The megadrive's cpu was more faster than the super famicom one. It's powered by a Motorolla 68000 series processor that powered a lot of arcade machines, the old Mac, and afaik the Amiga. Sega's PR hyped this with "Blast Processing Mode", remember?
The Saturn had two cpu's that were freakin' *hard to program with* (hmm, sounds familiar).
| stof said: Kind of like saying There will never be an airplane because there has never been an airplane (before they invented the airplane that is). Just because that's how it has been doesn't mean that's how it has to be. There are a lot of factors more important than processing power. If the N64 had used CD's instead of cartridges, it would have been an unstoppable force. In fact, the PS1 might have not had nearly the power of an N64, but it's success came from the disk format that allowed significantly more and better textures, increased audio and voicework and plenty of room for CGI and prerendered backgrounds. So in a way, the strength of the hardware is exactly why the PS1 beat the N64. |
To be fair, what made the PS wins was less technology and more the momentum. The N64 came in to late into the battle. PS already had a great support and many companies had switched to the PS and never released game on the N64.
How many cups of darkness have I drank over the years? Even I don't know...
| FelmanX said: The Snes was actually more powerful than the genesis. Blast Processing!!! Bleh, Smes had Mode 7 and better a sound chip (designed by Sony.) |
The key word: PROCESSOR.
Ok let me explain this. The saturn was technically more powerful than the PS. The problems with it was that 1 It had two processors which made it hard for developers and 2 It used Quadrilaterals instead of Triangles which also made it harder for developers. The Saturn had alot more VRAM than the PS, and having two processors that are clocked close to that of the PS' one also helped. The N64 again was more powerful than the PS. It allowed for many things that the PS didn't Bi and Trilinear Filtering, Better AA, more polygons, Better Lighting. The only advantage the PS really had was the larger disc space, but other than that it WAS the weakest in production of In-Game graphics.
blackbird3216 said:
The key word: PROCESSOR. |
You should be more specific on what type of processor. Central Proccesing Unit, Graphics Processing Unit,etc,or else people will think you mean everything and are really using 'processor' as another term for power.
Its not always about the highest # "processor speed". If u want a really easy one type in athlon vs pentium bench marks into google and read the first could of articles. The point was that pentium had a higher # processor however the athlons at a low speed processor have almost ALWAYS outperformed there counterpart because of whats behind the #.
My PSN Name is: EvilChronos add me if u want :)
END OF GENERATION PREDICTIONS "9-21-08"
PS3=130M 360=90M Wii=120M DS=130M PSP=70M
Other Prediction: The PS3 will overtake the 360 XMAS of 09 "9-21-08"
blackbird3216 said:
The key word: PROCESSOR. |
And I say again: what about Dreamcast? Its CPU was, indeed, weaker than those in the PS2/Xbox/GC, so does that not invalidate your contention? Or do you just throw out data that doesn't fit your theory? (Don't worry, you aren't alone: real scientists do that sort of thing every day, along with most people on message boards.)
| Seraphic_Sixaxis said: topic = fail |
Lol, coming from a playstation fanboy. no surprise here. accept it. wii won
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
