Neo Geo vs 3DO?

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

Also, from what I understand, tech-wise the Super 32X was better off than the X-Board that ran After Burner 2. Why the game wasn't arcade perfect then is beyond me.

Darkman2007

I still think the 32X could do better. For example MKII on the 32X is just a recolored Genesis version with a bit more background detail. I'm confident 32X could do better than this.

I think Metal Head was quite graphically advanced for the 32X:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueocArqPT8A

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

Also, from what I understand, tech-wise the Super 32X was better off than the X-Board that ran After Burner 2. Why the game wasn't arcade perfect then is beyond me.

Panzer_Zwei

I still think the 32X could do better. For example MKII on the 32X is just a recolored Genesis version with a bit more background detail. I'm confident 32X could do better than this.

That's what the consumer divion got for going behind the back of the main branch.

Afterburner Complete wasn't that shabby though. It still plays decent and has solid graphics. Just not arcade-perfect.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I still think the 32X could do better. For example MKII on the 32X is just a recolored Genesis version with a bit more background detail. I'm confident 32X could do better than this.

nameless12345

I think Metal Head was quite graphically advanced for the 32X:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueocArqPT8A

its rendering quite a bit, but the frame rate is slow, even if it was part of the gameplay.

that said its very impressive considering what its running on

Judging from the quality of games, I would go with the Neo Geo, unfortunately the games are to expensive. judog1

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well I think nothing really beated Sega's "SuperScaler" tech terms of graphical advancement. Perhaps only the Model 2 and Model 3 tech.

Panzer_Zwei

Saturn could outdo super scaler, considering Afterburner 2 and Outrun got perfect ports on the Saturn .

However, I'm convinced the SS could've easily handled Power Drift at 60fps, they just didn't tried hard enough.

Also, from what I understand, tech-wise the Super 32X was better off than the X-Board that ran After Burner 2. Why the game wasn't arcade perfect then is beyond me.

And speaking of SNK, they were always lazy at porting their own games to other systems, including their own.

If the SS was able to handle a high-end CPS2 game like Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter flawlessly, then it's pretty obvious that it could've handled all of the Neo*Geo games of the time a whole lot better than the ports SNK delivered.

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

Saturn could outdo super scaler, considering Afterburner 2 and Outrun got perfect ports on the Saturn .

godzillavskong

However, I'm convinced the SS could've easily handled Power Drift at 60fps, they just didn't tried hard enough.

Also, from what I understand, tech-wise the Super 32X was better off than the X-Board that ran After Burner 2. Why the game wasn't arcade perfect then is beyond me.

And speaking of SNK, they were always lazy at porting their own games to other systems, including their own.

If the SS was able to handle a high-end CPS2 game like Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter flawlessly, then it's pretty obvious that it could've handled all of the Neo*Geo games of the time a whole lot better than the ports SNK delivered.

Ive said it once , and I will say it again , Yu Suzuki was right, but he was only refering the CPUs, when thats only one part of the Saturn which wasnt utilized correctly

for instance, the Saturn has an SCU DSP chip which Sega meant to be used for geometry calculations.

however, they provided poor documentation regarding its use and so many developers used the 2nd CPU in the Saturn to do some geometry.

considering the VDP1 chip was already a bit laggy in comparison to the PS1 GPU (even in just sheer polygon output, nevermind special effects) , having the 2nd CPU (which should have been doing some of the grunt work), doing geometry can limit what you can do, leading to bad ports from the PS1 (which used a more conventional method of rendering)

[QUOTE="jakandsig"]Neo- Geo however, is the better Console, has better games, and if you exclude POPULAR Neo-Geo games and ports the Neo-Geo library still breaks the 3Do and the Saturn. Now, of course, if we were to discuss Neo-Geo CD...Darkman2007

Well you did it in the Ps1 vs. N64 topic... because you know they all belong to the same generation.

Anyways I have never played them but going on library list and the fact that the Neo Geo is cart based I would go with the Neo Geo. I would put the Jaguar above the 3DO as well.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="jakandsig"]Neo- Geo however, is the better Console, has better games, and if you exclude POPULAR Neo-Geo games and ports the Neo-Geo library still breaks the 3Do and the Saturn. Now, of course, if we were to discuss Neo-Geo CD...Banjo_Kongfooie

Well you did it in the Ps1 vs. N64 topic... because you know they all belong to the same generation.

Anyways I have never played them but going on library list and the fact that the Neo Geo is cart based I would go with the Neo Geo. I would put the Jaguar above the 3DO as well.

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] whats the Saturn doing in there??? I just said there are ports from the Neo Geo and 3DO on the Saturn , unless you want to debate the Saturn's library but that would be completly off topic :P, though frankly most people who say anything about the saturn have no knowledge regarding it anyways. but regardless it doesn't matter, its down to what kind of games you like and the price you are willing to pay.amari24

Well you did it in the Ps1 vs. N64 topic... because you know they all belong to the same generation.

Anyways I have never played them but going on library list and the fact that the Neo Geo is cart based I would go with the Neo Geo. I would put the Jaguar above the 3DO as well.

They were both far too expensive for your average gamer back then. I mean Neo Geo games alone cost 200 dollars.

The Atari Jaguar, on the other hand, did try to steal some attention from Genesis and SNES with better graphics and affordable prices.

[QUOTE="amari24"]

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

Well you did it in the Ps1 vs. N64 topic... because you know they all belong to the same generation.

Anyways I have never played them but going on library list and the fact that the Neo Geo is cart based I would go with the Neo Geo. I would put the Jaguar above the 3DO as well.

nameless12345

They were both far too expensive for your average gamer back then. I mean Neo Geo games alone cost 200 dollars.

The Atari Jaguar, on the other hand, did try to steal some attention from Genesis and SNES with better graphics and affordable prices.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="amari24"] Actually the 3DO and Neo Geo were primarilly trying to compete with the SNES and Genesis

Darkman2007

They were both far too expensive for your average gamer back then. I mean Neo Geo games alone cost 200 dollars.

The Atari Jaguar, on the other hand, did try to steal some attention from Genesis and SNES with better graphics and affordable prices.

They're "early 32-bit" consoles. Not really up to Saturn and PS1 but clearly better than Genesis/MD and SNES (in graphics of course).

Also Jaguar wasn't "64-bit". More like "16 + 16 + 32-bit".

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

They were both far too expensive for your average gamer back then. I mean Neo Geo games alone cost 200 dollars.

The Atari Jaguar, on the other hand, did try to steal some attention from Genesis and SNES with better graphics and affordable prices.

nameless12345

They're "early 32-bit" consoles. Not really up to Saturn and PS1 but clearly better than Genesis/MD and SNES (in graphics of course).

Also Jaguar wasn't "64-bit". More like "16 + 16 + 32-bit".

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"]

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]If the SS couldn't had done arcade perfect ports of 80s games the system would've been doomed from the start. Though now that we're talking about this, the SS port of Power Drift only runs at 30fps, while the arcade original runs at 60fps. I owned the game for years and never even thought about this until I got the Yu Suzuki Works on the Dreamcast.

However, I'm convinced the SS could've easily handled Power Drift at 60fps, they just didn't tried hard enough.

Also, from what I understand, tech-wise the Super 32X was better off than the X-Board that ran After Burner 2. Why the game wasn't arcade perfect then is beyond me.

And speaking of SNK, they were always lazy at porting their own games to other systems, including their own.

If the SS was able to handle a high-end CPS2 game like Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter flawlessly, then it's pretty obvious that it could've handled all of the Neo*Geo games of the time a whole lot better than the ports SNK delivered.

Darkman2007

Ive said it once , and I will say it again , Yu Suzuki was right, but he was only refering the CPUs, when thats only one part of the Saturn which wasnt utilized correctly

for instance, the Saturn has an SCU DSP chip which Sega meant to be used for geometry calculations.

however, they provided poor documentation regarding its use and so many developers used the 2nd CPU in the Saturn to do some geometry.

considering the VDP1 chip was already a bit laggy in comparison to the PS1 GPU (even in just sheer polygon output, nevermind special effects) , having the 2nd CPU (which should have been doing some of the grunt work), doing geometry can limit what you can do, leading to bad ports from the PS1 (which used a more conventional method of rendering)

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"] Im not sure wheter to put the 3DO and Jaguar into their own sub generation , or put them along with the other 5th gen consoles. techwise they are obviously closer, though not quite as capable as the later 5th gen consoles. and in terms of being on the market both really were competeing with the MD/SNES more then the later 5th gen consoels. kind of in the same position as consoles like the Colecovision. nameless12345

They're "early 32-bit" consoles. Not really up to Saturn and PS1 but clearly better than Genesis/MD and SNES (in graphics of course).

Also Jaguar wasn't "64-bit". More like "16 + 16 + 32-bit".

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] Im not sure wheter to put the 3DO and Jaguar into their own sub generation , or put them along with the other 5th gen consoles. techwise they are obviously closer, though not quite as capable as the later 5th gen consoles. and in terms of being on the market both really were competeing with the MD/SNES more then the later 5th gen consoels. kind of in the same position as consoles like the Colecovision. amari24

They're "early 32-bit" consoles. Not really up to Saturn and PS1 but clearly better than Genesis/MD and SNES (in graphics of course).

Also Jaguar wasn't "64-bit". More like "16 + 16 + 32-bit".

that process of adding bits so to speak , is highly flawed. if we were to add bits , the Saturn would be more then 32bit.

it has 2 32bit SH2s running at 28Mhz each

it has a 32 bit SH1

it has 16 bit 68000 dedicated to sound.

it has a 4bit SMPC chip

add all that up and according to that method , the Saturn is 116 bits :P

the Jaguar is a 64bit machine , but bits mean nothing , the TG16 is technically an 8bit machine and can technically compete with the Mega Drive or SNES in terms of visuals. likewise the original Xbox is a 32bit machine, but I somehow doubt its weaker then the N64 :P

the real reason the Jaguar had issues was due to its desgin , not having a proper CPU being one problem. if the system was designed a bit differently, it could have competed with the PS1 and Saturn quite well.

[QUOTE="amari24"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

They're "early 32-bit" consoles. Not really up to Saturn and PS1 but clearly better than Genesis/MD and SNES (in graphics of course).

Also Jaguar wasn't "64-bit". More like "16 + 16 + 32-bit".

Darkman2007

that process of adding bits so to speak , is highly flawed. if we were to add bits , the Saturn would be more then 32bit.

it has 2 32bit SH2s running at 28Mhz each

it has a 32 bit SH1

it has 16 bit 68000 dedicated to sound.

it has a 4bit SMPC chip

add all that up and according to that method , the Saturn is 116 bits :P

the Jaguar is a 64bit machine , but bits mean nothing , the TG16 is technically an 8bit machine and can technically compete with the Mega Drive or SNES in terms of visuals. likewise the original Xbox is a 32bit machine, but I somehow doubt its weaker then the N64 :P

the real reason the Jaguar had issues was due to its desgin , not having a proper CPU being one problem. if the system was designed a bit differently, it could have competed with the PS1 and Saturn quite well.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

[QUOTE="amari24"] I'm pretty sure the Jaguar's processors added up to 64-bit, it's certainly up for debate. Though, no developer pushed them to their full capabilities, whatever they could've been. It's a great system though.

amari24

that process of adding bits so to speak , is highly flawed. if we were to add bits , the Saturn would be more then 32bit.

it has 2 32bit SH2s running at 28Mhz each

it has a 32 bit SH1

it has 16 bit 68000 dedicated to sound.

it has a 4bit SMPC chip

add all that up and according to that method , the Saturn is 116 bits :P

the Jaguar is a 64bit machine , but bits mean nothing , the TG16 is technically an 8bit machine and can technically compete with the Mega Drive or SNES in terms of visuals. likewise the original Xbox is a 32bit machine, but I somehow doubt its weaker then the N64 :P

the real reason the Jaguar had issues was due to its desgin , not having a proper CPU being one problem. if the system was designed a bit differently, it could have competed with the PS1 and Saturn quite well.

when i was a young kid i knew a kid who had all the consoles. His mom and dad both doctors pretty much got him anything he wanted. Back in the day the NEO GEO was so far and beyond what other consoles could do it was shocking. I also remember the cost. the machine was 600 bucks in like 1989 or something, years might be off. The really f-up part was each of the games were $100 to $200 dollars a game. teh day the 3do came out he had it day one, was not as imppressed but happy he came over on weekends and we would have game nights. I would love to own a Neo Geo console but i am sure i could not afford it.

when i was a young kid i knew a kid who had all the consoles. His mom and dad both doctors pretty much got him anything he wanted. Back in the day the NEO GEO was so far and beyond what other consoles could do it was shocking. I also remember the cost. the machine was 600 bucks in like 1989 or something, years might be off. The really f-up part was each of the games were $100 to $200 dollars a game. teh day the 3do came out he had it day one, was not as imppressed but happy he came over on weekends and we would have game nights. I would love to own a Neo Geo console but i am sure i could not afford it.

cloudman5

[QUOTE="KillerJuan77"]

I'd get a 3DO if I were you due to the more varied game library. Also, it haves the best Street Fighter II port I've ever seen.

Darkman2007

Street fighter with 3 face buttons yeah that's a treat :/ the 3DO was horrible, the worst and most expensive system I ever bought.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="KillerJuan77"]

I'd get a 3DO if I were you due to the more varied game library. Also, it haves the best Street Fighter II port I've ever seen.

Badmutha

Street fighter with 3 face buttons yeah that's a treat :/ the 3DO was horrible, the worst and most expensive system I ever bought.

Why did you buy it...? Was it the Zelda games... were you disappointed when you played them ?

[QUOTE="Badmutha"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] isnt it just Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo with remixed music?Banjo_Kongfooie

Street fighter with 3 face buttons yeah that's a treat :/ the 3DO was horrible, the worst and most expensive system I ever bought.

Why did you buy it...? Was it the Zelda games... were you disappointed when you played them ?

youre thinking of the Philips CDI, the 3DO had nothing to do with Nintendo.

Studio 3DO and EA are basically the 3DO's 1st party developers, since the head or 3DO was also the president of EA at the time, which lead to quite a few EA games on the system (there are quite a few EA games on every system but more so on the 3DO)

[QUOTE="amari24"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

They're "early 32-bit" consoles. Not really up to Saturn and PS1 but clearly better than Genesis/MD and SNES (in graphics of course).

Also Jaguar wasn't "64-bit". More like "16 + 16 + 32-bit".

Darkman2007

the Jaguar is a 64bit machine , but bits mean nothing , the TG16 is technically an 8bit machine and can technically compete with the Mega Drive or SNES in terms of visuals. likewise the original Xbox is a 32bit machine, but I somehow doubt its weaker then the N64 :P

I know, but back then they used bits to express how powerful a console is. I think the Mega Drive/Genesis was the first console to boast about "16-bits high-def arcade graphics" and other consoles followed. Hence also consoles or console add-ons like 32X and N64. Although it's debatable whether they really had twice better graphics compared to the competition (the Jaguar certainly didn't - it even fell short in comparison to newer 32-bit consoles like the Saturn and PS1).

By the way there was also a 3DO successor in the works - the M2. You can read about it here:

http://ultimateconsoledatabase.com/unreleased/m2.htm

There are also some vids about it on youtube.

By the way there was also a 3DO successor in the works - the M2. You can read about it here:

http://ultimateconsoledatabase.com/unreleased/m2.htm

There are also some vids about it on youtube.

nameless12345

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

[QUOTE="amari24"] I'm pretty sure the Jaguar's processors added up to 64-bit, it's certainly up for debate. Though, no developer pushed them to their full capabilities, whatever they could've been. It's a great system though.

nameless12345

the Jaguar is a 64bit machine , but bits mean nothing , the TG16 is technically an 8bit machine and can technically compete with the Mega Drive or SNES in terms of visuals. likewise the original Xbox is a 32bit machine, but I somehow doubt its weaker then the N64 :P

I know, but back then they used bits to express how powerful a console is. I think the Mega Drive/Genesis was the first console to boast about "16-bits high-def arcade graphics" and other consoles followed. Hence also consoles or console add-ons like 32X and N64. Although it's debatable whether they really had twice better graphics compared to the competition (the Jaguar certainly didn't - it even fell short in comparison to newer 32-bit consoles like the Saturn and PS1).

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

the Jaguar is a 64bit machine , but bits mean nothing , the TG16 is technically an 8bit machine and can technically compete with the Mega Drive or SNES in terms of visuals. likewise the original Xbox is a 32bit machine, but I somehow doubt its weaker then the N64 :P

Darkman2007

I know, but back then they used bits to express how powerful a console is. I think the Mega Drive/Genesis was the first console to boast about "16-bits high-def arcade graphics" and other consoles followed. Hence also consoles or console add-ons like 32X and N64. Although it's debatable whether they really had twice better graphics compared to the competition (the Jaguar certainly didn't - it even fell short in comparison to newer 32-bit consoles like the Saturn and PS1).

Jaguar wasn't weak either but it wasn't designed with 3D graphics in mind and so it fell short in comparison to Saturn and PS1. But the real problem was, of course, the poor support, weak line-up and ineffective advertising (although Atari was trying pretty hard). It seems the console with the best advertising and most games always wins (as was the case with the PS1 which destroyed the Saturn thanks to heavy advertising, tons of games, heavy-hitting exclusives like Final Fantasy VII, Gran Turismo, Tomb Radier 2, MGS, ect. and also the slight graphical advantage.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

I know, but back then they used bits to express how powerful a console is. I think the Mega Drive/Genesis was the first console to boast about "16-bits high-def arcade graphics" and other consoles followed. Hence also consoles or console add-ons like 32X and N64. Although it's debatable whether they really had twice better graphics compared to the competition (the Jaguar certainly didn't - it even fell short in comparison to newer 32-bit consoles like the Saturn and PS1).

nameless12345

Jaguar wasn't weak either but it wasn't designed with 3D graphics in mind and so it fell short in comparison to Saturn and PS1. But the real problem was, of course, the poor support, weak line-up and ineffective advertising (although Atari was trying pretty hard). It seems the console with the best advertising and most games always wins (as was the case with the PS1 which destroyed the Saturn thanks to heavy advertising, tons of games, heavy-hitting exclusives like Final Fantasy VII, Gran Turismo, Tomb Radier 2, MGS, ect. and also the slight graphical advantage.

I also think that whole story of the Saturn "getting a 2nd processor added in the last minute" is wrong, I believe the reason 2 SH2s were chosen was because 28Mhz was the fastest SH2 at the time, and since the president of Hitachi was a friend of Sega's president, they chose the SH2 (there were rumors of the whole deal being done during a game of golf)

also , Sega had experience working with multi CPU arcade machines, though thats not really optimal for a home console

I do think Sega should have went for a single CPU with comparable performance (there were other options) , and if possible, make the VDP1 a bit faster, as its not the fastest thing in the world.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] the 3DO was actually not all that weak , having the same amount of main RAM as the PS/Saturn and 1MB of VRAM which is the same as the PS1 (but less then the Saturn's 1.5MB VRAM) the main disadvantage of the 3DO was the weak processor speed, low bandwith and the fact it used quads like the Saturn (the only other console to do so, though the Model 1 and 2 used quads too).Darkman2007

Jaguar wasn't weak either but it wasn't designed with 3D graphics in mind and so it fell short in comparison to Saturn and PS1. But the real problem was, of course, the poor support, weak line-up and ineffective advertising (although Atari was trying pretty hard). It seems the console with the best advertising and most games always wins (as was the case with the PS1 which destroyed the Saturn thanks to heavy advertising, tons of games, heavy-hitting exclusives like Final Fantasy VII, Gran Turismo, Tomb Radier 2, MGS, ect. and also the slight graphical advantage.

Ironically Need For Speed on the 3DO had better 3D graphics than what the Jaguar could do despite Atari's claims that the Jaguar is "stronger than the Saturn and slightly weaker than PS1". Perhaps the only contender on the Jaguar was Skyhammer, which came years later and had a low framerate.

Saturn didn't have a lot of games in the Western countries and the last ad for the Saturn I've seen on the TV was in 1996 or 1997 (which wasn't even impressive I might add).

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Jaguar wasn't weak either but it wasn't designed with 3D graphics in mind and so it fell short in comparison to Saturn and PS1. But the real problem was, of course, the poor support, weak line-up and ineffective advertising (although Atari was trying pretty hard). It seems the console with the best advertising and most games always wins (as was the case with the PS1 which destroyed the Saturn thanks to heavy advertising, tons of games, heavy-hitting exclusives like Final Fantasy VII, Gran Turismo, Tomb Radier 2, MGS, ect. and also the slight graphical advantage.

nameless12345

Ironically Need For Speed on the 3DO had better 3D graphics than what the Jaguar could do despite Atari's claims that the Jaguar is "stronger than the Saturn and slightly weaker than PS1". Perhaps the only contender on the Jaguar was Skyhammer, which came years later and had a low framerate.

Saturn didn't have a lot of games in the Western countries and the last ad for the Saturn I've seen on the TV was in 1996 or 1997 (which wasn't even impressive I might add).

I also think that whole story of the Saturn "getting a 2nd processor added in the last minute" is wrong, I believe the reason 2 SH2s were chosen was because 28Mhz was the fastest SH2 at the time, and since the president of Hitachi was a friend of Sega's president, they chose the SH2 (there were rumors of the whole deal being done during a game of golf)

also , Sega had experience working with multi CPU arcade machines, though thats not really optimal for a home console

I do think Sega should have went for a single CPU with comparable performance (there were other options) , and if possible, make the VDP1 a bit faster, as its not the fastest thing in the world.

Darkman2007

Like you said it yourself - dual CPUs and focus on 2D graphics was a bad idea.

Considering the Saturn was popular in Japan I even think they could do two designs of the console - one for the Japanese market and one for the Western market. The Western version could be focused on 3D graphics with a fast 3D chip and single CPU. But maybe that would only make things more complicated.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

I also think that whole story of the Saturn "getting a 2nd processor added in the last minute" is wrong, I believe the reason 2 SH2s were chosen was because 28Mhz was the fastest SH2 at the time, and since the president of Hitachi was a friend of Sega's president, they chose the SH2 (there were rumors of the whole deal being done during a game of golf)

also , Sega had experience working with multi CPU arcade machines, though thats not really optimal for a home console

I do think Sega should have went for a single CPU with comparable performance (there were other options) , and if possible, make the VDP1 a bit faster, as its not the fastest thing in the world.

nameless12345

Like you said it yourself - dual CPUs and focus on 2D graphics was a bad idea.

Considering the Saturn was popular in Japan I even think they could do two designs of the console - one for the Japanese market and one for the Western market. The Western version could be focused on 3D graphics with a fast 3D chip and single CPU. But maybe that would only make things more complicated.

By the way: do you think Saturn could do Street Fighter III? I've seen the CPSIII uses only one SH-2 and clocked lower than the ones in Saturn.

By the way: do you think Saturn could do Street Fighter III? I've seen the CPSIII uses only one SH-2 and clocked lower than the ones in Saturn.

nameless12345

there were rumors at the time of a Saturn port of SF3, so who knows, maybe Capcom was planning something (which seems plausable given the Saturn was still alive in 1997-98 )

the reason Alpha 3 got to the Saturn in 1999 was because it was easier to port then SF3 I would think

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

I also think that whole story of the Saturn "getting a 2nd processor added in the last minute" is wrong, I believe the reason 2 SH2s were chosen was because 28Mhz was the fastest SH2 at the time, and since the president of Hitachi was a friend of Sega's president, they chose the SH2 (there were rumors of the whole deal being done during a game of golf)

also , Sega had experience working with multi CPU arcade machines, though thats not really optimal for a home console

I do think Sega should have went for a single CPU with comparable performance (there were other options) , and if possible, make the VDP1 a bit faster, as its not the fastest thing in the world.

Darkman2007

Like you said it yourself - dual CPUs and focus on 2D graphics was a bad idea.

Considering the Saturn was popular in Japan I even think they could do two designs of the console - one for the Japanese market and one for the Western market. The Western version could be focused on 3D graphics with a fast 3D chip and single CPU. But maybe that would only make things more complicated.

The Jaguar was a weird design too, yes. I've heard they used the sound chip to make the lighting effects in Doom and so the game didn't have any music during gameplay.

N64 was much like Saturn when it comes to complexity of development and equally only Nintendo and Rare and a few 3rd parties could get good results on it.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Like you said it yourself - dual CPUs and focus on 2D graphics was a bad idea.

Considering the Saturn was popular in Japan I even think they could do two designs of the console - one for the Japanese market and one for the Western market. The Western version could be focused on 3D graphics with a fast 3D chip and single CPU. But maybe that would only make things more complicated.

nameless12345

The Jaguar was a weird design too, yes. I've heard they used the sound chip to make the lighting effects in Doom and so the game didn't have any music during gameplay.

N64 was much like Saturn when it comes to complexity of development and equally only Nintendo and Rare and a few 3rd parties could get good results on it.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] its not that the SH2 was a bit CPU , it was actually considerd a pretty efficient CPU, but I have to wonder why Sega chose it other then a game of golf. still, its better then having a 68000 like the Jaguar (well , its not really the CPU but there really isnt one) or the 12Mhz ARM in the 3DO. at the end of the day sadly , only Sega and a few 3rd parties could really get the most out of the Saturn , other companies like EA usually didn't even try (play Fifa98 on the Saturn and you can see what I mean)Darkman2007

The Jaguar was a weird design too, yes. I've heard they used the sound chip to make the lighting effects in Doom and so the game didn't have any music during gameplay.

N64 was much like Saturn when it comes to complexity of development and equally only Nintendo and Rare and a few 3rd parties could get good results on it.

Don't forget tons of games, heavy hitter exclusives and better performance. It also had the CD and cheaper games advantage over the N64.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

The Jaguar was a weird design too, yes. I've heard they used the sound chip to make the lighting effects in Doom and so the game didn't have any music during gameplay.

N64 was much like Saturn when it comes to complexity of development and equally only Nintendo and Rare and a few 3rd parties could get good results on it.

nameless12345

Don't forget tons of games, heavy hitter exclusives and better performance. It also had the CD and cheaper games advantage over the N64.

a bit blurry, but I took this when I had to readjust my Saturn's CD drive, here is the Saturn motherboard, and its a model 1 Saturn , so its actually one of the earlier ones.

yeah its pretty crazy :P

and while I don't have an early PS1, I do have a spare 7000 model PS1 from 1997, so not too late

sadly the metal shielding is solderd onto the board, but its obvious which cost more to make (the browish board is actually the power supply)

I also think that whole story of the Saturn "getting a 2nd processor added in the last minute" is wrong, I believe the reason 2 SH2s were chosen was because 28Mhz was the fastest SH2 at the time, and since the president of Hitachi was a friend of Sega's president, they chose the SH2 (there were rumors of the whole deal being done during a game of golf)

also , Sega had experience working with multi CPU arcade machines, though thats not really optimal for a home console

I do think Sega should have went for a single CPU with comparable performance (there were other options) , and if possible, make the VDP1 a bit faster, as its not the fastest thing in the world.

Darkman2007

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Like you said it yourself - dual CPUs and focus on 2D graphics was a bad idea.

Considering the Saturn was popular in Japan I even think they could do two designs of the console - one for the Japanese market and one for the Western market. The Western version could be focused on 3D graphics with a fast 3D chip and single CPU. But maybe that would only make things more complicated.

nameless12345

The Jaguar was a weird design too, yes. I've heard they used the sound chip to make the lighting effects in Doom and so the game didn't have any music during gameplay.

N64 was much like Saturn when it comes to complexity of development and equally only Nintendo and Rare and a few 3rd parties could get good results on it.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

I also think that whole story of the Saturn "getting a 2nd processor added in the last minute" is wrong, I believe the reason 2 SH2s were chosen was because 28Mhz was the fastest SH2 at the time, and since the president of Hitachi was a friend of Sega's president, they chose the SH2 (there were rumors of the whole deal being done during a game of golf)

also , Sega had experience working with multi CPU arcade machines, though thats not really optimal for a home console

I do think Sega should have went for a single CPU with comparable performance (there were other options) , and if possible, make the VDP1 a bit faster, as its not the fastest thing in the world.

Darkman2007

Like you said it yourself - dual CPUs and focus on 2D graphics was a bad idea.

Considering the Saturn was popular in Japan I even think they could do two designs of the console - one for the Japanese market and one for the Western market. The Western version could be focused on 3D graphics with a fast 3D chip and single CPU. But maybe that would only make things more complicated.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

I also think that whole story of the Saturn "getting a 2nd processor added in the last minute" is wrong, I believe the reason 2 SH2s were chosen was because 28Mhz was the fastest SH2 at the time, and since the president of Hitachi was a friend of Sega's president, they chose the SH2 (there were rumors of the whole deal being done during a game of golf)

also , Sega had experience working with multi CPU arcade machines, though thats not really optimal for a home console

I do think Sega should have went for a single CPU with comparable performance (there were other options) , and if possible, make the VDP1 a bit faster, as its not the fastest thing in the world.

godzillavskong

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Like you said it yourself - dual CPUs and focus on 2D graphics was a bad idea.

Considering the Saturn was popular in Japan I even think they could do two designs of the console - one for the Japanese market and one for the Western market. The Western version could be focused on 3D graphics with a fast 3D chip and single CPU. But maybe that would only make things more complicated.

godzillavskong

don't know about Madden , but I do have Fifa98, and its atrocious , the frame rate is very low , usually around 10-15fps, and the graphics are hideous , looks worse then some 1996 football games

thats Fifa 98, and I repeat, the game runs at 10-15fps , or so it seems.

and yet, a few months before, Tecmo made Go Go Goal for the Saturn

runs at 60fps, and its a higher resolution too, EA could have done that if they actually cared

[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

I also think that whole story of the Saturn "getting a 2nd processor added in the last minute" is wrong, I believe the reason 2 SH2s were chosen was because 28Mhz was the fastest SH2 at the time, and since the president of Hitachi was a friend of Sega's president, they chose the SH2 (there were rumors of the whole deal being done during a game of golf)

also , Sega had experience working with multi CPU arcade machines, though thats not really optimal for a home console

I do think Sega should have went for a single CPU with comparable performance (there were other options) , and if possible, make the VDP1 a bit faster, as its not the fastest thing in the world.

Darkman2007

Have you seen the SGI tech demos? N64 hardware was very strong for the time just bottlenecked by carts, texture cache, microcodes, ect.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="godzillavskong"] Yeah, I heard they were thinking of going with a chip from SLI, which the chip had the CPU, and GPU together, but the hardware team that analyzed it from Sega said they found flaws. Then that same chip was used in the N64. Crazy how that works.nameless12345

Have you seen the SGI tech demos? N64 hardware was very strong for the time just bottlenecked by carts, texture cache, microcodes, ect.