How did graphics advance so much with NO increase in bit? Why can't Nintendo 64 games look like the right image?
>>11392983it doesn't have enough blast processing
Bits have to do with how much memory the cpu can address/access. Despite using 64 bit processors for decades we are a long way off from hitting their limits:>8bit max 256 bytes>16bit max 64k>32 bit max 4GB>64 bit max is 16TBN64 an PS5 both use 64 bit processors so bits have become meaningless for the past few decades in console marketing. Gpus and number of cores are more meaningful now than a raw bitcount.There were tricks on older hardware to let them use more memory (like the snes used 128k vs 64k on genesis) and 8 bit hardware used bank switching to get access to more as well.
Why didn't the PDP-10, a 36 bit system, have better graphics than the Neo-Geo, a mere 32 bit system?
>>11393079Why didn't the XBOX, the largest of all the consoles, not eat the others?
>>11393081it wasn't hongry
https://youtu.be/W5g33W0Zafs
>>11392983sovl vs sovless
>>11393104comparing the sovl of an apple to the sovl of an orange is pretty dumb tbdesu
>>11393105oranges have no soul
>>11392983get with the times gramps it's a teraflop war now
>>11393067> >64 bit max is 16TBThat's 44 bits. A full 64 bit address space would be 16 exabytes—i.e. a million times more than what you listed
>>11393145Correcrt my bad. I was thinking pracrical limits for more reasonable sized address lanes. The upper limit really is insane.
>>11393067so was the leap to 64 bit completely pointless at that time then? I don't see how a cpu of the time could even utilize 4gb.
>>11393494The point of 64 bits back then wasn't about being able to do large calculations, but rather about being able to do small calculations faster.
>>11392983N64 rarely used 64-bit operations because they were slower than 32-bit counterparts.
