American hype for SuperGrafx Strider started here in EGM!

[supergrafxpcengine2]

long before GameFan even existed, EGM told us that Strider for the SuperGrafx was coming.......

from EGM Number 18 (G.I. JOE on the cover), January, 1991 - page 17

(part 1)

(part 2)


of course, those images being from the SuperGrafx are highly unlikely.  they're probably from either the arcade version or the Sharp X68000 version which was extremely close to the arcade, much more so than the MD-Gen version, and beyond the capabilities of the SuperGrafx.

[Bonknuts]

The SuperGrafx version would have had closer graphics to the arcade than the MD - actually almost pixel for pixel (except for some illegal RGB colors that don't transfer) thanks to the 7mhz res mode which the pixel aspect ratio is VERY close to the arcade, unlike the Arcade card version which used the 5mhz mode and had to have redrawn sprites/tiles

The MD version also had redrawn tiles/sprites not just the lack of the number of colors, but the res of the MD version is closer to the arcade res than the AC version.

 EGM took those pics from a Japanese mag - some strider shrine page has supposedly verified this, but ...

[TR0N]

I remember that issue it got my hopes up too  

[supergrafxpcengine2]

hmmm.... well the SuperGrafx does not exactly match up to Capcom's CPS arcade hardware.  in fact, the SGX is completely outclassed in processing power, graphics manipulation, background layers, RAM, VRAM and audio.

as well as on rom memory size compared to CPS roms.  Strider arcade is between 32 and 43  megabits.  the SGX Strider was going to be either 8 or 10 megabits.  it would not have rivaled the arcade or even been close really. better than the Arcade Card CD, yes, but barely better than the Megadrive-Genesis rendition, which dispite fanboism, was really not even remotely near 'arcade perfect' even though it was more than respectable.... actually quite good given the they only had 8-meg to work with and on vastly weaker Sega console. hardware.

It still could've been great though, especially if they put in some new levels not found in the arcade.

[Bonknuts]

hmmm.... well the SuperGrafx does not exactly match up to Capcom's CPS arcade hardware.

True, but Strider didn't come close to max'ing out the CPS system and mostly only used 2 BG layers.

 Given SGX has twice the VRAM of the MD and twice the sprites of the PCE, it'd probably be a little more than barely better than the MD version - but if NEC AVE was doing the port themselves then you never know

[supergrafxpcengine2]

hmmm.... well the SuperGrafx does not exactly match up to Capcom's CPS arcade hardware.

True, but Strider didn't come close to max'ing out the CPS system and mostly only used 2 BG layers.

 Given SGX has twice the VRAM of the MD and twice the sprites of the PCE, it'd probably be a little more than barely better than the MD version - but if NEC AVE was doing the port themselves then you never know

well okay, given the best possible candidate developer, I guess an impressive translation of Strider could've been done on the SGX, given that (thanks for reminding me) Strider arcade did not come close to max'ing the CPS hardware.

man, it really all makes me wish NEC and Hudson had come through with a real 16-bit monster of a system with almost Neo-Geo like power. instead of rushing out the SGX in 1989 as they did, they should've worked until late 1990 on a Super Famicom killer, as they were originally going to, and have a true PCEngine2.

[vestcoat]

as well as on rom memory size compared to CPS roms.  Strider arcade is between 32 and 43  megabits.  the SGX Strider was going to be either 8 or 10 megabits.  it would not have rivaled the arcade or even been close really. better than the Arcade Card CD, yes, but barely better than the Megadrive-Genesis rendition,

so a SGX is still a lot more powerful than a Duo with an arcade card?
anyone know where i can find specs or a breakdown of the supergrafx and ACD systems?

[handygrafx]

as well as on rom memory size compared to CPS roms.  Strider arcade is between 32 and 43  megabits.  the SGX Strider was going to be either 8 or 10 megabits.  it would not have rivaled the arcade or even been close really. better than the Arcade Card CD, yes, but barely better than the Megadrive-Genesis rendition,

so a SGX is still a lot more powerful than a Duo with an arcade card?
anyone know where i can find specs or a breakdown of the supergrafx and ACD systems?

the SuperGrafx was never "a lot" more powerful than the standard PC-Engine~TurboGrafx-16.   I'd say conciderably more powerful.  

The Duo with an Arcade Card does not give the Duo any more sprite pushing power than the PC-Engine, it's still 64 sprites and 1 background layer in hardware (software tricks allow parallax scrolling which even the NES could do)  whereas the SuperGrafx can push 128 sprites and two background layers

[PC Gaijin]

Damn, I saw the last post on the main index and figured handygrafx/supergrafxpcengine2 had started talking to himself again, but he's only responding to vestcoat.

[Bonknuts]

The weakest aspect of the PCE is the 16 sprite per scanline limit and the absent of a 2nd BG layer - though Xavier would probably consider the absent of tile flipping for the BG another one (and he's right too).

The SGX just has an additional VDC with it own 64k vram - video display controller which handles sprites/background, a VPC - video priority controller for setting sprites/tiles between VDC1 and VDC2, and an additional 24k of ram - 32k total compared to the PCE's 8k. The CPU(7.1mhz) and PSG(3.58mhz) are the same as the PCE except for the mysterious "A" revision. Looking at the ext. bus, the SGX could have even been an add-on to the PCE.

 And Although the CPU is an 8bit CPU, it is faster than the SNES's 65812 16bit in 3.58mhz mode. Hell, they wouldn't have need to upgrade the CPU to a 16bit processor - just bump the speed to 10mhz or higher, keeping the developement cost down.

[nodtveidt]

The HuC6280 is faster than the 65816 used in the SNES because it clocks higher. The 65816 in 6502 emulation mode would have to have the same (or perhaps higher, not 100% sure on this one but there are rumoured to be some minor performance issues on a clock-for-clock basis between the 65C02 and the 65816 in 6502 emulation mode, some kind of overhead issue) clock rate to be on the same level as the HuC6280, and its 16 bit native mode doesn't quite keep up with the 7.16MHz mode of the HuC6280 (which is used while executing game code, 3.58MHz mode is typically only used for certain peripheral accesses, such as backup ram). But since both the HuC6280 and the 65816 are based in the WDC 65C02 processor, they're pretty comparable overall. Of course though, programming the 65816 in native mode gives you all kinds of advantages over the legacy 6502 architecture.

[Bonknuts]

programming the 65816 in native mode gives you all kinds of advantages over the legacy 6502 architecture.

 True, it does have a handful of upgrades from the 65C02, but not much. It still doesn't have a multiply/divide instructions, you still have to clear the carry flag before adding(same for subtraction) , even though they are 16bit there still only 3 registers.

 Almost every other feature they added to the 65816 from the 65C02 already existed in the Hu6280. The two new block transfer instruction( the PCE has 4), stow zero, push/pull all 3 registers to the stack, INC/DEC the accumulator register, as well as the improved JSR and branch instructions. Other than the increase of address bus (24bit vs 21bit) and the 16bit regs ala intel style (AH/AL), the Hu6280 is closer to the 65816 IMO.

3.58MHz mode is typically only used for certain peripheral accesses, such as backup ram).

The Hu6280 only has two speeds 7.1mhz and 1.79mhz (yes the magazines are wrong   ) - games only used the 1.79mhz for backup ram access. The PSG is supposed to be based 7.1mhz as well, but according to Charles doc its actually 3.58mhz.

The SNES/SF version of the 65816 ran in 3.58mhz or 1.79mhz mode. If I remember correctly, this was because the game was running on a slow or fast rom - why didn't they use wait states?

 All in all the 65816 is a waste of a CPU, but I have a feeling nintendo wanted to use it as developers wouldn't have a new learning curve

[nodtveidt]

Oh yeah, that's right...I forgot that it wasn't /6...my bad.

The branch fix was implemented in the original 65C02 architecture...so naturally, since both CPUs were based on it, both CPUs would have it. Also, remember that the features added to the HuC6280 in comparison to its 65C02 parent were added by Hudson, not MOS nor WDC, so naturally, since Hudson needed a more feature-laden chip, they made it more capable than stock processors in the 65xx family. The SNES' 65816, iirc, is a stock chip so you get what you get.

Nintendo has a history of being cheap and cutting corners whenever possible anyways...hrm...did they take lessons from Sony or was it the other way around?

Almost every other feature they added to the 65816 from the 65C02 already existed in the Hu6280.

True, but I was referencing the legacy 6502, not the HuC6280.

[Bonknuts]

True, but I was referencing the legacy 6502, not the HuC6280.

Hehe sorry about that, I just got carried away in the comparisons and lost track what was actually compared  

 I wonder though, which was developed first - the 65816(and 65802) or the Hu6280? Didn't the Apple II gs used the 65816 and that was back in '85/86, so the 65816 probably was before the Hu6280.

 A strange coincidence that the PCE used an upgraded version CPU of the number one system at the time in Japan - NES and that it has a 1.79mhz mode - same speed as the NES?

did they take lessons from Sony or was it the other way around?  

Ohh- below the belt hit to Sony and Nintendo  

[Keranu]

You programmers know I can only understand so much of you're programming talk, but I still absolutely enjoy reading it and find it fascinating .