Atari vs C64 // was: 8-Bit Computer Poll

[Opa-Opa]

I have. waiting for your pathetic ass ugly speccy shots that can do better:

Why do you keep going on about Donkeys on a gaming forum..?

[gury]

I have proved several times that the c64 had better graphics.
The sid sounds better. (give it a try http://sid.oth4.com/?search=dane)
The cpu was the same. Your speed advantage melts as soon as it comes to games and displaying sprites.

what else do you need to confess?

You again make false information. C64 surely has better graphics when we talk about resolution / color ratio. SID is better, but POKEY is good too. You talk NONSENSE about sprite speed slowdown. Sprite movement is lighting fast, if routines for Y-position are written in assembly! Why it is so important that C64 is better than Atari 8-bit? Fact... it's not.

stock Atari has better:
BASIC
disk drive speed
256 colors (shades can't be beat)
POKEY's 4 voices (we can form 2 16-bit sound)
DL makes mixing gr and text modes easy

Slowdowns in using sprites emerge only if software sprites are used, but in most cases, hardware is used.

[gury]

Ow, and when it comes to vector type games... Atari makes C64 inferior: Ballblazer, Rescue On Fractalus...

The Star Raiders game got honured. The game ahead of the time in 1979, on Atari 8-bit.

[neuromancer]

Ow, and when it comes to vector type games... Atari makes C64 inferior: Ballblazer, Rescue On Fractalus...

The Star Raiders game got honured. The game ahead of the time in 1979, on Atari 8-bit.

does anyone want to make a comparison between C64 and Atari Mercenary from Novagen... (I haven't done this myself, I only know that Atari version)

[gury]

I heard Atari version of Mercenary runs faster, which I believe it's true. And there is Alternate Reality, for which they say, Atari 8-bit version is one of the best if not the best.

[neuromancer]

I heard Atari version of Mercenary runs faster, which I believe it's true. And there is Alternate Reality, for which they say, Atari 8-bit version is one of the best if not the best.

Without running a direct comparison I don't know, but given that it's a vector game and cpu power will count most here (rather than mainly 2d graphics hardware) I'd guess that the Atari version would win out.

In much the same way the spectrum version of elite works brilliantly because the 3.5mhz Zilog z80 handles the vector computations very well, despite the machine having to do without dedicated graphics hardware (akin to the Antic or Vic-ii for example)

[RetroRik]

Please correct me if i am wrong cus usually i am in regards to the cost...

48k ZX Spectrum cost at launch £125
Commodore 64 cost at launch £229

Wouldn't you kind of expect to get much more power for your money in the C64.?

However for the price i think the Speccy does a great job.

Wasn't the Atari 800/1200xl range 2 years later so not sure i can compare them to the earlier ones.

But as i said before i like them all. Not equally as the Speccy was my first love but i have respect for them all.

I stand corrected if i am way off.

Regards

RIK

[oswald]

I heard Atari version of Mercenary runs faster, which I believe it's true. And there is Alternate Reality, for which they say, Atari 8-bit version is one of the best if not the best.

Without running a direct comparison I don't know, but given that it's a vector game and cpu power will count most here (rather than mainly 2d graphics hardware) I'd guess that the Atari version would win out.

In much the same way the spectrum version of elite works brilliantly because the 3.5mhz Zilog z80 handles the vector computations very well, despite the machine having to do without dedicated graphics hardware (akin to the Antic or Vic-ii for example)

be it antic / vic / cpc / ula does not make a difference when it comes to brute force screen drawings (any wireframe / filledvector stuff). on c64 even shifting or clearing a fullscreen bitmap with the cpu is painfully slow.

the speccy is several times faster then the c64 in terms of sheer cpu power. There are speccy demos which display texturemapped objects in an 'okayish' speed - even their 4x4 mode is drawn up by the cpu on a bitmap, while c64 texturemapping is unbearably slow even in hardware (tricked) 4x4 modes (where one byte needs to be modded to modify 2 4x4 pixel, while the speccy has to change 4 bytes to do the same).

ula is as much a dedicated graphics hardware as is antic or vic. one is slightly more advanced than the other.

[oswald]

Please correct me if i am wrong cus usually i am in regards to the cost...

48k ZX Spectrum cost at launch £125
Commodore 64 cost at launch £229

Wouldn't you kind of expect to get much more power for your money in the C64.?

However for the price i think the Speccy does a great job.

Wasn't the Atari 800/1200xl range 2 years later so not sure i can compare them to the earlier ones.

But as i said before i like them all. Not equally as the Speccy was my first love but i have respect for them all.

I stand corrected if i am way off.

Regards

RIK

here is what set the price of the c64, and who were the real competitors:

In the United States the greatest competitors to the C64 were the Atari 8-bit 400 and 800, the IBM PC and the Apple II. The Atari 400 and 800 were very similar in hardware terms, but it was very expensive to build, which forced Atari to redesign their machine to be more cost effective. This resulted in the 600XL/800XL line and the transfer of their production to the Far East. The IBM PC and the latest in the aging Apple II line both had higher resolution graphics modes[5][6] than the C64, but due to poor color support they were rarely used, so in practice the C64's 16-color (4-bit) graphics and sound abilities outmatched them at the time of its release. But the PC and Apple II were very expandable with their internal expansion slots, a feature lacking in the 64.

All four machines had similar standard memory configurations in the years 1982/83: 48K for the Apple II+[7] (upgraded within months of C64's release to 64K with the Apple IIe)[8]; 64K for the IBM PC[9]; and 48K for the Atari 800[10]. At upwards of US$1,200,[11][12] the IBM PC and Apple II were more than twice as expensive, while the Atari 800 cost $899. One key to the C64's success was Commodore's aggressive marketing tactics, and they were quick to exploit the relative price/performance divisions between its competitors with a series of television commercials after the C64's launch in late 1982.[13]

that means the c64 was more than $300 dollar cheaper than the atari. So start nagging the atari fellas for being pricey, thx in the speccy you had no sound no usable graphics no sprites less ram no nothing. with the c64 you got like 4 custom chips. fair now ?

btw just found this:

The original ZX Spectrum is remembered for its rubber keyboard and diminutive size. It was originally released in 1982 with 16 KiB of RAM for £125 Sterling or with 48 KiB for £175

so c64 for 229 and 48k speccy for 175, with no sound, much worse gfx, no cia timers, no sprites, less ram.

I am shocked ppl bought speccys at all

[OriginalJax]

Nice post, oswald.

I think there's a definite divide here amongst UK folks and non-UK folks. For sure the Atari machines were closer to C64 than the Spectrum, but the Spectrum sold in droves in the UK, almost certainly driven by the price.

I expect the real international wars started with the 16-bit round of hardware, with (again) Commodore and Atari taking centre-stage...

O-Jax

[RetroRik]

Heres a story for ya... Just for shits and giggles.. But i swear it is a true story.

I live in Corby where the Commodore factory used to be.

We had a school trip to this factory one day.
Whilst i was there one of the workers with butter fingers dropped a commodore 64 onto the floor and then without even thinking about it or checking it for breakages he just put it back onto the conveyor belt and off it went.

I remember thinking..God, wouldn't want to be the person that buys that one.

Also to one side there was a pile of Commodore RF cables.
Somebody in our group asked what that was all about and the response was... They break alot and they are replacements.

Not even one year later the Commodore factory closed.

Lets turn this discussion into a brainiac type of test.

Lets drop a ZX Spectrum and a C64 from 3 metres and see which one still works..

Regards

RIK

[Matt_B]

Here are a few random pieces of Spectrum artwork. There are plenty more to be found at Demotopia







I guess things are always going to be a little subjective when it comes to artwork, but with similar pixel densities and palette sizes, there's not really a huge amount in it between the Spectrum and C64. You're just a little bit less restricted by colour clash on the latter, although by no means free of it entirely.

[neuromancer]

Lets turn this discussion into a brainiac type of test.

Lets drop a ZX Spectrum and a C64 from 3 metres and see which one still works..

RIK

Great idea - can someone organise this and post an avi of it!

[neuromancer]

Here are a few random pieces of Spectrum artwork. There are plenty more to be found at Demotopia

I guess things are always going to be a little subjective when it comes to artwork, but with similar pixel densities and palette sizes, there's not really a huge amount in it between the Spectrum and C64. You're just a little bit less restricted by colour clash on the latter, although by no means free of it entirely.

Some of the speccy loading screens were very impressive - I always loved SpyHunter (even if the game wouldn't load reliably)

[Opa-Opa]

Lets turn this discussion into a brainiac type of test.

Lets drop a ZX Spectrum and a C64 from 3 metres and see which one still works..

RIK

Great idea - can someone organise this and post an avi of it!

Erm.. This is a no brainer... Spectrum 48k rubber keyboard with its slimline black case or a CBM64 bloody great lump of brittle plastic with a keyboard that comprises of moving parts... I know which one my moneys on