Comment on Why the Atari 2600 was breakthrough technology
who@feddit.org 1 week ago
What’s impressive to me is how much more was done by later machines, like the Commodore 64, using almost the same CPU as the one in the Atari 2600.
Comment on Why the Atari 2600 was breakthrough technology
who@feddit.org 1 week ago
What’s impressive to me is how much more was done by later machines, like the Commodore 64, using almost the same CPU as the one in the Atari 2600.
Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 1 week ago
Well, sure, but the C64 had 512 times more RAM(!), plus the VIC-II chip for graphics and the SID for audio. The TIA chip in the Atari was a joke in comparison. The CPU just isn’t that important. It only needs to run some game logic. It’s the graphics and sound that matter for games. The NES and SNES had very similar CPUs[^1], too, but the graphics and sound chips are what made the SNES blow away the NES.
[^1]: Same instruction set, but 16-bit and clocked twice as fast, plus a few more features.