Jump to content
IGNORED

CPU comparison: SNES vs. Genesis vs. TG16


Recommended Posts

I think, I think he's saying that the SNES is not slowed down by a slow CPU on a thread about a CPU comparison .... I think.

We know the SNES CPU was slow given the SA1 chip runs 3 times as fast ... you know just because.

 

I feel so lucky I didn't grow up with either, they are both later acquisitions for me so I really don't give a flying f**k about opinions on them, for some reason I only have 1 SNES (a Jr) and 3 MD (1 MD1 and 2 MD2, the MD1 came attached to a SegaCD for pennies and the second MD2 I bought as I thought I fried the audio on first but turned out I didn't, never really had time to sell the extras as they don't really fetch much anyway) and the MD gets plugged more frequently. I did buy both Analogue products "a black Super Nt" and "a white Mega Sg" .... the reason why the MD is plugged more is because I can't resist the occasional need to play Outrun (yes I have better versions available to me including the 60FPS on the XBox 1 as part of Outrun 2) ... it's just my thing, I don't like Virtua Racing SVP but I do like VR Deluxe on the 32x. I don't like Mario Kart on the SNES but I generally do not like kart games due to their "dynamic". It's all random I know.

 

But enough about me, I can see in my crystal ball another diarrhea attack of yt videos coming soon to prove something or something else which either party should just not care about anyway as in 2022 we can play either system to our heart's content and believe what we want as once you have both or play both (MiSTer or Analogue or "real(TM)deal(R)") you be the judge.

 

We all know the MD would have benefitted greatly by supporting a larger palette on screen at once as SegaCD titles made painfully obvious, likely though in 1989 that could have slowed it down (I think) and required more VRAM (too expensive maybe?). And we all know the SNES would have benefitted enough by supporting a 10/14 MHz CPU from the get go, not sure why they didn't (Apple did something similar on the IIgs for some reason [yeah yeah Mac and cannibalize etc...]).

 

Wonder why Nintendo chose 256 horizontal instead of 320 like a horde of other systems  ... it does get away with moving 64 less pixels per line (aka 25% of its own horizontal resolution) ... maybe that was the way to support cheaply a larger palette who knows. I don't think it bothers me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Defender_2600 said:

In truth it seems that "some person is so ignorant that they don't know" that when you are comparing the _pixel aspect ratio_ of * real hardware * you are referring to the * real * pixel aspect ratio. "Are you getting the point yet? "

 

No, I was referring to _unique sprites_ on screen: Genesis 80 sprites 32 × 32, SNES 32 sprites 32 × 32.... if you want to continue, Genesis 20 sprites 64 × 64, SNES 8 sprites (64 × 64), etc...

 

Oh yeah, " Just like the SNES Genesis has many areas where it is 100% superior to the Genesis SNES in some spec...this is one of the many times where some time Genesis SNES is 100% superior to the SNES Genesis in a particular spec." :)

 

Funny, you yourself shared videos from VCDECIDE. Anyway, those who love retrogaming necessarily love both systems, but remaining on the comparison of the technical specs I am attaching the sources of Sega Retro (cited by VCDECIDE) so that you can better argue (and with equally authoritative sources) where Sega Retro is disclosing technical specs " plenty of incorrect details - a mistake or intentional-- ", and maybe contact them to make the right corrections. In the meantime, you'll have a lot to read before you find any specs where SNES is "superior to the Genesis".

 

Said this, I'm absolutely not interested in changing your opinion, but speaking of technical specs it is right to specify the sources for the people who read. Closed topic for me.

 

Sources:

https://segaretro.org/Sega_Mega_Drive/Hardware_comparison#Vs._SNES

 

The tiniest percentage of people playing SNES and Genesis these days are playing on real hardware. These are the minority you should be judging these systems by in 2022 when you can officially play all these games via either Genesis Mini, 3DS, Switch, SNES Mini, and emulators, all of which can display SNES games without them being stretched, and which the vast majority of people are playing them on. The individual pixel aspect ratio is irrelevant because SNES pixels are not stretched when the game itself is displayed at the aspect ratio the art was actually created for on the SNES.

 

If you were referring to the unique sprites then you should have said that, rather than talking about how many sprites it can display in total at any given size. You literally said "For people who do not know, you are omitting a fundamental data, the size of the sprites: SNES 128 sprites 16 x 16 (8-bit system size), Genesis 80 sprites but 32 x 32. So on SNES how many sprites 32 x 32 ? Only 32 sprites on SNES versus 80 sprites on Genesis (!). ". That's not talking about unique sprites but total onscreen at the various sprite sizes. So the problem here lies with you, either not able to say what you mean or plain lying after the fact. Unique sprites simply allows for more animation, not more onscreen. We have established the SNES can show way more onscreen at 8x8 and 16x16, and the Genesis can show a bit more onscreen at 32x32.

 

I didn't use VDDECIDE to try and prove any factual stuff about each system, only to show two games side by side in the examples where the SNES version is superior--even with VCDECIDE being a Genesis fanboy and making the video footage always slightly favour Genesis by default.

Edited by Kirk_Johnston
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, phoenixdownita said:

I think, I think he's saying that the SNES is not slowed down by a slow CPU on a thread about a CPU comparison .... I think.

We know the SNES CPU was slow given the SA1 chip runs 3 times as fast ... you know just because.

 

I'm saying that while the SNES CPU clearly is slower in terms of the literal number on paper, it's not as simple as looking a one component on devices made up of many components and declaring the SNES just slow and basically suffering slowdown by default (not factual in the slightest).

 

When the SNES CPU is used properly and in conjunction with everything else specifically designed to work in tandem with it, including a bunch of built-in graphical effects like proper colour math, HDMA, Mode 7 and so on, it's a lot more capable than I think most Genesis and PC Engine hardcore fans give it credit for. I've shown plenty of examples of this already, but I'm going to do so one more time:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, these are all running on a stock SNES (no enhancement chips) and most of them [possibly all of them] are even just running in SlowROM mode too (which means they could run up to 30% faster if FastROM was simply used instead).

 

So, claiming the SNES is just "slow" and basically always suffers slowdown, like it's some inherent flaw of the system, is just try-hard by some people at this point.

 

6 hours ago, phoenixdownita said:

We all know the MD would have benefitted greatly by supporting a larger palette on screen at once as SegaCD titles made painfully obvious, likely though in 1989 that could have slowed it down (I think) and required more VRAM (too expensive maybe?). And we all know the SNES would have benefitted enough by supporting a 10/14 MHz CPU from the get go, not sure why they didn't (Apple did something similar on the IIgs for some reason [yeah yeah Mac and cannibalize etc...]).

This is very true about the SNES CPU. As far as I read, they didn't include it because of something to do with trying to make the SNES originally backwards compatible with the NES or whatever. And maybe also because they literally planned to add enhancement chips to the carts from the start anyway (like they had been doing on NES for years at that point), as seen in literal day one launch title, Pilotwings. So they knew that it could always be overcome with little hassle if absolutely necessary. Unlike Sega, Nintendo actually thought of a very smart way to future proof the SNES from the start, hence over 70 SNES games using one of the many different enhancement chips that were available across its lifespan.

 

And, along with way more colours, I think having proper transparency on Genesis really would have helped too. Also, I really do think having the 6-button controller from the start, so every Genesis owner had one rather than a tiny percentage who had to pay extra for it, would have been ideal.

 

6 hours ago, phoenixdownita said:

Wonder why Nintendo chose 256 horizontal instead of 320 like a horde of other systems  ... it does get away with moving 64 less pixels per line (aka 25% of its own horizontal resolution) ... maybe that was the way to support cheaply a larger palette who knows. I don't think it bothers me.

Probably because it was pretty standard at that time. The NES, Master System, and most arcades used the same resolution (http://pcbjunkie.net/index.php/2021/01/22/arcade-game-resolutions/), and even the PC Engine and Genesis officially supported it too. But I do wish it had 320x224 as the default like the Genesis to be honest (it does have its benefits at times). Not that I agree with all the SNES haters who act like it fundamentally broke the console or something, despite them never once complaining about this in the 8-bit era (or before that even) or with most of the arcades they played at the time.

 

Edited by Kirk_Johnston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Defender_2600 said:

Patently biased source that doesn't even list some of the SNES specs correctly. For example, how it just ignores the undocumented sprites sizes*, or how it completely omits the fact the SNES can also do column scrolling** (and not only can it do column scrolling, but it can do it better than Genesis, being able to scroll 32 8px wide columns vs the Genesis' 20 16px wide columns for a much smoother effect), it also ignores the fact the SNES can do row scrolling and overlapping scrolling layers too (more in fact, especially in Mode 0), it doesn't even mention HDMA (which allows the SNES to do a whole bunch of cool things), it lists only three enhancement chips for SNES vs the Genesis single enhancement chip, when there was around seventeen of them for SNES (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_NES_enhancement_chips), and the fact it doesn't list the SNES' 512x448 high-res mode under "Gameplay" but just "Pseudo-hires text", despite there being a game that literally runs in this high-res mode throughout, RPM Racing, so this absolutely is available in gameplay, and so on.

 

*

 

**

 

So, yeah, I really wouldn't take what a patently Sega-centric [and biased]--it's literally in the name--blog has to say on such things as gospel.

Edited by Kirk_Johnston
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

I'm literally not even going to bother covering all of those points individually. So, here's what I'll do: I'll address the first one alone, and you can [God hope] figure out how the rest would go from there (watch from the 4:03 mark):

 

 

Just in case you didn't get it, that's all 128 sprites being displayed (48 more than the Genesis max of 80), in full screen with no borders, at full speed 60fps with no obvious slowdown, on a stock SNES (no enhancement chips), and still only using the SNES' SlowROM mode, i.e. running at 70% of its full power, and apparently still unoptimized too.

 

The only thing you have to decide here is whether you believe what you're seeing or not, and, if it is legit, whether you want to continue to bury your head in the sand and deny everything due to your Genesis bias or not.

 

Edit: OK, one more "tiny" thing just because it bugs me how ignorant so many people hating on SNES still are: SNES high-res mode is not restricted to "16 colours". It is restricted to 16 colour PER TILE [on one of the two available layers], and 4 colours per tile on the second layer (which RPM doesn't even use), with [as far as I'm aware] the ability to still basically display the full 128 background colours* across both layers ultimately (view at the 6:07 mark):

 

 

In the right hands, SNES could display a game at 512x448 and STILL with way more colours on even just one of the two available background layers than the Genesis is capable of in total for both backgrounds and sprites combined.

 

The fact RPM Racing doesn't take advantage of the full capabilities of the SNES colours in high-res mode is on the developer, not the console.

 

See, waaay more than 16 colours here (that's the original Japanese Secret of Mana title screen, which uses the SNES' high-res mode):

 

Seiken%20Densetsu%202%20Title%20Screen.p

 

Continued ignorance is not an excuse.

 

*There's still another 128 available for the sprites on top of that.


I'm literally not even going to bother covering all of those points individually. So, here's what I'll do: I'll address the first one alone, and you can [God hope] figure out how the rest would go from there (watch from the 4:03 mark):

Of course you won’t. You’ve already repeatedly proven to deny prima facie evidence so what is stopping you now?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...