The 16-Bit Wars

[Scooterb23]

I've never been a big fan of the SNES. I don't like RPGs...and I do like sports games, so that makes the Genesis an obvious choice for me

 

However, the SNES scores two major points in my book...first, Super Mario World was awesome, and second, Super Smash TV is just SOOOOOOO right with those controllers.

 

 

But Gunstar Heroes, EA SPORTS, Quackshot w/ Donald Duck, Renovations shmups...Street Fighter II with a controller that made sense...Genesis had it all over the SNES...still does in my book.

[DeV0]

Snes was my favourite in the day and still is today. I thought the graphics and gameplay where better when making comparisons of games on both consoles. I liked the 2D fighters and IMHO the snes version where always better.

 

I like the MD, but not my favourite.

[JB]

Super Nintendo didn't suffer from the slowdown on it's later games, at least not nearly as much,

Every game I'd expect to have slowdown has a coprocessor in it.

C4, SA-1, DSP-x, whatever it is...

 

and I have seen slowdown on Genesis games.

Sonic the Hedgehog.

Something about dropping 80 rings onto the screen...

 

 

(I.e. Mortal Kombat... the SNES version with bigger, bolder, more detailed characters and backgrounds didn't have slowdown)

That's because the SNES version had lousy control and was in perpetual slowdown anyways.

I played both versions. I found the SNES one painfully sluggish, and the Genesis one to be pretty fluid.

 

And then I saw Nintendo Power's review of MK2. They acknowledged not only that another system existed, but that it did well, with the lead-in to the review.

They were explaining the lack of censorship in MK2 by going "Despite it's better loking graphics and better-sounding sound, the SNES version of Mortal Kombat didn't do as well as the Genesis one, largely due to censorship of the fatalities." And I looked at and went "Uh, no, it's because the SNES version was a pretty-looking turd, while the Genesis version was a somewhat-less pretty playable game".

 

Especially the later ones that were more complex (the SNES's later era games were more complex too, despite the reduction of slowdown)

I'll take your word for it on the Genesis stuff.

 

I found the SNES stuff to either keep the game slow enough that it was never an issue or have a coprocessor.

 

 

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 never felt that way.

I felt that I was being cheated out of the fast action games I saw on the Genesis.

 

They tried them early in the life of the SNES, and never again.

 

 

I understand the term pipeline, but you seem not to be basing that on anything solid.

I was just offering other things that make a diffrence besides the memory cycle time.

 

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.

And mine is the SNES community.

It's a rather common complaint.

 

Also of note is that superior sound and video hardware is usually mroe demanding of a CPU.

 

 

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 don't think either chip was advanced enough to HAVE a pipeline.

That's more relevant to the Athlon/P4 example.

 

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)

I can only judge the system by what I saw.

And that was a lack of fast action games, and (later, when I learned mroe of the hardware) a high-res video mode that was completely ignored because it took too much processing power to use it.

 

Though I am somewhat hesitant to believe that architectural diffrences between the 68000(a chip with something of a reputation for speed) and a 65816(descendant of the 6502, a chip with a reputation for being cheap but kind of sluggish) could give the 65816 a 2-4x advantage in work per cycle(the SNES' 65816 had multiple speeds available, ranging from 1.79 to 3.58 MHz).

 

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...

Fine. The Genesis, in my opinion, had more CPU power RELATIVE TO IT'S AV HARDWARE.

Or to put it another way, the SNES CPU was inadequate to the task.

Which was really my point all along, even if I said it wrong.

And it DOES make the Genesis hardware superior, because it kept the game flowing. You could just plain DO MORE.

 

 

And it is of note that the Genesis video hardware operated at a higher resolution than the SNES hardware(320*224 instead of 256*224), partially negating it's color depth advantage.

It also had to run a PSG and FM synth chip instead of tell a second processor to play back samples(the z80, while there, was usually ignored).

And visual effects usually handled with graphics mode 7 on the SNES had to be created in software on the Genesis, at great cost in terms of CPU usage(but not enough to slow the game down).

 

Basically, what I saw was the Genesis doing more at once AND spitting out faster games.

And while coprocessors were commonplace on SNES carts, the only Genesis game to use one was Virtua Racing. The fact that they were present almost from day one on one system and almost never used on the other speaks volumes.

 

 

 

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.

Back then it was more "Sonic rules! Mario's lame!" and vice-versa.

Which is pretty much what I told anyone that asked, is that it all boiled down to what games you wanted. It's what I tell them now, too.

 

Hardware-wise, though, I'm convinced the Genesis was the faster system.

[DeV0]

I never noticed slowdown on the SNES, maybe i didnt care all that much. I'll let you know the PAL 50HZ MD always had massive borderlines and played slow as hell, More programmers on the snes side optimized for PAL, Maybe something to do with all snes software being regional where as the md was about 50/50?. Even after getting my md to run at full screen and speed I can honestly say the 2d fighters are still better on the snes. MK on the SNES is almost perfect, on the md its very playable but the characters are way too small. I am liking the MD more nowadays but I think the snes had a better library.

 

Either way, both systems are out and getting plenty of attention, Sonic spinball anyone?

[DracIsBack]

liked the 2D fighters and IMHO the snes version where always better.  

 

Pit Fighter???!!!!!!

[Xot]

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.

 

Exactly - which is why both of my reasons are game-related.

 

I preferred t he SNES because (1) Of the games only available on one platform, more of the ones *I* wanted were on the SNES (Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Secret of Mana, Ranma 1/2, SF2[for years], Castlevania IV, Super Metroid, Mega Man, etc)

 

(2) Of the games available on BOTH platforms, the SNES ones tended to be better (Clay Fighter, SF2 (when released), Mortal Kombat, others I can't rememeber right now)

 

I didn't play sports games so the Genny's "superiority" in that field never affected me. Eventually, of course, I had to pick up a Genny for the excellent exclusive titles I had to had, namely Sonic, Thunder Force III (don't even MENTION Thunder Spirirs), Strider and Warsong.

[Xot]

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??

 

$249 with Super Mario World.

[DeV0]

liked the 2D fighters and IMHO the snes version where always better.  

 

Pit Fighter???!!!!!!

 

 

Yes, Pit Fighter sucked on any system including arcade

[Atari_Worshipper]

I still am not convinced on the slowdown issue, but that could go in circles forever... one thing I am convinced of though, is that if I (and I think the majority of people on this thread) were to have to choose between 32768 colors (256 simultaneous) with a plethora of integrated video effects, higher resolution (utilized) and almost CD quality sound, all of this with an insignificant amount of slowdown vs. a system with no slowdown whatsoever, but with only 512 colors (64 simultaneous) (that means that the SNES could simultaneously produce an entire half of the Gensis's total library of colors! hell, the TG 16 had the same total color pallette as the genesis, but could display the same simultaneous colors as the SNES, so even the TG16 beats the Genesis in this regard) and a drasticly inferior sound system which often times came off sounding real rough, and no real special video effects to speak of, and a lower resolution (at least in practical terms) but again, no slowdown whatsoever, then I'd take the slowdown in a slowed down heartbeat.

 

Can I get an amen from a brother?!

 

To me, it's all about what the system is capable of producing... if the SNES has to slow down a bit to produce a visual an aurial masterpiece, then let it, cause the genesis couldn't do it under any circumstance. You could plug God into the Sega Genesis and it'd still fall flat on it's face vs. the SNES in the graphics and sound department and the slowdown (if any) goes completely unnoticed to most gamers, even extreme ones like myself. you know, there's no flicker that plagued the NES so bad, there is a little flicker here and there on Genesis games....flicker implies the CPU is being overtaxed....or at least, the GPU (which is doing so much less as it is)

 

and chew on this....

 

we'd all agree that the Mastersystem was a more powerful system than the NES, but all the MS games ran slower than the NES counterparts. Also, while the characters are always better looking on the MS, a lot of the times, (on the common games anyway) the backgrounds looked more detailed and sharper on the NES... and as simple as the NES sound system was, it was still more developed than the MS. My point is, that we still consider the MS the more powerful system.. We've got a 3.xMHz chip in the MS and a 1.xCPU in the NES and the MS has less of a clear advantage over the NES than what the SNES has over the Genesis when the tables are turned, clock speed wise. That speaks volumes for the SNES's CPU. I'll give you that the SNES is carrying a greater load on it's CPU, but it's oh so worth it when you just turned off a multiplatform game on the Gensis and then switch on it's SNES counterpart.....sweetness.

 

I can't explain why most of the sports games were better on the Genesis, but frankly, I've never been much of a sports fan, so I couldn't really care less. But that's just me...

[ubersaurus]

I'd call the SNES sound alot of things, but definitely not CD quality. Or even close to it. Don't know too many cds that are so damn tinny sounding.

[JB]

I never noticed slowdown on the SNES, maybe i didnt care all that much. I'll let you know the PAL 50HZ MD always had massive borderlines and played slow as hell, More programmers on the snes side optimized for PAL, Maybe something to do with all snes software being regional where as the md was about 50/50?. Even after getting my md to run at full screen and speed I can honestly say the 2d fighters are still better on the snes. MK on the SNES is almost perfect, on the md its very playable but the characters are way too small. I am liking the MD more nowadays but I think the snes had a better library.

Well, the games are ALREADY running 1/6 slower in a PAL environment, so there's a built-in cushion. A game that only BARELY overtaxes the CPU gets a lot of benefit from those extra cycles per frame.

 

 

 

I still am not convinced on the slowdown issue, but that could go in circles forever...

 

'Kay.

 

 

one thing I am convinced of though, is that if I (and I think the majority of people on this thread) were to have to choose between 32768 colors (256 simultaneous)

Actually, all 32k colors could be onscreen at once.

 

with a plethora of integrated video effects,

The most impressive of which could be done on the Genesis as well.

 

higher resolution (utilized)

The Genesis had hte higher resolution in 99.999999% of all situations.

I don't believe menu screens on 3-5 games counts.

 

and almost CD quality sound,

Debatable.

 

all of this with an insignificant amount of slowdown

It wasn't insignifigant to me.

Hell, Gradius 3 had slowdown problems from JUST SCROLLING THE SCREEN in some levels.

 

vs. a system with no slowdown whatsoever, but with only 512 colors (64 simultaneous) (that means that the SNES could simultaneously produce an entire half of the Gensis's total library of colors! hell, the TG 16 had the same total color pallette as the genesis, but could display the same simultaneous colors as the SNES, so even the TG16 beats the Genesis in this regard)

I'm not debating the superiority of the video hardware.

 

and a drasticly inferior sound system which often times came off sounding real rough,

Other times it comes off very nicely, though.

 

I'd call it diffrent, but not inferior. Though it is true it was massively misused at times. The SNES hardware was hard to misuse, since it just played back samples.

 

 

and no real special video effects to speak of,

The lack of a mode 7 equivalent is really no great loss.

Especially given that much more could be done in software on the Genesis.

 

Transparency... that I miss.

 

and a lower resolution (at least in practical terms)

In practical terms the Genesis has the HIGHER resolution.

 

but again, no slowdown whatsoever, then I'd take the slowdown in a slowed down heartbeat.

And I'd prefer the system that plays well and looks less flashy.

 

Can I get an amen from a brother?!

No.

 

To me, it's all about what the system is capable of producing... if the SNES has to slow down a bit to produce a visual an aurial masterpiece, then let it, cause the genesis couldn't do it under any circumstance.

I'd rather have a game that plays nice than one that looks nice.

 

 

You could plug God into the Sega Genesis and it'd still fall flat on it's face vs. the SNES in the graphics and sound department

True.

Sort of.

 

and the slowdown (if any) goes completely unnoticed to most gamers, even extreme ones like myself.

Largely because Nintendo QUIT LICENSING FAST GAMES.

 

you know, there's no flicker that plagued the NES so bad, there is a little flicker here and there on Genesis games....flicker implies the CPU is being overtaxed....or at least, the GPU (which is doing so much less as it is)

If I recall, it's a function of sprites per line. Another thing they were careful about with the SNES. Partially because the sprite that disappeared on the SNES GPU was the oldest sprite onscreen, which was almost invariably the player character. They DID write a flicker routine, though.

 

 

and chew on this....  

 

we'd all agree that the Mastersystem was a more powerful system than the NES, but all the MS games ran slower than the NES counterparts.

It's video hardware overtaxed it's CPU, as I understand things.

 

Also, while the characters are always better looking on the MS, a lot of the times, (on the common games anyway) the backgrounds looked more detailed and sharper on the NES...

Diffrences in the GPU.

The NES was higher resolution, but the Master System had more colors.

 

and as simple as the NES sound system was, it was still more developed than the MS.

Actually, they're almost identical.

The main advantage of the NES' chip was it could create more than square waves. Whereas the Master System was 3 square waves and noise, the NES was 2 square waves, one triangle wave, and noise.

 

You CAN simulate the effect of the triangle wave with a square wave, but it takes more effort.

 

 

My point is, that we still consider the MS the more powerful system..

I don't.

Largely because I haven't played enough MS to judge it.

 

We've got a 3.xMHz chip in the MS and a 1.xCPU in the NES and the MS has less of a clear advantage over the NES than what the SNES has over the Genesis when the tables are turned, clock speed wise.

But as you pointed out, clock speed is meaningless.

 

That speaks volumes for the SNES's CPU. I'll give you that the SNES is carrying a greater load on it's CPU, but it's oh so worth it when you just turned off a multiplatform game on the Gensis and then switch on it's SNES counterpart.....sweetness.

Depends on the game.

 

 

I can't explain why most of the sports games were better on the Genesis, but frankly, I've never been much of a sports fan, so I couldn't really care less. But that's just me...

Because they can run faster.

Sports games are an excellent demonstration of the Genesis' advantages. It's got enough spare horsepower to throw 2 teams of atheletes around swiftly, while the SNES had to restrain the game to maintain a steady speed(apparently coprocessors weren't considered economical for non-racing sports games).

 

Truthfully, I don't care for sports either.

I make exceptions for sports games that run in blatant defiance to reality.

I see no reason to recreate a game I could bore myself watching on TV anyways, but if I can set a landmine at 3rd base, or shoot a missile up my opponent's tailpipe, the game becomes more interesting.

[chrisbid]

the only reason i post in this endless war of words is that i feel that the Genesis is a very underrated system. a lot of people shrug off the genny as crap, when in fact it had distinct advantages over the SNES, and it had many worthwhile exclusive and unique games. in the end though, i guess its nice to see the genesis neglected since that allows me to buy games for it at super cheap prices, while even the crappiest SNES carts fetch at least five bucks.

[DeV0]

I never noticed slowdown on the SNES, maybe i didnt care all that much. I'll let you know the PAL 50HZ MD always had massive borderlines and played slow as hell, More programmers on the snes side optimized for PAL, Maybe something to do with all snes software being regional where as the md was about 50/50?. Even after getting my md to run at full screen and speed I can honestly say the 2d fighters are still better on the snes. MK on the SNES is almost perfect, on the md its very playable but the characters are way too small. I am liking the MD more nowadays but I think the snes had a better library.

Well, the games are ALREADY running 1/6 slower in a PAL environment, so there's a built-in cushion. A game that only BARELY overtaxes the CPU gets a lot of benefit from those extra cycles per frame.

.

 

 

 

Ive always had a 60hz snes, so no slowdown there. Like I said, a md running at full speed still doesnt win me over. Really, I love the md but some snes titles would never run on the MD whether you like it or not. And I dont care about the specs or whatever, The snes is visually more impressive, Once again, Check the same games running on both systems. Was aero/sonic wings ever released for the md? Im guessing if it has been or was, It would be arcade perfect like the snes release. The software line up always wins me over. and frankly the arcade ports to snes are more faithful, IMHO

[DracIsBack]

liked the 2D fighters and IMHO the snes version where always better.  

 

Pit Fighter???!!!!!!

 

 

Yes, Pit Fighter sucked on any system including arcade

 

In your opinion!

 

I actually share it, though.

 

Still, the Genesis one was closer to the arcade than the Super NES version. So, 2D fighters are not "always better on the SNES"

[DracIsBack]

The thing that I like about these threads is you get detailed posts that go beyond "X is better than & in every way and Y sux!!!!!!!!" to discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of hardware.

 

What I don't like about these threads are the subjective opinions presented as facts (ie. "SNES games rule, Genesis games suck". Played them all have you?).

 

I've played a lot of games I like on both systems and I think both have a rightful place in gaming history. I think the two of them fighting it out with each other really pushed the bounds a lot for gamers. In playing the Sega Smash Pack on the Dreamcast last night, it was interesting to compare the likes of ALTERED BEAST with the likes of VECTOR MAN. Genesis games came a long, LONG way between beginning of life and end of life. Ditto for the SNES. And that was because of fierce competitition between the two systems. The title of "leading 16-bit console" changed hands at least four times between the two. In the end, the SNES won by a "slight margin" (SNES fanboys like to say it "demolished the Genesis" but that isn't correct ... it finally pulled ahead at the end of both systems).

 

In terms of technical stuff, I maintain the perspective I've always had. The SNES did have better graphics and sounds, but it was also newer. And given that Nintendo had two years to improve upon what Sega had created, I thought the SNES was a big disappointment in terms of a hardware leap. Where I did like the SNES was pressure from Sega forced Nintendo to churn out some awesome games. Classics like MARIO KART were born out of competition with Sega scrapping it out with Nintendo.

[hex65000]

All this discussion of performance raises one question for me.

 

Has anyone ever tried overclocking the Genesis? Or heck, even replacing it's stock 68k cpu with a faster version and then upping the oscillator clock?

What would happen? The possibilities are interesting for sure.

 

Hex.

[ Has no time to start mucking about with a Genesis 2 ... ]

[Clint Thompson]

When we could afford getting a Genesis and a SNES I had always wanted a Genesis and mainly for Sonic. But instead we ended up getting a SNES and a Jaguar. (Thanks for the Jaguar!

 

I loved the SNES games of Mario Kart, Super Mario World, Mario All Stars, Stunt FX, Mortal Kombat Series and a few others.

 

While we never had a genesis (up until about a couple of years ago)

A friend of mine had one and we would play Golden Axe, Slaughter House 3 (great game , and some space type games I can't really remember but was a blast to play! Same goes with the MK series but I always preferred the SNES controllers over the Genesis.

 

I like the SNES more then the Genesis... the games are more polished and the controllers are better but the Genesis does have it's fair share of good games including Sonic that even after getting the SNES & Jaguar I still kind of desired a Genesis/Sega CD setup.

[DeV0]

liked the 2D fighters and IMHO the snes version where always better.  

 

Pit Fighter???!!!!!!

 

 

Yes, Pit Fighter sucked on any system including arcade

 

In your opinion!

 

I actually share it, though.

 

Still, the Genesis one was closer to the arcade than the Super NES version. So, 2D fighters are not "always better on the SNES"

 

Seriously, I wouldnt touch pit fighter with a 40 foot pole. The arcade game was ultra lame. I didnt even know it was released on the MD. Was final fight ever released on the md? Coz thats another perfect IMHO arcade port on the SNES.

[chrisbid]

a two player arcade game that doesnt allow two players is pretty far from a perfect arcade port

 

that said, final fight (with two players) was released on the Sega CD.

[DeV0]

The jap version supports 2 players, I know mine does. Download a rom.

 

I have the sega cd version, I can assure you the snes version is more faithful

[chrisbid]

I have the sega cd version, I can assure you the snes version is more faithful

 

then why did you ask if it was released on the genesis?

[DeV0]

I have the sega cd version, I can assure you the snes version is more faithful

 

then why did you ask if it was released on the genesis?

 

 

Well was it?? The cd is an ad on isnt it, not a MD. Why would anyone ad a cd ad on in a vs anyway? bit silly dont you think?

[TailChao]

Just to end the OMG THIS CPU EES FASTUH THEN BUH! Part of this battle,

and get rid of some things annoying me-

The 68000 is a superior processor to the 65816, having a far quicker MIPS rating (Do you see a 65816 in a Jaguar ?) Also, the genesis had a MUCH faster bus than the SNES, plus rapid cart access, making up for its lack of RAM. As said several times, the Genny could mimic many of the SNES's graphic effects through software (Dynamite Headdy and several others are good examples of what the genesis can really do)

The Z80 has a much lower MIPS rating than the 6502 alike, making the CPU speed of the SMS and NES about equal. Put aside the color battle between genny and SNES, with raster effects and mid frame palette changes the genny can catch up, anways I don't think you're going to be jamming your face into your TV, counting the individual colors . Also, as stated several times earlier the SNES's CPU, coming back to haunt it yet again would have great difficulty controlling the 512xblah res. and usually sticks at 256x244 I believe, whreas the genesis almost always runs at 320x200.

As for the TurboGrafx, it even had a little boost over the SNES in CPU speed, but chugs along in the graphic department, except for its whacked color processor (yes it had a processor just for color, don't ask me why)

Taking sound into account, it all depends on what music you like, techno on Genesis, etc. I, myself prefer the Turbo's Buzzy sound, but thats just me...

 

As for games, just buy all 3, eat ramen for the rest your life from debt and be happy with the best generation of consoles ever.

 

Edit: Since we ARE discussing hardware, I must say, the SNES had one ugly case, turbo was just plain weird, and the genesis looked like a warped VCR *shot* Actually, I thought the genesis looked quite nice, and blended in with most TVs and entertainment systems of the Era

[Clint Thompson]

Even so about the genny... I just don't see Super Mario World ever being pulled off on a Genesis. It could be done sure.. but it just wouldn't look as nice (someone prove me wrong?)

 

Odd....

 

I hated the 1st genesis and loved the 2nd

I hated the 2nd SNES but loved the 1st one

Whats a TG16? haha j/k

 

Sadly I've never had a chance to play a TG16 but was pretty damn close to getting a TG16 CD Duo on eBay when I used to collect almost every console. Same goes with a CD32.

[Atari_Worshipper]

I have done it! I have found a game on the Genesis that had slowdown even at points where not a lot is happening. Alien 3... all you have to do is run and fire your machine gun..... it's not actally rendering the bullets, but just has the flare in front of the gun and the glow on ripley so there isn't a whole lot happening, and the landscape isn't hugely detailed, but it slows down pretty bad. The Super Nintendo counterpart (which isn't a port of the same game, but is a different game on with the same name with the same characters and subject matter) didn't have any slowdown at all.... and there was a lot more happening at once in the SNES version, more characters on screen at once etc. And there was no slowdown, and their native speed/frame rate was about the same. Ripley on the Genesis version is more detailed but less animated than the SNES Ripley, which almost reminds me of the main character in Out of this World.

 

 

Anyway, just punchin a whole in the argument that the Genesis never slows down unless you drop 100 rings in sonic or something equally taxing....I guess running down a corridor blazing a gun shaped object that had the little flame looking thing jutting out of it would slow me down too, but hey.