The 16-Bit Wars

[Atari_Worshipper]

Sega Genesis vs. Super NES

 

The ground rules: You can include the add-on peripherals for the Sega and can debate anything from the quantity to the quality of the games, and can debate the merits of the system's hardware, aesthetics, commercials and personal impact... if you're between the ages of 27 and 18, then you were probably neither too young or too old to fully appreciate teh 16-bit console wars, so speak on that if you wish.....

 

my opinion has been stated on other posts on other threads on this forum but I will post it again on this thread (not on this post though for time constraints, but I will later)

 

Well, Debate away!

 

p.s. bring in some other systems that were in the melee as well during the height of the 16-bit system wars if you'd like. Like Turbo-Grafix 16 (or Duo) or Neo Geo, etc..... they certainly had a real presence in the wonderfully turmultulous time in video games!

[JB]

Hardware:

Genesis wins.

 

The SNES had the better AV capabilities, but it's slow CPU crippled it. Slowdown should not have been present, especially not to the degree it was.

 

 

 

Game-wise?

I was a foolish hardware loyalist at the time. Sega had no place in my home, and I'm only now learning the joys of the Genesis.

 

It seems to have done really well in the action-gaming arena, where it's faster processor let it do more.

The SNES had all the adventure and RPG stuff, but fast-paced action suffered somewhat.

[chrisbid]

Hardware:

Genesis wins.

 

The SNES had the better AV capabilities, but it's slow CPU crippled it. Slowdown should not have been present, especially not to the degree it was.

 

 

 

Game-wise?  

I was a foolish hardware loyalist at the time. Sega had no place in my home, and I'm only now learning the joys of the Genesis.

 

It seems to have done really well in the action-gaming arena, where it's faster processor let it do more.  

The SNES had all the adventure and RPG stuff, but fast-paced action suffered somewhat.

 

 

 

well said, i had both systems in the day, and my genesis got more playing time. Nintendo started its trend of rehashing their old games rather than making new games (which it still does too much), but those were the glory days of gaming imho, i lost interest in gaming after the Saturn came out and buried the 32X.

[NE146]

p.s. bring in some other systems that were in the melee as well during the height of the 16-bit system wars if you'd like. Like Turbo-Grafix 16

 

Well I'd imagine so! That was right there in the heart of the 16 bit wars (technical definitions aside). When the TG-16 and Genesis were released almost at the same time, I don't know about you but that was one heart wrenching decision to choose from 2 tantalizing newfangled consoles to graduate from the days of the NES and SMS. The U.S. SNES came out later but immediately joined the same battle.

 

Which one? Honestly, during that time was the time I was finally old enough to actually have money and/or the means to get all of them.. so that's exactly what I did. It ROCKED having all 3 consoles in their heyday. I could go into any store like Electronics Boutique and have my choice of the best games for each system as desired. Sonic came out? No problem! Bonk? No problem! Super Castlevania? snag it and lets play it!

 

They're all equal and a part of the same memory timeframe to me, but if push comes to shove, my ranking is this: SNES, then Genesis, then TG16. But that can change anytime depending on mood

[sigma]

Every system had it's strengths and weaknesses. To say one is better over the other is elitist bullshit. So, I prefer the SNES.

[Atari_Worshipper]

Hardware:  

Genesis wins.  

 

The SNES had the better AV capabilities, but it's slow CPU crippled it. Slowdown should not have been present, especially not to the degree it was.

 

 

 

 

Actually, that is wrong. The Geneis did have a 7MHz clock speed to the SNES's 3.5HHz. But we're also talking about a Motorolla 68000 vs a Custom 65816. don't get hung up on the clock speed. A 100MHz 486DX2 is still slower than a 65MHz 586 (better known as Pentium). Or, if you want a more modern example. A 1.8GHz AMD Athlon XP is as fast or faster than a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in most applications. Why? A thing called Memory Cycle Time. The faster the memory cycle time is, the faster the chip runs....it's all about how much gets data gets crunched during each MHz tick. The SNES's MCT was less than half that of the Genesis (meaning over twice as fast) making the chips about equal, but actally giving the SNES the slight advantage. So blast processing was a lie. But think about this....if Nintendo R&D had two years extra to make something better than the Sega, why on God's earth would they settle for a lesser CPU? And think about this... the 8-bit Sega Mastersystem had a 3.somethingMHz CPU in it also, even though it was significantly slower than the SNES's CPU. So clock speed can be a deceiving thing....One last thing.... we call the TG16 16 because it's graphic and sound qualities significantly outshine the other 8-bit systems and rival the 16-bit systems, but it's only 8-bit. My point is we place more emphasis in the gaming world on video and sound capabilities than on the CPU when determining the merit of a piece of harware especially when comparing it directly to something else. And as the Graphics/Sound were appreciably better on the SNES (especially the sound) then that would still make the SNES the better system hardware wise than the Genesis even if the CPU had less horsepower.

 

Slowdown was only in the early games, and that was not because the system was weak, it was cause the programmers didn't know how to work with the architecture... actually, some later genesis games had bad slowdown too..... when they tried to make the games look and sound like SNES games.

 

 

I have been unsuccessful in finding a copy of the technical analysis where I get my data showing the superiority of the SNES CPU, so I can't actually show you... however, the name of the company who reported it was "Boose, Allen, and Hamilton"

 

 

happy hunting!

[DracIsBack]

Egad.

 

At the end of the days, it's the games that matter and the SNES and Genesis both have huge libraries and a lot of classics.

 

Back in the day, I hated Nintendo for all of their bully tactics and all of their arrogance and I was glad when the Genesis came along for the simple fact that it was a strong contender around the time that the government was breathing down Nintendo's neck and forcing Nintendo to level the playing field. Atari couldn't make headway, NEC wasn't equipped but Sega made the right moves and fought like a tiger with the Genesis. As such, I think it inspired Nintendo to push the bounds more and the consumer won out.

 

In terms of hardware, why bother? The Genesis came out first, Nintendo took two years and released a slightly more powerful system. Some lament the fact that the SNES had better graphics and sound. Others like me think what Nintendo came up with given the two years of additional time was pretty marginal.

 

Regardless, Given their longevity and popularity, both were pushed way beyond what people originally thought either was capable of.

[Atari_Worshipper]

I agree that the hardware isn't as important as the software by a country mile... especially now that they're 15-13years outdated. If I thought hardware was the important thing, I wouldn't be messing with either of them. And, I actually prefer the Genesis to the SNES because I feel that the ratio of quality/garbage is better on the Genesis. It's just the Genesis being more powerful misconception is something I've been aware of since 94 and have combatted inactively (meaning I don't go out of my way to make an issue of it. I simply correct the misconception when it's brought up by someone else.) The purpose of my 16-Bit wars debate was spurred on by software... I just assume it as given that the SNES is the mightier machine and when someone is confused, I correct them.

 

As far as saying one is better being "elitest bullshit" There's some truth to that, but only when dealing in opinions.... To pass an opinion off as a fact is wrong which is why it's wrong to say that something subjective is objective (I.e. Genesis definitely had better software) But hardware specs are not opinion, they're fact so there's nothing wrong to say something objective is objective..... To say the SNES is superior in it's overall merit is presumptuous, but to say it's better in it's hardware merit is just telling the truth.

[Cootster]

Different systems for different genres:

 

The Genesis had better action-oriented games, whereas the SNES had too many amazing RPGs to list . . .

 

It's like the 7800/NES debate in that thread . . . All in all, they're about equal, depending on what you want to do with it . . .

 

That said, I enjoyed the SNES more, mostly because I prefer the controller design.

[joeybastard]

Both have some fun games but IMHO, the SNES beats Genny by a mile. Overall I like the games, controllers, graphics and sound better. That doesn't mean I don't like my Genny, I do, but I find that the games don't hold up as well as the SNES.

[NE146]

Atari Worshipper... here's a thread custom made for you my friend

 

 

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29557

[A2600]

I had the SNES when it was released, but later got the Genny in 1994, but I allways seemed to like the Genny better than the SNES since its games where less childish!!

 

Hey Im playing mario, so what Im playing super spinning Sonic

 

I dunno they are both about par but my bid goes to the genesis

[Ze_ro]

I'd say it was more of a stalemate between the Genesis and SNES. I don't think there have been any other generation of consoles where two systems shared the market as equally as these two did.

 

Unfortunately, the TurboGrafx kind of got lost in the shuffle.

 

--Zero

[JB]

Hardware:  

Genesis wins.  

 

The SNES had the better AV capabilities, but it's slow CPU crippled it. Slowdown should not have been present, especially not to the degree it was.

 

 

 

 

Actually, that is wrong. The Geneis did have a 7MHz clock speed to the SNES's 3.5HHz. But we're also talking about a Motorolla 68000 vs a Custom 65816. don't get hung up on the clock speed. A 100MHz 486DX2 is still slower than a 65MHz 586 (better known as Pentium). Or, if you want a more modern example. A 1.8GHz AMD Athlon XP is as fast or faster than a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in most applications. Why? A thing called Memory Cycle Time. The faster the memory cycle time is, the faster the chip runs....it's all about how much gets data gets crunched during each MHz tick. The SNES's MCT was less than half that of the Genesis (meaning over twice as fast) making the chips about equal, but actally giving the SNES the slight advantage.

That's one facet of it, yes.

There's also wonderful things like pipeline, cache, predictive branching, et cetera.

 

But when all is said and done, the actual performance of the SNES' 65816 was inadequate for it's hardware.

In the real world, the Genesis' 68k stomped it.

 

 

So blast processing was a lie.

In that it didn't exist, yes.

In that a Genesis just plain outperformed an SNES, no.

 

 

But think about this....if Nintendo R&D had two years extra to make something better than the Sega, why on God's earth would they settle for a lesser CPU?

Backwards-compatibility with the NES' 6502.

The SNES hardware design SCREAMS NES-compatibility. The CPU is backwards-compatible, the GPU is backwards-compatible, the stinking GAMEPADS are backwards-compatible.

I have no logical reason why NES compatibility was never implemented in the release other than Nintendo wanted to continue selling NES decks as long as possible.

 

And think about this... the 8-bit Sega Mastersystem had a 3.somethingMHz CPU in it also, even though it was significantly slower than the SNES's CPU.

Yes.

Not only are you comparing diffrent processors, you're comparing diffrent CLASSES of processor.

 

So clock speed can be a deceiving thing....

But I was never going by clock speed.

 

One last thing.... we call the TG16 16 because it's graphic and sound qualities significantly outshine the other 8-bit systems and rival the 16-bit systems, but it's only 8-bit.

Actually, it's labelled 16-bit because NEC said it had 16-bit graphics.

Just like the Dreamcast is 128-bit.

 

 

My point is we place more emphasis in the gaming world on video and sound capabilities than on the CPU when determining the merit of a piece of harware especially when comparing it directly to something else. And as the Graphics/Sound were appreciably better on the SNES (especially the sound) then that would still make the SNES the better system hardware wise than the Genesis even if the CPU had less horsepower.

EXCEPT that the SNES CPU couldn't keep up with it's AV hardware.

 

Slowdown was a common occurance on SNES games. Even when the Genesis was doing scaling and rotation(in software no less), it kept the framerate up, a task completely unmanageable by the SNES(you had to use graphics mode 7 and the restrictions it contained, or stick a coprocessor in the cart).

 

Slowdown was only in the early games, and that was not because the system was weak, it was cause the programmers didn't know how to work with the architecture... actually, some later genesis games had bad slowdown too..... when they tried to make the games look and sound like SNES games.

Slowdown plagued the SNES throughout it's life.

The games that didn't have slowdown were either RPGs that weren't doing much anyways, or had coprocessors.

There's something that gets ignored. There's a LOT of SNES games with coprocessors, starting with Mario Kart and PilotWings and continuing on through the system's death. Compared to one on the Genesis.

 

And given the SNES architecture was simpler than the Genesis to begin with, and the SPC700 integrated into the sound hardware essentially removed the task of making noise from the SNES CPU(the Genesis Z80 was allegedly there for the same purpose, but was very rarely used to any signifigant degree), there's really no excuse for the SNES to have MORE slowdown problems than the Genesis, ESPECIALLY early on while both systems were foreign to the programmers.

 

 

I would argue that Sonic the Hedgehog, a Genesis launch title, is IMPOSSIBLE on a base SNES. And not just for nitpicky reasons like the Genesis had higher-resolution display hardware.

I simply don't believe the SNES can keep up with Sonic.

 

 

I have been unsuccessful in finding a copy of the technical analysis where I get my data showing the superiority of the SNES CPU, so I can't actually show you... however, the name of the company who reported it was "Boose, Allen, and Hamilton"

 

 

happy hunting!

Mine comes from playing both systems, and seeing lots and lots of slowdown on the SNES and very little on the Genesis.

 

It is possible that the SNES CPU was technically superior to the Genesis CPU when comparing just teh CPUs, but the rest of the system dragged it down. Either way, the outcome is the same. The SNES CPU was inadequate for the SNES.

[DracIsBack]

I have no logical reason why NES compatibility was never implemented in the release other than Nintendo wanted to continue selling NES decks as long as possible.

 

In GAME OVER, I remember reading that backwards compatability with the NES would significantly drive up the costs of the consoles to the point where they wouldn't achieve a "mass market" price point.

 

It will be interesting to see how this thread turns. We just finished having a lengthy "NES vs. 7800" discussion in the Atari 7800 forums with a lot of interesting points raised on both sides. It will be interesting to see that raised here.

 

For those that didn't follow the 7800 vs. NES thread, the end conclusion was that neither system was "uninilaterally stronger", but rather each exceled in different areas. My supsicion is that this will end the same.

[joeybastard]

I'm always confused by the technospeak that goes on in these type of topics. The inside hardware specs really mean nothing without the games. I just don't get why a console for playing games would be judged on anything but the games written for it. Regardless of the potential the hardware had or the lack of power, in the end it's the games that matter. I understand exploring the specs to see why a system was the way it was but I can't see basing a judgment solely on specs.

[JB]

I'm always confused by the technospeak that goes on in these type of topics. The inside hardware specs really mean nothing without the games. I just don't get why a console for playing games would be judged on anything but the games written for it. Regardless of the potential the hardware had or the lack of power' date=' in the end it's the games that matter. I understand exploring the specs to see why a system was the way it was but I can't see basing a judgment solely on specs.[/quote']

Because when one system has massive slowdown problems, it hinders it's ability to play certain types of games.

[Atari_Worshipper]

Super Nintendo didn't suffer from the slowdown on it's later games, at least not nearly as much, and I have seen slowdown on Genesis games. (I.e. Mortal Kombat... the SNES version with bigger, bolder, more detailed characters and backgrounds didn't have slowdown) Especially the later ones that were more complex (the SNES's later era games were more complex too, despite the reduction of slowdown) And even with what little slowdown there was on the SNES, it didn't hardly have any hinderance on the games. Or, at the very least the detriment to the gaming experience caused by slowdown would've been far outweighed by it's surplusses in color depth, resolution, sprite size, simultaneous sprite count and most of all, sound quality discrepency... at least in synthesis.. they were comparable in playing .WAV style files. The advantages to the SNES were more readily apparent and more easily noticable than the advantages to the Genesis.

 

I understand the term pipeline, but you seem not to be basing that on anything solid. I will admit that I cannot actually provide you with my source of information, but I can at least name it. In the 1993 Hardware study of the two systems by Booze Allen & Hamilton (released to the public in 1994) they assess not only the superiority of the CPU, but of the sound system and the GPU. I don't recall specific mention of how the pipeline was on it, but certainly they wouldv'e made an issue of it if it were enough to make a substantial difference... I will continue to attempt to find an on-line copy of the study and would encourage you to do the same... I would also ask that you provide something to back up your case other than you've been playing both for so long....cause I have too.

 

If you can provide proof of this rather than assertion, then you may change my mind, but everything I've read and all the gaming experience that I've had suggest SNES to be superior on all levels (hardware-wise) And even if the CPU wasn't enough to support the GPU and sound systems, you can't claim that made the Genesis hardware superior cause you were dealing with inferior GPUs and sound processors... the Genesis CPU wasn't carrying as heavy a load as the SNES's CPU. So again, the most you could get away with saying was that the Genesis's architecture was more solid and more well rounded, and better thought through, but not quantifiably superior...

 

 

 

 

 

you know, I've got to say... I'm liking this debate... it really is a throwback to the days of middle school when we were having less informed, less sophisticated versions of this same debate...ah, sentimentality.

[Starscream]

Neo Geo all the way. I used to laugh when my friends would sit there and compare graphics between the SNES and Genesis and which was better. I'd pull out the Neo Geo and silence them both. Plus even though there weren't nearly as many games on the Neo, the games were top notch, unlike most of the Genny and SNES libraries at that time. I'd also say the TG 16 was way better than the snes or genesis. Very limited library but again, much more quality. The SNES was pretty good but I didn't like censored games and never really saw enough to wanna own one, I would just borrow a friends. But I do love the Genesis. Brings back many, many good memories and I always had lots of fun with so many games on the Genesis.

[sku_u]

Shame on you for not including the Atari Jaguar in this debate. That's the runner up to the Neo Geo. The Genesis is a distant third with the SNES still in the starting gate.

[Lemmi]

i based my buying on Hockey games back then

 

the TG16 was the first one that had a hockey game, so i bought that system first, then about 6 to 8 months later (approx.) the Genesis hit with NHL Hockey, so i played the game at Meijers when i worked there i loved NHL Hockey and i sold 50 of my 55 NES games for $3 a piece to a paun shop, and then got the Genesis and Hockey

 

the SNES i got for $50 off my girlfriends 16 year old stoner brother, close to a year after it was released

[A2600]

the SNES i got for $50 off my girlfriends 16 year old stoner brother, close to a year after it was released

 

Anyone here know what was the retail of the SNES in Christmas 1991??

[chrisbid]

Sonic wasnt a launch title, it came out in mid 1991, just a few months before the launch of the SNES. There was nearly a two year stretch before the world had heard of Sonic the Hedgehog, but during that time, the Genesis was mainly seen as a high end arcade machine, obviously that distinction died with release of the Neo Geo.

 

i keep seeing the arguement that later SNES games didnt have any slowdown, i dont know of too many action SNES games that were released late in the consoles life. Most games like Donkey Kong Country had somewhat slower gameplay than games such as Gunstar Heroes on the Genesis. The Genesis could handle more sprites in shooters. Every halfway decent shooter on the SNES (Gradius III, Super R-type, UN Squadron, Contra III, etc) had some major slowdown issues when the action got heavy.

 

Slowdown wasnt much of an issue with fighting games, as other than the two fighters, there isnt much else going on. Street Fighter II Turbo (SNES) and Street Fighter II Special Championship Edition were both incredibly fast (if you turned on the speed boost on either title).

 

Control wise, the layout of the Genesis six button controller was the best of that generation. It couldnt be beat for fighting games. The triggers on the SNES, while useful as buttons 5 and 6, didnt serve much purpose on most games, and were cumbersome on fighting games.

 

again, the early 90's were the best times for gaming. two distinct systems were on the market and both were worth owning. nowadays, there isnt anything lacking on any of the major consoles (other than the xbox's hard drive), multiplatform games are so close to one another that it would take somebody very familiar with the systems to tell the difference between ports.

[A2600]

again, the early 90's were the best times for gaming.  two distinct systems were on the market and both were worth owning.  nowadays, there isnt anything lacking on any of the major consoles (other than the xbox's hard drive), multiplatform games are so close to one another that it would take somebody very familiar with the systems to tell the difference between ports.

 

A little off the side here... but EGM predicted the GameCube to have the most games you're looking forward to at 43% with the XBOX on 34% and PS2 on 23%

[shep]

Every system had it's strengths and weaknesses. To say one is better over the other is elitist bullshit. So, I prefer the SNES.

 

Your wrong...the Virtual Boy is the best system of them all!!!

j/k

 

I'm glad I had both a Genesis and a SNES. I'd like to purchase a Turbo Grafx sometime...