Md 68k and hu6280 comparison

[Bonknuts]

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 .

 I looked over the code; there's no memory copy at ~4.3cycles that I saw in there. First routine is just a clear buffer (writes zero's to the buffer). Yeah, 2.160 cycles per byte (doesn't include the overhead of setting up, so 2.2 sounds about right). But there is no mem copy code in there. There's just line drawing code; not memory->memory copy code. Look at the fill code list, it's just the same value written over and over (single register, multiple addresses). Btw, I always disliked GNU's assembler syntax for 68k.

 So he's talking about fills. I thought you meant memory copy (memory->memory or memory->port). But yeah, it's got the 6280 beat on fills. Even if I did a super code list like his (even larger), the fastest to fill would be 5 cycles per byte (excluding setup overhead).


EvilEvoIX: Make a new thread somewhere else. Say, PCE/SGX subforum or TG16 area. Or hell, even in this subforum (although since you have nothing technical to bring to the table, I don't think it the appropriate subforum for it). But for f*ck sake, take it somewhere else.

 Edit: oh and:

Who knows more about what an Indy car or a NASCAR can do, the engineer or the driver?

Really? That's a piss poor analogy, annnddd self defeating. Wtf makes you think I haven't played all these games into the ground? I was gamer long before I was a coder. Secondly, I owned all three system back in the day and would import games even before they came out (I played Ex-ranza way before it came out in NA as Ranger-X). On top of that, that analogy makes no sense. You played the games, you didn't develop the games. There's gamers, then there's developers, and there's what the system can actually do. You're just a gamer; your analogy is invalid.

[ProfessorProfessorson]

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?

You even have programmers here even telling you otherwise, and a quite massive library of games to import and play on PCE before you make such uneducated statements. I'm sorry, but you are just not correct, and you honestly don't have enough experience with the PCE library, both hucard and cd wise to make these kind of baseless statements. It's not even like you have had the Duo-R forever, you just bout it off me a short while ago. I seriously doubt within that time you have amassed 300+ of the best titles for the system.

The video processor in the Genesis was not that great and took some real talent to make some great looking titles on the system, and the 68000 used in the Genesis was hampered by a low clock rate too. You shouldn't class the one used in the Genesis with everything else out there using a 68000. There was multiple versions of the cpu used using multiple clock rates and the one used for the Genesis was not one of the best, it was one of the worst versions.

I get it, your a die hard Genesis fan, and there is no shame in that. Everyone has their own preferences, but your opinion isn't fact, and your argument you keep presenting are just not put together well and the examples you bring to the table as proof are rather terrible examples of what the Genesis really could do well. I suggest picking up 200-250 of the best titles PCE has to offer. And no I don't mean playing some roms. I mean sitting down and playing real copies of titles on both CD and hucard. When you do this YOU WILL start to notice that most every game you buy that also has a Genesis version, the PCE version is going to look, play, and probably even sound better.

Before you start touting here in the tech section the power of the Genesis compared to the power of the PCE, you need to either have extensive experience with the large library of BOTH and come back with real side by side examples video or pic wise, and preferably some background experience in programming for both if you want to get into the nitty gritty. There are a few people here doing active programing that you are arguing with and its making you look like a idiot.

Concerning ResQ, yeah coulda been done easily. Nothing against Jason Backhouse, but again this is another shining example of the Genesis doing a nice background scroll and adding it to an otherwise mundane/average looking game (I will pretend I didn't ever see the terrible 3D bonus stages that have really bad 3D polygon graphics running in very low fps that drag the game down further). Tiny sprites, not much use of color going on, and a average soundtrack. Just on visuals alone pitting that one against other Psygnosis titles, Shadow of the Beast is visually more impressive then that game. Hell even Kim Power on PCE looks better and I f*cking hate Jim Power.

Like I said also, you are picking some really terrible examples title wise when trying to brag about what the Genesis could do. Due to the way the Genesis did handle visuals when maxed out, there are actually a few really high quality titles done on the machine that wouldn't carry over as well to PCE  at all due to the background scrolling being integral to the over all look (ie Shinobi 3), but Earthworm Jim and ResQ are def not one of them. It sounds like you are being impressed by the Genesis for all the wrong reasons.

Even stuff like Alien Soldier, it does have some pretty large sprites and some impressive things do go on, but over all its a very noisy game and visually is not pretty. Its one of those that just pushed a lot of large objects with ok to subpar colors around really fast. I had Ranger X, and I have Hercs copy sitting here right now. I have played through it before. I don't care for the game. Its not as action packed as you make it out to be, and the stage you reference is not as impressive as the stage trickery done later in the game on Metamor Jupiter on PCE.

And thats not to say something like Shinobi 3 couldn't be done, but again, due to the way the backgrounds moved and looked, sacrifices would have to be made, and some trickery done, otherwise you'd end up with a more plain looking background. The trade off would obviously be better looking sprites and colors though in spots. The core of the game could easily be retained.

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.

Street Fighter II slow? Really, you kidding me? It plays just as fast as its supposed to be, Its Champion Edition, not Turbo. It sounds better on PCE to boot. The Genesis port sounds terrible and some details on the Genesis port look meh. This is moot anyway. Again, the Genesis couldn't do a good port of Fatal Fury 2, Fatal Fury Special, World Heroes 2, or Art of Fighting to save its life. And don't forget, it damn well tried, via efforts from both Takara and Sega that ended up being fail, just like most every other arcade port that was on both systems. The PCE version of those games are awesome. Those titles are also visually quite a bit more impressive the the PCE, Snes, and Genesis SF2 ports, easily.

Sega CD you say? Well, they had Lords of Thunder, and it wasn't as good on Sega CD. Snatcher you say? Looks better on PCE (Dead in the Brain on PCE also looks better then Snatcher Sega CD). Fatal Fury Special on Sega CD? Yeah, it was crap, and the PCE curb stomps it. Any of the RPG titles on Sega CD, well, they are good to great sure, but there are better ones done on PCE by far. The Sega CD did one thing really well, and that was hardware scaling. For such a bigger hardware upgrade with a cd drive and all, I would have expected better games in general, but they were just not there. THAT IS A FACT. You bought a really expensive piece of crap that made a couple of impressive Batman simulators and SoulStar. Most everything else that was on it could have been done on Genesis minus the cd audio and crap FMV. Enjoy.

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. 

Sonic 2? I like Sonic 2 to an extent and all, but come on, Sonic does what? Runs, Thats mainly all the f*ck he does. The game was built around that. The actual gameplay is not impressive and not as fun as Bonks Revenge, let alone Super Mario World. Visually I agree its a great looking game in motion and there is little like it outside of maybe Bubsy. Its another one of the few examples of the Genesis moving the background graphics around rather well and actually maintaining a good look to it. Its not even a fair comparison because the games are not even remotely similar in visuals or anything. I mean seriously though, it wouldn't even be fair to compare the Bonks on Snes to Sonic 2 due to the totally different approach Sonic games take. I'd rather not compare Sonic 1-3 to anything other then other Sonic titles, or Bubsy.

The visuals are made around the way the game was designed to play. You hardly have to fight or kill any enemies in Sonic 2. What enemies are there are usually tiny and not all that great visually. Most of the visual efforts were put into the stage graphics and the stages were designed to be giant pretty video game versions of Hot Wheels stunt tracks. All you have to do is be good at timing your jumps while you speed through the stages. If your idea of fun is just blasting through a few sets of nice visuals then cool, but I'd rather get more interaction out of my games, and Sonic 2 can be one of those rather un-engaging games at times where you just wonder when the cpu is finally going to try to stop you outside of a boss battle or the air plane stage. Its almost sounds as if in some ways you are willing to choose a few pretty visuals over actual gameplay, and that's a terrible compromise. Sonic is one of those game series that I was rather glad was left to the Genesis due to its lack of substance.


This is one of those times where I'd have to say the typical Japanese gamer had better taste in games then typical gamers in North America did at times. The arguments you are making are basically the same kind 12 year olds made against the Snes during its battle with the Genesis, and there is no damn way I'd choose Sonic 2 over Super Mario World. I dont care how f*cking fast Sonic can run. You are too easily razzle dazzled.

[Arkhan]

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?

Uh, rather than compare it to some goony hack video, try using your head instead.  

Or how about Sonic 2 for game gear.   That uses a z80.   It's 8-bit, and done properly because professionals did it, instead of some hackjobs. What now?  

NES is capable of doing games that move as fast as Sonic.  It's not really much of anything to scroll around fast.  

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.

Yes, you said apples to apples.  If Altered Beast was a Mega CD game, you can bet it might have some of the same goofy animation.   It's fair to do cart vs. cart.   You just want to have it your way because otherwise your argument is less useful.

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.

There's nothing amazing going on in Sonic aside from the ADD loop de loops and hot wheels race tracks.  What about Super Mario World?  It's slow paced, and mostly just has sprawling levels to go through.

Sonic is full of simple shading and gradients, too.  What's your point?

Bonk is a cartoony platformer, and it does it perfectly.   The game play is more than solid, and the gameplay is also more interesting than Sonic.  I like Sonic alot, but I prefer Bonk.

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,

I made sound using the same tech and know how that would have been used in 1987 on the PC Engine.   It's called MML and it has existed since the 80s.   It's the exact same way music was made professionally back then for various platforms.

I made it using notepad.  That's a text editor.   They had those in the 80s.  

how about we keep this argument in the late 80’s early 90’s OK?

Mind explaining why you used a ROM hack as your point of argument above, then?   That was made with modern know how/tech.  

Or, was that OK to do since it keeps your argument from falling on it's face.

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.

It wasn't a joke.  It was a demonstration of Shadow of the Beast's song, done on the PC Engine.   It doesn't sound out of line with what you might have heard on the MD version, had that song actually appeared in the game.   It didn't though.

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.

Then, how come Winds of Thunder isn't as good on the Mega CD?

Why is Snatcher better looking on PCE CD?  

Why does Ecco the Dolphin look basically the same between versions?

How come PCE CD RPGs look just as good, if not better, than stuff like Lunar 2?





I really think you need to drop the Sega fanboyism, and go pound sand somewhere instead of pissing all over a thread with your ignorant jive.


EDIT:  I just caught ProfProf's post after posting mine, and Loled because I basically echoed him.


HOTWHEELS SONIC EDITION.  NOW WITH SPINDASH LOOP DE LOOP POWERRRRRRRRRRRR

[touko]

I looked over the code; there's no memory copy at ~4.3cycles that I saw in there. First routine is just a clear buffer (writes zero's to the buffer). Yeah, 2.160 cycles per byte (doesn't include the overhead of setting up, so 2.2 sounds about right). But there is no mem copy code in there. There's just line drawing code; not memory->memory copy code. Look at the fill code list, it's just the same value written over and over (single register, multiple addresses). Btw, I always disliked GNU's assembler syntax for 68k.

 So he's talking about fills. I thought you meant memory copy (memory->memory or memory->port). But yeah, it's got the 6280 beat on fills. Even if I did a super code list like his (even larger), the fastest to fill would be 5 cycles per byte (excluding setup overhead).

Thank you for looking at the code .
The 4.4 cycles is for mem to mem copy, he's unroll all movem copy, but for each he use all available registers .

if I find the code, i'll show you tom .

[ProfessorProfessorson]

I forgot about this remark:

Now I have to compare cards to Carts vs CD’s?  Why do the rules keep changing?

Actually they never did change. The Pc-Engine platform evolved from a Hu-card format into a compact disc one. Its not like the Genesis where development mainly continued to focus on the cart format and the Sega and Mega Cd were playing 2nd fiddle after they were added years later. Development for the Pc-Engine slowly switched gears from mostly hucard to mostly the cd format after Super Cd-Rom was made available. The cd-rom drive was available to the PCE less then a year after it's initial release. Its something they were slowly building up to with each system card release and system revision. This is simply how it is, and you may feel that's unfair, but who cares, that's life. Game systems will never be even remotely apples to apples when it concerns anything prior to 2005. You wouldn't have a problem comparing the PS1 and Saturn to the Nintendo 64, and yet the first two use cd formats, so why does it matter to you that the PCE did also? Cd wasn't treated as a simple add on in regards to the PCE/TG16, and it didn't take a back seat to the hu-card side of things in Japan.

And personally, I don't care if you want to include the Sega CD into the equation, because outside of a few shining examples of games with solid scaling, all it does is bring a bunch titles that could have been done on Genesis, and bring a ton of fail to the table. The best RPGS the Sega Cd has to offer cant stand up next to the best ones the PCE has. You might as well forget action games. As good as The Terminator is, the Sega Cd has nothing to go toe to toe against Dracula X. Fighting games? Yeah other then the garbage SNK ports and a still half assed port of MK, all you got is Eternal Champions, and outside of the FMV, it could have been a cart game. What little it has shooter wise is topped by whats on both hu-card and cd wise on PCE. If you factor in the Sega Cd and its library, it makes the Genesis look worse rather then better.

[Vecanti]

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.

The PC Engine CD wasn't an upgrade.  It was released around the same time as the system (within `5 months) it was an accessory.  That was one of the disappointing things about the Sega CD I remember when it came out. It had +3 years (an eternity back then) of technological advantage to take advantage of extra CPUs more system ram and really here we are arguing if the Sega CD was really any better.  Maybe it was the devs fault for making so much FMV crapware.   But still PC Engine CD came out in frinkin' 1988 and pretty much blows the Sega CD out of the water from a "fun" perspective and even technical perspective when you look at things like Sapphire and Neo Geo ports.

 

[Bonknuts]

I looked over the code; there's no memory copy at ~4.3cycles that I saw in there. First routine is just a clear buffer (writes zero's to the buffer). Yeah, 2.160 cycles per byte (doesn't include the overhead of setting up, so 2.2 sounds about right). But there is no mem copy code in there. There's just line drawing code; not memory->memory copy code. Look at the fill code list, it's just the same value written over and over (single register, multiple addresses). Btw, I always disliked GNU's assembler syntax for 68k.

 So he's talking about fills. I thought you meant memory copy (memory->memory or memory->port). But yeah, it's got the 6280 beat on fills. Even if I did a super code list like his (even larger), the fastest to fill would be 5 cycles per byte (excluding setup overhead).

Thank you for looking at the code .
The 4.4 cycles is for mem to mem copy, he's unroll all movem copy, but for each he use all available registers .

if I find the code, i'll show you tom .

 If you used all 16 regs (that means disabling the interrupt register so it doesn't mess with A7 stack), you get 4.5 cycles a byte.

Code: [Select]

 
  movem.l abs.l,d0-d7/a0-a7    ; 20+( 16*8 ) = 148
  movem.l d0-d7/a0-a7,abs.w    ; 12+( 16*8 )= 140
                               ; 148+140= 288 cycles. 16*4=64 bytes. 288/64= 4.5 cycles per byte


 I mean, that's being realistic; the source address is long so you can copy from anywhere in rom (the first instruction). If used ABS.w (base opcode cycle count of 16 instead of 20), that means you can only copy from the first 32k of rom (of the whole address range) or the last 32k of ram. That seems a bit limiting, but it does give you 4.4375 cycles per byte.




But... that's a one time shot. If you put it in a loop, you don't get that (at least from what I tried to do):

Code: [Select]

@loop

@opc1    
  movem.l abs.l,d0-d7/a0-a7   ; 20+(16*8) = 148
  addi.l  #16,(@opc1+2).w     ; 20+8=28
@opc2  
  movem.l d0-d7/a0-a7,abs.w   ; 12+(16*8)= 124
  addi.w  #16,(@opc2+2).w     ; 12+8=20

                              ; 148+28+20+140= 320 cycles. 16*4=64 bytes. 320/64= 5 cycles per byte

  subq.w  1,abs.w             ; 8+8=16 cycles.
  bvc     @loop               ; 10 cycles
(self modifying code. I'm not sure I got the address part of the opcode offset right, but the logic is there. Also, you need to pad/offset the opcode, before the loop, so the long address of the opcode is long word aligned - else it won't work on the real system).

 You'd have to unroll that 26 times in order to get rid of the decrement/loop overhead. That gives you 5 cycles per byte using all 16 regs in an unrolled loop (if I did my math right). Also requires a larger over head of presetting all those address (52 of them). On top of that, it's limited because you can only do small chunk copies at a time if you wanted linear copy style ('cause after 26 times, the addresses need to be reset), unless you totally reorganized the source data... then shit starts to get real complicated - real quick. It's very limited IMO.

 I thought it was faster not to use all the regs for MOVEM:

Code: [Select]

 @loop
    
  movem.l (a7),d0-d7/a0-a5    ; 8+(14*8) = 120
  adda.l  #14,a7              ; 8+8 = 16
  movem.l d0-d7/a0-a5,-(a6)   ; 12+(14*8)= 124
                              ; 120+16+124= 260 cycles. 14*4=56 bytes. 260/56= 4.642 cycles per byte

  subq.w  1,abs.w             ; 8+8=16 cycles.
  bvc     @loop               ; 10 cycles
 
Using 14 regs at 4.642 cycles per byte if the loop unrolled 26 times. It has little over head and is very flexible in size operand of the routine.


 I'd like to see what stef came up with.

[EvilEvoIX]

This thread keeps going but I’ll make it simple and save the novel.

Everyone and their mother agrees the M68k ALONE is a more capable CPU than the hu6280 alone.  We all know this and this is the answer to the thread.  the 68K is extremely capable and can has been used in home consoles, computers, arcades, etc.  It is so versatile it is still being used to this day 30 years later.  Fon Boi facts aside it is a better processor.  I have every game for the MD/Genesis, I have every game for the TG16/PCE.  It's not hard these days.

I keep hearing arguments from programmers but not evidence.  I am playing these games and have been for 20 years now.  Every argument I make against the PCE there is a group of guys holding hands and making excuses for the short fall.  I point out obvius deficiencies and it is deflected better than the most seasoned politician could ever hope.  I shore the superiorities and some of you write it off as an easy thing for the PCE to do.  The PCE can move sprites around the screen fast.  It can't do true multi-scrolling backgrounds but in shooters it can still get a parallax effect with stars or tiles.  Otherwise toe to toe I see a deficit.  Makes perfect sense as the system was from 1987 and was between the 8-bit 16-bit leap.  Hell the MD had short sightedness in that it thought 64 colors would be enough.

FYI I am more of a Neo Geo fan boi.  The Genesis I like as it is dirt cheap to collect for and easy to find, you can get it everywhere.

[EvilEvoIX]

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.

The PC Engine CD wasn't an upgrade.  It was released around the same time as the system (within `5 months) it was an accessory.  That was one of the disappointing things about the Sega CD I remember when it came out. It had +3 years (an eternity back then) of technological advantage to take advantage of extra CPUs more system ram and really here we are arguing if the Sega CD was really any better.  Maybe it was the devs fault for making so much FMV crapware.   But still PC Engine CD came out in frinkin' 1988 and pretty much blows the Sega CD out of the water from a "fun" perspective and even technical perspective when you look at things like Sapphire and Neo Geo ports.

 

I feel the Turbo used it's CD technology better than the Sega CD.  Mostly because of the FMV shovel ware.  All I was stating is that if you are going to go through the trouble of making a CD upgrade, give it some power like the Sega CD.  The Sega CD shoulda added more color and the 32X shoulda never existed.

[Tatsujin]

 I have every game for the MD/Genesis, I have every game for the TG16/PCE.  It's not hard these days.

btw. you are repeating yourself since months, telling pure made up out of thin air crap, and what is correct is the obvious stuff every 3 year old knows by today.

WE ALL KNOW IT LACKS HARDWARE PARALLAX SCROLLING.
WE ALL KNOW IT HAS BETTER COLORS THAN THE MD.
WE ALL KNOW IT IT CAN MOVE SPRITES FAST AND A LOT OF 'EM.
WE ALL KNOW IT IS GOOD AT SHOOTERS..

so please do not repeat that crap again and again, several times on one single page.

And as for your argument programmer vs. gamer (driver vs. mechanics), I am sure most of the peeps in here are gamers since DAY ONE as well. had all the systems back then and still up until today as well. played tousands of these games as well. so you are not the f*cking only guy on this planet who played that shit and therefore has the ulitmate license to judge on what is good and what not.

most in here even have 100x more original games than you probably ever will have. it always amuses me when some clowns come in and proudly brags about having every f*cking game for every existing system....on one single HDD.

[EvilEvoIX]

 I have every game for the MD/Genesis, I have every game for the TG16/PCE.  It's not hard these days.

btw. you are repeating yourself since months, telling pure made up out of thin air crap, and what is correct is the obvious stuff every 3 year old knows by today.

WE ALL KNOW IT LACKS HARDWARE PARALLAX SCROLLING.
WE ALL KNOW IT HAS BETTER COLORS THAN THE MD.
WE ALL KNOW IT IT CAN MOVE SPRITES FAST AND A LOT OF 'EM.
WE ALL KNOW IT IS GOOD AT SHOOTERS..

so please do not repeat that crap again and again, several times on one single page.

And as for your argument programmer vs. gamer (driver vs. mechanics), I am sure most of the peeps in here are gamers since DAY ONE as well. had all the systems back then and still up until today as well. played tousands of these games as well. so you are not the f*cking only guy on this planet who played that shit and therefore has the ulitmate license to judge on what is good and what not.

most in here even have 100x more original games than you probably ever will have. it always amuses me when some clowns come in and proudly brags about having every f*cking game for every existing system....on one single HDD.

Funny, I was gona say that you guys repeated yourselves as well.  However this is a PCE site and I will always have an up hill battle.  Pure made up crap?  IDK how many vids I posted in reference to limits and constraints and I believe me I don’t have a movie studio making all these propaganda vids so maybe watch them with your rose colored glasses off?

I had the privilege of growing up with a programmer/engineer.  Truth be told my number one system growing up was my PC.  I still had the consoles and my dad would call them shit and I was wasting my money but I enjoyed the console gaming.  I spent half of my free time and would pray for rain so I wouldn’t get thrown out of my house on a sunny day.  You get behind the wheel so to speak and you see what a system can do.  The SNES has amazing color and a bag of tricks to do heavy lifting but slows down if you tap the A button too fast.  The PCE has that eye popping color and sprite capability but not so much when pushing muti scrolling and intense animation.  The MD did it all.  You had to twist it’s arm to get color but approaching 200 colors with simple tricks isn’t too shabby.  Seriously what can the Md 68k and hu6280 comparison give us now?  We already know what these two chips are capable and we already know which one has been used millions of times more; why is there any confusion?  You are mixing PASSION with REALITY. 

FYO that M68K you guys like to brush over has been the choice of programmers and hardware manufacturers for over 30 years now.  Nothing reveals success and usability more than a long history.

You are getting upset because some guy on the internet is giving so comparisons about the System (Team, Religion, Partition politics and insert your talking head news argument here, it's all the same thing).  Trouble is everyone I know or ever knew seems to agree with me, in fact this is the only site that seems to have trouble understanding what is obvious to anyone with a pair of ears and eyes.  The amount of excuses being made and the amount of facts just obliterated are beyond even what I get on www.neo-geo.com and that is saying something.  Why can’t you understand that if something is less capable doesn’t mean it is inferior?  Basically we are dealing with an interactive form of electro-art.  When something doesn’t age or bend to the will of the masses it becomes a classic.  The PCE is etched into gaming history and left a huge foot print, doesn’t that make you happy?  We all know why the PCE used a 8-Bit processor, back in 1987 it was just more cost effective, it even added the two additional chips for more power.  It was originally designed to be the Super Nintendo.  Nintendo didn't like it and passed.  That happened once again and we got the Playstation.

You have 100x more original games than me, where do I mail you your medal?  If not I can fly to your location and personally give you a high 5.  Your choice.

[EvilEvoIX]

Nice quote I found on the 16 Bit Trio we all love....

Speed wise?

The cut and dry here:

Genesis:  This wins CPU wise.  It's a great 68k CPU.  The addressing modes and 16-bitness, coupled with the actual speed of the CPU make it an excellent processor.  The color choices are the crippler of the genesis.  The CPU itself is superb.  The instruction set is cleverly designed for maximum potential.  It even handles C very well.  Ecco the Dolphin was done entirely in C.  This sort of thing doesn't occur with a 6502.  The TG-16 chokes on C.  It can't process all of the overhead of C without denting performance.

Lets also not forget, it has the z80 onboard as well.  

TG16: I am a TG-16 fanboy.  I love this thing.  I just wish it had a 16-bit CPU.  The 65C02 is the fastest 8bit CPU in the 6502 family.  A similar example is the Apple IIc+.  Try running some of the old old Apple II games on a IIC+ without holding escape to toggle it to slow mode.  Your games are unplayable.  Falcons is warpspeed.  You die.

It really can powerhouse through computations.  However, it is still limited in it's uses because of its 8-bitness, and it's 6502 based quirks.  When this thing is coerced properly, it is an excellent CPU.  The new features the 65C02 adds

Plus, the TG-16's color choices didn't suck.  That's why the shooters are so arcade-close, and the performance is so great.  It is a great CPU all around.  Definitely the nicest 6502 based CPU.


SNES: WTF is all I can say.  It's a 65816.  Its the successor to the 65C02, but the one in the SNES is balls-frigging-slow.  Yes it gets the benefits of 16 bit operations, but its still so frikking slow that it doesn't really matter. It sort of cancels itself out by being so slow.  It's like having a Ferarri that can only shift into 3rd gear.

The SuperCPU for C64, now there is an actual example of a 65816 being used right.  This was a wasted opportunity for the SNES.  If they'd clocked the thing higher, it would have been excellent.

Plus, it's backwards compatible with the 6502 based CPUs before it.  It supports all of the things the 65C02 does!

But, if you were to run code from a TG-16 on a SNES, it'd f*ckin run slower than shit because the CPU is going to process it as it were (compatible with the 65C02), but do it like half as fast.

Totally blows.


I actually have this really cool chart in a book somewhere (I will find it!), that shows the features of the various 6502 variants in comparison to each other.  It's a better example of what makes each sucessor better than the previous.  I'll scan that thing and post in here.  It's better than typing it all out in a text-wall.

You'll be able to see why the TG-16 was such a nice machine CPU wise, and why the SNES should have basically stomped it, but wasn't able to due to it's clock speed being so damn slow.

comparing raw CPU stuff is only half the picture here though.  When you consider what else was going on, each machine has other pros/cons.

Like the color comparisons.  The TG wins out on that, but loses out on background planes.

This post probably sucks.   I suck at explaining technical shit.

Now I basically agree with this, am I wrong?

[HercTNT]

I don't have a much of a dog in this fight as i clearly don't know shit about the internal workings of these cpu's. I would like to point out though, that if the original argument was "which cpu is better", then you were given an answer Evil. I believe bonknuts quite clearly provided testing information stating the technical pro's and cons of each chip. I believe based on that information, it was pointed out that these chips are fairly equal depending on how they are used. You claimed no programmer or tech gave you an answer, they clearly did. It may not have been the answer you wanted, but it was a definite answer. If your not biased then why did you disregard the answer you were given, on point to the topic no less? I really could care less who's right as the topic is a moot point. However, if your trying to take the high road and not look like a chest thumping fan boi, Then why did you not accept the answer you were given? You don't have to like it, but you don't have to lie about it either. The answer was not evening damning for your precious chip. You were told that both cpu's were basically even? Not entirely sure why that bothers you so much. Worse is, if your so upset about people being off topic, why the hell are you going on and on about what chip was used more. I use a fork more than a spoon, does not mean my fork is faster dipshit. Thats whats called going off topic.

[EvilEvoIX]

I don't have a much of a dog in this fight as i clearly don't know shit about the internal workings of these cpu's. I would like to point out though, that if the original argument was "which cpu is better", then you were given an answer Evil. I believe bonknuts quite clearly provided testing information stating the technical pro's and cons of each chip. I believe based on that information, it was pointed out that these chips are fairly equal depending on how they are used. You claimed no programmer or tech gave you an answer, they clearly did. It may not have been the answer you wanted, but it was a definite answer. If your not biased then why did you disregard the answer you were given, on point to the topic no less? I really could care less who's right as the topic is a moot point. However, if your trying to take the high road and not look like a chest thumping fan boi, Then why did you not accept the answer you were given? You don't have to like it, but you don't have to lie about it either. The answer was not evening damning for your precious chip. You were told that both cpu's were basically even? Not entirely sure why that bothers you so much. Worse is, if your so upset about people being off topic, why the hell are you going on and on about what chip was used more. I use a fork more than a spoon, does not mean my fork is faster dipshit. Thats whats called going off topic.

Read my quote above, some good info in there from someone smarter then us.  How are the chips even?  It's better than the 65816 but head to head the 68K moves more crap faster, how is that not understood?

[Tatsujin]

Everytime you post something, we get two or three more laughters out of this topic.














Please Don't stop Posting