C64 vs. Atari 800XL - 8 games from 1983

Hello and welcome to the first episode of Commodore 64 versus Atari 800XL games.
This video was requested in the comments by the viewer, and it's an interesting "battle between the two machines" indeed.
So, 8 games released in 1983 are shown running on both machines so you can see how different (or similar) they were.
Thanks for watching and let me know in the comments section below who "wins".
And, of course, see you in the next RetroNoName episode

[@arcadely]

Looking at these games I think a lot of the differences in quality are more of an indication of the skill and effort put in by the programmers than any indication of the machines' relative capabilities. Like, the 800XL version of Moon Patrol trashes the C64 version on every front, but there's no reason that had to be the case: the C64 is definitely more than capable of a great version of Moon Patrol as well, but it's clear that a lot less effort went into its port.

[@Ozymandias1]

Q*Bert looks better on the Commodore than on the Atari.

[@davidcox1508]

Agreed. If I remember correctly, "Moon Patrol" was actually written and distributed by AtariSoft for the C64, Apple II, and IBM PC. However, "Donkey Kong" was a Nintendo release, though I can't say if it was actually done by them or someone else. The Atari version is truer to the arcade version.

[@lazarushernandez5827]

I don't know that less effort was put into the C64 Moon Patrol port, it looks closer to the arcade original than the Atari 800 version does, but the Atari port seemed to go for the playability, back then you were lucky if the game resembled the original source, many instead focused on bringing the gameplay home. Atari had the license to make Donkey Kong on computer platforms back then (with Coleco having the console license), the first Donkey Kong port for the C64 would have come from AtariSoft.

[@mal-avcisi9783]

C64 is so much better gaming experience. Commodore always won the race. Later with the glorious Amiga 500 which killed the Atari st.

[@PeBoVision]

While I agree that Atarisoft was not known for putting time or effort into their 3rd-party releases (C-64 Moon Patrol being one of them - and none is worse than the TI-99 Pole Position, also from Atarisoft.) IT should be noted that Atarisoft coders were contract workers who were often unfamiliar with the hardware they were coding for, and since Atarisoft was doing end-runs around Licensing on these systems, programmers were on their own to figure it out. ("Just get the game done by Monday")) But to say that the C64 is "definitely more capable" is not at all true. For technology that is 5 years older than the C-64, the Atari 800 is no less capable at reproducing convincing arcade ports than the C-64. They each have their strengths and weaknesses to land pretty close with the end results. This series demonstrates that.

[@bitset3741]

In '83 the C64 was just getting games, so tough comparison at this point. Overall however, the Atari and C64 were very evenly matched. The Atari had a little more limited Player/Missile graphics - 4 big sprites, 4 small, but had more CPU time available to multiplex them, while C64 had 8. Pokey is also a little more limited, but again, a little more CPU time to throw at it and an additional voice. You also had to be careful making music because it had a harmonic resolution of 8 bits while Sid was higher. Sid had filters, but Pokey had polynomial noise counters that sounded really cool. It is a really fun comparison for me and others though since I have owned both for decades. My first computers were Atari 400, 800xl and 800 then I got into C64. Now I have a 65XE and a couple C64's.

[@BryonLape]

Ah...the old 8-bit era that felt like it would never end, but then was suddenly gone.

[@mervynstent1578]

Atari 800 designed by the father of the Amiga Jay Miner

[@markrotondella4689]

plus the Atari 2600, Atari ST and Lynx he really should be much better known for his contribution to modern computing

[@peterscottodonnell7290]

Very true 👍

[@Soundtrackspecialist]

Not the Atari ST. Designed by ex-Commodore engineers. 2600 is. Lynx only in terms of lineage.

[@becomeanolive1637]

Battle Through Time was a good clone

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@markrotondella4689 why?

[@markholle3450]

I loved my Commodore 64 back in the day. The difference in speed made the Atari a better gaming machine when you needed some frenetic action.

[@ngiants2230]

I prefer the Atari graphics and sound. Just listen to Moon Patrol and you can tell it sounds much more like the arcade original. I think each honestly had its own strengths and weaknesses. In the end, it really comes down to the programmers and how they utilize the hardware. Witness the newer versions of Pac-man for the Atari 2600/vcs. As we all know the original was nowhere near the arcade version at the time of release, now if you search online you will find new versions that more closely resemble the arcade original still using the same hardware. In the immortal words of Geoffrey the Giraffe..."I Don't Want to Grow Up.....!" (Remember that???)

[@Hermetis]

Interesting you used Moon Patrol. I think the C64 version looks far superior except for the background parallax and mountain graphics. The C64 music is better, the vehicle doesn't look completely unrecognizable - and there are multicolored enemies. I agree the programmer makes all the difference vs. the system. Except the SID chip is superior sounding IMO.

[@thereallemac]

Atari 800 itself was way ahead of it's time but was just way too expensive. It had better graphics and sound at a time when average computer had 4 to 8 colors and beepers for sound. The 800 was associated with the brilliant construction of the machine but that added to the cost.

[@rbrtck]

All that heavy shielding was deemed necessary for FCC approval at the time because Atari decided to build the RF modulator into the computer itself. Apple and Commodore (with the VIC-20) avoided this by making the RF modulator an add-on option. The 800's chip design was brilliant in some ways, certainly, and I personally love its external design, so that was brilliant, too, but that heavy and unnecessary chunk of metal shielding inside was anything but brilliant, it was a costly mistake (in more than one way) that didn't make the computer itself any better. By the way, a few years later the FCC relaxed their rules on RF interference, which was why Commodore was able to build an internal RF modulator into the C64 without massive shielding, but like I pointed out, the VIC-20 and Apple II didn't need the shielding, either, because their RF modulators were add-on accessories. Apple did it first, so this workaround/loophole was a known thing, but Atari decided to build more expensive than necessary computers anyway. Some people use the FCC's old rules as an excuse, but there really was no excuse. This is not to take anything away from the A8 as the awesome 8-bit computer that it is, but it's my perspective, for what it's worth. Was that heavy shielding really expensive, though? The original VCS/2600 "heavy sixer" design needed heavy shielding, too, and it wasn't so costly. 🤔

[@lazarushernandez5827]

@@rbrtck Don't forget that compared to the Apple II that preceded it, the Atari 800 was a bargain. It cost less, had better graphic, color and sound capabilities, that built in RF modulator allowed it to be connected directly to a TV right out of the box (saving the cost of a monitor) and it's software media were Disks, Cassettes and Cartridges. Atari was just caught at the wrong time with the FCC. As you stated, by the time of the C64 and 800XL the FCC laxed the regulations.

[@Edgel-in6bs]

Great video!! More like this please

[@retrononame]

Thank you! 1984 comparison of the two machines coming soon ;)

[@DTM-Books]

It’s interesting to note that the C64 came with 64k memory, while the Atari 8-bit line ranged from 16k to 48k to 64k. Most of these 1980s arcade games were released on cartridge for the low-end Atari 400, while their Commodore cousins will have more memory available to better recreate the coin-ops.

[@Peter-MH]

Atari 800XL looks amazing for 1983! Never even heard of it!

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

The atari 8bit architecture and custom chips date back to 1979. The guys who designed Amiga (Jay Miner's team) were the creators of the Atari 8bit line.

[@timecapsule5604]

Not even close some games on the 800xl are more colorful and some can sound better but at least 80% maybe higher of the C64 are much better look at Ms. PacMan probably one of the best non arcade versions available even better than sega genesis since it's full screen the only thing is that these games on c64 are made for 4:3 tvs not vertical screens so that why the difference there but I'm 53 my friend had the Atari 800xl I had the C64 and he agreed with me the games are better and just for the sid chip sound alone it's better yrs there are a few games better but they are few and far between

[@woltzwurld6760]

It’s funny, when I was a kid in the 80’s, I could not comprehend living in the 40’s. I imagine the thinking of kids watching this video. However, these were surprising fun games to play.

[@static-san]

C64 games kind of had a few generations by how well they used the SID. Earliest games were like these and mostly only had effects. The most advanced sound programming some years later had figured out ow to multiplex sounds, so you got complex music *and* sound effects.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

The same is also true for the Pokey. Tunes and SFX took advantage of Pokey's High Pass filter (saw-tooth wave sound) only after the commercial "death" of the system.

[@CBM64]

it's interesting how versatile the SID chip really is. it can perfectly replicate the sound/music from the Atari 8-bit, NES and MSX which has been demonstrated in later years.

[@NickSBailey]

"it can perfectly replicate the sound/music from the Atari 8-bit", it really can't they have their own characteristics the C64 can't reproduce the tight rapid timing and (sometimes overly) bright sound of the Pokey and many of the techniques that require faster CPU speed to get

[@buffalodebill7986]

I had the Atari 800 XL and was fond of it - and so were my friends; but when I was visiting them, in return, we played together tons of C64 and ZX Spectrum games as well and didn't really care about the platform. Yes, there was a certain wow factor, possible as a result of the innocence, which tends to stem from childhood.. If I were to pick today, I'd probably go with the Atari 800 XL again (for a couple of non-nostalgia-based tech reasons), but I'd lie saying something else other than that I would once again be happy and thrilled to sit down with my buddies and pass on the joystick while trying to beat Commando on C64 or switch the seat in front of the ZX Spectrum while trying to win a round of Ironman Off-Road.. And I think I don't have to mention all the Karate World Championships, Starquakes and similar on-all-platforms legends, which, having played them with my friends, became 'sweet memories, pressed between the pages of my mind..' 🙂

[@b213videoz]

Ever since I was 8 I've been in love with Atari 800 XE (yes, XE not XL) - after having played River Raid for 15 minutes 😊 ...finally ladt year I got it as a birthday present (just 32 years too late)

[@jimechols4347]

You like Elvis songs too huh!

[@buffalodebill7986]

@@jimechols4347 Indeed, sweetened through the ages, just like wine - sweet memories 🙂

[@buffalodebill7986]

@@b213videoz Hey Andy, I heard & read about the 800 XE even back in the day, but I have never seen one live.. Good to know someone did have this experience 🙂

[@dm8dd]

my dad came back from tottenham court rd with a 800xl in the 1980s, was a bit weary at first and a little jealous of my c64 pals due to availability of games for the c64. however, i was a demigod when compared to my speccy pals. Some v good ports on the platform that leave the c64 for dust

[@CarsandCats]

I owned both. In fact, owned VIC-20, C-64, 800, 800XL, 130XE. In my opinion Atari graphics were better while Commodore audio was better. Atari had a far better disk operating system as well. Later moved onto 1040ST and Amiga 500 at the same time. Amiga was superior in every way.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

People still think that audio on the C64 was better. Most ignore the ASMA project and the huge number of tracks one can find in that collection, plus the points Jay Miner made some important remarks about PCM vs Synth chips. SID was the best synth chip ever used on an 8bit computer, but it was a dead end. Paula, based on many of Pokey's specs showed the future of sound in the industry.

[@carlacespede3489]

Gracias.....lindos recuerdos que vuelven sin perder detalles!

[@erkl797]

I have and love all these games! I love the differences. We win

[@coffeecuparcade]

The Atari 800 XL would shock most people if they sat down and played one for an hour. Try comparing Space Harrier Black on the 800 XL to the C64 version of Space Harrier from Sega ;)

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

or Pang, or Yoomp, or Stunt car racer, or Total eclipse, or Fractalus etc etc . I am sure that programmers can do an equally good job(or even better in some cases) on the C64 but the point is that during the '70s, Jay Miner designed and showed the rest of the industry that custom co-processors is the way to go.

[@coffeecuparcade]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 It's an amazing computer

[@AE-bm4no]

If anyone is curious, there are 3 versions of Donkey Kong on the c64. One by atarisoft, ocean, and a 2010 version which is considered the best. By Onyx

[@NintenloupWolfFR]

But 2010 isn't 1983 !

[@Foebane72]

I don't care, A E.

[@AE-bm4no]

@@Foebane72 thanks for sharing.

[@AE-bm4no]

@@NintenloupWolfFR but the 2010 version is better than the 1980 ports.

[@NintenloupWolfFR]

@@AE-bm4no not the point of the video.

[@klaushoschi2143]

As a kid, I liked the 800xl much ore than the C64, and I still do. I changed to the c64, though, after a short while, coz way more people had it and I felt a bit loneley with my 800XL. :-(

[@GTRDRIVER1]

That's exact what happened to me...... Great machine bun I was the only one in the willage and there was no internet no fido net nothing...

[@robertdulany6811]

Yeah, I had an Atari 400, but later upgraded to 800XL. And I joined one of the user groups popular back then, so from that I had my Atari friends. But for whatever reason at school, everyone had a TI-99 4/A - who knows...adn then the local BBS scene was clearly dominated by Commodore 64 - and even my best friend had a C64, and the games were better. But somehow Commodore borked the disk drive. I was so shocked by the slowness of it. Heck the atari drive was only running at 19200bps serial, lol - but it was so much faster.

[@MitchellRoboto]

C64 had the graphics, and Atari 800XL had the control and game speed. I loved the way C64 games looked but I loved the way Atari games played.

[@RalfZille]

As my kid with Atari 800XL and 1050. Floppy drive was the best with boot menu for Atari Old/XL/XE. 🤩👍

[@hidden_vault]

awesome video, am impressed by the Atari wow

[@retrononame]

Thanks. I was impressed as well. Never got a chance to see it in action in the 80s so this is something quite new and interesting for me as well.

[@technicaltaurus1]

One day I asked a salesman to boot up the same game on both machines (silent service) both using disk versions. The Atari booted up nearly twice as fast.

[@airsoftmodels]

In 1983, I had the cartridges for Donkey Kong, Moon Patrol, Ms Pac-Man, Pac-Man, Qbert, and River Raid. They worked great on the 16KB 600XL!

[@jefdarcy]

That's interesting, because I also had a 600 XL as my first computer, I got it in 1987. But my aunt didn't really have a clue what she was buying, and then it turned out that the games that came with it (Ninja Master and Warhawk - both extremely lame, but hey, I was thrilled...for some time at least) didn't run. So they gave the computer to someone who expanded its memory to 48KB which did the trick. And the only game I ever had on a cartridge was indeed Moon Patrol, though I could swear it looked differently than in this video. Anyway, interesting to learn that cartridge games would have worked without the memory expansion.

[@airsoftmodels]

@@jefdarcy wow, i guess i got the 600xl back when i could have gotten an older but more reliable 800. i was desperate for a computer and the commodore 64 was completely sold out during christmas 1983. i believe by 1987, atari had moved on to the 65xe and 130xe, but was still selling the 600xl. i ended up with 12 cartridges of mostly arcade remakes, and i thought they looked great. they still hold up pretty well in my opinion.

[@NickSBailey]

Warhawk was great, the music I actually liked better than the C64 version too

[@Echanizer]

Todavía tengo mis atari 800 xl, atari 130 xe y la atari 1040 st, la ultima conectada a un sintetizador por el puerto midi... una maravilla.

[@dyscotopia]

Colors are definitely better on Atari. That version of moon patrol is beautiful compared to ol' chicken lips

[@vxsniffer]

Atari had 256 color palette vs 16 color at C64

[@rabidbigdog]

The legendary chipset for the Atari 8-bit (Jay Miner) was 3 (4?) years prior to the C64 and yet there is only a small difference in capability.

[@rbrtck]

That's because the C64 was made to a certain price point that had become possible by 1982. Instead of improving on the Atari 8-bit in every way, the C64 was made approximately as capable, overall, but far cheaper to manufacture. In fact, even with later chip fabrication technology in the mid-1980s, Atari would never be able to match the C64's cost, while the C64 kept getting cheaper to manufacture. Additionally, later C64s, despite being cheaper, were of better quality and had higher reliability than earlier C64s, while unfortunately the Atari 8-bit went down in quality as it got cheaper, as we can see with the later XE versus earlier XL models. Commodore/MOS engineers managed to do what they did using less silicon, which is the bottom line. The most popular Atari 8-bit model by far was the 800XL, and the vast majority of those were sold at a loss, despite having a higher retail price than the C64, which made a profit on each sale. By the way, the retailers weren't willing to take a loss like that, of course--it was Atari that sold them too cheaply to the retailers, so Atari took the loss. Obviously, they felt they had no other choice. They had already manufactured way too many 800XLs that weren't selling nearly quickly enough, which effectively bankrupted Atari. Then Jack Tramiel, Commodore's founder, fresh from getting kicked out of the company he created by evil, greedy Commodore executives, bought Atari's computer division from Warner, and immediately started the development of the cheaper XE series. Meanwhile, he had tons of 800XLs on hand, which he decided to sell at a loss (at least Atari would get most of their money back!) in order to keep Atari in the 8-bit computer business (i.e. keep up with the C64 in terms of user base and software support as much as possible) while the XE series was developed. By the way, I love how Atari's marketing (or Tramiel himself?) named the new 8-bit computers the 65XE and 130XE. 😄 65 is a slightly larger number than 64 and 130 is slightly larger than 128, so they must be slightly better than the Commodore 64 and 128, right? The irony is that the C64 actually has 64.5 kB of RAM available, while the 65XE has 62 kB available (like the 800XL), not 65 kB like I bet some people were thinking.

[@rabidbigdog]

@@rbrtck I'd agree with all this. To re-enforce your point, Tramiel insisted the C64 have 64Kb RAM designed in betting that costs would drop by the time they went into manufacture. I'm unsure the part count is very different however 800XL to C64 - much work was done there. But on your theme, the killer difference was having access to MOS and Atari's focus. Into 1984 Atari really didn't give their 8-bit machines much attention, still getting a large revenue stream from the 2600 until .... bang. :)

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@rbrtck tech specs and performance were not part of the lower budget. The quality of the chips and board, the plastics and keyboard took the hit.

[@rbrtck]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 It was some of both. The MOS/Commodore engineers wanted to make the C64 more capable, but only had limited silicon area to work with. Having two LSI graphics chips, like the Atari 8-bit, was definitely out of the question. They had to make do with certain limitations to hit a price point, and the company found additional ways to further reduce the cost, as you pointed out. That said, the C64 keyboard, while a bit chintzy-feeling, is quite usable and seems to keep working forever, as long as it's not dropped on a rock or gets a milkshake spilled on it. The 800's keyboard is far superior, as are those of some of the early 800XLs, but most 800XLs frankly had awful keyboards, so Atari 8-bits also suffered from some cost-cutting. Perhaps the worst type of XL keyboard ended up on the XE series, as well. It wasn't enough, though. I don't think it was possible, at the time, to produce an Atari 8-bit at the same price point as a C64.

[@Edgel-in6bs]

Have to bear in mind in 83 the c64 was a new machine, whereas atari had been about for 4yrs. And many of those games started on the atari and would have been converted to c64, which rarely ends well.

[@AppliedCryogenics]

Exactly! Few developers had much experience with the C64's hardware at this point. I'd like to see a similar comparison except with titles from 1986. I think the Atari would retain the lead in color palette, but that's all.

[@retrononame]

I'll do the other years as well. It's interesting for me as well, as I never really used Atari 800XL before.

[@ukcroupier]

@@AppliedCryogenics In later years software house made so much more money from C64 games that conversion were an afterthought and often thrown together will little care. You can't just pick a good c64 game and see what the atari version is like, you need to pick games where it's clear that some effort has gone into both versions.

[@rbrtck]

Games converted between these two computers usually retained the limitations of the first computer while not taking advantage of what the second computer does better. Additionally, if a particular game is really specifically designed for the strengths of one, then it will almost definitely be worse on the other, which has different strengths that won't be used.

[@PERCYxyz]

LOL - the Atari v Commodore rivalry is alive and kicking. I have fond memories of these discussions from childhood 😁

[@HWYH.]

Had both systems and loved both systems.

[@oo0Spyder0oo]

Only just touched on but not shown to its fullest was the power of the SID chip and how awesome the music and effects were on a lot of hit titles for the c64. Green Beret etc, I loved it.

[@TheSudsy]

Great example of the 8 bit compromise. Hi res graphics and sloooow, or chunky and fast. Its that balnace that makes great games. When playability demands speed and responsiveness, go lower res, as when playing 8 bit games so long as the graphics are clear enough thats all that matters. But sometimes better graphics dont compromise the pace of the game.

[@dbug64]

Wasn't it just a case of NTSC vs PAL? I mean games designed for 60Hz vs 50Hz and perhaps played on the wrong Hz?

[@rbrtck]

@@dbug64 That is often, albeit not always, the case.

[@mgabrysSF]

Another difference, most games on the Atari 8 bit were crammed into 16k to work with the 400/600XL. The C64 had no such limitation.

[@bitset3741]

Many of these early games are cartridge based, and all Atari 8bit, the C64, and the Vic-20 were all on equal footing in that respect, each allowed 16k total on the cart without banking.

[@rbrtck]

@@bitset3741 That's a good point. The RAM limitations of some A8 models didn't really kick in until there were more and bigger disk-based games. Fortunately, the original 90K capacity of the A8 floppy disk format (single-density FM encoding) was sufficient for most games and other software. It was even enough for _Ultima IV_ , as none of the four disk sides contained more than 90K of data. However, eventually this limitation became a barrier in some cases, as I believe that one reason _Ultima V_ , for example, was never ported to the A8 was that it requires greater disk capacity. There were other reasons, I'm sure, and every so often A8 fans speculate on what those might have been, but the fact is that Origin Systems had already hired a programmer to do the conversion, and after he had done a fair amount of work, but still didn't quite have a bootable start disk (he got pretty close, though), the Atari port was canceled. The work should have been quite straightforward and not overly costly, but I think that even if Atari 800 compatibility were dropped because at least 64K of RAM is required and Atari 810 drive compatibility were dropped in favor of the 1050's 130K format, there would still have been a problem with disk capacity, because I just checked and found that seven out of the eight original 140K Apple II disk sides were completely filled or nearly so. This wasn't a problem for the C64/C128 port because the main Commodore disk format's capacity of 170K was more than sufficient, but the A8's 130K wasn't, and it would have taken too much work (meaning time and money) to have found a way around this problem. In my view, this was probably the ultimate reason why the promised and announced A8 port of _Ultima V_ was started but never completed. Had Atari simply done the obvious and made the 1050's new format's capacity 180K (double-density MFM, like on the IBM PC and some CP/M computers--a common type of format), then the A8 might not have missed out on this game and possibly others that require greater disk capacity.

[@ThomasTalbotMD]

Overall the Atari games looked better though C64 did a much better job on QBert and MsPacman. The Atari 8-bit was very advanced for its time with display lists and 256 colors but had some significant limitations. The 64 had advantages w/ better sprites and colored custom text backgrounds. None of these games show the full capabilities of either system.

[@rbrtck]

There was no reason some of the C64 games couldn't have looked better, besides the lack of knowledge and/or lack of motivation (budget), both of which were largely the result of the newness of the C64 in 1983. Both computers could do some things better than the other, and you're absolutely right that none of these games show their full potential. To slightly elaborate, the C64 had more, better, and more detailed sprites to go along with its color map(s). The latter were, I think, an elegant solution to one of the Atari's main limitations, which was getting more than a few of its many available colors on the screen at once. On the Atari, programmers either had to live with this limitation or pretty quickly resort to using tricks that took a lot of time and effort to implement, and still couldn't always do what they wanted. The C64 suffered far less from this issue, but had its own limitations, of course, such as its palette of only 16 colors (compared to 128 on the Atari), although this was somewhat compensated for by having well chosen colors instead of kind of random ones like on the Atari.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@rbrtck The games published during that era were matching the demands set by the previous generation of machines (atari 2600, Vic 20, TI, Apple etc).

[@bjbell52]

The Atari had colored custom text modes. Also, Atari could mix modes on one screen. It also had hardware course and fine scrolling. I would love to hear what the "significant limitations" the Atari had.

[@rbrtck]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 It looked like they were trying to do better, to me, just not as good as they could have and would later do. By the way, I presume that by TI you mean the TI-99/4 series, which has the same graphics chip as the MSX computers and the ColecoVision console, which went toe-to-toe against the Atari 5200, so although its graphics technology was a product of the late-1970s like the Atari 400/800/5200, it was hardly considered previous-generation.

[@rbrtck]

@@bjbell52 You weren't addressing me, but I mentioned one of the limitations in a previous comment, namely getting colors on the screen, especially on the horizontal axis, of course. Every computer had major limitations back then, the Atari and C64 included. Compared to the C64, the Atari was more limited in terms of the above, as well as "hi-res" (equivalent pixel density to a 320x200 resolution display). While the C64 has various "tricks" at its disposal (largely using timely raster interrupts), without using any tricks at all, it can get 16 colors on each scanline, mix multicolor and hi-res backgrounds graphics on the same scanline (both based on color/attribute maps), and it has hi-res sprites (trading off with color on an individual basis). The Atari simply can't do these things, although obviously it can do some things the C64 can't, as well. After all these years, I still can't decide which one is superior to the other overall. "Superior at what?" is a question that is more easily answered. I'm curious about what Thomas had in mind, too, but these are some examples.

[@zaxxon4]

In many ways the Atari platform was superior to the 64, but the 64 benefited from being released so much later. The 64 didn't have legacy systems that maxed out at 48K, so programmers could add things that the Atari 800 didn't have enough memory for. The SID could do more than POKEY, but its capabilities are closer to POKEY than to the ST and Amiga that came out a few years later. How Atari so often managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, boggles the mind. If they'd had better marketing and not set the memory cap artificially low, they could have been the best selling 8-bit instead of being behind the 64 and Apple II.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

" The SID could do more than POKEY," -Maybe you meant the other way around. SID was the best synth chip ever used on a computer, but Pokey (even if it was an older chip) was the future with its PCM capabilities and High Pass Filtering. People ignore the ASMA collection where ~7.500 tracks prove the diversity in Pokey's character . SID was great but it remains monotonous...the same "metal" over and over again.

[@hai.1820]

I played all these games... and quest for tires was also a great game!

[@robertdulany6811]

This is probably one of the most Atari friendly comparison, I could've hoped for - I had an Atari back in the day, and still have one - but, truly the C64 had better graphics. Still, one has to recall the original Atari 400/800 was released in 1979, and the C64 in 1982. The 800XL included new graphics modes in basic, but it was the same antic chip - it didn't provide any new graphical abilities. Still the Atari 8-bit line had enough oomph that I wasn't compelled to switch, I was happy to stay with Atari for the 8-bit era anyway. The amiga was more to my liking for the 16-bit era.

[@SirHilaryManfat]

It's incredible to think that the Atari 400 was released in 1979, as it was light years ahead of everything else at that time. The fact that it could keep up respectably with the superior Commodore 64 for so long is a testament to how good it was.

[@MagicRoosterBluesBand]

@@SirHilaryManfat How was the C64 superior to the 800XL? The XL had 256 colors (C64 had 16) and the XL had 4 channel sound vs 3 on the C64. The C64 had more sprites but a slower processor. And the C64 disk drive was painfully slow.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

That's an error people do when they compare specific ports. I can point to Prince of Persia, Albert, Bomb Jack, Mutant camels, Fractalus, Stunt car racer, Henry's House etc etc and claim the opposite. THe truth is that those machines are different. The C64 has better color management while the atari can display more than 20 colors on screen in many games (up to 60 in some cases) with limitations in their use. The C64 has better hires graphics but the Atari can move 3d graphics way faster (Total Eclipse , Yoomp, Stunt Car Racer). Many homebrew remakes look better on the Atari while some new games are awesome on the C64. One thing is certain, Atari games do not have a monotonous appearance like most C64 games do (that familiar dirty grey-purple look).

[@mikewest6569]

Atari 8 bit, developed in 1977 and released at end of 1979. Still as good and in some ways much better than C-64 released 4 yrs. Later.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

Hardware specs wise, very close call between the two (Theoretically the Atari has an edge graphics wise, the C=64 and edge sound wise). Having programmers that can get the best out of them however, makes all the difference.

[@mikewest6569]

@@jon-paulfilkins7820 The C-64 has a slight but noticeable sound edge, however its horrible operating system and god awful i/o are dealbreakers. Plus, it's very cheaply made.

[@OldAussieAds]

I've played both the Atari 8-bit and C64 (Atarisoft) Donkey Kongs extensively. The C64 version looks better (extra girder, Kong moves up the ladder at end of each level, proper opening cut scene, and other minor differences). But the Atari 8-bit version plays much better (It's faster, more responsive, and Mario doesn't need to be lined up with the ladders in a pixel perfect way before climbing). I love them both for their individual advantages, but would choose the Atari 8-bit version if I had to choose. The C64 version really is too slow (especially in PAL).

[@rbrtck]

Obviously different people at Atarisoft must have worked on these ports, because the games are rather different in ways that they did not have to be, such as their speeds (the Atari version is too fast while the C64 version is too slow) and the fact, as you also pointed out, that the C64 requires excessive precision from the player. None of these things are because of the computers themselves. The C64 definitely was not maxed out on speed on this game; the developers simply decided that this was the proper speed of play (other versions of this game on the C64 played much faster, but had other, different issues, as well).

[@OldAussieAds]

@@rbrtck I’ve heard the C64 Atarisoft version was optimised for NTSC play which is why it’s so slow on PAL. But to my mind, they’re both way too slow. The ports were definitely all different developers. There’s a really good blog from the programmer of the Atari 8-bit version where he goes in to way more detail than you’d ever expect. Interestingly, he hated Donkey Kong.

[@JustMe99999]

I was gaming on DOS during this period, so without any rose colored glasses, I can say that the Atari holds up surprisingly well considering the hardware was designed in 1979, but the C64 seems better in most games, although not by much.

[@user-tz4bt5bt6x]

The C64 version of Donkey Kong plays in slow motion and the 800XL version plays at Turbo speeds. Must be that Blast processing in the 800 XL 😂

[@mjp29]

The C64's few advantages were it's sound and # of games available. Other than that, the C64 was a buggy piece of junk. I say that as I owned both. The Atari's OS AND disk drive were far more polished. The C64's drive was terribly slow and buggy. The Atari was 2.x years older, yet held it's own - it's processor, the same chip, was clocked much faster than the C64's processor.

[@tonyciantar6417]

The truth is they are different. I had an Atari and still do. Better is subjective as people will not agree which is best. Both amazing 8 bit machines Very well matched.

[@Foebane72]

ATARI 800XL WINS, EVERY TIME FOR ME! Why? Because I grew up with the Atari 8-Bits from the start, and since they are the creation of Jay Miner, the Father of the Amiga, then of course I will always favour his excellent, robust and sophisticated hardware!! The only thing good about Jack Tramiel's machines like the C64 and the Atari ST was that they favoured musicians, nothing else at all!

[@MephProduction]

many here i haven't played, look like a few good Atari conversions

[@CaratacusAD]

Remember the Atari was out in the late 70's. Quite a few years before the C64. I had an 800 and then an XE. It really depended on the developers to be honest. Take for instance the graphics of the sprite in Qbert. There is no reason the Atari couldn't have done the same as the C64 detail. Each machine had its benefits

[@retrononame]

Yes, It's insane when you think about when the Atari was first released. A fantastic machine. It's just sad, that the developer's support wasn't there, like for C64 or the Speccy.

[@CaratacusAD]

@@retrononame mmm I wouldn't say that really, there were a lot of titles. It was just more popular outside of Europe

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@retrononame Actually Eastern Europe software houses never really stopped releasing games for the platform and the current Homebrew scene is heavily based on those same people... giving us games like Yoomp, PoP, Stunt Car racer, Pang,RGB,Bomb Jack etc etc etc.

[@alpha9526]

As a kid I traded in my Atari 2600 and all my games for an 800lx, What a mistake. The C64 had a following and support.

[@darthwiizius]

I played 7 of these on my C64 as a kid.

[@salipander6570]

This was early days for the C-64 and games would become much more advanced in the years to come. These are still primitive games.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Not really, everything is there ( i.e.parallax scrolling) the only thing missing was artistic talent by the programmers and time. Most of those titles were rushed.

[@kyma1999x]

on first generation games atari 8bit line wins almost everytime, thanx to its extended colour palette and being also an older system which coders probably knew better. comparing c64 early games with late 80s - early 90s titles (or recent homebrew) it's hard to believe it's same system on market since 1982/83 with no hardware improvements, coders really learnt how to unleash its secret powers.

[@retrononame]

Agreed. I'm also working on Top 50 C64 games for each year and it's unbelievable how much better games for C64 became after programmers got to grips with the hardware.

[@kyma1999x]

@@retrononame good idea... also sound got really improvements on c64 during years, most early tunes sounded like an improved vic20, with basic triangle/square flavour, advanced functions like filters or ring mod, sync, duty cycle where rarely used, but next things changed a lot listening stuff like bionic commando, turbo outrun, turrican, or armalyte...amiga or atari st hadn't changed so much their musicality.

[@IsaacKuo]

Maybe it's theoretically true that the Atari 8-bit should have "won" almost every time, but there isn't a single one of these 8 games from 1983 where that appears to be the case. I mean ... Atari's Moon Patrol has a more detailed background, but the sprites are awful and the buggy has completely lost the interesting jerky motion that defines Moon Patrol. People have differing opinions on Blue Max (depends on what one experienced first), but there's no question the C64 version has larger and more detailed sprites, as well as a pseudo-transparent shadow effect. Game after game, it's the same story ... C64 sprites are more detailed and more colorful. I think the best example where the Atari 8-bit's superior palette really shines through is Bruce Lee. The graphics and action are practically identical, but the original Atari 8-bit version has more aesthetically pleasing colors that the C64 version just couldn't match. But like ... Fort Apocalypse? The original Atari 8-bit version's colors were ... different ... sure ... but not really better. Same with M.U.L.E. or Archon ... yeah, the colors were different, but not really better. I think maybe the Atari 8-bit version of Realm of Impossibility may have had a better palette, and it's a case where they didn't bother to improve the sprites on the C64 version. But if it's better, it's to a subtle degree.

[@kyma1999x]

@@IsaacKuo well I find playability of atari games sometimes way better than c64 but it depends on single games.....e.g. astro chase on 5200 is better playable than c64, beamrider on 2600 also better than c64 version, whereas buck rogers plays better on c64. however commodore has a better sprite handling for sure, more control, more possibilities, higher resolution, I think only nintendo famicom at time was superior, if c64 had a more extended colour palette would be quite a monster but its 16 colours palette was really well used by graphic artists.

[@IsaacKuo]

@@kyma1999x The Nintendo Famicom had lower resolution - 256 pixels across rather than 320 pixels across (which both the Atari 8-bits and C64 could do, although this wasn't so often taken advantage of on the Atari 8-bits). However, the C64 often used a lower resolution of only 160 pixels across, and if you didn't use sprites the C64 could only have two different colors in an 8 pixel wide tile. In contrast, the IBM PC, BBC Micro, and Amstrad CPC had modes which were 320 pixels across AND allowed using four different colors freely. So, it's not so cut and dried which was "better", overall. The restrictions on NES graphics are interesting and very different from the way C64 graphics work. Overall I'd say the C64 is vastly superior, but there are some dumb things about the C64 - like the lack of hardware scrolling beyond 8 pixels. And the way ECM works is just pretty dumb (there's no good reason why it repeats the same 64 characters for each extended color, rather than simply using the whole 256 character font like usual).

[@VIC-20]

Thanks for making this platform comparison. Once you're done with C64 vs 800xl, how about C64 vs Apple //e? 😁

[@retrononame]

Thank you. Who knows, maybe I'll do the Apple comparison as well :)

[@mcd3379]

Blue Max was definitely better on the C64. Also, mostly Atari games were shown. "Impossible Mission" on the C64 from Epyx certainly wiped the floor with any game the Atari had to offer.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

You are missing the point of the video.All these games were publish in 1983. IM came later and its nothing special or something that it can not be done on an 8bit Atari. Blue Max only difference are the big sprites of the planes, a thing that limits the real estate of your screen. The game is similar but the SFX are weak on the C64. That doesn't mean Blue Max is a "decider" on which machine is the best...lol

[@mcd3379]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Proof is in the pudding. How many Atari 800XLs were sold? Maybe 4 million. Nothing compared to the C64s 15 million plus. Atari never really made a comeback until the ST came along.

[@Hot-O-Media]

ich hab moon patrol auf dem c64 gliebt - heute kaum noch vorstellbar

[@PeBoVision]

The mountains backgrounds in the C-64 version of Moon Patrol should make the coder bow his head in shame for another 40 years at least.. And with a near-unlimited palette to select it's 16 on-screen colours from thanks to gradients, why did Atari select select such a muddy group of colours for Donkey Kong (is it in a Graphics Mode with only 4 colours? If so, why? It looks awful.) Another video that shows the 800's Pokey sound is very much equal in fidelity to the C-64's SID in real-world applications, while the C-64's sprites are more proficient than Atari's Player-Missile Graphics. (There's no excuse for Q-Bert not to have eyes). Even the TI-99 gave him eyes!

[@urmo345]

The C64 had better graphics capabilities, but similar to the Amiga, its full potential was only realized much later after its release. While the C64 had preset colors, it offered a more extensive palette compared to the Atari. As a side note, the Amiga saw the release of its best and most visually impressive games a few years before its discontinuation, but by that time, the invincible competitor had already emerged: the PC with VGA. However Atari sound was better.

[@horrido666]

Atari had Chris Crawford's East Front 1941 - best wargame of the generation.

[@johnathanstevens8436]

Is it any coincidence to me that the Atari games look and sound better on the Atari and the other games better on the C64?

[@LiLi-kc5fb]

The winner is Atari of course❤️

[@jameslewis2635]

It seems like the Atari was somewhat more powerful than the C64 with more details generally on screen for the Atari. However the Donkey Kong screens showed that the C64 version turned out to be truer to the general way that Mario is presented by Nintendo. In terms of sound I think the Atari showed more voices although I preferred the sounds from the C64 in terms of audio quality.

[@coastercouch4079]

The Atari 800 had a larger color palette und more raster-tricks in it's sleeve. C64 had better (clearer) sound and a higher graphic resolution. Due to its big success, the C64 games will get a lot more refined in the later years.

[@daviddavies3637]

They both have pros and cons. The Atari was faster. 1.79Mhz vs the Commodore's 1Mhz, so some games played faster and smoother on the Atari. Later, devs got to grips with the C64 and created things that the Atari would struggle to replicate. I came across a magazine a while ago that was published just after the C64's launch. They went around various devs to ask them what they thought of it. Most of them said it wasn't as good as the Atari 800. As for the sound, I think that the SID was overhyped. I do prefer the Pokey for arcade titles as I found the C64 to be too ... um ... synthetic? The Pokey was closer to the arcade machine sounds of the time whereas the SID was what I consider to be more of a music synthesiser chip. The 3 channel sound also limited it to such a degree that it struggled to play music and sound effects at the same time - the extra sound channel of the Pokey makes a surprisingly big difference. I've heard a lot of C64 games that just sounded awful and choppy because of having just the 3 channels.

[@rbrtck]

There is no reason the C64 couldn't have had more details and more colors (at once, even if it's from a smaller palette), except for the lack of knowledge and effort of the programmers back in 1983, shortly after the C64 came to the market and 4 years after the Atari did. In one case, the Atari version has a soundtrack, while the C64 version does not. I assure you that this does not imply that the C64 is incapable of playing music in the background. 😉 The C64 versions of several of these games could and should have been better--more like _Q-Bert_ and _Ms. Pac-Man_ , which are early examples of knowledgeable game development on the C64, and do some things that the Atari cannot match on a technical level, such as the detail in the sprites (the C64's sprites have twice the horizontal definition of the Atari's sprites, and there is no way around this for the Atari--it simply cannot match this). As for sound, the POKEY can be used in rather powerful ways if the CPU is heavily involved, but for playing background music and such, the SID is definitely more powerful. While the SID has 3 voices compared to 4 on the POKEY, not only are they more powerful, they are also more accurate with 16 bits of pitch resolution each, and can all play reasonably in tune (more than accurate enough for human ears), while the POKEY's voices have only 8 bits of resolution. 2 voices of the POKEY can be combined to get 16-bit resolution, but then you'd only have 2 16-bit voices or 2 8-bit voices and 1 16-bit voice. Music can be played with 8-bit voices, but unless you are tone-deaf, they will not be in tune on many notes, and this can definitely be noticed by many people.

[@rbrtck]

@@coastercouch4079 The C64 has raster interrupt tricks, too, and can do this on any scanline, unlike the Atari, which can only issue interrupts on a per-row (1 to 16 scanlines depending on the mode) basis and the vertical blanking interval (the C64 can handle the VBI, too, by setting the raster register to 13 on NTSC and 300 on PAL). The Atari does have a much larger palette, although its 16 hues (of 8 brightnesses each) are kind of arbitrary instead of carefully chosen.

[@rbrtck]

@@daviddavies3637 You are absolutely correct that both computers have different strengths and weaknesses, which on the whole pretty much balance each other out overall, in my mind. The Atari's CPU is indeed faster, but not as much faster as most people think. Apparently, it runs 79% faster, but this is only true if the displays are blanked on both, and even then it's more like 75% faster based on clock speed alone (1.78977 MHz vs 1.02273 MHz, which is actually meaningless because this doesn't ever happen), and 61% in actuality because of the Atari's DMA to refresh its DRAM chips, a process that is transparent in the C64's design. So at the most, the NTSC Atari 8-bit's CPU is 61% faster than the C64's CPU, but only when their displays are blanked. When using their most common modes for games along with sprites, the Atari's CPU advantage shrinks to about 13%. While 13% is not nothing, I can easily imagine those extra CPU cycles getting swallowed up by having to copy and/or shift sprite data on the Atari in order to move the images on the vertical axis, in contrast to the C64, which moves its sprites on both axes with writes to registers, and changes the images (for animation or reuse) with writes to pointers instead, which are much quicker operations. Which computer can run games faster and smoother depends largely on the type of game involved. Those developers who said that the Atari was flat-out better probably weren't nearly as familiar with the then-new C64 at the time. The Atari has a much larger color palette (albeit consisting of arbitrary rather than carefully chosen hues), more graphics modes (most of which aren't that useful, truth be told), and a much higher clock speed (which looks at first glance like a much bigger difference than it really is in practice), so naturally they'd say that the Atari is better, but some of them might well have changed their minds later as they got to know the C64 better. The C64's color maps (sometimes more than 1--up to 3, depending on the mode) allow for freer placement of more colors, especially on each scanline, which makes its highest resolution modes more usable and useful than the Atari's, and gives some C64 software considerably greater resolution. The C64's sprite subsystem is more powerful, and can have twice the horizontal definition of the Atari's sprites under many usage scenarios. In general, what one notices about the C64 versus the Atari over time is plenty of instances in which twice the horizontal resolution/definition can be used in practice on the C64, while on the Atari hi-res just doesn't work out that well and is seldom used. In its most commonly used mode (for games), the C64 can even mix hi-res and multicolor graphics on the same scanline. Generally, everything (sprite position, smooth scrolling, everything else) on the C64 is based on 320 horizontal pixels, while on the Atari it is 160 horizontal pixels (the Atari has 320x192 bitmap and text modes, but they are less usable without color maps, and everything else is based around 160 pixels, including sprites and smooth scrolling). Another thing that might surprise people is that the C64's floppy disk drives, which are infamous for being super-slow, can actually be much faster than the Atari's drives. The first shock to some Atari fans might be that their drives are actually quite slow, transferring data at about 1200 bytes/s, which is half the specified bandwidth of 2400 bytes/s, which is probably not a coincidence, although I don't know why it's half of the specification. The C64's data transfer rate out of the box is a dismal 400 bytes/s, or 1/3rd the speed of the Atari, but the drives are programmable, and using "fastloader" software or firmware (like on a cartridge) alone, the data transfer rate can be sped up tremendously, from 2000 bytes/s to 16,000(!) bytes/s or more (even faster than the Apple II running ProDOS!). This is using all stock hardware, including the regular 6-pin IEC bus and cable (compared to the 13-pin Atari SIO bus). Atari's drives can be sped up, as well, but only with a hardware mod (plus fastloader software/firmware)--the stock Atari drives can't do it.

[@beakerwick646]

Atari 800 all day. I still have mine.😃

[@danaeckel5523]

Wow, you can sure tell this was the early days of the C64. I do have to say Q-Bert and Ms. PacMan look great, but the others. Blah Atari wins hands down. Donkey Kong does looks better on the C64, but Atari makes up for it with speed. If I would have been looking for a computer in 83 and saw a demo display the Atari would have won my heart, and I don't think it would have been a decision I would regret. The auto-start, high speed IO would have sealed the deal. I maybe would be felt bummed out about Atari losing support around 1990, but maybe Amiga would have grabbed my attention.

[@retrononame]

I didn't have a chance to see Atari 800XL in action back in the 80s, but I would be impressed for sure if I did! Although the quality of C64 titles picks up tremendously after 1984 as the programmers got to grips with the hardware.

[@TzOk]

I find the choice of colors in the C64 palette to be very odd. Colors are faded, and there are no hues that would be most useful. In those early productions, POKEY sounds better than SID. Finally, the pace of C64 games is significantly slower, than Atari ones.

[@shadowwolfmandan]

PAL vs NTSC. Seems the C64 games shown were clearly being run on a PAL system but most were designed for NTSC, the difference is shocking. As to sound, there is nothing the Atari's chip can product that the SID can't, it typically came down to whoever did the port. I can't necessarily argue when it comes to colour, though the C64's palette does enable some interesting artwork options. If you want to see what the system is really capable of check out Mayhem in Monsterland, or Sam's Journey.

[@DennisKenny]

Robert 'Bob' Yannes: "I'm afraid that not nearly as much effort went into the color selection as you think. Since we had total control over hue, saturation and luminance, we picked colors that we liked. In order to save space on the chip, though, many of the colors were simply the opposite side of the color wheel from ones that we picked. This allowed us to reuse the existing resistor values, rather than having a completely unique set for each color."

[@alanbourke4069]

Apart from colour and a slower CPU the C64 is clearly in general a better 8bit. However there's quite a lot of stuff that is better on Atari, like Dropzone and Fort Apocalypse.

[@dbug64]

I think that some things were way easier to do on the Atari 8-bitters than on the C64. Like sprite multiplexing and raster-splits. And the Atari 8-bit platform was more mature having been out on the market several years before the C64 came out.

[@rbrtck]

The C64's CPU is slower, but not by nearly as much as most people think. With the most commonly used graphics modes on both plus sprites active, the Atari's CPU only has about a 13% advantage (on NTSC, which is all I'm familiar with). The reason is highly technical, and I could explain it fully if anyone is interested, but it boils down to how direct memory access is divided between the CPU and graphics subsystem differently between these two computers. The Atari's whole system, including memory, is run at 1.79 MHz, and everything the graphics subsystem needs to render the display with is taken by it, leaving the rest of the cycles for the CPU. In contrast, the C64's design is a bit simpler, like that of the Apple II, in that it runs the memory at 2.046 MHz and the CPU at 1.023 MHz, with the graphics subsystem getting exclusive access to the memory half of the time (plus a few extra cycles right when they're needed) and the CPU getting access during the other half. While the C64's memory runs faster, its graphics subsystem doesn't use all of the cycles it is given, and unlike on the Atari, these cycles cannot be given to the CPU (which only runs at 1.023 MHz anyway), so there is some waste involved. That's why overall the Atari's CPU runs 13% faster. Now, the C64 could have used the same system design as the Atari, because it's not that hard to implement, but I think the reason it doesn't is that the Atari's design requires a CPU that is rated for 2 MHz instead of 1 MHz, which costs more, and Commodore wasn't willing to pay for a 2 MHz CPU that would only really run 13% faster once the graphics subsystem had fetched the data it needed. 13% is still better than nothing, but the C64 makes up for this with more sprites that are faster to manipulate, as well. What I mean by the latter is that while moving sprites horizontally is the same on both computers (just writing to some registers), moving sprites vertically is slower on the Atari because data must be copied or shifted, and the same goes for changing the appearance of a sprite (to animate or reuse it), which involves copying data. On the C64, changing the vertical position and appearance of sprites is just like changing their horizontal position: all a program has to do is write a register or pointer (single bytes) instead of copying/shifting sprite data. Additionally, each of the C64's sprites can independently have either twice the definition or three times the number of colors as each of the Atari's sprites, so they're better, more numerous, and faster than the Atari's sprites.

[@rbrtck]

@@dbug64 As a machine language programmer of both, I can confirm that some things are indeed easier to do on the Atari, but then again, some things are easier to do on the C64, as well. Splitting the display into multiple sections using a different mode in each is easier on the Atari because of its display list, for instance, although it's not exactly difficult to do the same on the C64 with its raster interrupts. Everything besides changing modes and graphics memory pointers requires an interrupt on the Atari anyway, so sprite multiplexing is equally easy/hard on both computers. I would say that overall, the C64 probably makes more things easier than the Atari does, to be honest. This is because of its sprite system, which is more advanced/powerful overall, and its color maps (1-3 depending on the mode). Thanks to the latter, the C64 might have a much more limited color palette of 16, but it is comparatively trivial to get all of them on the screen at once (in any mode), while on the Atari programmers more frequently have to resort to using "tricks" such as display list interrupts (DLIs) to put more colors on the screen vertically and sprite overlays to put more colors on the screen horizontally, which of course uses up sprites and forces the use of software sprites, which take far more effort and CPU cycles to implement. On the C64, you can use the color maps and save the sprites for their intended purpose instead, and save a lot of effort and CPU cycles in the process. Making a game like _The Last Ninja_ , for example, would be much harder on the Atari than it was on the C64 (the original platform for this game), if you wish for them to be equal in quality, that is (the Atari cannot match the C64's more detailed sprites, however). On the other hand, games like _Rescue on Fractalus!_ can never be quite as good on the C64 as they are on the Atari. These two computers have different strengths and weaknesses that make each better than the other at certain things. The C64 came along 3 years after the Atari 8-bit, but instead of making it better in every way with newer technology, Commodore made a computer that was more or less equal, overall, but substantially cheaper to make than the Atari, which gave Commodore an important edge in the mass consumer market.

[@tharkthax3960]

@@rbrtck I love them both! Prefer Atari but that's only personal preference. These days both machines have been pushed harder with impressive results.

[@NickSBailey]

For me Atari wins both graphics (much more vibrant colours) and sound (C64 sound is more advanced but timing is sluggish and often sounds muddy, Atari cruder but bright and capable of surprising variety with programming tricks) the C64 sprites are better but that limited colour palette makes everything look muted and with clever programming you don't need sprites anyway

[@StepanTrnka]

The few games that looked better on the C64 lacked at speed (qbert mainly).

[@rbrtck]

In the case of _Q-bert_ , the gameplay certainly could have been faster, as the C64's sprites are faster to manipulate than the Atari's. This is on the programmer rather than the computer. _Donkey Kong_ on the C64 is definitely too slow, but it didn't have to be, either. On the Atari, it's actually too fast--much faster than the original arcade game. All of these flaws are the fault of the programmers.

[@dbug64]

I never understood why Atari just redesigned the case and chips and did not add any significant features(except more RAM). From the Atari 400/800 to the latest XE models, nothing was added that was useful in arcade style games. As for the features, the Atari was like the Amiga for the mid 70's and by 83 it shows, just like in 1994 the PC/Mac was a better deal than the Amiga. I do think that the Atari 600XL was the best looking 8-bit machine, always wanted one. But somehow got a C64 instead. Love that one too. :)

[@rbrtck]

Atari couldn't add anything (except for RAM) because that would have made the A8 cost more, and at the time their goal was to reduce cost as much as possible. For one thing, they tried to combine the two graphics chips--ANTIC and GTIA--into a single chip like the VIC-II on the C64, but they couldn't do it and had to cancel that project (which was known as Keri or CGIA). The reasons were never, to my knowledge, made clear, but I'm pretty sure that one of them was that the two chips were packed with features that were unnecessary and, even worse, seldom used (but still had to be kept for backward compatibility). The ANTIC chip has more than 14 ways to do its DMA to fetch graphics data from memory. Those 14 fetch patterns represent 14 different graphics modes, and there are additional ones such as the bit that flips characters upside-down. 🙄That's cute, but it's yet another DMA fetch mode and more silicon area used. The C64 can do the same thing if you write a short machine language routine to flip the character set (just once, and it stays that way until flipped back), and the same technique can be used on the A8, as well, so why does such a feature even exist? Only 4 of the graphics modes are really useful: 320x200 hi-res character (mostly for text stuff like BASIC), 160x200 multicolor character (the most important mode for games, with redefinable character glyphs), 160x200 multicolor bitmap, and 320x200 hi-res bitmap (used by a lot of Apple II conversions). The multiple low-res bitmap modes aren't often used because there is little use for them, and while the stretched character modes are commonly used, it's because they are there, and they could have been done without, admittedly with some additional work in software. The C64's VIC-II chip, in contrast, does not have a display list to process, and has only a single solitary DMA fetch pattern (instead of 14+), which means this "front end" part of the graphics sits on a tiny sliver of its single silicon die instead of taking up an entire chip. This could be done because the C64 only has equivalents to the 4 most important modes of the A8 (plus a 5th mode that provides a capability the others cannot replicate), and the same DMA fetch pattern can be used with all 4 (actually 5) because the C64 has a variable number of color maps (which the A8 does not) that take the place of character fetches in modes that do not need to do the latter (the bitmap modes, of course). This is extremely efficient, and the color maps give the C64 an elegant solution to a limitation that the A8 has with putting more than 4-5 colors on the screen at once (the A8 can, but has to resort to DLI tricks and sometimes using up sprites to get more colors on the screen where they are needed). But what about multi-mode displays and the other timing-sensitive interrupt-based tricks the A8 can do with the ANTIC's display list? The C64 uses a simple raster interrupt system that takes a pathetically tiny amount of silicon to implement to give it the same capabilities. With all of the silicon area this design saves, all of these features together take up less than half of the VIC-II's die, which Commodore's engineers (really mostly Al Charpentier) used to implement a more powerful, faster, higher definition sprite subsystem (their pixels are half as wide as those of the A8's sprites in single-color mode, and each sprite can optionally have 3 colors plus transparency instead). In short, the VIC-II design is more efficient, and the main thing the C64 is lacking in is obviously the number of colors available in its palette, which is only 16. Somewhat compensating for this is that the colors were at least deliberately chosen (not with extreme diligence, but with some common sense), while on the Atari the 16 hues were the arbitrary result of values that were convenient to implement. It's great that there are 8 values (brightness levels) for each hue, but the hues themselves.... Anyway, there was just no more room to add features without adding to the A8's cost, and Commodore didn't add features to the C64 (unless you count the C128 as a C64), either, because both companies were working on the higher-end 16-bit computer market with the ST and Amiga, which made low cost an even more important factor for their 8-bit computers. In the big picture, 8-bit computers peaked early with the impending onslaught of 16-bit computers. Things sure moved fast in those days.

[@rbrtck]

The first Atari 8-bit computers, the 400 and 800, were released in 1979, which I'd hardly call the mid-1970s. Even the PET, Apple II, and TRS-80 Model 1 were barely in the mid-1970's, having been released in 1977. Atari did advance the state of the art in 8-bit computer graphics at an early time, and should be recognized for that, although by 1979 Texas Instruments already had a pretty good graphics chip that would eventually compete successfully against the A8-based Atari 5200 console in the ColecoVision console, which handily outsold the 5200, for what it's worth. This TI chip was also used in their own failed TI-99/4 series computers. Coleco used the same graphics chip to better effect.

[@anticat900]

The Atari at this stage in the game, seems to mostly outdue the c64 graphically and on par with the sound, but this is early days for the c64, while the Atari is 3 years mature. Later on things are more clearly defined to the c64.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

The Atari software never matured during its commercial life. We only find out what this machine can during the homebrew era.

[@anticat900]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 I think they were quite even towards the end, though it only seemed to be the case once the cost reduced XL and c64 arrived the atari also began to flourish. I'm not sure why for the first 3 years it played rather basically, its huge cost may have been a factor, a different mentality in its programming and lack of ram could be another?

[@DE-GEN-ART]

so, it looks to me the difference was if you liked the dark color pallet of the 800, or the light pallet and better sound of the c64

[@nasty_niff]

256 colours v 16?

[@bitset3741]

@@nasty_niff Most games had 16 colors on the Atari. They did color cycling and used more, but beyond that games were 16 color. Using 256 colors was very very limited.

[@KurtWoloch]

@@bitset3741 I think 16 colors is not quite true. On the C-64, yes, the pallette had 16 colors, but on the Atari, there were only 9 color registers, so you had to do some trickery to even get 16 colors on screen. Thus, for the Atari 16 colors seems an arbitrary number. Basically you have 4 colors for the background and 4 more for the players and missiles (with the 9th register coming into play in some special cases). The 4 color background can be expanded to 5 on a character level while the C-64 is much more flexible in that respect. On the other hand, if you rewrote the color registers on a scanline basis, you could get much more than 16 colors on screen on the Atari. This is what they did with the background on "Floyd of the jungle", which is why it's more colorful than on the C-64.

[@rbrtck]

Dark and light colors are a creative choice on the part of the game developers, not inherent to the computers themselves, both of which have dark and light colors.

[@rbrtck]

@@nasty_niff 128 possible colors for the A8 in most graphics modes, including the most used and most important ones.

[@petersatarigames2821]

Why do some of the C64 games seem like they were written in Basic? I can see where the Atari clearly had the faster CPU. The games that ran almost the same speed only had a limited number of moving sprites on the screen. Seems like the Atari games had better sounds also.

[@VIC-20]

It's the first full year of C64, 1983. I imagine programmers were still working it out

[@charlesjmouse]

Interesting: When I see comparisons such as this I can't help but feel the most significant thing is the development time allowed, effort put in, and talent of the programmer. Is it me or were most of the C=64 versions slower..? I know the 800 was a much faster machine but for the titles shown I can't imagine why.

[@OperationPhantom]

PAL/NTSC difference. Donkey Kong for example, on the C64 was definitely meant for 60hz NTSC, that's why it's slow.

[@umbertocolapicchioni2467]

Atari 800 CPU runs at 1.77 Mhz, C64 is 1.0 Mhz

[@ignaciosuarez9732]

@@umbertocolapicchioni2467 the C64 ran circles around the Atari in anything that required many sprites. When games were straight ports though, then often those capabilities weren't used. The Atari did well for a hardware design that is 3 years older and that's huge in those days.

[@rbrtck]

@@umbertocolapicchioni2467 The A8's CPU runs at 1.79 (not 1.77) MHz compared to the C64's CPU at 1.023 MHz, but it is actually not nearly that much faster in practice. This is because *all* of the A8's graphics DMA comes at the cost of CPU cycles, while the *vast majority* of the C64's graphics DMA does *not* affect its CPU at all. The end result is that with the most common graphics modes being used and with sprites active, the A8's CPU only has 13% more cycles available to it than the C64's CPU. While running 13% faster is not nothing, we then have to factor in the C64's more advanced, faster sprite system. Not only are there more and larger (and more detailed) sprites on the C64, they are actually faster to move vertically, as well as change for animation. On both computers, moving a sprite horizontally only takes a write to a register. But on the A8, moving a sprite vertically involves moving/shifting the sprite's data, while on the C64 all it takes is writing a single byte to a register. Similarly, on the A8 changing the appearance of a sprite involves copying new data into the sprite's RAM, while on the C64 all you have to do is change a one-byte pointer. The C64's sprites therefore take a major burden off of its CPU, leaving it free to do other things than constantly copying/moving/shifting sprite data around.

[@rbrtck]

@@umbertocolapicchioni2467 Neither of these computers is anywhere close to being maxed out on these simple games. The speed difference is due to different choices on the part of the developers, and in some cases, playing NTSC games on PAL machines involves different timings that slowed things down, as OperationPhantom pointed out.

[@sevelos]

It seems that the Commodore games have more "flat" colors - less shadows, patterns etc., in all these games. I prefer Atari.

[@illegalquantity]

I don't see the Atari 800XL as better in these games either, they are either the same or the C64 version is even better. But much better games were made for the C64 than these, which we cannot see on the Atari 800 XL.E. g.: Turrican, Creatures, Test Drive, Lotus, Outrun, Powerdrift, Last Ninja, Pirates!, Stunt Car Racer, Giana Sisters, Armalyte, Rainbow Islands, Bubble Bobble, Rodland, Microsoft Soccer, Commando, Shadow of the Beast, etc..

[@Mario-bv6hd]

Nice Video!!! Thanks!!! The great difference between C64 and XL800? All the games for the C64 were for free!!!!🤣🤣

[@VroodenTheGreat]

In 1983, the Atari 800 cost 3x as much as a Commodore 64.

[@umbertocolapicchioni2467]

true, but it was also built like a tank…

[@gpmccartney]

C64 Donkey Kong seemed extra slow in the video. Makes me think the emulator was set for PAL.

[@gpmccartney]

Watching several of the games it seems like they are in PAL. Vice defaults to PAL and needs switched to NTSC.

[@cyberneticus7941]

Moon Patrol definitely Atari

[@infinitecanadian]

I have an Atari 800XL that I used in high school in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The problem with the Atari 8-bit computers is that they couldn't be upgraded to 64 kilobytes of memory. They were second-to-none for arcade games, though, for they were made by an arcade game company.

[@rbrtck]

The 800XL came with 64 kB, though, 62 kB of which was usable. It was the 800 that couldn't be upgraded past 48 kB, at least in a way that caught on so that everyone used it, and unfortunately most game/software developers didn't make use of the additional RAM in the 800XL, since they wished to maintain 800 compatibility (they could have done both, but hardly ever bothered even when it was trivial). So in effect, I guess you're mostly right after all. The 800XL and 65XE had 64 kB installed and the 130 XE had 128 kB, but this didn't make much of a difference, as most software was limited to using 48 kB. As for arcade games, the Atari 8-bits were second to none in 1979 and at least until 1982/1983, when the Commodore 64 was introduced. The Atari was sometimes still better, depending on the type of game, especially in the C64's early days, but in this video _Q-bert_ and _Ms. Pac-Man_ are clearly better on the C64.

[@infinitecanadian]

@@rbrtck They should have made an Ultima V game with music for the Atari 800XL.

[@CarsandCats]

I upgraded my 130XE to 576k! It can be done and was. I ran a popular BBS on it.

[@rbrtck]

@@infinitecanadian For that matter, Origin should have included the soundtrack in the Atari version of _Ultima IV_ . They could have detected whether there was 48K or 64K present, and loaded the soundtrack based on that, but instead they made the port for the 800, and unlike the case of _Ultima III_ , 48K wasn't enough to include the soundtrack. As for _Ultima V_ , Origin were going to port it to the Atari, and had already announced it and contracted with an outside developer to do the port, but then they suddenly canceled the project. Had they gone ahead with it, the Atari version almost certainly wouldn't have had music, however, because more than 64K is required for that. The C64 version does not have the soundtrack, although the C128 version does. Obviously, the 130XE has enough memory, but so does the 800XL for _Ultima IV_ , and Origin didn't bother, so they probably wouldn't have bothered in the case _Ultima V_ on the 130XE, either.

[@rbrtck]

@@CarsandCats Sure, this memory expansion was usually done through the PBI/ECI port, albeit there is more than one standard for how the memory is accessed, and only a limited number of software titles supported it (there is probably more new software using the expanded memory today than there was back in the day). By the way, the C64 and C128 can similarly be expanded through their cartridge port, which was always designed as an expansion port. Unfortunately, not much software made use of it (even less than on the Atari)--mostly GEOS and BBS software. BBS software always had the tendency to support more memory and storage. Many C64-based BBSes had both expanded memory and 1581 (800K 3.5" floppy) or Commodore SFD-1001 drives (1MB 5.25" floppy) drives, the latter of which require an IEEE-488 adapter. Using the drives was no big deal because on the C64 you just plug them in and they work (don't even have to boot DOS), but the expanded memory had to be expressly supported by the software.

[@valley_robot]

Long time c64 owner and fanboy , the Atari smashed the shit out of the c64 , games looked and sounded way better on the Atari 800

[@7patrico8]

Atari 800XL wymiata

[@esathegreat]

sprites in pitstop are identical

[@sevimpianti]

Da possessore di Atari 800XL sono di parte, ma certe cose si vedono ad occhio...senza dubbio migliore per grafica e velocità. Vince Atari.

[@drxym]

You can really tell both systems used hardware sprites. With horrible scale factors in some cases.

[@bitset3741]

Hardware sprites were one of the greatest strengths of these systems. That and hardware scrolling allowed these machines to perform as well as a fast 286 or 386 in gaming in many cases.

[@jge123]

The moon patrol versions are laughable, I’m finally going to get my arcade faithful rendition of moon patrol on my evercade irem collection soon, waited 40 years for it ! 😆

[@errollleggo447]

You could just play it on mame.

[@spinnetti]

Hard to pick. Atari sounds better, C64 looks a touch better, but the industry was moving fast and the Atari came out years before the C64 so held up really well. For some reason was never a fan of the C64, probably because everybody had one and I couldn't afford one then lol.

[@CBM64]

The 1983 titles don't really give justice to the SID chip (still in it's infancy). Fast forward a few years and it literally blew everything else away XD

[@therealknapster]

The Atari having Hardware several years older than the C64 & still better

[@born2heal164]

atari the best

[@user-14575]

And when will Amstrad SPC vs C64, ZX Spectrum, Atari?

[@RussMichaels]

Atari surprises once again. Moon patrol on c64 is awful, that is one lazy conversion with no effort on gfx. The rest I would say are pretty equal, although Atari had the edge more often, even on the sound. Pharaohs curse was also better on Atari sure to having a dark bg.

[@BAZFANSHOTHITSClassicTunes]

Love me some Moon Patrol on the C64 and 2600.

[@thesman32]

The c64 wins again ,but MOON PATROL for the c64 is a particularly bad version the atari had no problem beating that port ,now the c64 version of MARS PATROL on the other hand is probably the best 8 bit version of MOON PATROL there is and it's very close to the arcade, i would say the colecovision port of MOON PATROL is in 2nd place and the atari in 3rd.

[@SmakoszPilat]

Atari lepsze , choć Commodore też nie najgorsze 😁

[@chriscowey7464]

i am surpised how bad the c64 does against the atari, when you think it is capable of things like last ninja/turrican. I know its down to programmers and learning the tricks of the hardware etc, but as people say, its like a different machine :p

[@pfdtx4633]

It depends on the game. Qbert and Ms Pac man looked much better on the C64, but the others, not so much.

[@retrononame]

I think this was more due to the programmers still figuring out C64 hardware and how to use it to the full potential. I'll do 1984 comparison soon - should be interesting as I think that quality of C64 games picks up fast after 1984.

[@jameslewis2635]

There is also a big difference in terms of the overall system quality. The C64 was a budget machine from the word go. The Atari line started out as one of the more expensive 8 bit machine lines with options for things like expansion cards and a faraday cage made from milled aluminium. It wasn't until later years when they were being crushed in terms of sales by the likes of the C64 that Atari started to make their computers more budget friendly.

[@rbrtck]

@@pfdtx4633 It depends on the type of game, the specific game, the specific programmers, the budget, and indirectly on the time, which influences several of the other factors. In 1983, the year after the C64 was released, there wasn't as much expertise on the C64, and it hadn't yet sold millions of units to dominate the 8-bit market, which meant less interest in it, less knowledge of it, and smaller budgets. Meanwhile, the Atari 400 and 800 had been around since 1979, giving them a 3-year head start.

[@rbrtck]

@@jameslewis2635 Besides RAM cards, were there ever any expansion cards for the 800? It was and is possible to expand the Atari 8-bit as well as the C64 through their cartridge ports, but even then, they're not expandable in exactly the same sense as the Apple II with its multiple internal slots. As for build quality, yes, the early Atari computers were more heavily built and shielded (mostly the metal shielding, as the plastic isn't particularly strong at all), but this has absolutely nothing to do with their capabilities and the quality of their software.

[@merman1974]

Blue Max and Pitstop are great on both machines, I still prefer the chunky C64 Moon Patrol though - its level layouts are almost identical to the arcade game.

[@rbrtck]

Ironically, the C64 was generally better at hi-res graphics than the A8. If the C64's graphics in a particular game are chunkier, then the developer was doing something wrong. Similarly, if we look at the last game in this video, _Floyd of the Jungle_ , there was no reason the inferior C64 version couldn't have used a black background, more colors on the platforms, and much better SID music to match or exceed the A8 version. But for some reason, the developer made certain decisions that resulted in a poor version of the game, and this had nothing to do with the C64's capabilities.

[@clamato2010]

Atari best graphics / Commodore best sound

[@CaptainDangeax]

Let's call it a draw. The difference became more important as time passed and programmers learned how to extract the most of the C64, particularly with SID sound and fast scrolling. With a good friend of mine, we played Robotron2084 on his 800XL (better than the version I had), and Archon on my C64 (far better than the 800XL version)

[@escapementwheel]

Had the C64 at the time and lusted after the 800XL. The graphics on the Atari, and the sound, are clearly superior.

[@robmcdevitt4107]

The only advantages the 800 had over the C64 in those regards were the color palettes/amount of colors on screen at once and a faster processor. Sound isn't even on the same level when comparing SID vs POKEY, the C64 is light years ahead. These comparison videos are always kind of a joke, ports were very hit or miss back then, a lot of them were cobbled together very quickly and suffered because of it.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@robmcdevitt4107 That remark on sound in not true! Just visit the ASMA collection and you will learn all bout the actual capabilities of the pokey chip. I even have some samples on my channel. SID is a great chip, the best synth ever used on a computer, but Pokey was ahead of its time, providing the bases for PCM sound to Paula (Amiga sound chip). Jay Miner's talks explain the evolution of those features and how they affected the future of the sound of the industry.

[@micham5315]

Wow, Atarii graphisc was better

[@kevin34ct]

C65 graphics were better most of the time and Atari sound was better most of the time.

[@alexandervalle525]

Definetly Atari Pallete is superior than C64. In few games sprites C64 is beter done like pharaohs course and moon patrol but definetly atari can do the same, it's an abscence better coding.

[@CaptainRufus]

C64 wins with the graphics but A800 has the speed. Kind of a Genesis/Snes dealie.

[@AussieArcade]

Nah not with that muddy brown pallet. Bother machines can do amazing things in the right hands as the home brew scene proves.

[@jerrypettersson259]

i had both,but i played most on my Atari 800xl with discdrive then my c64 with taperecorder,and i think many games looked better on the Atari and the sound also.