Sega Genesis vs. SNES!?

[Limewater]

I program the 6809, which is a glorified 6800 and can say with 100% certainty that the 68000 is a completely different monster way ahead of anything the 6800 could do and the a lot better because of the clock speed over the 6809.

It's not better just because of the clock speed. It's a completely different architecture. I was more picking on your description of the 65816 at a glorified 6502 just because it was backwards compatible.

You really shouldn't comment on programming processors if you've used something like both families a little bit.

I realize you think you know a lot and all, but I'm not just making crap up. I do know a bit about processors and processor design, and have relevant credentials.

But I wasn't talking about programming the processors. I was talking about the hardware itself. You're shifting the goalposts.

I am stating it as a fact, not a matter of opinion. 68K was dominent for arcade hardware because of it's power too

I'm pretty sure that it had more to do with the fact that the 68K had been out for several years and had become pretty cheap and widely used in embedded systems by that time.

and many games that were fighters were on the system because the programmers knew the 68K architecture very well and knew how to use it. Thats the reason the Genesis has better sports games, the companies used it more and the programmers used it to the fullest extent.

I'm not going to argue this point. I tend to agree. But I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about hardware. I'm actually a fan of the 68K. It and the Z80 are my two favorite processors (and no, no because of the Neo Geo). But when you compare a 68K and a 65816 as as implemented in the Genesis and SNES, it's not an obvious win for the Genesis.

[3GenGames]

Wait, so why were you arguing about it. I guess we agree, it's just I think the 65816 is more of a 6502 then 68K is a 6809. I mean, the 65816 was still mostly an 8-bit chip! THE 68k was full 16/32 bit.


You could maybe say the 6309 was more to a 68K, which it definitely was. But it was never used nearly at all in any hardware so it's not worth it. It is an epic chip though. Too bad it's rare and expensive for people who want to get one or two.


And compare the 6809 and 68K and tell me they're the same. They share some architectural sames, but overall, it in its self if a completely different beast when the 65816 was a 6502 with some filled-in addressing modes on some instructions. And I kinda disagree only on that the 68K was around longer, it really wasn't in the realm of programmers actually using it. The 6502 became mainstream in EARLY 1980's with the programmers when commodore was using it. The 68K wasn't really used until arcade hardware mid-80's and the genesis and most other computers in the early 90's and VERY late 80's.


Yeah, I have never messed with the Z80, but it seems like a neat little chip with a thousand ways to do stuff. I'd mess with it, but nothing uses it sadly....except our Donkey Kong arcade game....-stares it down and considers homebrew-

[Limewater]

I mean, the 65816 was still mostly an 8-bit chip!

THIS is what I was arguing about. This is simply false.

the 65816 was a 6502 with some filled-in addressing modes on some instructions.

Not really. And there's a lot more to a processor than its instruction set.

And I kinda disagree only on that the 68K was around longer, it really wasn't in the realm of programmers actually using it. The 6502 became mainstream in EARLY 1980's with the programmers when commodore was using it. The 68K wasn't really used until arcade hardware mid-80's and the genesis and most other computers in the early 90's and VERY late 80's.

Again, this is totally wrong. Both the 68000 and the 65816 had been around and had been used in workstations, embedded systems, and personal computers for several years before they were used in video game consoles. You're only looking at video games, and that's a mistake. Neither of these processors were designed specifically for video games, nor were they used exclusively for that purpose.

Yeah, I have never messed with the Z80, but it seems like a neat little chip with a thousand ways to do stuff. I'd mess with it, but nothing uses it sadly....except our Donkey Kong arcade game....-stares it down and considers homebrew-

You're kidding. The reason the 68000 and Z80 are my favorite processors is because they're everywhere. My coffee mug probably has a Z80 in it somewhere. There are Z80's in the Sega Master System, the Gameboy, the Gamegear, the Neo Geo, the Genesis, TI graphing calculators during the 90's-early 00's, MP3 players, a bunch of old arcade games, printers, network hardware, PLC's, small appliances, tons of other embedded systems, workstations, and computers, etc.

But again, my original point was simply that the 65816 in the SNES is not obviously inferior to the 68000 in the Genesis. The 68K can do some useful things that the 65816 can't. I'm not sure how often those things were actually used in console games of the time, though. They run a lot closer than you want to claim. This "twice as powerful" stuff is kind of silly.

[3GenGames]

Yeah, sure it's used in gameboy, Nintendo arcade games and the ones that didn't need power, and many other places...But they're absent from the Videogame world because they're not that great.



And yes. I have to say your wrong and will say that until you can show me why the 65816, a 8-16ish bit processor is better then the 16/32 bit processor that has a better instruction set, stack setup, and much more in the revisions above, like the 68030 and such. The 65816 compared to a 68K is a joke. The 68K blows it out of the water. It might have a bit of a cycle per instruction a little bit better, but when you need anything with math involved, it'll destroy the 65816.

[Limewater]

Yeah, sure it's used in gameboy, Nintendo arcade games and the ones that didn't need power, and many other places...But they're absent from the Videogame world because they're not that great.

They're great at what they do. A processor doesn't become nearly omnipresent due to sucking.

And yes. I have to say your wrong and will say that until you can show me why the 65816, a 8-16ish bit processor is better then the 16/32 bit processor that has a better instruction set, stack setup, and much more in the revisions above, like the 68030 and such. The 65816 compared to a 68K is a joke. The 68K blows it out of the water. It might have a bit of a cycle per instruction a little bit better, but when you need anything with math involved, it'll destroy the 65816.

Seriously, man, you're going to have to start actually really reading my posts or something. I've already clarified multiple times that I'm not trying to compare every 65816 variant to every 68000 variant. Over their lifetimes, yes, the 68000 line eventually clearly dominated. I am specifically referring to the specific implementations used in the SNES and Genesis. A 68K running at 20 MHz is clearly superior, but that's not really the discussion here.

Also, I HAVE NOT STATED ANYWHERE THAT THE 65816 IS BETTER THAN THE 68000. I am under no obligation to show you that it is better because I never claimed it. What I did claim is that the 68K in the Genesis is not so clearly superior as you stated. I quote you here: "a microprocessor that wasn't half as good as the genesis's 68000 superior in hardware, it's not anything close when it comes to processing power." That is the statement I took issue with. To then say that I need to show that the 65816 is better is a failure of logic.

But no, you're wrong about mathematics. For 16-bit operations-- addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, and bit shifts, the 65816 is faster. For 32-bit operations, the 68000 is obviously faster, because it can do them natively. But 32-bit operations didn't really come up terribly often in that generation of games. The 68K is a little faster on memory access, I believe.

I don't have numbers in front of me, but I believe I read that a 65816 running at 3.58 MHz does around 1.5MIPS. The 68K at 7.67MHz is around 1MIPS. But those numbers are a bit misleading, because I think memory access hurts the 65816 a little more, and memory access happens all the time. Stuff like this is why I took issue with your original statement that the SNES' processor "wasn't half as good" at the Genesis'.

[Specineff]

The CPU is not the only one that matters.

Think of a game system like an orchestra: If the musicians are good, they can play well even if the director is bad. (The musicians are in this case all the other processors in the system)

But if the musicians are bad, not even the best director can make them better.

The SNES had a much more advanced video processor, and a custom-designed sound chip that basically ran itself. The parts were at least 4 years newer than the Genesis'. That's why Nintendo could afford to go with a simpler CPU.

The Genny had a faster processor that was great at multiplication (I recall Maegawa of Treasure said so), capable of doing wonders with sprites without choking. (Multi-jointed bosses anyone? Vectorman? Adventures of Batman and Robin on the Genesis? I want to see the SNES do that!)

It was up to each individual developer to use the capabilities of each system. Mega Turrican is a sight to behold on the Genesis, while the music in Actraiser and FF6 are called great for a reason.

[Wim_Senna]

Some great technical mumbo jumbo about CPU's.

But to the naked eye of a gamer (not a techie who gets excited about clock speeds, MiPs etc) the SNES seemed more powerful, maybe it was due to the mode 7, or the better sound (most megadrive games had the speech of people who had permanent colds), or just that Nintendo had such a stringent quality control on their games, but everyone I knew, wether they were in the Nintendo or Sega camp, agreed that the SNES seemed to be the powerhouse here. This does not mean the Megadrive was crap, not at all, Sega were doing great things with their machine and showing off the future of games to the world when Nintendo was still sitting on their fat arses and pushing NES games to the public.

And about the 68000, I also loved that cpu, if only because it was in my favorite home computer of all times, my beloved Amiga 500.

Let the technical ranting continue

[3GenGames]

Yeah, well I guess you had to chose one and the other and the Genesis got chosen maybe wrong, but it can shine in some other areas, like many enemies on the screen and heck, I even saw one VDP pic where it used an entire background for an enemy! Thats just epic. IDK if the SENS could do that.


Oh well, they're better then each other in some areas. I guess we have to decide which we want in a system. Being the guy who wants the best, I'll obviously pick both. Does that mean the Neo Geo is the system for me?

[Wim_Senna]

Does that mean the Neo Geo is the system for me?

In retro gaming it most certainly does

Current consoles you would have to go for the PS3 of course

[3GenGames]

Nah, I like 500,000 polygons a second in my 3D game on a new system. Not 275,000 like PS3. Plus Live....I lurve my live. X