Md 68k and hu6280 comparison

[Arkhan]

Yeah, the HUD sucks in Hard Corps.  I didn't think the graphics looked too bad, when you consider that its a genesis game.

I thought about it a little more, and these are ones I remember looking pretty nice:

Ecco the Dolphin 1 and 2 (duh)
Blaster Master 2, though looking at it again, it's kind of bland in alot of places.
all the Sonic games (I mean that's kind of a given, I guess)
Comix Zone
Flashback
Pirates of Dark Water

But, if I think of SNES and PCE games, the list kinda just keeps going.  Easily, too.

Some of the most widely loved Genesis games look like shit.

[Bonknuts]

This argument has gone back and forth for years.  Look at the games and what the system is capable of.  Later MD games would be really hard to visualize on the PCE.  The PCE is really good at color and I think that is the systems strong suit.  The md has poor color but can be displayed cleverly.  Systems and chip sets have strengths and weaknesses.  In my experience the PCE does shooters really well.  The md certainly does animation better, and the snes did RPGs.  It was an amazing time as all systems were so different and had so much personality.  I don't think that the PCE suffered so much from it's "bit-ness" however it really does straddle the line between 8bit and 16bit.  When push comes to shove you won't see earthworm Jim on the PCE or Ranger x, at least not without noticeable sacrifices.

 Says the man who's lacks any real understanding or even experience coding for these systems. I *know* that you are here just to troll. Go back to Sega16, please.

 The PCE hucard setup lacks system ram. 8k is enough to handle all variables, but it's no where near enough to decompress and keep graphics in a buffer for fast access (like the Genesis and SNES). Thus piss poor compression schemes used and minimal animation. I've seen quite a few hucards store graphics in 8 color tile format (sprites and bg tiles) to save on space. The PCE was originally setup for 32k (you can see the evidence as the first 8k bank is mirror on the next three banks. The supergrafx actually fills those slots), and it that would have helped tremendously in using schemes like LZ compression BITD (like Genesis and SNES did).

 The PCE doesn't lack speed (game logic speed is faster than the snes and about even with the Genesis). The PCE doesn't lack vram bandwidth; it can write to vram during all of active display (if vblank isn't enough). It does have block transfer instructions which are essentially dma 'instructions'  (while not as fast the snes DMA or Genesis DMA, it's a hell of a lot faster than any manual copy method and the previous 8bit game platforms lacked this). The PCE doesn't lack VRAM; it has the same as the Genesis and SNES. Matter of fact, the PCE vram layout is like the Genesis in that it's pretty flexible as where to put stuff (tiles/sprites/SAT); unlike the snes that's more rigid in it's layout. The PCE's sprite scanline limit is also inline with the other two systems. The sprites can be any of the different sizes on screen like the Genenis and unlike the snes that's limited to only 2 sprite sizes per screen.

 The PCE being the first system out, of the next generation, does lack a few things compared to system that came out *afterwards*. And the second BG layer is pretty much the only thing to stand out. If you want to criticize the PCE, do it for that. Not all this other bullshit.



 Anyway, I thought this was supposed to be processor vs processor, and not game console vs game console. Let's get back on track.

Not quite extreme.   The more 16-bit operations you do, the more the 68k will begin to win out.   Unless you make frequent, proper use of the zero page.

So it really just depends what kind of game you're making.  What's really funny though, is you would most often be using 16 bit numbers for RPGs (for stats, EXP, gear, combat stuff), so you won't even notice that there's a speed difference.  Smile

 Even if you gave the 68k the full benefit of doubt and said all 16bit operations are faster, how many 16bit operations do you have to execute per 1/60 frame in relation to everything else? I would think an RPG would be the lowest; it'd not like you're going to be hitting those on  1/60th frame basis (at least not for turn base RPGs).

 

Some other exemples, are super aleste, ans rendering ranger R2

 The '816, even with its hindering 8bit data bus, would smoke both the 6280 and the 68k at the same clock speed. Even with the 8bit data bus, the '816 is faster at both 16bit and 32bit math cycle wise. But if the '816 had a model with a full 16bit data bus, it would just be stupidly crazy fast.

Yes i think so, this is the strong department of this machine, colors and sprites moving, but his sprites limit is very low for a certain kind of games, like beats them all.

 I understand the 16 wide sprite cell setup on the pce, but it wouldn't have been that hard for have a 'half flag' in the SAT that would treat all sprites as 16x8 instead of 16x16. That goes a long way IMO. But that said, MD has a much better sprite size setup (smaller is better in this case) for beatem ups. But if you designed a beatem up from the ground up, you can get something better than Crest of the Wolf/Riot Zone. Check this out:

 All the sprites have been resized to 32 width segments (the top half are offset from the legs). Right there, that's seven 32 wide sprites per scanline. It's not busting the scanline limit. Of course, you wouldn't be fighting all 7 at once; take a note from the SOR2 and SOR3 games - move sprites to the top and bottom and have them wait (sometimes the game even moves them off screen). Also have them fall back really far (almost all the way off screen), etc. SOR2 and more so with SOR3, plays really dirty with the AI to keep the sprite scanline limit down.

[Arkhan]

Even if you gave the 68k the full benefit of doubt and said all 16bit operations are faster, how many 16bit operations do you have to execute per 1/60 frame in relation to everything else? I would think an RPG would be the lowest; it'd not like you're going to be hitting those on  1/60th frame basis (at least not for turn base RPGs).

That's why I said you wouldn't even notice the speed difference.

You'd notice it in action games, depending what exactly it is you're doing.   If you have an action RPG, depending how you have planned out your character system, it might do something for you.

[touko]

Yes MD sprites size is the most flexible of the 3, and made for saving VRAM, and maximise sprites on screen .
His sprites limit is also very good in h40 mode, by 20 (16 pixels) sprites/scanline  .
With this, a conversion of final fight is more easy ..

I tried to think how doing a good browler on PCE, and I came to the conclusion that the best compromise would be a base of 32*48 pixels sprites, for pushing max sprites on screen,and compensate for the small size by more variety in the movements .

But no doubt that the 6280 can handle a FF sprite size, with 5/6 sprites on screen at same time, and all the game logic,he is powerfull enough .

We discussed with stef about bloc transfers, and it seems that 68k is very more efficient than 6280 in this department .
A peek of 2.2 cycles /bytes, and an average of 4.3 cycles for the 68k.

[EvilEvoIX]

This is an argument I've been rehashing for months.  Look at the roms I have and ignore what the system is capable of.  MD games are impossible for me to visualize on the PCE.  The PCE is really cute and I think that is the systems strong suit.  The md has poor color but I can be fooled by simple tricks.  Systems and chip sets have strengths and weaknesses which I cherry pick to acknowledge.  In my experience, I have only seen the PCE do shooters.  The md certainly hand-draws cartoons better, and the snes has more RPGs in english.  It was an amazing time that I missed out on, or so I am told, as all systems were said to be so different and had so much personality.  I don't think that the PCE suffered so much from it's "bit-ness" however it really does straddle the line between NES and SMS.  When push comes to shove you could see Sapphire on the MD or Lords of Thunder, without any noticeable sacrifices.

Fixed.

Here we go again.

Man I had all three systems in the day.  Idk why my opinion is being dismissed.  Arguing the specific chipset we all know the M6800 is a more powerful processor.  The MD was given a lot more tools to work with.  It lacks color.

Only the parts of your opinions which dismiss and ignore all presented facts. See this latest comment for example. Did you even read any of the tech talk before ignoring it and just re-posting the same stuff again?

Butt-hurt?  Sorry you feel that way :/


I have the express, the tg16 and now the duo r.  I forgot how much Bloody Wolf looks like Gunstar;).  The 6800 is more powerful SND can do more.  As stated in previous threads the PCE can run 8bit data really well but in comparison to the md with 16/32bit stuff it falls behind.  You are not gona run Resq on the PCE.  Keep ignoring those facts?

[Arkhan]

Oh please, ResQ is doable on the PCE.


and, its the 68000.  Not the 6800

[EvilEvoIX]

This argument has gone back and forth for years.  Look at the games and what the system is capable of.  Later MD games would be really hard to visualize on the PCE.  The PCE is really good at color and I think that is the systems strong suit.  The md has poor color but can be displayed cleverly.  Systems and chip sets have strengths and weaknesses.  In my experience the PCE does shooters really well.  The md certainly does animation better, and the snes did RPGs.  It was an amazing time as all systems were so different and had so much personality.  I don't think that the PCE suffered so much from it's "bit-ness" however it really does straddle the line between 8bit and 16bit.  When push comes to shove you won't see earthworm Jim on the PCE or Ranger x, at least not without noticeable sacrifices.

 

And yet the MD/Genesis couldn't give you a decent copy of BomberMan, Fatal Fury 2, Fatal Fury Special, or Art of Fighting to save its own life. Dracula X is far better then Bloodlines hoped to be, visually or otherwise. Snatcher, better looking on PCE. Raiden, better on PCE. This happens to be the case with most games, including all the arcade ports, that were on both systems, and there are plenty of games on PCE that are visually more appealing then Ranger X. Ranger X is mostly standard fare for the Genesis in its later life, with a few neat tricks in spots but honestly a lot of smaller to average sprites, dull looking colors and boring enemies and sub par audio. It's also another one of those titles that could have been done on on PCE, esp if on Super Cd. Yeah you'd lose the background scrolling, but f*ck it, who cares. The sprites and over all detail and color in the game could have been improved, and over all that is more important.

The Genesis was a great system for being able to move a lot of stuff around the screen fast background wise. Regardless of that, a lot of the crap did not look that great as a whole. Low colors and a rough look are common among even the top tier Genesis titles, and Earthworm Jim is def not that impressive. Tiny to average sprites and a lot of filler spaces in the background art where there is no actual details. Other then the scrolling going on in the background, the game could have been done on PCE, with cleaner, better looking sprites for that matter. The sprite animation could have been handled fine. If you are going to name a game that really holds its own still on the Genesis, pick something like Lightning Force, Shinobi III or Sonic 2, but def not Ranger X or Earthworm Jim.

I'm not really going to go into the sound, people have their own preferences on that, and both systems are able to generate great music and voices when the right programmers are handling it. In the end though don't just assume that because it wasn't done on PCE that it simply can't be done. You may have to ditch some background scrolling, sure, but that is not what makes the game fun or over all visually appealing (and push come to shove, the PCE does have its own nifty tricks up its sleeve, see Vasteel or Metamor Jupiter for a couple of examples). Most everything else the PCE does better, hands down.  And back onto Earthworm for a sec, the only reason Earthworm Jim didn't even get a TG16 release was because Interplay/Shiney did not support Nec systems.

I’m sorry we are AGAIN going to ignore the CD memory storage (yes I know it’s just a CD and no power added except tehzz biosessez) and the fact that some games get bad ports?  Are we to judge the TG-16 based upon Bravo-Man or the pile of shit we westerners were given?  Everyone is quick to make excuses for that plague of shit and everyone looks passed that.  So I say we get to look passed piles of shit on the MD as well and there are bad PORTS but you mean to tell me a game like UMK3 would run as well, with as much animation and speed, and proper sound FX; dreaming.  Even using the CD the loads alone would kill the game.

Look at Sonic 2, the amount of shit going on in that game, the quality of sound FX and Music and then the speed, no f*cking way.  Way too much going on.

Look at f*cking Altered Beast?  Why is that shittyness ignored?  Apples to Apples MD Vs. PCE.  Great Animation intro thanks to CD Rom, great voice over, then 8-bit shittyness.  What excuse is there?  Why couldn't the game look as good as the MD?  Look how choppy and darty the animation is?  The music sounds like it's coming from a Halmark Music Card.  And now you tell me Earthworm Jim can come from this?


How can this game be improved, seriously?  It can't do these style of games well so play on strengths.  Shooters, well all know the PCE does shooters.  I've been hammering my way through a stack of PCE SUper CD versions and great games.

More Apples to Apples?

I have Street Fighter for all systems (16-bit)  The PCE is VERY slow in running the game in comparison to the MD.  Prolly has something to do with the fact that the MD can handle more sprites and animation on screen than the PCE.  Just keep ignoring that.  Of course the MD could handle the ports with a CD add-on but it’s unfair since the Sega CD is so much more powerful so again I point to Dynamite Headdy and Earthworm Jim.  Direct comparisons are hard to make but try to keep the games within the same years. Sonic 2 Vs. Bonk; really?  Mascot crazes was all there was back then, Mario, Sonic, Bonk.  They went toe to toe back then but the level of game play, depth of game play, and just the quality Bonk took a back seat. 

Music?  Not gona happen with those scratchy bleeps and bloops unless you go CD.  The animation?  Maybe but with so many dynamic tiles to pick up the slack you’ll hit a limit faster.  Colors?  Duh.

Ranger X is standard indeed except when you rule out the fluidity, that much crap going on is not going to handle well on the PCE; sorry.  Did you ever play that game?  The controls alone are amazing.  Back in the day when reading game mags I always thought the SNES was superior (sales wise it was ) when looking at screen shots.  What I failed to do is play the game.  Writhe with slowdown and poor controls.  Great still sprites.  Flash back to Ranger X.  The speed the game runs at, the depth of color (For the MD) is amazing and shade and highlight tricks bring it up to acceptable standards but obviously not PCE standards.  

Oh and this level, not gona happen on the PCE, sorry.


Not  gonna do Alien Soldier, not gona get a lot of Mega Drive games without sacrifice.  It'll look watered down like Altered Beast.  So many excuses flying around.  Later games are the biggest excuse, how is a systems success in the market place an issue?  I mean seriously how can a game from 1995 be excluded when the Turbo had games in 1995?

I will agree with one thing though, there is a LOT of Shit on the Mega Drive, almost as much as the TG16 Western Releases,  the pile of sports crap alone is enough to choke a horse.  I see the Mega Drive as  a superior system, and don't take that negatively but it can just do more stuff grafically intensive stuff.  Can you really imagine Vector man running just as well?  No?  Me neither.  RESQ?  Nope.  Certainly in the sound FX Dept very scratchy and lacks clarity on the PCE.  Not saying the MD hasn’t any shit-fests on it’s sound chips but when done right the sound just pumps absolute clarity.  One listen to Dynamite Headdy or Street of Rage and you can’t imagine that quality coming from the PCE unless CD.  The Westerns certainly chose the MD did, the Japanese did not.  The MD owned the States and Europe, the PCE won Japan until unseated by the SNES.

Thanks again!!

[Bonknuts]

We discussed with stef about bloc transfers, and it seems that 68k is very more efficient than 6280 in this department .
A peek of 2.2 cycles /bytes, and an average of 4.3 cycles for the 68k.

 I'm assuming this is cpu only and not DMA from the VDP of the MD. Here's what I got:

Code: [Select]

68k:
  
memory->port copy:  
@loop
  move.l  (a0)+,(a1)      ;20 cycles.  20/4=5 cycles a byte. If the port is 32bits wide
  dbra    d0,@loop        ;10 cycles for each branch, 14 cycles for last no branch.
  
                          ;(20+10)/4= 7.5  cycles a byte. If the port is 32bits wide
  
@loop
  move.w  (a0)+,(a1)     ;12 cycles.  12/2=6  cycles a byte. If the port is 16bits wide
  dbra    d0,@loop        ;10 cycles for each branch, 14 cycles for last no branch.
  
                          ;(12+10)/2= 11 cycles a byte. If the port is 16bits wide

@loop
  move.b  (a0)+,(a1)      ;12 cycles.  12/1=12 cycles a byte. If the port is  8bits wide
  dbra    d0,@loop        ;10 cycles for each branch, 14 cycles for last no branch.
  
                          ;(12+10)/1= 22 cycles a byte. If the port is 8bits wide
  
 Note: doesn't include setup time to load source and destination regs
  


6280:
  
  TII,TDD                 ;6 cycles a byte
  TIN,TIA,TAI             ;6 cycles a byte (assuming not VDC destination)

 Note: doesn't include setup time to load source and destination regs
 If we did apples to apples comparison to block transfer, a 16bit port write, then the 6280 comes out ahead. I showed port write examples on the MD side, but memory->memory transfer is the same size for all data elements that I posted in the example because MD can do (An)+,(An)+ without extra over head of the second port increment. Of course, the 6280 has no penalty for memory to memory copies either. The 6280 even comes out ahead for 32bit memory->memory copies as well.

 Of course, you can bring down the overhead of the DBra by expanding the loop - but then you must adhere to the block copy segments (i.e. if it's 10 unrolled move.l then data transfer must be a multiple of 10 (long,word, or byte); no more or no less). If you unrolled the copy loop on the 68k side so that DBra is less than 1 cycle, then the 68k is only 1 cycle faster per byte copy to the 6280 (5 vs 6).

 But if you're gonna do something akin to unrolling a loop, MOVEM.L would be a better option:

Code: [Select]

@loop
  movem.l (a5),d0-d6/a0-a4    ; 8+(12*8) = 104
  adda.l  #12,a5              ; 6+8 = 14
  movem.l d0-d6/a0-a4,(a6)+   ; 12+(12*8)= 108
  dbra    d7,@loop            ;10 cycles for each branch, 14 cycles for last no branch.
  
                              ;104+108+14+10 = 236 cycles. 12 long words = 48 bytes. 236/48 = 4.9166 cycles per byte.
  
  Note: doesn't include setup time to load source and destination regs

 That's the max size I could transfer: 48 bytes (12 long word regs);  4.9166 cycles per byte.

You need one reg for the counter, one reg for the source address, one reg for the destination address and the stack is already taken with A7. And if your data chunk size needs to be less than that, the cycle count per byte goes up from there. What did stef post for memory moving code? Btw, I like stef. Stef's a good guy, but he's definitely a 68k fan and a little bit on the biased side (don't want to say fanboy, because I don't want to insult him).

[Bonknuts]

... [some bullshit]

 One, you don't know shit. All you do is look at games and determine the systems abilities. You have no clue what limitations any of these systems have, you just talk out your ass. Even Sega fans on Sega16 have corrected you on your ignorant ass assumptions of what any of these consoles can do, let alone the PCE/TG16. So w(hy)TF are you even here? This is a technical discussion about two processor; nothing else. You have NOTHING to contribute; so GTFO. Go post your bullshit in some other thread (make a new one or hijack some other thread).

I have Street Fighter for all systems (16-bit)  The PCE is VERY slow in running the game in comparison to the MD.  Prolly has something to do with the fact that the MD can handle more sprites and animation on screen than the PCE.  Just keep ignoring that.  Of course the MD could handle the ports with a CD add-on but it’s un-fare since the Sega CD is so much more powerful so again I point to Dynamite Headdy and Earthworm Jim. 

 

 SF2 runs slow? You mean because it's NOT turbo edition and therefore does not have the speed adjustment? The PCE doesn't struggle to run SF2. I looked into the game. I hacked the game to run animation for both characters at 60fps (a character update on every frame; not the stock ~12fps). So the PCE can easily transfer to vram; it's not limited there. I hacked the game logic to perform two frames into a single NTSC; that's 120fps. But not just game logic, but everything; line scrolls, map updating, frame updating, two channel sample playing an decompression - all the stuff it wouldn't normally have to do to run twice as fast. The game didn't slow down. Not to mention the CPU, the only cpu in the system, is doing other stuff the MD 68k is not doing; it's playing samples on TWO channels, as well as decompressing them in realtime (which takes up cpu resource). Dude, you don't know anything about anything.

 This discussion is about what's capable, not what was done. The PCE is much more capable that what most software for it, leads you to believe. If you don't want to believe that, then fine - but you have no understanding or experience to argue otherwise. All you do is troll bullshit about the PCE (on other forums and now you bring it here).

[EvilEvoIX]

He meant that the MD is better at hand-drawing with pencils than the PCE.

I wish I were being sarcastic.

LOL ..

I do not mean to be a pce fanboy, but there are some points where Md is better than PCE, and IMO not for CPU ..

It should not be a general CPU usage, because the main use is the game, and assembly was the main language, the c was trivial in professional studios.

The MD has lots of strengths over the PCE and vice versa, just as the SNES has strengths and weaknesses that balance out overall with the MD & PCE. But ever since evilevolx first declared that he "has all the roms", yet was unfamiliar with most games, he has been preaching that the PCE and its games are not in the same class as the MD and SNES and that it is instead in the higher end of the 8-bit generation.

It's pretty bad when you end up with everyone in a Genesis forum arguing against your Genesis>PCE opinions. It's even crazier to think that you'd find any more support for them here.

Here we go, we all forget to list the MAIN ingredient.  FUN.  Which was a better system, the NES or the Atari Jaguar?  You can argue Bits and bloops till teh cows came home but the NES rules.

We all forget the fun factor some times.  Oh and SHit Dick, I have all the games, and now all the systems and last I checked a CD Burner.  I've played the games, they are fun, stop it.  You guys get butt-hurt so easily and AGAIN I point out that hardware=shit when the software = shit.  Nobody seems to get their head around that.

[Arkhan]

Look at Sonic 2, the amount of shit going on in that game, the quality of sound FX and Music and then the speed, no f*cking way.  Way too much going on.

There's not that much going on in Sonic 2.  Outside of the fancy bonus levels, double layers, and the fast speed.   You can do the fast speed stuff on the NES, for shits sake, dude.

Look at f*cking Altered Beast?  Why is that shittyness ignored?  Apples to Apples MD Vs. PCE.  Great Animation intro thanks to CD Rom, great voice over, then 8-bit shittyness.  What excuse is there?  Why couldn't the game look as good as the MD?  Look how choppy and darty the animation is?  The music sounds like it's coming from a Halmark Music Card.  And now you tell me Earthworm Jim can come from this?

Apples To Apples?  Well then how about you compare the card version of Altered Beast, instead of the CD one.    That seems like a solid idea.   Not to mention, of course the Sega version is the best.  You think Sega wants the best version of their pack-in game on a different console?  Huhdrhrhrhrhr.

Also, comparing the sound chips is stupid.  Everyone's got preferences.   A lot of people think FM sounds like shit.

Also look at RELEASE DATES.  You know developers don't start out as experts on the system, right?  EWJ was way after Altered Beast.  

Altered Beast is a giant pile of shit compared to anything that came out just a few years later on the Genesis.

Direct comparisons are hard to make but try to keep the games within the same years. Sonic 2 Vs. Bonk; really?  Mascot crazes was all there was back then, Mario, Sonic, Bonk.  They went toe to toe back then but the level of game play, depth of game play, and just the quality Bonk took a back seat.  

the Bonk series is an entirely different type of platformer.   If Sonic didn't have you moving at ADHD rates through most of the game, there's hardly shit to do in that game.   Most of it's just watching loop-de-loops and cool twirly shit.  The platforming itself takes a backseat.

Bonk presents itself in a highly cartoon fashion.  I thought that was obvious.

Music?  Not gona happen with those scratchy bleeps and bloops unless you go CD.  The animation?  Maybe but with so many dynamic tiles to pick up the slack you’ll hit a limit faster.  Colors?  Duh.

What?  Please stop.  The Genesis FM chip is not that glorious.   It's scratchy AND tinny.   I made a PC Engine version of Doom's level 1 music.  It sounds less shit than the Sega 32X version.   Also, go listen to shadow of the beast on Genesis, and then:
http://aetherbyte.com/downloadables/sotb.mp3
 Check that out.    Draw your own conclusions.

Ranger X is standard indeed except when you rule out the fluidity, that much crap going on is not going to handle well on the PCE; sorry.  Did you ever play that game?  The controls alone are amazing.  Back in the day when reading game mags I always thought the SNES was superior (sales wise it was ) when looking at screen shots.  What I failed to do is play the game.  Writhe with slowdown and poor controls.  Great still sprites.  Flash back to Ranger X.  The speed the game runs at, the depth of color (For the MD) is amazing and shade and highlight tricks bring it up to acceptable standards but obviously not PCE standards.  

I've determined that you have ADD and think that more distractions from simplicity = better.  Winds of Thunder is equally impressive compared to Ranger X.  Explain why the Sega CD one isn't as good as PCE CD?


You really should not comment on whats possible/not possible with CD vs. No CD.   Because alot of what you say kind of makes no sense.

Go look at Coryoon.  It's a card game.    Highly detailed/colorful/fast/full of things going on.   Its on a card.


You're too fanboyish about the Genesis.  It's a good system, but it's by no means vastly superior to PCE

[Necromancer]

Here we go, we all forget to list the MAIN ingredient.  FUN.  Which was a better system, the NES or the Atari Jaguar?  You can argue Bits and bloops till teh cows came home but the NES rules.

We all forget the fun factor some times.  Oh and SHit Dick, I have all the games, and now all the systems and last I checked a CD Burner.  I've played the games, they are fun, stop it.  You guys get butt-hurt so easily and AGAIN I point out that hardware=shit when the software = shit.  Nobody seems to get their head around that.

This thread is clearly about TECHNICAL MERITS, you useless cunt. 

[EvilEvoIX]

This argument has gone back and forth for years.  Look at the games and what the system is capable of.  Later MD games would be really hard to visualize on the PCE.  The PCE is really good at color and I think that is the systems strong suit.  The md has poor color but can be displayed cleverly.  Systems and chip sets have strengths and weaknesses.  In my experience the PCE does shooters really well.  The md certainly does animation better, and the snes did RPGs.  It was an amazing time as all systems were so different and had so much personality.  I don't think that the PCE suffered so much from it's "bit-ness" however it really does straddle the line between 8bit and 16bit.  When push comes to shove you won't see earthworm Jim on the PCE or Ranger x, at least not without noticeable sacrifices.

 Says the man who's lacks any real understanding or even experience coding for these systems. I *know* that you are here just to troll. Go back to Sega16, please.

 The PCE hucard setup lacks system ram. 8k is enough to handle all variables, but it's no where near enough to decompress and keep graphics in a buffer for fast access (like the Genesis and SNES). Thus piss poor compression schemes used and minimal animation. I've seen quite a few hucards store graphics in 8 color tile format (sprites and bg tiles) to save on space. The PCE was originally setup for 32k (you can see the evidence as the first 8k bank is mirror on the next three banks. The supergrafx actually fills those slots), and it that would have helped tremendously in using schemes like LZ compression BITD (like Genesis and SNES did).

 The PCE doesn't lack speed (game logic speed is faster than the snes and about even with the Genesis). The PCE doesn't lack vram bandwidth; it can write to vram during all of active display (if vblank isn't enough). It does have block transfer instructions which are essentially dma 'instructions'  (while not as fast the snes DMA or Genesis DMA, it's a hell of a lot faster than any manual copy method and the previous 8bit game platforms lacked this). The PCE doesn't lack VRAM; it has the same as the Genesis and SNES. Matter of fact, the PCE vram layout is like the Genesis in that it's pretty flexible as where to put stuff (tiles/sprites/SAT); unlike the snes that's more rigid in it's layout. The PCE's sprite scanline limit is also inline with the other two systems. The sprites can be any of the different sizes on screen like the Genenis and unlike the snes that's limited to only 2 sprite sizes per screen.

 The PCE being the first system out, of the next generation, does lack a few things compared to system that came out *afterwards*. And the second BG layer is pretty much the only thing to stand out. If you want to criticize the PCE, do it for that. Not all this other bullshit.



 Anyway, I thought this was supposed to be processor vs processor, and not game console vs game console. Let's get back on track.

Not quite extreme.   The more 16-bit operations you do, the more the 68k will begin to win out.   Unless you make frequent, proper use of the zero page.

So it really just depends what kind of game you're making.  What's really funny though, is you would most often be using 16 bit numbers for RPGs (for stats, EXP, gear, combat stuff), so you won't even notice that there's a speed difference.  Smile

 Even if you gave the 68k the full benefit of doubt and said all 16bit operations are faster, how many 16bit operations do you have to execute per 1/60 frame in relation to everything else? I would think an RPG would be the lowest; it'd not like you're going to be hitting those on  1/60th frame basis (at least not for turn base RPGs).

 

Some other exemples, are super aleste, ans rendering ranger R2

 The '816, even with its hindering 8bit data bus, would smoke both the 6280 and the 68k at the same clock speed. Even with the 8bit data bus, the '816 is faster at both 16bit and 32bit math cycle wise. But if the '816 had a model with a full 16bit data bus, it would just be stupidly crazy fast.

Yes i think so, this is the strong department of this machine, colors and sprites moving, but his sprites limit is very low for a certain kind of games, like beats them all.

 I understand the 16 wide sprite cell setup on the pce, but it wouldn't have been that hard for have a 'half flag' in the SAT that would treat all sprites as 16x8 instead of 16x16. That goes a long way IMO. But that said, MD has a much better sprite size setup (smaller is better in this case) for beatem ups. But if you designed a beatem up from the ground up, you can get something better than Crest of the Wolf/Riot Zone. Check this out:

 All the sprites have been resized to 32 width segments (the top half are offset from the legs). Right there, that's seven 32 wide sprites per scanline. It's not busting the scanline limit. Of course, you wouldn't be fighting all 7 at once; take a note from the SOR2 and SOR3 games - move sprites to the top and bottom and have them wait (sometimes the game even moves them off screen). Also have them fall back really far (almost all the way off screen), etc. SOR2 and more so with SOR3, plays really dirty with the AI to keep the sprite scanline limit down.

FIRST OF ALL!!!!  Thank you for calling me a man.  Second of all, the thread is titled Md 68k and hu6280 comparison
So we are just comparing single chip sets here, not the whole multichip architecture.  Toe to toe between these two the MD68K is more powerful and can handle more operations so end of thread right?  Well wrong of course that would be silly, almost as silly as what you wrote above so allow me to retort.
I’ve played these systems to death.  Who knows more about what an Indy car or a NASCAR can do, the engineer or the driver?  Just because I didn’t sit there with my dick in my hand and a computer keyboard in the other doesn’t mean I don’t know what these systems can do.  I have all three of them since day one, act one, scene one.  I have all the games now as well and years of experience.  One thing that is not acceptable is theoretical stuffs that haven’t been done.  Technically the new Dodge Viper is geared to 300 MPH in top gear, so it’s the fastest car in the world right?

About even with the Genesis in game logic, that’s an interesting way to put it, some folks would call it SLOWER.  The SNES is a pile of shit in processing power but we all know it is designed with multi chip architecture to pull it’s weight, just like the PCE.  Obviously if it was only the HU6280 we’d be calling it the NES 2.
It’s not just the 2nd back ground layer.  The sound took a huge hit.  The CD add-on covered this beautify because no one can argue with CD quality sound but the actual sound FX are quite stratchy.  Now I didn’t say they were not appealing, but man the sound is iffy at times.

Lets look at Bonks Revenge and Sonic 2, both came out around the same time, both were major mascots.  I think the MD could handle that game so long as the developer did something with the colors.  You mean to tell me you can get Sonic 2 on the PCE?  Seriously?  This is my point, hell even the NES had a decent port of Bonk with it’s 24 colors or so.
My point is missed every time with the fanboi rose colored glasses however.  We all love the PCE, hell I have three versions of the systems and basically all the games.  It get’s hours of my attention.  But in comparison of the hardware, specifically the specific chipsets in this particular thread, we all know which system is more powerful.

That’s all my fingers hurt.

[touko]

Stef explanation was to use all registers to make bloc transfers ..
but you have a 80 cycles init before (if i'am right),and you can transfer 50/70 bytes at once .


Stef told me ,he had made a fast clear routine with 2.2 cycles/byte,and for logical copy at 4.3/4.4 for his dev kit .
i quote the translated message :

https://code.google.com/p/sgdk/source/browse/trunk/src/bmp_a.s

If you want you can have fun counting the cycles but basically with this routine I clear a buffer of 256x160 pixels (4bpp) is 20480 bytes in about 44,000 cycles.

Or 2.2 cycles / byte ... (thus a clear flow of 3.58 MB / s)
And the copy is logically happens about twice or 4.3-4.4 cycles / byte.
And then your 6280 is dropped, already in the copy, but the clear one is more related x3 ...

Link is for loading his routine source code .

@EvilEvoIX: for sound capabilities, the PCE chip is more flexible, you can make several kinds of sound than FM chip only in MD ..
And cherry on the pudding, you don't need a 68000+Z80+ all MIT employees for doing a single correct sample .

For SF2 i'am a big fanboy of snes version, and when i have played with the PCE version, nothing slow, i was surprised on how playing sensations are the same than snes ..
You can only blame the lack of second layer,nothing more ..
SF2 on PCE is a f*cking good conversion, we can not say the same of the MD version, no slowdown, but large dithered graphics, and uggly sounds ..

[EvilEvoIX]

Look at Sonic 2, the amount of shit going on in that game, the quality of sound FX and Music and then the speed, no f*cking way.  Way too much going on.

There's not that much going on in Sonic 2.  Outside of the fancy bonus levels, double layers, and the fast speed.   You can do the fast speed stuff on the NES, for shits sake, dude.

Look at f*cking Altered Beast?  Why is that shittyness ignored?  Apples to Apples MD Vs. PCE.  Great Animation intro thanks to CD Rom, great voice over, then 8-bit shittyness.  What excuse is there?  Why couldn't the game look as good as the MD?  Look how choppy and darty the animation is?  The music sounds like it's coming from a Halmark Music Card.  And now you tell me Earthworm Jim can come from this?

Apples To Apples?  Well then how about you compare the card version of Altered Beast, instead of the CD one.    That seems like a solid idea.   Not to mention, of course the Sega version is the best.  You think Sega wants the best version of their pack-in game on a different console?  Huhdrhrhrhrhr.

Also, comparing the sound chips is stupid.  Everyone's got preferences.   A lot of people think FM sounds like shit.

Also look at RELEASE DATES.  You know developers don't start out as experts on the system, right?  EWJ was way after Altered Beast.  

Altered Beast is a giant pile of shit compared to anything that came out just a few years later on the Genesis.

Direct comparisons are hard to make but try to keep the games within the same years. Sonic 2 Vs. Bonk; really?  Mascot crazes was all there was back then, Mario, Sonic, Bonk.  They went toe to toe back then but the level of game play, depth of game play, and just the quality Bonk took a back seat.  

the Bonk series is an entirely different type of platformer.   If Sonic didn't have you moving at ADHD rates through most of the game, there's hardly shit to do in that game.   Most of it's just watching loop-de-loops and cool twirly shit.  The platforming itself takes a backseat.

Bonk presents itself in a highly cartoon fashion.  I thought that was obvious.

Music?  Not gona happen with those scratchy bleeps and bloops unless you go CD.  The animation?  Maybe but with so many dynamic tiles to pick up the slack you’ll hit a limit faster.  Colors?  Duh.

What?  Please stop.  The Genesis FM chip is not that glorious.   It's scratchy AND tinny.   I made a PC Engine version of Doom's level 1 music.  It sounds less shit than the Sega 32X version.   Also, go listen to shadow of the beast on Genesis, and then:
http://aetherbyte.com/downloadables/sotb.mp3
 Check that out.    Draw your own conclusions.

Ranger X is standard indeed except when you rule out the fluidity, that much crap going on is not going to handle well on the PCE; sorry.  Did you ever play that game?  The controls alone are amazing.  Back in the day when reading game mags I always thought the SNES was superior (sales wise it was ) when looking at screen shots.  What I failed to do is play the game.  Writhe with slowdown and poor controls.  Great still sprites.  Flash back to Ranger X.  The speed the game runs at, the depth of color (For the MD) is amazing and shade and highlight tricks bring it up to acceptable standards but obviously not PCE standards.  

I've determined that you have ADD and think that more distractions from simplicity = better.  Winds of Thunder is equally impressive compared to Ranger X.  Explain why the Sega CD one isn't as good as PCE CD?


You really should not comment on whats possible/not possible with CD vs. No CD.   Because alot of what you say kind of makes no sense.

Go look at Coryoon.  It's a card game.    Highly detailed/colorful/fast/full of things going on.   Its on a card.


You're too fanboyish about the Genesis.  It's a good system, but it's by no means vastly superior to PCE

Right, Sonic 2 on the NES, and I’m the idiot.  Would it look like this?

Yup just like the Genesis  What the f*ck was I thinking?

Now I have to compare cards to Carts vs CD’s?  Why do the rules keep changing? I thought the CD didn’t count as an add on as it didn’t add any horse power?  Preferences on sound chips?  Hey listen that is a 100% valid argument but comparing the sound quality from say a VHS Vs a Blue Ray you MAY prefer the VHS but one is technically better.  Now the MD and the PCE are not that far apart as the previous example but one is clearly better, certainly clearer.

Bonk is obviously a great game, I have all three on Chip, but when I sit down to play these things and the game is beat my first time through on all of them, there is something amiss.  Grafx wise just a bunch of still sprites with almost zero animation.   The fire in game is just rapid color changes.  Now in terms of Art Design it is indeed a work of art but serious lacks anything other than color to make it part of the next generation of console gaming.  There is nothing amazing going on in that game except for the style.

The genesis FM is indeed glorious.  What it lacked was competent hands.  Listen to Dynamite Headdy, listen to Earthworm Jim, Listen to Streets of Rage.  This is just not an argument.  You made sound using tech and know how from the 2000’s, how about we keep this argument in the late 80’s early 90’s OK?  BTW you should see what is being done with the MD sound chip these days, but that’s not fair right?  And I hope that sound clip you left me was a Joke because it sure sounded like it.
Not doing this, sorry.

You really can’t compare the Sega CD to the Turbo CD as the Sega CD is so much more powerful as upgrades are SUPPOSED TO BE.