I heard while allegations that the N64 texture cache is too small, at only 2 Kbytes. Thus allowing for very small texture. 50 x 50 at most with mip-mapping. Yes, but consider the fact that the entire Mario 64 game was only 4 MB. That only leaves enough room for 25 x 25 and 50 x 50 textures anyway. There you have it.
Other weaknesses of the system. High latency for the CPU's main memory accesses, as it has to go through the main GPU's already slow RD-RAM (Rambus memory) bus. I guess that could've been useful - but the benefits of RD-DRAM are a very low bit-bus, allowing for smaller size. Only way to fix that would be to put them on the same bus, and share the memory. But that means, but the current way of doing things, means that the GPU can use the entire memory bus, with the CPU sending it instructions. Thus allowing for higher utilization of the bus, then if it were shared. That's a good point. Thus, a give-and-take.
High latency for the RD-RAM. I guess that's a limitation of the technology. They chose it - it must give other benefits. For instance, only a 9-bit bus. Takes up little physical space.
4-64 MB cartridges. At this point, where there was only 4 MB of RAM space, that might have been a bad move, as a CD drive could have transferred at 320-480 Kbytes, allowing for only 10 seconds of load-time at most, have allowed for far larger games - 650 MB, and have allowed for more texture data (larger texture caches). But now - different story, where games would have to load for 2 minutes to fill up 8 GB of data. Playstation had a CD drive, with load-times, and sold 100 million.
I don't know what the OP said, but it sounded hella smart. He's starting to become my favorite poster here. I wish I went to school with him. I would of definitely copied his homework.
Well. If these threads are any indication; he'll be turning in the work many years after the fact. There aren't really any allegations regarding N64 specs because it really isn't relevant nowadays.