Md 68k and hu6280 comparison

[EvilEvoIX]

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














Please Don't stop Posting

Just keep telling yourself that, you may start to believe it.

[HercTNT]

Evil I can't comment on that quote, I'm not a programmer, I know nothing about it. I just have this vision of you with a ruler measuring the length of the cpu in your genny so you can prove its longer to. At the end of the day evil, a friendly debate is when people give and concede points based on factual technical merits. Your just gonna keep going no matter what. More so, quoting ones guys post does not make for a solid argument. You need to stand on your own two feet, not use someone elses. Bonknuts testing used point for point numbers demonstrating the differences between the two cpu's. You continue to ignore this fact. Hence, your just trolling and were from the beginning.

[EvilEvoIX]

Evil I can't comment on that quote, I'm not a programmer, I know nothing about it. I just have this vision of you with a ruler measuring the length of the cpu in your genny so you can prove its longer to. At the end of the day evil, a friendly debate is when people give and concede points based on factual technical merits. Your just gonna keep going no matter what. More so, quoting ones guys post does not make for a solid argument. You need to stand on your own two feet, not use someone elses. Bonknuts testing used point for point numbers demonstrating the differences between the two cpu's. You continue to ignore this fact. Hence, your just trolling and were from the beginning.

We are arguing about vintage computer hardware?  We aren't arguing about healthcare or the national debt here.  My biggest enjoyment is that there are people out there (myself included) that still care about this utter meaningless time waster of a topic.  My biggest concern is how upset people get like I bad mouthed their children.

Again, FYI, I'm a Neo Geo Fan Boi.  It also has the 68K so maybe Ima 69K fan boi.  I was impressed with it's versatility and longevity, you can respect that right?


Stand on my two feet, in explaining which processor is better?  The Md 68k and hu6280 comparison in my own words?  Lemy try again...

The 68K wins.  First and foremost it's a true 16-Bit CPU.  Obviously at the time bit-nes wasn't the end all be all and we already proved that the PCE CPU was in fact superior to the SNES CPU but the 68K had the speed as well.  As stated before it can handle more operations than the 6502.  The 6502 alone would be in trouble so it added dual 16-bit GPU.  Why did it do that?  Wasn't the 6502 enough?  Nope it needed additional helper chips just to even compete while the MD used the 68K and the z80 for sound.  They even tried again with the SGX and that failed.  The CPU it self had to work harder to accomplish the same task as the 68K could.

Sega had a whole year after the release of the PCE to look at it and make something to compete with it.  Obviously they were going to use something better or at least more versatile; they did both.  In order for the PCE to compete with multi scrolling you had to program in Dynamic Tiles and Sprites to make a multi plane effect.  That took up CPU resources as well.  I could go on about ram limitations or the sound but I think we are just going after a specific 68K vs hu6280 and as I said unless you are a fan boi it is clear cut.

[HercTNT]

yes actually i can. i'm geeky enough to respect the quirks of all the hardware out there and what makes it tick. I don't focus on just one of them though. Thats not how these conversations usually go though do they? I wish they did. The whole topic is moot as the programmers are what made the machine regardless of what hardware was in it. All the technobable amounts to squat if the programmers are not up to par. thats why cpu vs cpu is just bout as inane as it gets. it does not matter, not would it ever. If you really wanna get technical about it, Nintendo and Sega should be ashamed that the Pc-engine held its own so well despite being much older than the other two machines. This whole argument has the opposite effect on me that it does on others. It does not make me say "wow, look at how great the 68k is" it makes me say "wow, look at how great the turbo is despite a co called 8-bit cpu" After all, if the 68k is actually a 32-bit cpu, then it should be ashamed of itself in comparison. I realize thats flawed logic as i don't really know how the cpu's work, but it makes you think don't it?

[EvilEvoIX]

yes actually i can. i'm geeky enough to respect the quirks of all the hardware out there and what makes it tick. I don't focus on just one of them though. Thats not how these conversations usually go though do they? I wish they did. The whole topic is moot as the programmers are what made the machine regardless of what hardware was in it. All the technobable amounts to squat if the programmers are not up to par. thats why cpu vs cpu is just bout as inane as it gets. it does not matter, not would it ever. If you really wanna get technical about it, Nintendo and Sega should be ashamed that the Pc-engine held its own so well despite being much older than the other two machines. This whole argument has the opposite effect on me that it does on others. It does not make me say "wow, look at how great the 68k is" it makes me say "wow, look at how great the turbo is despite a co called 8-bit cpu" After all, if the 68k is actually a 32-bit cpu, then it should be ashamed of itself in comparison. I realize thats flawed logic as i don't really know how the cpu's work, but it makes you think don't it?

Very clever programing and eye popping color were the Turbo's strong suit.  Shooters themselves had a lot of sprites bit the sprites themselves didn't animate much so you can have a very detailed and relatively large sprite of your ship and all the other ships and bosses.  Even the bad shooters I liked as the system just draws you to them.


I will still stand by my statement on the PCE and SFII, I don't get the hype.  I have the game I play it, I prefer the other two to this one.  I think the floor scrolls nicely however and obviously the color.

[HercTNT]

I"m not a fighting game fan so it really does not matter to me. I would imagine though that anyone that owned a turbo and not the other systems would have been tickled to get sf2 at all. As for the shooters, i can't agree on the animation thing. Sapphire has so much animation and stuff going on it reminds me of pulstar and blazing star on the neo. Past that, again, i don't care. I would love to know all the technical aspects about these machines and there cpu's, but not so i can argue about them. Rather, so i could understand just how some of the best games were made despite the hardware. to me thats much more fun.

[Bonknuts]

I will always have an up hill battle.

 See, this is exactly your problem. You come here with the mentality to battle. And you're doing the same here about the PCE as you were doing on Sega-16. Wtf does it even matter to you, if neither of these two systems are your 'fanboi' favorite? Poke the bear and you get the claws. What else did you expect? Seriously.

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.

 FYI, the original 68k (used in the Genesis and NeoGeo) was long surpassed by better versions. A 68000 != a 68040 or 68060. They are not using the original 68k 30 years later, wtf. The HuC6280 is a custom cpu. It's not an off the shelf 8bit 65x processor. It had quite a bit of instructions and support added to it, including a 21bit address bus (2megabyte external address range). All of the original and clone 65x processors only have 64k external addressing and needed 'mappers'. Not only that, but the 65x 'core' that it's based off of - was certified to use in critical life sustaining applications (medical equipment). It was used in a number of cars all through out the 90's. It's still sold and used today (you can by the MCU of 65x and '816 on their site). But none of that is relative and your rambling is just that.

It was originally designed to be the Super Nintendo.

 Uhhh no. It was a system created to be licensed, like the MSX. Nintendo declined when offered. NEC licensed the system as did a couple of arcade developers (Bloody Wolf game being one of then).

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 didn't 'even add two additional chips'. They *are* the system chips! Without those chips, there is no video.

We all know why the PCE used a 8-Bit processor, back in 1987 it was just more cost effective

It's a completely *new*, custom cpu (it's not just a repackaged cpu). You think that's more cost effective than using a stock 65c02??? No. Just... no. Wth?

I had the privilege of growing up with a programmer/engineer.

That's great, but you're not. End of story.

If not I can fly to your location and personally give you a high 5.  Your choice.

I doubt you could afford the ticket. But I'd love to be proven wrong

Shooters themselves had a lot of sprites bit the sprites themselves didn't animate much so you can have a very detailed and relatively large sprite of your ship and all the other ships and bosses.

And almost always a limitation of storage (and design choice for some CD games). Look at sapphire: it has lots of animation. From little sprites to huge bosses.

Seriously what can the Md 68k and hu6280 comparison give us now?

 A lot. A lot that you'll never understand because you're not a coder of old outdated chips. The fact that you have to ask this question, means you shouldn't even be in this thread. Plain and simple. The 68k (the original 68k) was wildy used in a lot of systems and computers. It has an overflated reputation for being the best. But it's not. It's actually relatively a slow processor (especially if you consider it a 32bit cpu) and that was changed in later models. But that's fine, because it was only the first edition. The reason why it was used in computers is because it has real support for OS related stuff. It had dynamic linked code, it had branch relative code, it had a real *useable* stack, and the flat memory model makes things soooooooo much easier than bank switching. It was a real next gen computer CPU. A new 'clean' design and a forward thinking design as well (it was designed in that the cycle times would come down and the alu would be upgraded to a real 32bit alu). That's why it was so popular. And the fact that it had higher clock speeds than ANY 8bit cpu at the time, really makes it a perfect design choice (1981 had a 16mhz model released).

 But consoles != computers. There is no *OS* to contend with. There is no multitasking, etc. And these consoles have a LOT of hardware assist. So much so, that the cpu is pretty much regulated to game logic. The 65x is a fast execution design; it does certain things really fast. It makes a great embedded processor (which it moved onto). It's just not a suitable cpu for computer with an OS. Though that didn't stop intel with its pathetic x86 design running DOS for years (even windows 3.x). So regardless of how 'powerful' it is (powerful does not always mean 'fast), overall it's a little overkill for a game console. The flat memory model is nice and so is the ISA, but those aren't need for a programmer that knows how to deal with bank switching and such. Even with unoptimized code, the 6280 can contend.

 This discussion is about looking at the strengths and weakness of both processors relative to each other (game logic). Why? Because there's a lot of misinformation about the capability of the '8bit' 6280 and a lot of over inflated reputation of the 68k (mostly from Amiga and ST users, from what I've seen). You're not a processor geek. You wouldn't get it.

Edit: fixed my typos

[EvilEvoIX]

I"m not a fighting game fan so it really does not matter to me. I would imagine though that anyone that owned a turbo and not the other systems would have been tickled to get sf2 at all. As for the shooters, i can't agree on the animation thing. Sapphire has so much animation and stuff going on it reminds me of pulstar and blazing star on the neo. Past that, again, i don't care. I would love to know all the technical aspects about these machines and there cpu's, but not so i can argue about them. Rather, so i could understand just how some of the best games were made despite the hardware. to me thats much more fun.

Pulstar and Blazing Star are BIG shoes to fill (Inner Neo Geo fan boi emerges) so I will say they are more in line of Alpha Mission II or Last Resort.  Sapphire is a great great game and I play it a lot in fact.  I love the music but the shooting sound effects are a poor choice.  I think it’s just another great Shooter on the PCE and it rules at that.

I will always have an up hill battle.

 See, this is exactly your problem. You come here with the mentality to battle. And you're doing the same here about the PCE as you were doing on Sega-16. Wtf does it even matter to you, if neither of these two systems are your 'fanboi' favorite? Poke the bear and you get the claws. What else did you expect? Seriously.

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.

 FYI, the original 68k (used in the Genesis and NeoGeo) was long surpassed by better versions. A 68000 != a 68040 or 68080. They are not using the original 68k 30 years later, wtf. The HuC6280 is a custom cpu. It's not an off the shelf 8bit 65x processor. It had quite a bit of instructions and support added to it, including a 21bit address bus (2megabyte external address range). All of the original and clone 65x processors only have 64k external addressing and needed 'mappers'. Not only that, but the 65x 'core' that it's based off of - was certified to use in critical life sustaining applications (medical equipment). It was used in a number of cars all through out the 90's. It's still sold and used today (you can by the MCU of 65x and '816 on their site). But none of that is relative and your rambling is just that.

It was originally designed to be the Super Nintendo.

 Uhhh no. It was a system created to be licensed, like the MSX. Nintendo declined when offered. NEC licensed the system as did a couple of arcade developers (Bloody Wolf game being one of then).

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 didn't 'even add two additional chips'. They *are* the system chips! Without those chips, there is no video.

We all know why the PCE used a 8-Bit processor, back in 1987 it was just more cost effective

It's a completely *new*, custom cpu (it's not just a repackaged cpu). You think that's more cost effective than using a stock 65c02??? No. Just... no. Wth?

I had the privilege of growing up with a programmer/engineer.

That's great, but you're not. End of story.

If not I can fly to your location and personally give you a high 5.  Your choice.

I doubt you could afford the ticket. But I'd love to be proven wrong

Shooters themselves had a lot of sprites bit the sprites themselves didn't animate much so you can have a very detailed and relatively large sprite of your ship and all the other ships and bosses.

And almost always a limitation of storage (and design choice for some CD games). Look at sapphire: it has lots of animation. From little sprites to huge bosses.

Seriously what can the Md 68k and hu6280 comparison give us now?

 A lot. A lot that you'll never understand because you're not a coder of old outdated chips. The fact that you have to ask this question, means you shouldn't even be in this thread. Plain and simple. The 68k (the original 58k) was wildy used in a lot of systems and computers. It has an overflated reputation for being the best. But it's not. It's actually relatively a slow processor (especially if you consider it a 32bit cpu) and that was changed in later models. But that's fine, because it was only the first edition. The reason why it was used in computers is because it has real support for OS related stuff. It had dynamic linked code, it had branch relative code, it had a real *useable* stack, and the flat memory model makes things soooooooo much easier than bank switching. It was a real next gen computer CPU. A new 'clean' design and a forward thinking design as well (it was designed in that the cycle times would come down and the alu would be upgraded to a real 32bit alu). That's why it was so popular. And the fact that it had higher clock speeds than ANY 8bit cpu at the time, really makes it a perfect design choice (1981 had a 16mhz model released).

 But consoles != computers. There is no *OS* to contend with. There is no multitasking, etc. And these consoles have a LOT of hardware assist. So much so, that the cpu is pretty much regulated to game logic. The 65x is a fast execution design; it does certain things really fast. It makes a great embedded processor (which it moved onto). It's just not a suitable cpu for computer with an OS. Though that didn't stop intel with its pathetic x86 design running DOS for years (even windows 3.x). So regardless of how 'powerful' it is (powerful does not always mean 'fast), overall it's a little overkill for a game console. The flat memory model is nice and so is the ISA, but those aren't need for a programmer that knows how to deal with bank switching and such. Even with unoptimized code, the 6280 can contend.

 This discussion is about looking at the strengths and weakness of both processors relative to each other (game logic). Why? Because there's a lot of misinformation about the capability of the '8bit' 6280 and a lot of over inflated reputation of the68k (mostly from Amiga and ST users, from what I've seen). You're not a processor geek. You wouldn't get it.

Mentality to battle?  It’s an internet forum, it's not real life and I'm not trying to prove superiority over some other stranger who takes himself WAY too seriously.  But for entertainment value I'll be more than happy to answer some of your questions.  I don’t even know how to battle nor do I know the rules and I left my Magic cards at home.  I said this is an up-hill battle which is a common colloquialism and isn’t meant to be taken literally.  You can't "preach to the converted"  (Read I am not a preacher nor do I work in a church, it's a saying)  I just like to see that bias is removed and people understand that the 68K did more stuff faster.  You skipped over that part in your rant but more on that later.


I understand that there are updates to the 68K, I was simply arguing the use of the series but not even that that chip was just in everything at the time.  You know how many systems, computers, arcade machines; it was in everything.  The same goes for the PCE chip as it had some revisions and upgrades in it's time.  Very simple reason why too but I don’t wish to battle

Nintendo declined the offer, meaning it was designed as a successor to the NES or at least tried to be.  I must have misspoke when I called it the Super Nintendo as it wasn’t so that was certainly a mistake on my part.  I just named it as such as if it were chosen as the successor it would be known as the SNES or at least a variation of that.  Again, semantics.  You are driving wedges where there shouldn’t be any and it’s all filler.  Focus on the thread title please.

Are you telling me a 16BIT CPU would have been cheaper back in 1987, and I mean a new proper 16-BIT over the HU6280?  Stop it.  Hardware gets better and then cheaper with age and revisions.  Everyone knows this.  The PCE had *-bit machines to contend with back in 1987 so it built a killer 8-bith machine with  the 16-Bit Video Color Encoder and then yes a 16 Bit Video Display Controller to get picture.  Even NEC harped on the bit-ness as a matter of marketing and it back fired in the West.  It was however as you stated for console gaming instead of the computer market so just game logic.  

The notion that the PCE CPU was entirely new was misleading as it is a revised version of the 65SC02 which was used in many other devices and computers.  It was originally designed to compete against the Z80.  So basically a chip from the mid 70’s that has been tarted up to run at very fast speeds.  

Doubt I can afford a ticket, what is this grade school?  Seriously I am embarrassed for you.  You lack tact and took things personal which shows you are missing the point, that is just silly of you to say and weakens your argument.

I also appreciate the revisionist history lesson, lots of memories in there from the eyes of a hater but the fact remains that the 68K alone is faster than your precious HuC6280.  I can see it in your fan boi eyes as you so naively decided to add bias rant that the 68K was, oh what did you say?  

 “The 68k (the original 58k) was wildly used in a lot of systems and computers. It has an overinflated reputation for being the best.”  

and lets not forget....

"a lot of over inflated reputation of the68k (mostly from Amiga and ST users, from what I've seen)"

Anger, bias, why?  Why not the facts?

 Not one word about clock speed and what chip does more faster.  Read the title of the thread and get back to me again.

You said yourself that programmers and coders in addition to hardware MFR’s decide what is easy to use and code for and make/break systems.  They want too use the real next gen hardware so why is it over inflated if it was used for so long in so many variations?  Why did Arcades use it in so many variations?  Highly confusing.

In short the PCE at the time (1987) only had 8-bit machines to worry about so it made a more advanced version of what was already available on the market and blew everything away.  They looked back and saw a lack of colors and crippling sprite limits in existed consoles and murdered it.  Sega took one look at that and reached into their arcade drawer and did something to compete with that.  

So lets hear you chip-set knowledge and just tell us which chip does more things faster.

[touko]

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).

Yes that's what I told him, it was a result of interpolation.
he took the result, and multiplied X time as needed, without counting the registers reload, end test ..
he had no loop, because all was unrolled ..

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.

Of course, and it's a huge ram consuming, IMO the txx instructions are really great .
Stef is a great coder not doubt, but too fanboy really, you can not have a technical discussion, all is always better on MD, even sound chip ..

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.

It can be close to your code, but like i said, stef interpolates the result .

Code: [Select]

movem.l (a0)+,d0-d7/a2-a6 / 124
movem.l d0-d7/a2-a6,-(a0) / 120
add.l #56, %a0 / 14

258 cycles for 56 bytes, an average of  4.6 cycles / byte...

or

move.l (a0)+,(a1)+ / 20

you take 20 cycles for 4 bytes,an average of 5 cycles / byte,  a transfer rate of 1.53 Mo/s.


It takes these values, regardless of the number to be copied, and makes a simple multiplication .

[EvilEvoIX]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Must be one of those vile Amiga Fan Bois tarting up the 68K again....

[TheOldMan]

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

Hear, Hear!.  I'm rather enjoying the laughs from his "arguements". Sloppy logic, inappropriate analogies, and constant shifts of opinion that 'prove'....absolutely nothing.

Everyone and their mother agrees the M68k ALONE is a more capable CPU than the hu6280 alone.

First of all, consider that thought. If even one person disagrees, it is false, and thus the whole arguement collapses.
Very Funny. So I asked my wife, and she said "Who cares?" Of course, he's going to say "Well not everyone", just...
and try to limit it to a small group of people. However, if you limit it to the people who already agree, it becomes a
circular arguement : Vocal Opinion shouted is still an opinion - not the truth. You can't convert the convinced.

And I love this one:

I keep hearing arguments from programmers but not evidence.

Nope, no evidence here - just blindly ignore the cycles per instruction that Tom posted. Completely ignore the need to use all registers on a 6800 to do a fast copy. And ignore the fact that the ti- instructions do what are effectively memory copies at a cost of 1 cycle per byte, with a 5 cycle overhead. And are capable of doing so across an entire 64K address space.
Nope, no evidence - that supports your arguement.

I had the privilege of growing up with a programmer/engineer.

Ah, that explains it. He absorbed all his knowledge by being around people who knew what they were talking about
FYI, dude: Tom and I -are- programmers and engineers. Both of us have 25+ years experience at this stuff.
I doubt you have 25+ years of age. Yet, somehow. miraculously, that makes you an expert.

Just keep telling yourself that, you may start to believe it.

And another one I find absolutely hilarious:

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.

Think about how funny that really is. The 6502 core was around for years before the 68000. So if longevity = success.....
6502 core wins. Proving his own arguement is wrong. Gotta love that.

And this quote? Spoken like a true 20 something who listens to the companies, and never compares their lines to reality...

Hardware gets better and then cheaper with age and revisions.  Everyone knows this

Again with the "everyone"......
Tell that to the folks that lost backwards compatibilty on the ps3.
Tell that to all the people who buy Macs. (My mac mini was only $500 on sale...down from $!k - because they couldn't sell them at that price.)
Tell that to all the people whose phones broke after a year, and had to be replaced - with more expensive models that did tons of things that no one really wants in a phone.
I bet you find a lot of people who disagree about hardware getting "better" or "cheaper".

And my favorite quote, but you have to remember this is from a guy comparing apples to oranges....

Not one word about clock speed and what chip does more faster.

Presumably, a faster clock speed would allow the chip to do more - but that's not always true (anyone else own a 486?)
Given equal clock speeds, I think the 6502 core would outperform the 68000, based on the cycle counts Tom posted.
Even more radically, -ignoring the clock speed- I still believe the 6502 core could outperform a 68000 in a special purpose application - like a video game.

Of course, by his same logic, the New pentiums running at 2.4GHz are better chips than the same exact chips running at 2.0GHz.
<lol>
..................................................................................
Now. before you decide to rip into me (and have fun with it, I really don't care) I don't care either way.
It's not the CPU or the clock speed, or even how much memory a system has. It's what the programmers do with it.
After 40+ years of work, the engineers have pretty much decided the kinds of things a CPU needs to do. They all do the
same things. The field is pretty level anymore. There is no "better". Just "different".

[touko]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Must be one of those vile Amiga Fan Bois tarting up the 68K again....

what's your problem , the fact than a 8 bit processor, can compete with 68k ??
There is no troll on it, it's only the reality of code ..

We just took the case of game consoles, not in general use .

Look at this :  http://youtu.be/2liTcrxOESA
yes, this is on snes with his "crappy  CPU", when this CPU is programmed by a master of 65xx, there is no slowdown, a lot of sprites on screen,
lot of action, no sprites flicking ..
Technicaly, this shoot is better than any Md ones .
Can you imagine what he would do with a CPU clocked at 7mhz ??
You can see also his last game on C64, enforcer :
Only with a 6510 @0,9 mhz, yes less THAN 1 MHZ ..

[SignOfZeta]

I love how SFII is constantly used as a reference by people who have a piss poor understanding of the game to compare 16-bit systems. Usually it's guys like Black Tiger sprite ripping and dick measuring every minute aspect of the game in a "frozen in amber" way that is impossible to appreciate while actually playing the thing. The reality is that the PCE ver of SFII' was a very very good port of the game, but because it wasn't Turbo, and because Turbo was released on SFC a month later for 3000 yen less, the PCE version was nearly useless to real SF maniax back in the day. This has nothing to do with the technical side of SFII' on PCE, which is excellent, it's just...the breaks.

However, this EvilEvo douche is the only guy I've ever seen who not only slams the PCE ver of SFII' but cites it specifically as evidence of the PCE's weakness. This isn't the first time he's mentioned that the game is "slow", saying this is the PCE's fault. And this isn't the first time people have told him that it's "slow" because it's SFII', not SFII' Turbo, and that it could run at any speed the programmers wanted it to run at. Seriously, compare it to the CPS version. It's just as slow. The PS version of SFII' is also slower than the SFC/MD version of Turbo. Does this mean the SFC and MD are more powerful than the PS?

What a dipshit.

Anyway, as for the original topic, I have nothing to contribute other than to say that I'm a huge fan of the 68k, if its actually possible to be fan-ish about a CPU. While the Genesis isn't that great, IMHO, I love the old Macs, Amigas, and arcade boards (CPS, MVS, Taito, Cave, etc) that used this chip for so many years. The original designers probably never thought that something like Marvel Super Heroes versus Street Fighter would ever be possible with their chip back when they first developed it.

[ProfessorProfessorson]

You know, I used to have a link to this but lost it. Anyone have a link to this one page that showed what all arcade titles used the Hu6280 either as a main cpu or for co-processing? I know there was quite a few that used it (Capt America, Bloody Wolf etc).

[Black Tiger]

I love how SFII is constantly used as a reference by people who have a piss poor understanding of the game to compare 16-bit systems. Usually it's guys like Black Tiger sprite ripping and dick measuring every minute aspect of the game in a "frozen in amber" way that is impossible to appreciate while actually playing the thing. The reality is that the PCE ver of SFII' was a very very good port of the game, but because it wasn't Turbo, and because Turbo was released on SFC a month later for 3000 yen less, the PCE version was nearly useless to real SF maniax back in the day. This has nothing to do with the technical side of SFII' on PCE, which is excellent, it's just...the breaks.

However, this EvilEvo douche is the only guy I've ever seen who not only slams the PCE ver of SFII' but cites it specifically as evidence of the PCE's weakness. This isn't the first time he's mentioned that the game is "slow", saying this is the PCE's fault. And this isn't the first time people have told him that it's "slow" because it's SFII', not SFII' Turbo, and that it could run at any speed the programmers wanted it to run at. Seriously, compare it to the CPS version. It's just as slow. The PS version of SFII' is also slower than the SFC/MD version of Turbo. Does this mean the SFC and MD are more powerful than the PS?

What a dipshit.

Anyway, as for the original topic, I have nothing to contribute other than to say that I'm a huge fan of the 68k, if its actually possible to be fan-ish about a CPU. While the Genesis isn't that great, IMHO, I love the old Macs, Amigas, and arcade boards (CPS, MVS, Taito, Cave, etc) that used this chip for so many years. The original designers probably never thought that something like Marvel Super Heroes versus Street Fighter would ever be possible with their chip back when they first developed it.

That's not what those kinds of comparisons are about, but since you love joining in them so much, I guess you're only confirming your motivation. But the speed at which you resort to screaming and swearing every time you feel that the SNES's superiority is being questioned already made that clear for everyone. The only difference between you and EvilEvoX in discussions like this, is he championing the MD instead of SNES and is much more polite. You also ignore real game examples ("ALL PCE TRANSPARENCIES ARE FLICKER EFFECTS!"), explanations from programmers, and love to throw out names of games that you just can't see being done at all on PCE. No matter how simple and straightforward too many of those games are or how something similar was already done better on PCE.

Other crazed Nintendo fans also blindly use the SFII as evidence of SNES superiority in ways that defy logic. No matter how frequently they actually play the thing on consoles, they'll still tell you that the voice and sound effects are identical in each version, except that SNES is the clearest and Genesis is the poorest quality. In reality, the SNES sounds are sped up, shopped up, echoed, muffled and reverbed and don't sound like the arcade at all anymore. You can tell them that, but even if they swear that they've actually played them, they will just stick to your kind of "I can't hear you!" argument.

Because it's not about dick measuring for me, that's why my SFII' comparison is unbiased and just lists pros and cons about the various aspects, presents them as-is and in the overall summary is harsh against the PCE version and more or less calls the SNES the best overall. But I didn't put it all together to prove how awesome the SNES is, I did it because I love video games, SFII', pixel art, etc.