2600,
was a lot of work. That's the hardest part, especially when
timing becomes important, as it usually is in video games).
Disclaimer: Not speaking for SGI. Not part of the N64 development
team. Not discussing anything which is in any way confidential.
Ian.
Brian W.
>lets think about this for a mnute your saying a 15,000 dollar proccessor would
>be required to equal a n64? thats silly i have both a n64 and a well built
>pentium system my pc has much more power and graphics capability BUT the n64
>is better at arcade style games which is why i own one but the n64 isnt even
>close to the machine my pc is lett alone a 15,000 chip
>
is set up to play games though. Your PC is a 32 bit machine, the N64
is 64bits. The PC has a 66Mhz bus to ram and a 33Mhz bus to the sound
and video cards in PCI slots. The N64 has a 500Mhz bus to ram, sound
and video.
The PC is made for Personal Computing... hence "PC". It has a hard
drive, modem, expansion slots for ram and cards, a disk drive, cd-rom
drive, extra ram, keyboard, hi res monitor and much more to make it a
PC. If someone is just wanting to play games then go for the N64.
Granted there are some great games on the PC that need the hard drive
space, extra ram and cd-rom, but that's what I have a PC for.
Still, the N64 is a much more powerful game machine. You won't see me
do my Wordprocessing on it or balance my checkbook.
Brian W.
What does all this speed matter if the CPU can only get to the video
card at 33Mhz? That is why Intel is working on new and faster system
boards for the PC market. Games are a hit on the PC.... it just
wasn't designed for games. That will change in the future though.
Macintodd
Speaking of 500 Mhz chips like the Alpha, there's Exponential's 533 Mhz
x704 coming out in a few weeks. I wouldn't put it past one of those to
emulate an N64. The problem you run into is that game system like the N64
and SNES all have special hardware for games. An N64 has all kinds of
extra chips and circuitry aside from its 97.5 Mhz core processor which do
extra jobs like the polygons, the superb anti-aliasing, and all those nice
effects you see on an N64. The SuperNES might have run at under 10 Mhz,
but it also had special chips for sprites, and, I believe the ROM carts
for 3d games like DOOM even had chips in the cart for doing some of the
3d. Also, when the programmers write code for these things, they're only
working on one box. All they hve to do is make it work fast on that box,
which is the same as what everyone lese has. They can do some major
tweaking and optimizing when this is the case, which makes a seemingly
slow SNES able to do all that it does. When you take something that is so
optimized, and is designed to run flawlessly and perfectly smothly on a
certain chipset everywhere, and try to make it run on a PC or Mac, for
which there are thousands of designs and all sorts of ways in which they
are configured, and try to make all the code for those specific chips run
on just one chip, even if it is fast, You're looking at an extremely large
bottleneck. Just thought I'd put in my 2 or 3 cents to this thread.
Todd
BTW-someone mentioned 64 bit DIMMS. Macs use DIMMS.
Dave k
In article <3312161...@news.gte.net>, bri...@gte.net (Brian W.) wrote:
>>lets think about this for a mnute your saying a 15,000 dollar proccessor would
>
>>be required to equal a n64? thats silly i have both a n64 and a well built
>>pentium system my pc has much more power and graphics capability BUT the n64
>>is better at arcade style games which is why i own one but the n64 isnt even
>>close to the machine my pc is lett alone a 15,000 chip
>>
>I hate to tell you this but the N64 is more powerful than your PC. It
>is set up to play games though. Your PC is a 32 bit machine, the N64
>is 64bits. The PC has a 66Mhz bus to ram and a 33Mhz bus to the sound
>and video cards in PCI slots. The N64 has a 500Mhz bus to ram, sound
>and video.
my pc has better graphics ? and if it really is so powerful why don't they
make a word proccessor for it and i can get rid of my pc.(as soon as they
address the graphics resulution) btw my pc can do instantanious 3d in 1024x768
the n64 is i believe at it's best 640x480.
z...@nojunkmail.com
I hate to break it to you, but there is nothing special about a DIMM
(dual in-line memory module). It is a "double-sided" SIMM with contacts
on both sides. DIMMS CAN be synchronous DRAM (SDRAM) which has a faster
throughput that fast page mode or EDO dram, but face the facts.
Emulation requires a machine 50-100 times faster than the machine you
are emulating.
So until Alpha comes out with a 6 GHz (6000 MHz) processor, it is silly
to think that a "magic" 64-bit memory module will solve the speed
problem.
Michael Schuller wrote:
>
> There is a new kind of memory chip for the PC's that are supported by the
> Intel MMX, the Cyrix PR, and Intels workstation models. This memory chip is
> the DIMM chip, opposed to SIMM's 32 bit processing power, the DIMM can
> process 64-bits. That, combined with a workstation that has an Alpha chip
> running at 600 MHz (Which costs about $15,000) it is quite possible to
> emulate the Nintendo64.
>
> Brian W. <bri...@gte.net> wrote in article
> <330fd87f...@news.gte.net>...
> > On 22 Feb 1997 00:16:14 GMT, hacks...@aol.com (Shadow) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <01bc1fa2$2b1523e0$7696d9ce@linna>, "Matt McDevitt"
> > ><mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >the power pc chips that mac have are strong enough to run n64 games!
> > >really a 604epowerpc chip is 25% faster then a pent pro. no joke. ...I
> > >have both...
> > >
Paul Louis
On Tue, 25 Feb 97 18:27:20 GMT, \Kal...@concentric.net\ (Dave k)
wrote:
>i don't know the specs but all i can say is if it's so all powerfull how come
>my pc has better graphics ?
What game on the PC has better graphics than Mario, Pilotwings or
SOTE. When most games magazines (PC and next gen.) agree that the PC
struggles to competete with the Playstation how on earth is it going
to compete with an N64. Morons like you give the rest of us PC owners
a bad name.
> and if it really is so powerful why don't they
>make a word proccessor for it and i can get rid of my pc.(as soon as they
>address the graphics resulution)
It's called a GAMES console. It's used for GAMES. It has no keyboard.
You have no clue.
>btw my pc can do instantanious 3d in 1024x768
>the n64 is i believe at it's best 640x480.
On a 30 inch TV it doesn't matter that much.
_________________________________________________________
Paul Louis - pa...@i8acorns.demon.co.uk
"All parties without exception, when they seek for power,
are varieties of absolutism."
--Pierre Joseph Proudhon
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein
Dave k
>What game on the PC has better graphics than Mario, Pilotwings or
>SOTE. When most games magazines (PC and next gen.) agree that the PC
>struggles to competete with the Playstation how on earth is it going
>to compete with an N64. Morons like you give the rest of us PC owners
>a bad name
actually it would seem that you lack serious people skills maybe you should
learn to communicate. I personaly don't know what there talking about because
i "LOOK"(quote use my eyes)and the graphics look better on my pc.
>> and if it really is so powerful why don't they
>>make a word proccessor for it and i can get rid of my pc.(as soon as they
>>address the graphics resulution)
>It's called a GAMES console. It's used for GAMES. It has no keyboard.
>You have no clue.
your right that why i don't understand this whole thread the n64 is a 200$
game machine nothing more
>>btw my pc can do instantanious 3d in 1024x768
>>the n64 is i believe at it's best 640x480.
>On a 30 inch TV it doesn't matter that much.
hmm if you say I think it does matter though since i don'[t like 640x480 on my
pc's 17" i would imagine higher resulution in the n64 areana would be
advantages.
I doubt that i will bother to read your reply since it's doesnt really matter
I only posted to begin with because this thread appears to be immortal anyway
should have figured I'd get some rude n64 kid's reply. hopefully my next
response will be from a mature adult
Dave k
In article <3314a6e3...@news.demon.co.uk>, pa...@i8acorns.demon.co.uk (Paul Louis) wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Feb 97 16:52:31 GMT, \Kal...@concentric.net\ (Dave k)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <33284654...@news.demon.co.uk>, pa...@i8acorns.demon.co.uk
> (Paul Louis) wrote:
>>
>>>What game on the PC has better graphics than Mario, Pilotwings or
>>>SOTE. When most games magazines (PC and next gen.) agree that the PC
>>>struggles to competete with the Playstation how on earth is it going
>>>to compete with an N64. Morons like you give the rest of us PC owners
>>>a bad name
>>actually it would seem that you lack serious people skills maybe you should
>>learn to communicate.
>far have been badly written, ill thought out and have had no factual
>backing.
ok your right i will now try and figurwe out how to use my n64 as a graphics
work station..yea right. and yes you are rude you don't agree so you refuse to
debate you prefer to call people names. oh well you'll get yours someday your
kind always does...btw don't bother to reply i'm putting you on my do not read
list.
>>I personaly don't know what there talking about because
>>i "LOOK"(quote use my eyes)and the graphics look better on my pc.
>graphics that look better than any N64 game. You tell me and I'll go
>out and buy it straight away. The only game, perhaps, that can qualify
>is MDK but that isn't out yet and was only done by the virtue of some
>superb coding.
>>>> and if it really is so powerful why don't they
>>>>make a word proccessor for it and i can get rid of my pc.(as soon as they
>>>>address the graphics resulution)
>>>It's called a GAMES console. It's used for GAMES. It has no keyboard.
>>>You have no clue.
>>your right that why i don't understand this whole thread the n64 is a 200$
>>game machine nothing more
>for the PC. There are numerous reasons why an emulator is desirable.
>Rather than explain them to you, however, I'd rather do something
>simpler. Like bash my head against a brick wall.
>>>>btw my pc can do instantanious 3d in 1024x768
>>>>the n64 is i believe at it's best 640x480.
>>>On a 30 inch TV it doesn't matter that much.
>>hmm if you say I think it does matter though since i don'[t like 640x480 on my
>
>>pc's 17" i would imagine higher resulution in the n64 areana would be
>>advantages.
>sufficient contrast to allow resolution changes above 640x480 to be
>noticable. Don't worry, I don't expect you to understand this.
>>I doubt that i will bother to read your reply since it's doesnt really matter
>>I only posted to begin with because this thread appears to be immortal anyway
>>should have figured I'd get some rude n64 kid's reply. hopefully my next
>>response will be from a mature adult
>only say that if you are not under 15 your mental age evidently is.
>BTW I am actually primarily a PC owner. I have 30 PC games to my 2 N64
>games. I do not, however, have the blind, moronic faith of some
>people.
if you are a pc owner(i figured you where using web tv) you would realize the
graphics look better on the pc maybe people are using some other criteria than
me i don't know. as far as some game to compare to n64 i wouldnt know since i
don't buy arcade style games for my pc (allthough i have 3d pinball which i
think looks better)
For everyone else
i was simply stateing an opinion and boom this guy jumps on me calling me an
idiot and a moron. My solution is to but him in the big ignore file
Dave k
In article <01bc2450$0ca42980$7496d9ce@linna>, "Matt McDevitt" <mak...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Very right. A DIMM doesn't "process" anything...it's only marginally
>faster than a regular SIMM and what you really need for emulation is a
>super CPU with approximately 100X the power of the target machine you plan
>to emulate.
>
>Matt McDevitt
>mak...@ix.netcom.com
>
ok i think i get what your saying about emulation requireing more power than
the emulated system has. I can agree with that The percentage is up for debate
I was under the impression people where saying that a n64 was equivilant to a
graphics workstation or somehow compareable to a 15,000 dollar proccessor.
stig@thedump
On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 05:43:34 GMT, bri...@gte.net (Brian Williams)
wrote:
Anyone would think you guys WANTED to play N64 games. Have you ever
even PLAYED 'Pheonix' with Sparcade : )
Matt McDevitt
Very right. A DIMM doesn't "process" anything...it's only marginally
faster than a regular SIMM and what you really need for emulation is a
super CPU with approximately 100X the power of the target machine you plan
to emulate.
Matt McDevitt
mak...@ix.netcom.com
z...@nojunkmail.com wrote in article <3313D6...@nojunkmail.com>...
Brian W.
>i don't know the specs but all i can say is if it's so all powerfull how come
>my pc has better graphics ? and if it really is so powerful why don't they
>make a word proccessor for it and i can get rid of my pc.(as soon as they
>address the graphics resulution) btw my pc can do instantanious 3d in 1024x768
>the n64 is i believe at it's best 640x480.
Boy, you really didn't read my message before you replied to it, did
you? If you added all the PC extras, that I listed, to the N64, then
you could do Word Processing. But then again, you'd be paying PC
prices for it too.
As far as graphics. The PC doesn't have better graphics (ex
anti-alaising, etc.) It has higher resolution. Game consoles are made
to be played on TV's. 640x480 is about the highest resolution that a
TV can show. It wouldn't do any good to display 1024x768 on a TV,
that's why PC's have hi-res monitors. Try to display 1024x768 on a
15" monitor with a .60 dot pitch and you would probably be seeing what
a TV would look like at the same resolution.
Baron
>i don't know the specs but all i can say is if it's so all powerfull how come
>my pc has better graphics ? and if it really is so powerful why don't they
>make a word proccessor for it and i can get rid of my pc.(as soon as they
>address the graphics resulution) btw my pc can do instantanious 3d in 1024x768
>the n64 is i believe at it's best 640x480.
will realize that you TV is only capable of a resolution of 520 across
(or close to that) and about 400 down (about) (if you don't belive me
take a magnifying glass and look at you TV screen) You moniter can do
1024x768 which is almost 4x more pixels. If the N64 were to display
this it would be horrible on a TV, it would be like using a monitor
with a dot pitch of 1! (Not to mention that a monitor uses a color
triad and a TV uses black stripe) Nintendo wanted a to sell the
system to everyone in one box. How do you think sales would be if you
were required to by a $800 monitor as well as the $300 unit?
Finally - What kid wants to run a word processor?
PS - The N64 blows a desktop out of the water because it is DEDICATED
to playing games. To top it of it uses a RISC based cpu. About the
only thing that can top it would be a SGI Octane.
John Doggett
Michael Schuller (mi...@divafarm.com) wrote:
: There is a new kind of memory chip for the PC's that are supported by the
: the DIMM chip, opposed to SIMM's 32 bit processing power, the DIMM can
: process 64-bits. That, combined with a workstation that has an Alpha chip
: running at 600 MHz (Which costs about $15,000) it is quite possible to
: emulate the Nintendo64.
As it is, the only real difference between SIMMS and DIMMS as that 2 SIMMS
required to establish a 64 bit data bus, as opposed to 1 DIMM. Big deal.
If DIMMS have an advantage, it isn't bandwidth, not inherently, anyway.
--
-=John Doggett=->
John Doggett
: > The Mac does have a faster internal bus than a Pentium PC but it is
: > still only 32bit. THE N64 IS 64 BIT WITH A 500 MHZ BUS. There is no
: > pc out there with this kind of power........YET!
The last Power MAC I checked ran the bus at the slow speed of 40 MHz, and
the PCI bus at 20. Seemed pretty pathetic to me.
--
-=John Doggett=->
Kevin Krumwiede
Snake wrote:
> I agree there is no home computer with that kind of power, but N64 games
> can run on a SGI onyx system. I also believe ports of N64 games could be
> run on P5 systems if they were coded for cards that used the 3DFX Voodoo
> chipset
Possibly at a reduced level of detail or a lower frame rate... I don't
know if any existing games make full use of the hardware's capabilities,
but the N64's dual 64-bit RISC processors are supposedly able to render
300,000 texture-mapped polys at 60 FPS! No Intel chipset can even come
close to that, no matter what kind of graphics hardware it's wired to.
Mike Kamoudis
Matt McDevitt wrote:
>
> You have a good point, PCs are making progess.....and maybe by around, say,
> 2000 the total PC package will have enough spare power to emulate the N64.
>
And maybe even later....
I've been searching recently for some emulators for the PC and
run into a FAQ about emulations...Get this...
A PENTIUM PRO is not, repeat not, capable of emulating a PSX or getting
even close. With an accelerator though....
But the technology Intel promises will be expensive at first and even when
the price does drop the consoles will be progressed even more ( PSX 2 anyone ??? )
but the good thing is that the gap will be smaller at the worst...
Bottom line ...Buy a PC with a POWER VR2 and a N64 to appreciate the best games yet...!!!
Mike
Russ Williams
Ian Farquhar <ia...@sydney.sgi.com> wrote in article
<3310DA...@sydney.sgi.com>...
The trick is to not use JIT. You just code a static translator (recursively
'walk' through the code, translating and optimising) and convert to
native binary as the image is loaded in. Any calls to the machine's
firmware can be replaced with native function calls instead, etc. This way,
the optimisation can take as long as needed, and the overall result will be
faster.
> > Point well taken.. Take for example the SNES, the emulators that are
> > out now, do a good job of emulating this machine, but what is it
> > really? The SNES runs at what 3 mhz? The genesis what 7? And it takes
> > the power of a P-166 to do it justice, turn on full sound, and your
> > still not at the full speed of a real SNES! So emulating a N64 is VERY
> > much a dream...
>
> It is not the CPU emulation that is the difficult part. For example,
> a common Pentium could probably emulate a 6502 running at 50-100MHz
> or faster.
Well, given that most 6502 instructions have (apparently) similar versions
on the PC, and the 6502 only has 3 registers, speeds of 200-250 would seem
possible.
> Unfortunately for emulation writers, they also have to emulate
> the other hardware of the box, which even for the original 2600,
> was a lot of work. That's the hardest part, especially when
> timing becomes important, as it usually is in video games).
Agreed. A P133 could emulate the R3000 in a PSX. If the optimisation is up
to speed, then it may be possible on a P60 or 486. The problem is with the
geometry, graphics and sound processors all working in parallel...
And a high-end Pentium can beat the PSX on game speed/detail anyway, wheras
you'd need a 3d accelerator to reach the level of the N64.
---
Russ
Russ Williams
Kevin Krumwiede <cass...@mail.idt.net> wrote in article
<331A5F...@mail.idt.net>...
Uh huh. 300000 polys. Well, let's say you can do the FP matrix multiplies
and perspective divides in 200 clock cycles (should be possible in much
less, IIRC) on a PC. This equates to 48Mclocks. Given that these flloating
point values can then be passed to a 3dfx card, you can do this on a P60,
with 20% CPU time to spare. Or did you think 300Kpolys/sec means
300Kpolys/frame?
Note: that is just FP performance, with some (really) tricky scheduling,
you should be able to use both integer pipelines simultaneously with this.
In other words, you should be able to run translated MIPS code in the
integer pipes and run the FPU in parallel for N64 performance... on a
mid-range Pentium.
(Of course, it wouldn't be this simple, but I believe it should be roughly
possible on a well equipped PC).
---
Russ
Roy Daniel Wagner
Zophar wrote:
>I hate to tell you this but the N64 is more powerful than your PC.
It
>is set up to play games though. Your PC is a 32 bit machine, the
N64
>is 64bits.
Actually , yer wrong. "64 bit" is used in the N64 sense for the
VIDEO
CARD, the N64 uses a 64 video card, there is no such thing as 64
bit
machine....
Zophar
http://www.ziplink.net/~shadow5
your wrong the N64 contains a 64bit RISC processor. i think its the
R400 or something like that. correct the chip model please
Roy Daniel Wagner
Zophar wrote:
>I hate to tell you this but the N64 is more powerful than your PC.
It
>is set up to play games though. Your PC is a 32 bit machine, the
N64
>is 64bits.
Actually , yer wrong. "64 bit" is used in the N64 sense for the
VIDEO
CARD, the N64 uses a 64 video card, there is no such thing as 64 bit
machine....
Zophar
http://www.ziplink.net/~shadow5
your wrong the N64 contains a 64bit RISC processor and a 64bit graphics
processor
Jay Murphy
sha...@ziplink.net (Zophar) wrote:
>>I hate to tell you this but the N64 is more powerful than your PC. It
>>is set up to play games though. Your PC is a 32 bit machine, the N64
>>is 64bits.
>Actually , yer wrong. "64 bit" is used in the N64 sense for the VIDEO
>CARD, the N64 uses a 64 video card, there is no such thing as 64 bit
>machine....
>Zophar
>http://www.ziplink.net/~shadow5
actually there aRE 64 BIT MACHINES OUT THERE WITH 64 BIT SOFTWARE.
HAL 9000 by Sun is very powerful it's the next generation of
computers.
Silicon graphics is also working on one for release this fall
John Howard
Roy Daniel Wagner <lou...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<331E44...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Zophar wrote:
>
> >I hate to tell you this but the N64 is more powerful than your PC.
> It
> >is set up to play games though. Your PC is a 32 bit machine, the
> N64
> >is 64bits.
>
> Actually , yer wrong. "64 bit" is used in the N64 sense for the
> VIDEO
> CARD, the N64 uses a 64 video card, there is no such thing as 64
> bit
> machine....
> Zophar
> http://www.ziplink.net/~shadow5
>
> your wrong the N64 contains a 64bit RISC processor and a 64bit graphics
> processor
>
Ahem.
Have a look at http://www.rambus.com for the technical details on the N64's
memory architecture. You may be surprised to discover that it has an 8 bit
memory bus.
You may also be surprised to discover that this is the memory architecture
that Intel
is settleing on for the Pentium's successor.
cheers,
john
Hank Shiffman
In article <01bc2e66$07b251c0$9ef0efcc@jhoward>, "John Howard" <john_c....@studio.disney.com> writes:
>
>
> Roy Daniel Wagner <lou...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <331E44...@ix.netcom.com>...
> > Zophar wrote:
> >
> > >I hate to tell you this but the N64 is more powerful than your PC.
> > It
> > >is set up to play games though. Your PC is a 32 bit machine, the
> > N64
> > >is 64bits.
> >
> > Actually , yer wrong. "64 bit" is used in the N64 sense for the
> > VIDEO
> > CARD, the N64 uses a 64 video card, there is no such thing as 64
> > bit
> > machine....
> > Zophar
> > http://www.ziplink.net/~shadow5
> >
> > your wrong the N64 contains a 64bit RISC processor and a 64bit graphics
> > processor
> >
>
> Ahem.
>
> Have a look at http://www.rambus.com for the technical details on the N64's
> memory architecture. You may be surprised to discover that it has an 8 bit
> memory bus.
Would you mind providing a more specific URL? I found quite a bit of
information on the N64's memory architecture but didn't see anything
that indicated an 8-bit memory bus.
--
Hank Shiffman shif...@sgi.com
Developer Evangelist phone: 415-933-2330
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems fax: 415-969-6327
SGI internal: http://slappy.engr
External: http://reality.sgi.com/shiffman
Brian W.
>
>Have a look at http://www.rambus.com for the technical details on the N64's
>memory architecture. You may be surprised to discover that it has an 8 bit
>memory bus.
>You may also be surprised to discover that this is the memory architecture
>that Intel
>is settleing on for the Pentium's successor.
>
>cheers,
>
>john
>
>
Guess you also noticed that it is a 500Mhz bus too! Now you know why
Intel wants it.
Brian W.
On 5 Mar 1997 07:01:55 GMT, wind...@ferret.sa.enteract.com
(Windchaser) wrote:
>I can mathematically prove that the N64 can't render 300,000 polygons per frame... Quite simply, really.
>
>What's the maximum resolution of an N64, 640 x 480 or thereabouts?
>
>That's 307,200 pixels.
>
>In order for something to be a polygon, it has to have at least three points connected by lines.
>
>That restricts us to 102,400 polygons - each one three pixels in size, enclosing nothing at all - ie, a largish
>dot.
>
>
you seem to be missing the third dimention here.
Brian W.
On 3 Mar 1997 00:09:14 GMT, "Snake" <sn...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>I agree there is no home computer with that kind of power, but N64 games
>can run on a SGI onyx system. I also believe ports of N64 games could be
>run on P5 systems if they were coded for cards that used the 3DFX Voodoo
>chipset
>
Yeah, you're probably right! It would have to be a 400Mhz P5 though
running on a 500Mhz bus too.
Brian W.
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:14:29 GMT, sha...@ziplink.net (Zophar) wrote:
>>I hate to tell you this but the N64 is more powerful than your PC. It
>>is set up to play games though. Your PC is a 32 bit machine, the N64
>>is 64bits.
>
>Actually , yer wrong. "64 bit" is used in the N64 sense for the VIDEO
>CARD, the N64 uses a 64 video card, there is no such thing as 64 bit
>machine....
>Zophar
>http://www.ziplink.net/~shadow5
>
Ouch! What cave have you been hiding in? You didn't know there was a
64bit cpu out? That's what the N64 is.
Matt McDevitt
Hey DENSE HEAD....that's not what I said (I'm the originator of this post
by the way)
What I SAID was.....there's no way in hell we're going to get N64 emulators
anytime soon...and I still say it because it's a fact.
However, computers are very powerful and are getting better by the day.
3DFX chipsets and the like are increasing the 3D power of the PC to the
point you could port many N64 games to the PC. That's a PORT though, not
"real time translation of instructions", or emulation. Sure PC's might be
capable of N64 quality games, but that means we're 1 1/100 th of the way
there. You need at LEAST 100X as much power to be able to EMULATE a
system. If you don't believe this you aren't a programmer or haven't done
much with emulation.
--
Matt McDevitt
---->(mak...@ix.netcom.com)
To reply just remove the superfluous characters
from my address above.
Big Jim Slade
Brian W. <bri...@gte.net> wrote in article
Not really, the nintendo is only putting pixels to a 2D screen, sorting the
polygons, and rendering only those which intersect with the 2D display.
The nintendo may be capable of mathimatically modeling and sorting 300K+-
polygons a second, but the PPU can only display a maximum of 100K+-
polygons
on a 2D screen, so his statement would be correct.
-BJS
idkill4u
Brian W. (bri...@gte.net) wrote:
: On 3 Mar 1997 00:09:14 GMT, "Snake" <sn...@cloud9.net> wrote:
:
: >I agree there is no home computer with that kind of power, but N64 games
: >can run on a SGI onyx system. I also believe ports of N64 games could be
: >run on P5 systems if they were coded for cards that used the 3DFX Voodoo
: >chipset
:
: Yeah, you're probably right! It would have to be a 400Mhz P5 though
: running on a 500Mhz bus too.
I'll give you a tip: Instead of jerking off about your p5's, which suck anyhow
OPEN you eyes, and take a look at the 533MHz PowerMac.
All that is beside the point, not even some flashy PC accelerator could emulate
the N64. Not only does it use custom 3D chips, but it also has dedicated sound hardware
and a processor designed %100 for GAMING! dream on children..
Denis Leroy
Brian W. wrote:
>
> On 3 Mar 1997 00:09:14 GMT, "Snake" <sn...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>
> >I agree there is no home computer with that kind of power, but N64 games
> >can run on a SGI onyx system. I also believe ports of N64 games could be
> >run on P5 systems if they were coded for cards that used the 3DFX Voodoo
> >chipset
> >
>
> Yeah, you're probably right! It would have to be a 400Mhz P5 though
> running on a 500Mhz bus too.
Well the port to a 32 bits processor could be a problem, and it'll be a
while before you get a true 64 bits Intel (but that's another debate).
Anyways, since some people that posted on this thread seem
confused about the technical details of the N64, here are some
links of interest :
http://www.sgi.com/Headlines/1996/October/nintendo_sidebar.html
and more generally
http://www.mips.com/
-denis
Papa-Bear
Paul Louis
On 12 Mar 1997 23:53:55 GMT, ami...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au (idkill4u)
wrote:
>Brian W. (bri...@gte.net) wrote:
>: On 3 Mar 1997 00:09:14 GMT, "Snake" <sn...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>:
>: >I agree there is no home computer with that kind of power, but N64 games
>: >can run on a SGI onyx system. I also believe ports of N64 games could be
>: >run on P5 systems if they were coded for cards that used the 3DFX Voodoo
>: >chipset
>: >
>:
>: Yeah, you're probably right! It would have to be a 400Mhz P5 though
>: running on a 500Mhz bus too.
>
>
>I'll give you a tip: Instead of jerking off about your p5's, which suck anyhow
>OPEN you eyes, and take a look at the 533MHz PowerMac.
There goes the neighbourhood.
_________________________________________________________
Paul Louis - pa...@i8acorns.demon.co.uk
NB my reply to: adress is deliberatly wrong. Use the above address
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein
The role of education should be to teach something about
everything and everything about nothing.
Denis Leroy
Steve Snake wrote:
>
> Roy Daniel Wagner <lou...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <331E44...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
> >
> > your wrong the N64 contains a 64bit RISC processor and a 64bit
> > graphics processor
>
>
> The RSP/RDP (graphics stuff) is indeed 64 bit for the major part.
> The Processor, however, isn't. BITS of it are.
Well, the FPU is really the core of the processor (graphics code mostly
deal with floating point anyway), so it deserves to be called a 64 bits
machine. The 32 or 64 bit integers issue is mostly a question of whether
you want a 64 bits address space, which makes no sense at all
considering the market at which the 4300 is targeted.
> The instruction set isn't really designed for 64-bit operation. 64 bit
> registers are not accessible. The FPU (floating point unit) IS 64 bit,
> and is internal to the processor. This is where the confusion comes
> from. The actual CPU handles 32 bit data, has 32 bit instructions,
> and has an external 32 bit bus.
(hearing in the background) "Wow, dude, the instructions are ONLY 32
bits?"
This is funny, I've read this in other posts too. Just to make
things clear, the 32 or 64 bits issue is only relevant to the
data path. Most chips (including the ones called '64 bits') have
32 bits instructions, and the smaller they are the faster
the chip runs (as long as the decode logic remains simple enough).
> But all this is pretty irrelevant. ANY processor could emulate ANY
> OTHER processor - IF IT WAS FAST ENOUGH. The number of bits doesn't
> matter. Usually, the more bits, the faster it is. The processor in
> the N64 is EXTREMELY fast - and it is for THIS reason that it cannot
> be emulated at any workable speed.
Very true. I wonder at what clock speed I would need to run my old
Atari 800 6502 processor to make it emulate N64 code :-)
-denis
leroy @ mti.sgi.com
Jeremy
"Steve Snake" <sn...@toodarkpark.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Quantum Leaper <lea...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
><333194...@bigfoot.com>...
>> You can emulate any CPU with any other CPU, but can you make it
>> usable! In this case you could emulate a R(whatever in the N64) with a
>> 6502 cpu but it would be to slow to be worthwhile.
>Well, this is what I've been saying. People seem to think that because the
>R4300 in N64 is "64-Bit" you'd need a 64-Bit processor to emulate it.
>If there was a 6502 running at 1350Mhz you probably could emulate the damn
>thing.
>
Being able to emulate it isn't the problem....emulating it to run
smoothe in real time, is the problem. Heh...ever try optimizing code?
It's not too fun! :)
Steve Snake
Roy Daniel Wagner <lou...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<331E44...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Actually , yer wrong. "64 bit" is used in the N64 sense for the
> VIDEO
> CARD, the N64 uses a 64 video card, there is no such thing as 64
> bit
> machine....
> Zophar
> http://www.ziplink.net/~shadow5
>
> your wrong the N64 contains a 64bit RISC processor and a 64bit graphics
> processor
>
Sort of.
The RSP/RDP (graphics stuff) is indeed 64 bit for the major part.
The Processor, however, isn't. BITS of it are.
The instruction set isn't really designed for 64-bit operation. 64 bit
registers are not accessible. The FPU (floating point unit) IS 64 bit, and
is internal to the processor. This is where the confusion comes from. The
actual CPU handles 32 bit data, has 32 bit instructions, and has an
external 32 bit bus.
Denis Leroy
Steve Snake wrote:
>
> Jay Murphy <jaym...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> <5fv3au$o...@camel4.mindspring.com>...
>
> > actually there aRE 64 BIT MACHINES OUT THERE WITH 64 BIT SOFTWARE.
> >
> > HAL 9000 by Sun is very powerful it's the next generation of
> > computers.
> > Silicon graphics is also working on one for release this fall
> >
Hello ? The R4400 Indy has been around for years! (and yes, the R4400 is
what Steve would call a 'true' 64 bits CPU...).
Plus, SGI launched all the R10000 based machines a few months ago with
the 64 bits OS and memory architecture as well.
-denis
leroy @ cs.stanford.edu
Steve Snake
Jay Murphy <jaym...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<5fv3au$o...@camel4.mindspring.com>...
> actually there aRE 64 BIT MACHINES OUT THERE WITH 64 BIT SOFTWARE.
>
> HAL 9000 by Sun is very powerful it's the next generation of
> computers.
> Silicon graphics is also working on one for release this fall
>
So, they haven't already got one? Thank you for clearing that up.
N64 is NOT true 64-bit.
Steve Snake
idkill4u <ami...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in article
<5g7fmj$iqo$1...@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>...
> All that is beside the point, not even some flashy PC accelerator could
emulate
> the N64. Not only does it use custom 3D chips, but it also has dedicated
sound hardware
> and a processor designed %100 for GAMING! dream on children..
Voodoo Graphics = CUSTOM 3D CHIPS.
AWE32 = DEDICATED SOUND HARDWARE.
P5-200 outperforms the processor by roughly 4 times, even without MMX. N64
processor it is NOT 100% designed for gaming, and it's 'dedicated sound
hardware' doesn't amount to much.
But you still can't emulate it.
Steve Snake
Matt McDevitt <//mak...@ix.netcom.com\> wrote in article
<01bc2ea5$e5972260$7496d9ce@linna>...
> However, computers are very powerful and are getting better by the day.
> 3DFX chipsets and the like are increasing the 3D power of the PC to the
> point you could port many N64 games to the PC. That's a PORT though, not
> "real time translation of instructions", or emulation. Sure PC's might
be
> capable of N64 quality games, but that means we're 1 1/100 th of the way
> there. You need at LEAST 100X as much power to be able to EMULATE a
> system. If you don't believe this you aren't a programmer or haven't
done
> much with emulation.
Well said !
I personally believe that a P90 with Voodoo (Orchid Righteous 3D) easily
outperforms the N64. I've witnessed a full 3D world, with all the fancy
tricks a N64 can do, fully Z-buffered, with lots of HUGE 24-bit textures,
and in 640x480, running at 60fps on the damn thing. It's impressive. But
because we can't actually emulate an N64, these nerds just won't believe
us.
Steve Snake
Hank Shiffman <shif...@slappy.engr.sgi.com> wrote in article
<5g4nnq$e...@murrow.corp.sgi.com>...
>
> In article <01bc2e66$07b251c0$9ef0efcc@jhoward>, "John Howard"
<john_c....@studio.disney.com> writes:
> > Ahem.
> >
> > Have a look at http://www.rambus.com for the technical details on the
N64's
> > memory architecture. You may be surprised to discover that it has an 8
bit
> > memory bus.
>
> Would you mind providing a more specific URL? I found quite a bit of
> information on the N64's memory architecture but didn't see anything
> that indicated an 8-bit memory bus.
>
I remember reading this somewhere. Apparently, MMX does something similar.
Who cares ? Why do people KEEP using statements like 'N64 = 64-bit
processor' when they don't even know what it means ?
I don't give a toss if the memory bus is 1 bit, and the processor is 4 bit.
It doesn't matter. The undeniable fact is, the processor is at least 3
times faster than any processor in any other games console.
How it works isn't really an issue - but let's stick to the facts, guys.
Matt McDevitt
In article <01bc34ce$d90ac400$84b2...@toodarkpark.demon.co.uk>,
sn...@toodarkpark.demon.co.uk says...
To the rest of you, like the man said, a VERY HIGH END PC might be
equivalent or EVEN heaven forbid, 2X or 3X more powerful. But you're
only 1/33 rd of the way there you see, since the computer has to have
100X the power to be able to EMULATE the thing. So we're talking MUCH
faster processors that we won't see till, say, beyond 2000.
--
Matt McDevitt
__(mak...@ix.netcom.com)__
Superfluous characters require extraction from
above address if your objective is to respond by
electronic mail.
Paul Louis
>
>
>idkill4u <ami...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in article
><5g7fmj$iqo$1...@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>...
>
>> All that is beside the point, not even some flashy PC accelerator could
>emulate
>> the N64. Not only does it use custom 3D chips, but it also has dedicated
>sound hardware
>> and a processor designed %100 for GAMING! dream on children..
>
>Voodoo Graphics = CUSTOM 3D CHIPS.
>AWE32 = DEDICATED SOUND HARDWARE.
>P5-200 outperforms the processor by roughly 4 times, even without MMX. N64
>processor it is NOT 100% designed for gaming, and it's 'dedicated sound
>hardware' doesn't amount to much.
>
> But you still can't emulate it.
>
How long do you think until we see N64 quality games on the PC, then?
I don't think there's any yet (though I haven't seen POD).
Quantum Leaper
Steve Snake wrote:
>
> Denis Leroy <n...@spam.com> wrote in article <332F79...@spam.com>...
> >
> > Very true. I wonder at what clock speed I would need to run my old
> > Atari 800 6502 processor to make it emulate N64 code :-)
>
> you could do it. However, with reference to this point, it's nice to see
> Nintendo giving us a fast processor for a change - but this one is possibly
> TOO fast! It spends most of it's time waiting for the RSP/RDP to do their
> stuff with the display.
Steve Snake
Denis Leroy <n...@spam.com> wrote in article <332F79...@spam.com>...
>
> The FPU is really the core of the processor (graphics code mostly
> deal with floating point anyway), so it deserves to be called a 64 bits
> machine. The 32 or 64 bit integers issue is mostly a question of whether
> you want a 64 bits address space, which makes no sense at all
> considering the market at which the 4300 is targeted.
Huh? The RSP does all the graphics calculations, does it not? Why use the
FPU anyhow ?
As for the 32-bit integer stuff, I don't see what that has to do with
64-bit address space. I quite often need to do 64 bit ADDS, and the lack of
64 bit registers, or any flags, means this requires 4 instructions.
> Most chips (including the ones called '64 bits') have
> 32 bits instructions, and the smaller they are the faster
> the chip runs (as long as the decode logic remains simple enough).
I was referring to the fact that there are no instructions for accessing
the top 32 bits of a 64 bit register, and all the shifts etc. have a shift
count of 0-31. Not the size of the instructions themselves.
> > But all this is pretty irrelevant. ANY processor could emulate ANY
> > OTHER processor - IF IT WAS FAST ENOUGH. The number of bits doesn't
> > matter. Usually, the more bits, the faster it is. The processor in
> > the N64 is EXTREMELY fast - and it is for THIS reason that it cannot
> > be emulated at any workable speed.
>
> Very true. I wonder at what clock speed I would need to run my old
> Atari 800 6502 processor to make it emulate N64 code :-)
That's relatively amusing. I'm sure somebody would believe you if you said
you could do it. However, with reference to this point, it's nice to see
Nintendo giving us a fast processor for a change - but this one is possibly
TOO fast! It spends most of it's time waiting for the RSP/RDP to do their
stuff with the display.
I like the MIPS R-Series. It's a bit strange at first, but it's quite fun
to write for when you get the hang of it.
> -denis
> leroy @ mti.sgi.com
>
Paul Louis
On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 23:55:50 GMT, "Steve Snake"
<sn...@toodarkpark.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Paul Louis <Pa...@i8acorns.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><333167a2...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>> How long do you think until we see N64 quality games on the PC, then?
>> I don't think there's any yet (though I haven't seen POD).
>
>Well, the Voodoo Graphics stuff is pretty easy to write for (LOVELY library
>routines!), so provided more and more people start buying the cards, more
>and more software developers will start supporting it. There is a
>screen-shot POD at http://www.3dfx.com/game_dev - go take a look.
I've seen screen shots but, to be honest, what a game looks like in
motion and close up is more important than stills nowadays
Steve Snake
Quantum Leaper <lea...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
<333194...@bigfoot.com>...
> You can emulate any CPU with any other CPU, but can you make it
> usable! In this case you could emulate a R(whatever in the N64) with a
> 6502 cpu but it would be to slow to be worthwhile.
Well, this is what I've been saying. People seem to think that because the
Steve Snake
Paul Louis <Pa...@i8acorns.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<3332cae2...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> I've seen screen shots but, to be honest, what a game looks like in
> motion and close up is more important than stills nowadays
True.
Maybe you can find a store that will give you a demo of the Orchid
Righteous 3D - some of the demos for it are AMAZING.
Steve Snake
Jeremy <jdf...@psu.edu> wrote in article <5gsr0a$q...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>...
> Being able to emulate it isn't the problem....emulating it to run
> smoothe in real time, is the problem. Heh...ever try optimizing code?
> It's not too fun! :)
Yes, I do it every day - for a living.
Did you actually read the previous thread ?
bud...@aol.com
N64 is also 64 bit.
That said, I haven't been terribly impressed with it's games. Sure it
beats the crap out of the other consoles, but PCs do allot better(and
cost 5 times more). I don't see why all these games consoles are so
underdesigned. I mean, only 3.5 megs of ram in the Sony PSX, that is
pitifull. Sure, you ought to be able to do with so little ram to make
your game run, but good models, textures, and sounds require more than
that, no matter effecient you are in your usage.
weltz
> I don't see why all these games consoles are so
> underdesigned. I mean, only 3.5 megs of ram in the Sony PSX, that is
> pitifull. Sure, you ought to be able to do with so little ram to make
> your game run, but good models, textures, and sounds require more than
> that, no matter effecient you are in your usage.
game consoles don't need so much ram for a couple reasons. typically,
their operating systems are tiny and no where near as bloated as mac os or
windows 95. game console operating systems sypically can fit onto a 256k
chip, are require much less than 256k of ram to operate. also, less ram is
needed to process sounds and models because game consoles employ so many
different chips. with big chips to process sound, 3d data, special
effects, and graphics, the cpu is not very burdened and has less to keep
track of. as far as efficiency is concerned, midi-like systems are often
used for the sound. this isn't a problem because game consoles have
uniform hardware, unlike pc's where one computer may have an inferior sound
driver than another. also, to make shapes look nicer, 3d models can be
textured to look more shaded, that is, they appear to be smoother than they
are.
cl8n4t
we...@geocities.com
Josiah J Fizer
In article <333C8F...@aol.com>, bud...@aol.com says...
>SGI does have a 64bit chip(as in all of them, well most anyway), and the
>N64 is also 64 bit.
>
>That said, I haven't been terribly impressed with it's games. Sure it
>beats the crap out of the other consoles, but PCs do allot better(and
>underdesigned. I mean, only 3.5 megs of ram in the Sony PSX, that is
>pitifull. Sure, you ought to be able to do with so little ram to make
>your game run, but good models, textures, and sounds require more than
>that, no matter effecient you are in your usage.
The N64 uses the R3000 Mips RISC chip, which is in fact 32bit. The Graphics
chip and GE are both 64 bit.
Hank Shiffman
Why do people insist on demonstrating their ignorance by posting
inaccurate information and their arrogance and stupidity by correcting
others who have their facts *right*?
The N64 uses a MIPS R4300, which is a 64 bit chip. The R3000, a much
earlier 32 bit design, is used in the Sony Playstation.
--
Hank Shiffman shif...@sgi.com
Strategic Technologist phone: 415-933-2330
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems fax: 415-969-6327
SGI internal: http://slappy.engr
External: http://reality.sgi.com/shiffman
Thraxarious Hai Draco
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 18:33:49 -0800, Denis Leroy <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>Steve Snake wrote:
>>
>> Jay Murphy <jaym...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
>> <5fv3au$o...@camel4.mindspring.com>...
>>
>> > actually there aRE 64 BIT MACHINES OUT THERE WITH 64 BIT SOFTWARE.
>> >
>> > HAL 9000 by Sun is very powerful it's the next generation of
>> > computers.
>> > Silicon graphics is also working on one for release this fall
>> >
>> So, they haven't already got one? Thank you for clearing that up.
>
>Hello ? The R4400 Indy has been around for years! (and yes, the R4400 is
>what Steve would call a 'true' 64 bits CPU...).
>
>Plus, SGI launched all the R10000 based machines a few months ago with
>the 64 bits OS and memory architecture as well.
>
>-denis
>leroy @ cs.stanford.edu
Small Question, but who would want to use a half million dollar
Computer to play a $60 game from a $200 system?
I am a Computer Engineer where I work and I have to justify purchases,
I'd rather spend the money buying the system and having a 100%
compatible system than to spend almost as much money in time looking
for it and hunting down a so-so emmulator. It all depends on what you
want to spend, time, effort, money?
BTW: Add HP and SCO to that list, both are currently (last time I
checked which may be off since its been a while) working on their
64-Bit Unix and machines(in HP's case)
PPS: you don't need a 64 Bit CPU to play a 64 Bit game, just speed in
your emmulator.(okay, speed enough to OD and fall dead)
Steve Snake
Hank Shiffman <shif...@slappy.engr.sgi.com> wrote in article
<5hoq0e$a...@murrow.corp.sgi.com>...
>
> > The N64 uses the R3000 Mips RISC chip, which is in fact 32bit. The
Graphics
> > chip and GE are both 64 bit.
>
> Why do people insist on demonstrating their ignorance by posting
> inaccurate information and their arrogance and stupidity by correcting
> others who have their facts *right*?
>
> The N64 uses a MIPS R4300, which is a 64 bit chip. The R3000, a much
> earlier 32 bit design, is used in the Sony Playstation.
The N64 does indeed use a MIPS R4300. But calling it 64 bit is like calling
the 65816 in the SNES 16 bit.
The R4300 instruction set has NO instructions to support 64-bit data. It
has a 32 bit data bus (and address bus, but that's irrelevant.) It has 32
bit registers. It IS 32 bit.
And before you go on about it's 64 bit bus - you will find that's only for
communication between RAM and the FPU, which is pretty useless as the N64
hardware does calculations for you, and the FPU is not required.
The REAL point here is that N64's R4300 is FAST - running at over 90Mhz. At
that speed, who needs 64 bits?
Steve Snake
Thraxarious Hai Draco <Thr...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<3340679e...@news.earthlink.net>...
> you don't need a 64 Bit CPU to play a 64 Bit game, just speed in
> your emmulator.(okay, speed enough to OD and fall dead)
Exactly. It's sad that if Nintendo say "our machine is 64 bit" everyone
automatically assumes it's better than any 32 bit machine.
Not so.
And anyway, as I've pointed out before, it ISN'T 64 bit.
Eric Wells
why does this msg talk about a N64 emulator in the title when it says
nothing about a N64 emulator?!? by the way, does anybody know of a good
snes emulator?
Steve Snake <sn...@toodarkpark.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bc422d$28405ec0$84b2...@toodarkpark.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
> Hank Shiffman <shif...@slappy.engr.sgi.com> wrote in article
> <5hoq0e$a...@murrow.corp.sgi.com>...
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Thomas Hallock
In article <01bc42b7$0cdd2840$c4312ccf@default>, "Eric Wells"
<e...@geocities.com> wrote:
> > The REAL point here is that N64's R4300 is FAST - running at over 90Mhz.
> At
> > that speed, who needs 64 bits?
> >
the bigger the number, the bigger the hype the companies can put out for
their machines ;)
Steve Snake
Thomas Hallock <c.ha...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in article
<c.hallock-ya023680...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu>...
> > The REAL point here is that N64's R4300 is FAST - running at over
90Mhz.
> > At
> > that speed, who needs 64 bits?
>
> the bigger the number, the bigger the hype the companies can put out for
> their machines ;)
Unfortunately thats the way it seems to be working. The general public
doesn't even understand what 64-bit means. They just assume it must be
better than 32-bit. For all they know, the N64 might have a 64-bit
processor running at 4Mhz.
But Sega don't lie. Sony don't lie. Nintendo never play fair.
z...@nojunkmail.com
>
> Unfortunately thats the way it seems to be working. The general public
> doesn't even understand what 64-bit means. They just assume it must be
> better than 32-bit. For all they know, the N64 might have a 64-bit
> processor running at 4Mhz.
>
> But Sega don't lie. Sony don't lie. Nintendo never play fair.
>
>
Don't forget Atari's Jaguar... 64 bits.. not! Didn't stop them from
saying it.
Steve Snake
z...@nojunkmail.com wrote in article <334F34...@nojunkmail.com>...
Yep. They added the number of bits of all chips together and came out with
64 bit.
But then, Atari never fooled anyone. Nintendo seem to get away with it.
