IMO the PS3 is the most overrated system with the magical CELL cpu.
What is the most overrated system technically?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
what do you mean overrated technically? you mean a system where the visuals don't match the hype? a whole bunch of systems can be put in that catagory.
Well, all console systems were hyped and usually fell a little short of the premise but if I have to pick one it's probably the Atari Jaguar with it's "64-bitness" which untimatley didn't give it any real advantages over the competition.
what do you mean overrated technically? you mean a system where the visuals don't match the hype? a whole bunch of systems can be put in that catagory.
Darkman2007
Yea, most consoles actually. For example the N64 was supposed to do The Terminator 2 quality graphics and the PS2 Toy Story quality graphics.
Teh cell! It is almighty!
Teh cell! It is almighty!
Am_Confucius
Only Sony fanboys believed in that. Reasonable people knew a quad core PC CPU from 2006 trashed it, in gaming terms :P
The Cell is really just a single-core processor (along the lines of Pentium 4 in raw performance) with six graphics-oriented processors which help the GPU process the graphics (but aren't as effective at it as a real GPU is).
Well, all console systems were hyped and usually fell a little short of the premise but if I have to pick one it's probably the Atari Jaguar with it's "64-bitness" which untimatley didn't give it any real advantages over the competition.
nameless12345
Yeah, I agree. Jaguar was supposed to be 64-bit, but couldn't even come close to matching N64, an actual 64-bit system.
[QUOTE="nameless12345"]
Well, all console systems were hyped and usually fell a little short of the premise but if I have to pick one it's probably the Atari Jaguar with it's "64-bitness" which untimatley didn't give it any real advantages over the competition.
Emerald_Warrior
Yeah, I agree. Jaguar was supposed to be 64-bit, but couldn't even come close to matching N64, an actual 64-bit system.
Im assuming you know the bit part means nothing, the Xbox is a 32bit system for instance. though I do find the marketing by bits attitude to be flawed, its practically lying to customers.[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]
Well, all console systems were hyped and usually fell a little short of the premise but if I have to pick one it's probably the Atari Jaguar with it's "64-bitness" which untimatley didn't give it any real advantages over the competition.
Darkman2007
Yeah, I agree. Jaguar was supposed to be 64-bit, but couldn't even come close to matching N64, an actual 64-bit system.
Im assuming you know the bit part means nothing, the Xbox is a 32bit system for instance. though I do find the marketing by bits attitude to be flawed, its practically lying to customers.I'm not a techie, by any means. But I remember reading something about there being 2 32-bit chips in the Jaguar which equaled 64-bits in their minds, while N64 had an actual 64-bit chip. Now I couldn't tell you were I read it or what that exactly pertains to since I'm not a techie. But doesn't mean that it does exist, in some way?
Im assuming you know the bit part means nothing, the Xbox is a 32bit system for instance. though I do find the marketing by bits attitude to be flawed, its practically lying to customers.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]
Yeah, I agree. Jaguar was supposed to be 64-bit, but couldn't even come close to matching N64, an actual 64-bit system.
Emerald_Warrior
I'm not a techie, by any means. But I remember reading something about there being 2 32-bit chips in the Jaguar which equaled 64-bits in their minds, while N64 had an actual 64-bit chip. Now I couldn't tell you were I read it or what that exactly pertains to since I'm not a techie. But doesn't mean that it does exist, in some way?
the term 64bit has some technical meaning, sure, but at that time, 64bits meant very little, and identifying a system based on how many bits the CPU is, is not a good idea. like I said, the original Xbox is technically a 32bit system , and yet , if one was to go by the bits standard, it would mean the N64 is more capable than the Xbox, which is obviously a ludicrous statement. what CPU , GPU , amount of memory, bandwith , sound capabilities, are far , far more important in determining how capable a system is. as for the Jaguar being 64bit, sure , but then its not as simple as that, the system lacks a real CPU (well , it has a 68000, but that was never meant to be a CPU) , which is one thing that hindered it. so just looking at bits, is never enough, its just the tip of the iceberg actually.The TurboGrafx 16 seems over rated technically I think. It was boasted to be the most powerful system out there but the 8 bit cpu bottle necked it's abilities and resulting in the console being obsolete as soon as the megadrive came out
I know bits now arent a very good way to judge console power but back then they did mean something, and at anyrate giving a console 16bity gpus then shoving an 8 bit central processor in was an awful mistake
[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] Im assuming you know the bit part means nothing, the Xbox is a 32bit system for instance. though I do find the marketing by bits attitude to be flawed, its practically lying to customers.Darkman2007
I'm not a techie, by any means. But I remember reading something about there being 2 32-bit chips in the Jaguar which equaled 64-bits in their minds, while N64 had an actual 64-bit chip. Now I couldn't tell you were I read it or what that exactly pertains to since I'm not a techie. But doesn't mean that it does exist, in some way?
like I said, the original Xbox is technically a 32bit systemNot quite true, it has a 128-bit SIMD and 64-bit floating point:
http://www.pvcmuseum.com/games/console-specs/
It's GPU is also on an 128-bit memory bus.
The Jaguar's graphics co-processors were indeed 64-bit, but it ment very little in the grand scheme of things (it's CPU was 16-bit even).
I would agree that measuring console capabilites only by bits is not a very smart thing to do but that's marketing for you. But at the same time it's impossible for a, for example, 8-bit system to rival 16-bit systems (Turbografix had two 16-bit graphics chips besides a 8-bit CPU).
like I said, the original Xbox is technically a 32bit system[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]
I'm not a techie, by any means. But I remember reading something about there being 2 32-bit chips in the Jaguar which equaled 64-bits in their minds, while N64 had an actual 64-bit chip. Now I couldn't tell you were I read it or what that exactly pertains to since I'm not a techie. But doesn't mean that it does exist, in some way?
nameless12345
Not quite true, it has a 128-bit SIMD and 64-bit floating point:
http://www.pvcmuseum.com/games/console-specs/
It's GPU is also on an 128-bit memory bus.
The Jaguar's graphics co-processors were indeed 64-bit, but it ment very little in the grand scheme of things (it's CPU was 16-bit even).
I would agree that measuring console capabilites only by bits is not a very smart thing to do but that's marketing for you. But at the same time it's impossible for a, for example, 8-bit system to rival 16-bit systems (Turbografix had two 16-bit graphics chips besides a 8-bit CPU).
its a Pentium III , its not really a 64bit CPU as such. the Jaguar didnt have a CPU , the 68000 was never meant to be a CPU , it was just used for things like gameplay logic or AI because there was no proper CPU in the Jaguar. though its important to note, Atari actually did create an arcade machine based on the Jaguar hardware, and that machine had an R3000 CPU in it (same kind as the PS1 CPU), that would have made a big difference.[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]like I said, the original Xbox is technically a 32bit systemDarkman2007
Not quite true, it has a 128-bit SIMD and 64-bit floating point:
http://www.pvcmuseum.com/games/console-specs/
It's GPU is also on an 128-bit memory bus.
The Jaguar's graphics co-processors were indeed 64-bit, but it ment very little in the grand scheme of things (it's CPU was 16-bit even).
I would agree that measuring console capabilites only by bits is not a very smart thing to do but that's marketing for you. But at the same time it's impossible for a, for example, 8-bit system to rival 16-bit systems (Turbografix had two 16-bit graphics chips besides a 8-bit CPU).
its a Pentium III , its not really a 64bit CPU as such. the Jaguar didnt have a CPU , the 68000 was never meant to be a CPU , it was just used for things like gameplay logic or AI because there was no proper CPU in the Jaguar. though its important to note, Atari actually did create an arcade machine based on the Jaguar hardware, and that machine had an R3000 CPU in it (same kind as the PS1 CPU), that would have made a big difference.It's not 64-bit but it has 128-bit instruction set (SSE).
The 68000 is a general purpose processor so it does have the function of CPU in Jaguar.
its a Pentium III , its not really a 64bit CPU as such. the Jaguar didnt have a CPU , the 68000 was never meant to be a CPU , it was just used for things like gameplay logic or AI because there was no proper CPU in the Jaguar. though its important to note, Atari actually did create an arcade machine based on the Jaguar hardware, and that machine had an R3000 CPU in it (same kind as the PS1 CPU), that would have made a big difference.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]
Not quite true, it has a 128-bit SIMD and 64-bit floating point:
http://www.pvcmuseum.com/games/console-specs/
It's GPU is also on an 128-bit memory bus.
The Jaguar's graphics co-processors were indeed 64-bit, but it ment very little in the grand scheme of things (it's CPU was 16-bit even).
I would agree that measuring console capabilites only by bits is not a very smart thing to do but that's marketing for you. But at the same time it's impossible for a, for example, 8-bit system to rival 16-bit systems (Turbografix had two 16-bit graphics chips besides a 8-bit CPU).
nameless12345
It's not 64-bit but it has 128-bit instruction set (SSE).
The 68000 is a general purpose processor so it does have the function of CPU in Jaguar.
yes, the 68000 can be used as a CPU , but my point is that it was never meant to be a CPU , the original intention was for the Tom and Jerry chips to do the CPU work, but developers found that to be very difficult (even more so when those chips are meant to run the graphics and sound too), along with poor support.[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] its a Pentium III , its not really a 64bit CPU as such. the Jaguar didnt have a CPU , the 68000 was never meant to be a CPU , it was just used for things like gameplay logic or AI because there was no proper CPU in the Jaguar. though its important to note, Atari actually did create an arcade machine based on the Jaguar hardware, and that machine had an R3000 CPU in it (same kind as the PS1 CPU), that would have made a big difference.Darkman2007
It's not 64-bit but it has 128-bit instruction set (SSE).
The 68000 is a general purpose processor so it does have the function of CPU in Jaguar.
yes, the 68000 can be used as a CPU , but my point is that it was never meant to be a CPU , the original intention was for the Tom and Jerry chips to do the CPU work, but developers found that to be very difficult (even more so when those chips are meant to run the graphics and sound too), along with poor support.Well, a CPU generally does the things you mentioned in your previous post (namely AI and game logic calculations and in more recent times also physics and graphics calculation and the like). It's not ment for graphics first and foremost. That's the GPU's job. The CPUs in consoles do help with the graphics but it's better to have a beefy GPU than a beefy CPU if you want better graphics (which is what Sony doesn't seem to understand very well considering the extravagant CPUs in PS2 and PS3).
The basic game logic calculations in the Jaguar were the 68000's task while the graphics calculations the GPU's task. The problem was that they used another GPU for sound purposes which was uneccesary. I think a design where the 68000 would handle the sound and the GPUs would handle the graphics and game logic calculations would be better.
The Jaguar was 64-bit? *blinks innocently* I didn't know, really. Then again, the only Jaguar game I ever saw gameplay was a stinkin' Bubsy game that looked worse than a NES one.Well, all console systems were hyped and usually fell a little short of the premise but if I have to pick one it's probably the Atari Jaguar with it's "64-bitness" which untimatley didn't give it any real advantages over the competition.
nameless12345
Technically It would be the Atari Jaguar that was listed as a 64-bit system. In 1993 that would have been good if it were true. Technically is was 2 32bit processors on a 64 bit data bus. 32bit + 32bits technically that added up to 64-bit.
So Atari's claim was overated and the rest is history.
[QUOTE="nameless12345"]The Jaguar was 64-bit? *blinks innocently* I didn't know, really. Then again, the only Jaguar game I ever saw gameplay was a stinkin' Bubsy game that looked worse than a NES one.Well, all console systems were hyped and usually fell a little short of the premise but if I have to pick one it's probably the Atari Jaguar with it's "64-bitness" which untimatley didn't give it any real advantages over the competition.
Spinnerweb
64-bits doesn't mean "twice better graphics than 32-bit". It simply means that some operations can be performed with twice better precision (which can be slower than 32-bit precision actually).
The Jaguar was 64-bit? *blinks innocently* I didn't know, really. Then again, the only Jaguar game I ever saw gameplay was a stinkin' Bubsy game that looked worse than a NES one.[QUOTE="Spinnerweb"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]
Well, all console systems were hyped and usually fell a little short of the premise but if I have to pick one it's probably the Atari Jaguar with it's "64-bitness" which untimatley didn't give it any real advantages over the competition.
nameless12345
64-bits doesn't mean "twice better graphics than 32-bit". It simply means that some operations can be performed with twice better precision (which can be slower than 32-bit precision actually).
put it this way, at that point , 64bit was pretty much useless for home computing and gaming, hence why 32bit was pretty much the standard for so long. though as I said, the Jaguar would have benefited from a proper CPU , like the R3000 used in the Jaguar arcade machine.[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Spinnerweb"] The Jaguar was 64-bit? *blinks innocently* I didn't know, really. Then again, the only Jaguar game I ever saw gameplay was a stinkin' Bubsy game that looked worse than a NES one.Darkman2007
64-bits doesn't mean "twice better graphics than 32-bit". It simply means that some operations can be performed with twice better precision (which can be slower than 32-bit precision actually).
put it this way, at that point , 64bit was pretty much useless for home computing and gaming, hence why 32bit was pretty much the standard for so long. though as I said, the Jaguar would have benefited from a proper CPU , like the R3000 used in the Jaguar arcade machine.Well, Crysis is 32-bit code and it trashes all console games, technically. The bits really became a little irrelevant after most architectures switched to 32 bits. There are more important things to measure hardware capabilites.
I'm going with the Atari Jaguar just because Atari was so bent on how superior their system was to all other consoles just because the Jaguar was "64-bit." In reality most of there games looked worse than many 16-bit SNES and Genesis games with a fourth of the processing power.
Would the Virtual Boy not be the most overrated system technically? At its core fundamentally, the biggest draw about the system was also its biggest detriment, thus killing the console.TFX-The 3D effect actually worked pretty darn well in it. The biggest problem was using the system was uncomfortable at best and a down right pain at the worst.
[QUOTE="TFX-"]Would the Virtual Boy not be the most overrated system technically? At its core fundamentally, the biggest draw about the system was also its biggest detriment, thus killing the console.BgrngodThe 3D effect actually worked pretty darn well in it. The biggest problem was using the system was uncomfortable at best and a down right pain at the worst. Precisely my point. The console is only as good as our ability to enjoy it. Example: Imagine if Sony's or Microsoft's wireless controllers only had a two foot range? Defeats the purpose of a wireless device if you still have to sit with your face pressed up against the TV screen.
That's where you're wrong. The PC Engine / TurboGrafx-16 was never "overrated" when it first came out in 1987, but was far ahead of other consoles at the time (the NES, Master System, and Atari 7800). Also, the PCE never became "obsolete", but was still hugely popular in Japan, where it trounced the Mega Drive (Genesis) in terms of popularity.The TurboGrafx 16 seems over rated technically I think. It was boasted to be the most powerful system out there but the 8 bit cpu bottle necked it's abilities and resulting in the console being obsolete as soon as the megadrive came out
I know bits now arent a very good way to judge console power but back then they did mean something, and at anyrate giving a console 16bity gpus then shoving an 8 bit central processor in was an awful mistake
penpusher
The PCE may have had an 8-bit CPU, but that 8-bit CPU could perform at a clock rate (7.16 MHz) approaching the Mega Drive (7.67 MHz) and nearly twice that of the SNES (3.58 MHz), more or less equating to an overall CPU performance comparable to the SNES. In addition, the PCE had two 16-bit GPUs (whereas the SNES and Mega Drive had one each), and a CD-ROM add-on (launched in 1988) that gave it far greater storage capacity, cut-scene capability, and audio quality, than what the SNES or Mega Drive could do. If anything, the PCE is technically underrated, not overrated.
That's where you're wrong. The PC Engine / TurboGrafx-16 was never "overrated" when it first came out in 1987, but was far ahead of other consoles at the time (the NES, Master System, and Atari 7800). Also, the PCE never became "obsolete", but was still hugely popular in Japan, where it trounced the Mega Drive (Genesis) in terms of popularity.[QUOTE="penpusher"]
The TurboGrafx 16 seems over rated technically I think. It was boasted to be the most powerful system out there but the 8 bit cpu bottle necked it's abilities and resulting in the console being obsolete as soon as the megadrive came out
I know bits now arent a very good way to judge console power but back then they did mean something, and at anyrate giving a console 16bity gpus then shoving an 8 bit central processor in was an awful mistake
Jag85
The PCE may have had an 8-bit CPU, but that 8-bit CPU could perform at a clock rate (7.16 MHz) approaching the Mega Drive (7.67 MHz) and nearly twice that of the SNES (3.58 MHz), more or less equating to an overall CPU performance comparable to the SNES. In addition, the PCE had two 16-bit GPUs (whereas the SNES and Mega Drive had one each), and a CD-ROM add-on (launched in 1988) that gave it far greater storage capacity, cut-scene capability, and audio quality, than what the SNES or Mega Drive could do. If anything, the PCE is technically underrated, not overrated.
I disagree, that 8 bit cpu was a bottle neck, you can quote tech specs all you like but if you just look at the games and compare them to the offerings of other consoles you see a marked difference in favour of the snes and megadrive, even rondo of blood, which was on that CD add on (which itself was over rated) looks inferior to it's snes, modified port. Those two 16 bit graphics unit meant nothing after shoving an 8 bit cpu in there. I know it was designed to compete with the NES and the like but they clearly meant it to be 16bit, so why they shoved an 8 bit cpu in is beyond me.
Again if you dont beleive me just compare the games. Even in japan it lost steam and was swamped after the megadrive and snes were released and people began to see (key word see) that the turbografx was just a powerful 8 bit console. So as far as I'm concerned it was over rated.
I might also point out the megadrive also had a cd add on which provided pretty much the same extra abilities as the turbo CD. I would have said it was the most over rated system but it wasnt a system really and it was only the games that killed that.
That's where you're wrong. The PC Engine / TurboGrafx-16 was never "overrated" when it first came out in 1987, but was far ahead of other consoles at the time (the NES, Master System, and Atari 7800). Also, the PCE never became "obsolete", but was still hugely popular in Japan, where it trounced the Mega Drive (Genesis) in terms of popularity.[QUOTE="Jag85"]
[QUOTE="penpusher"]
The TurboGrafx 16 seems over rated technically I think. It was boasted to be the most powerful system out there but the 8 bit cpu bottle necked it's abilities and resulting in the console being obsolete as soon as the megadrive came out
I know bits now arent a very good way to judge console power but back then they did mean something, and at anyrate giving a console 16bity gpus then shoving an 8 bit central processor in was an awful mistake
penpusher
The PCE may have had an 8-bit CPU, but that 8-bit CPU could perform at a clock rate (7.16 MHz) approaching the Mega Drive (7.67 MHz) and nearly twice that of the SNES (3.58 MHz), more or less equating to an overall CPU performance comparable to the SNES. In addition, the PCE had two 16-bit GPUs (whereas the SNES and Mega Drive had one each), and a CD-ROM add-on (launched in 1988) that gave it far greater storage capacity, cut-scene capability, and audio quality, than what the SNES or Mega Drive could do. If anything, the PCE is technically underrated, not overrated.
I disagree, that 8 bit cpu was a bottle neck, you can quote tech specs all you like but if you just look at the games and compare them to the offerings of other consoles you see a marked difference in favour of the snes and megadrive, even rondo of blood, which was on that CD add on (which itself was over rated) looks inferior to it's snes, modified port. Those two 16 bit graphics unit meant nothing after shoving an 8 bit cpu in there.
Again if you dont beleive me just compare the games. Even in japan it lost steam and was swamped after the megadrive and snes were released and people began to see (key word see) that the turbografx was just a powerful 8 bit console. So as far as I'm concerned it was over rated.
I might also point out the megadrive also had a cd add on which provided pretty much the same extra abilities as the turbo CD. I would have said it was the most over rated system but it wasnt a system really and it was only the games that killed that.
What it looks like to me (by looking at the games, as he said) is:
TurboGrafx-16 is more powerful than the 8-bit systems (Atari 7800, NES, & Sega Master System), but less powerful than the other 16-bit systems (Genesis, SNES, & Neo-Geo AES).
360 without doubt I don't see why it's so good the console has shooters galore at least with the Wii and PS3 you have a bit of vareity.
[QUOTE="penpusher"]
[QUOTE="Jag85"] That's where you're wrong. The PC Engine / TurboGrafx-16 was never "overrated" when it first came out in 1987, but was far ahead of other consoles at the time (the NES, Master System, and Atari 7800). Also, the PCE never became "obsolete", but was still hugely popular in Japan, where it trounced the Mega Drive (Genesis) in terms of popularity.
The PCE may have had an 8-bit CPU, but that 8-bit CPU could perform at a clock rate (7.16 MHz) approaching the Mega Drive (7.67 MHz) and nearly twice that of the SNES (3.58 MHz), more or less equating to an overall CPU performance comparable to the SNES. In addition, the PCE had two 16-bit GPUs (whereas the SNES and Mega Drive had one each), and a CD-ROM add-on (launched in 1988) that gave it far greater storage capacity, cut-scene capability, and audio quality, than what the SNES or Mega Drive could do. If anything, the PCE is technically underrated, not overrated.
Emerald_Warrior
I disagree, that 8 bit cpu was a bottle neck, you can quote tech specs all you like but if you just look at the games and compare them to the offerings of other consoles you see a marked difference in favour of the snes and megadrive, even rondo of blood, which was on that CD add on (which itself was over rated) looks inferior to it's snes, modified port. Those two 16 bit graphics unit meant nothing after shoving an 8 bit cpu in there.
Again if you dont beleive me just compare the games. Even in japan it lost steam and was swamped after the megadrive and snes were released and people began to see (key word see) that the turbografx was just a powerful 8 bit console. So as far as I'm concerned it was over rated.
I might also point out the megadrive also had a cd add on which provided pretty much the same extra abilities as the turbo CD. I would have said it was the most over rated system but it wasnt a system really and it was only the games that killed that.
What it looks like to me (by looking at the games, as he said) is:
TurboGrafx-16 is more powerful than the 8-bit systems (Atari 7800, NES, & Sega Master System), but less powerful than the other 16-bit systems (Genesis, SNES, & Neo-Geo AES).
one thing I do like the fact they released that arcade card, lets it run what seems like a pretty decent port of Fatal Fury Special (not arcade perfect, but very good) www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ85OcZBWu8&feature=related[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"][QUOTE="penpusher"]
I disagree, that 8 bit cpu was a bottle neck, you can quote tech specs all you like but if you just look at the games and compare them to the offerings of other consoles you see a marked difference in favour of the snes and megadrive, even rondo of blood, which was on that CD add on (which itself was over rated) looks inferior to it's snes, modified port. Those two 16 bit graphics unit meant nothing after shoving an 8 bit cpu in there.
Again if you dont beleive me just compare the games. Even in japan it lost steam and was swamped after the megadrive and snes were released and people began to see (key word see) that the turbografx was just a powerful 8 bit console. So as far as I'm concerned it was over rated.
I might also point out the megadrive also had a cd add on which provided pretty much the same extra abilities as the turbo CD. I would have said it was the most over rated system but it wasnt a system really and it was only the games that killed that.
Darkman2007
What it looks like to me (by looking at the games, as he said) is:
TurboGrafx-16 is more powerful than the 8-bit systems (Atari 7800, NES, & Sega Master System), but less powerful than the other 16-bit systems (Genesis, SNES, & Neo-Geo AES).
one thing I do like the fact they released that arcade card, lets it run what seems like a pretty decent port of Fatal Fury Special (not arcade perfect, but very good) www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ85OcZBWu8&feature=related aye despite being, i think, over rated the pc-engine/turbografx 16 had some fantastic games :) It's a shame the console went bust since the important thing, the games, really delivered!That's where you're wrong. The PC Engine / TurboGrafx-16 was never "overrated" when it first came out in 1987, but was far ahead of other consoles at the time (the NES, Master System, and Atari 7800). Also, the PCE never became "obsolete", but was still hugely popular in Japan, where it trounced the Mega Drive (Genesis) in terms of popularity.[QUOTE="Jag85"]
[QUOTE="penpusher"]
The TurboGrafx 16 seems over rated technically I think. It was boasted to be the most powerful system out there but the 8 bit cpu bottle necked it's abilities and resulting in the console being obsolete as soon as the megadrive came out
I know bits now arent a very good way to judge console power but back then they did mean something, and at anyrate giving a console 16bity gpus then shoving an 8 bit central processor in was an awful mistake
penpusher
The PCE may have had an 8-bit CPU, but that 8-bit CPU could perform at a clock rate (7.16 MHz) approaching the Mega Drive (7.67 MHz) and nearly twice that of the SNES (3.58 MHz), more or less equating to an overall CPU performance comparable to the SNES. In addition, the PCE had two 16-bit GPUs (whereas the SNES and Mega Drive had one each), and a CD-ROM add-on (launched in 1988) that gave it far greater storage capacity, cut-scene capability, and audio quality, than what the SNES or Mega Drive could do. If anything, the PCE is technically underrated, not overrated.
I disagree, that 8 bit cpu was a bottle neck, you can quote tech specs all you like but if you just look at the games and compare them to the offerings of other consoles you see a marked difference in favour of the snes and megadrive, even rondo of blood, which was on that CD add on (which itself was over rated) looks inferior to it's snes, modified port. Those two 16 bit graphics unit meant nothing after shoving an 8 bit cpu in there. I know it was designed to compete with the NES and the like but they clearly meant it to be 16bit, so why they shoved an 8 bit cpu in is beyond me.
Again if you dont beleive me just compare the games. Even in japan it lost steam and was swamped after the megadrive and snes were released and people began to see (key word see) that the turbografx was just a powerful 8 bit console. So as far as I'm concerned it was over rated.
I might also point out the megadrive also had a cd add on which provided pretty much the same extra abilities as the turbo CD. I would have said it was the most over rated system but it wasnt a system really and it was only the games that killed that.
You clearly missed the point I was making. I was never suggesting the PC Engine had better graphics than the SNES or Mega Drive, but that your claim of it being "overrated" is incorrect. You have to keep in mind that the PCE was released a full year before the Mega Drive and over three years before the SNES, so of course it wouldn't have better graphics than consoles that came later. To suggest that makes it "overrated" is about as nonsensical as saying the Dreamcast is overrated just because it's technically weaker than the Xbox, ignoring the fact that the Dreamcast (much like the PCE before it) was far superior to every other home system released in its time. And for the record, the Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet did that ever "bottle-neck" its graphics? Of course not. Much like the PCE, the Xbox compensated for its lower-bit CPU with a higher MHz clock rate. And more importantly, it's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, which is why the Xbox 360 can still rival the PS3's graphics despite its inferior CPU. As for Rondo of Blood, the SNES version (which came two years after the PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but it was worse in other ways, including inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.Also, your claims about Japan are incorrect. When the Sega Mega Drive released in Japan, it was unsuccessful there. The PC Engine completely dominated the Mega Drive throughout the entire 16-bit era. The reason it was a huge success in Japan is because its game library there (especially when it comes to RPGs) was much larger, with North America only receiving a fraction of those games. If many more of those games were localized for North America, then the TurboGrafx-16 would have stood a much better chance in North America like it did in Japan.
Anyway, for the time it came out in 1987, the PC Engine was far ahead of its time. It had numerous console firsts, including 16-bit GPU (a year before the Mega Drive), dual-GPU (which is rare in consoles even today), CD-ROM storage and CD-quality audio (three years before the Sega CD, which wasn't utilized anywhere near as much as the PCE-CD), and RAM expansion packs (many years before the N64). What was holding back the PC Engine is not its (higher-clocked) 8-bit CPU, but its RAM, which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. This was later addressed with the Arcade Card, which added a lot of RAM that allowed the PC Engine's 16-bit dual-GPU to work to its full potential, surpassing the graphics of both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated with Fatal Fury Special (with the PCE version being second only to the original Neo Geo version). What made the PCE unique in the 16-bit era is that, whereas other consoles stayed static throughout the years, the PCE was continuously improving, almost like a PC. The PCE was never an "overrated" console, but on the contrary it was an underrated console (in the West, that is).
[QUOTE="penpusher"]
[QUOTE="Jag85"] That's where you're wrong. The PC Engine / TurboGrafx-16 was never "overrated" when it first came out in 1987, but was far ahead of other consoles at the time (the NES, Master System, and Atari 7800). Also, the PCE never became "obsolete", but was still hugely popular in Japan, where it trounced the Mega Drive (Genesis) in terms of popularity.
The PCE may have had an 8-bit CPU, but that 8-bit CPU could perform at a clock rate (7.16 MHz) approaching the Mega Drive (7.67 MHz) and nearly twice that of the SNES (3.58 MHz), more or less equating to an overall CPU performance comparable to the SNES. In addition, the PCE had two 16-bit GPUs (whereas the SNES and Mega Drive had one each), and a CD-ROM add-on (launched in 1988) that gave it far greater storage capacity, cut-scene capability, and audio quality, than what the SNES or Mega Drive could do. If anything, the PCE is technically underrated, not overrated.
Jag85
I disagree, that 8 bit cpu was a bottle neck, you can quote tech specs all you like but if you just look at the games and compare them to the offerings of other consoles you see a marked difference in favour of the snes and megadrive, even rondo of blood, which was on that CD add on (which itself was over rated) looks inferior to it's snes, modified port. Those two 16 bit graphics unit meant nothing after shoving an 8 bit cpu in there. I know it was designed to compete with the NES and the like but they clearly meant it to be 16bit, so why they shoved an 8 bit cpu in is beyond me.
Again if you dont beleive me just compare the games. Even in japan it lost steam and was swamped after the megadrive and snes were released and people began to see (key word see) that the turbografx was just a powerful 8 bit console. So as far as I'm concerned it was over rated.
I might also point out the megadrive also had a cd add on which provided pretty much the same extra abilities as the turbo CD. I would have said it was the most over rated system but it wasnt a system really and it was only the games that killed that.
You clearly missed the point I was making. I was never suggesting the PC Engine had better graphics than the SNES or Mega Drive, but that your claim of it being "overrated" is incorrect. You have to keep in mind that the PCE was released a full year before the Mega Drive and over three years before the SNES, so of course it wouldn't have better graphics than consoles that came later. To suggest that makes it "overrated" is about as nonsensical as saying the Dreamcast is overrated just because it's technically weaker than the Xbox, ignoring the fact that the Dreamcast (much like the PCE before it) was far superior to every other home system released in its time. And for the record, the Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet did that ever "bottle-neck" its graphics? Of course not. Much like the PCE, the Xbox compensated for its lower-bit CPU with a higher MHz clock rate. And more importantly, it's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, which is why the Xbox 360 can still rival the PS3's graphics despite its inferior CPU. As for Rondo of Blood, the SNES version (which came two years after the PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but it was worse in other ways, including inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.Also, your claims about Japan are incorrect. When the Sega Mega Drive released in Japan, it was unsuccessful there. The PC Engine completely dominated the Mega Drive throughout the entire 16-bit era. The reason it was a huge success in Japan is because its game library there (especially when it comes to RPGs) was much larger, with North America only receiving a fraction of those games. If many more of those games were localized for North America, then the TurboGrafx-16 would have stood a much better chance in North America like it did in Japan.
Anyway, for the time it came out in 1987, the PC Engine was far ahead of its time. It had numerous console firsts, including 16-bit GPU (a year before the Mega Drive), dual-GPU (which is rare in consoles even today), CD-ROM storage and CD-quality audio (three years before the Sega CD, which wasn't utilized anywhere near as much as the PCE-CD), and RAM expansion packs (many years before the N64). What was holding back the PC Engine is not its (higher-clocked) 8-bit CPU, but its RAM, which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. This was later addressed with the Arcade Card, which added a lot of RAM that allowed the PC Engine's 16-bit dual-GPU to work to its full potential, surpassing the graphics of both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated with Fatal Fury Special (with the PCE version being second only to the original Neo Geo version). What made the PCE unique in the 16-bit era is that, whereas other consoles stayed static throughout the years, the PCE was continuously improving, almost like a PC. The PCE was never an "overrated" console, but on the contrary it was an underrated console (in the West, that is).
You know i was gonna respond until read this massive article and my eyes cant keep up with the strain. I think we'll agree to disagree, i reckon the graphics being inferior are important because my point was that they were hindered by that 8 bit cpu which was unwisely shoved into a console that was advertised as 16bit. If you fancy condensing that into a sensible sized responce then we'll talk dude, as it is I think youre going over board on detail, most of which I already know.
I like TG-16's design too, despite not owning one. The system was a first in many things (like first console with "16-bit" graphics, first console with a CD addon, ect.) and did a good job bringing the arcade experience home for an affordable price (Neo Geo was better but it was unaffordable to most people). Of course the Sega Genesis/MD and SNES were the better and more supported systems and it couldn't rightfully compete with them, but it was a nice console nonetheless (the Sega arcade ports like OutRun and AfterBurner are actually better on TG-16 than Genesis).
Sega 32x or the Atari Jaguar.
You clearly missed the point I was making. I was never suggesting the PC Engine had better graphics than the SNES or Mega Drive, but that your claim of it being "overrated" is incorrect. You have to keep in mind that the PCE was released a full year before the Mega Drive and over three years before the SNES, so of course it wouldn't have better graphics than consoles that came later. To suggest that makes it "overrated" is about as nonsensical as saying the Dreamcast is overrated just because it's technically weaker than the Xbox, ignoring the fact that the Dreamcast (much like the PCE before it) was far superior to every other home system released in its time. And for the record, the Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet did that ever "bottle-neck" its graphics? Of course not. Much like the PCE, the Xbox compensated for its lower-bit CPU with a higher MHz clock rate. And more importantly, it's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, which is why the Xbox 360 can still rival the PS3's graphics despite its inferior CPU. As for Rondo of Blood, the SNES version (which came two years after the PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but it was worse in other ways, including inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.[QUOTE="Jag85"]
[QUOTE="penpusher"]
I disagree, that 8 bit cpu was a bottle neck, you can quote tech specs all you like but if you just look at the games and compare them to the offerings of other consoles you see a marked difference in favour of the snes and megadrive, even rondo of blood, which was on that CD add on (which itself was over rated) looks inferior to it's snes, modified port. Those two 16 bit graphics unit meant nothing after shoving an 8 bit cpu in there. I know it was designed to compete with the NES and the like but they clearly meant it to be 16bit, so why they shoved an 8 bit cpu in is beyond me.
Again if you dont beleive me just compare the games. Even in japan it lost steam and was swamped after the megadrive and snes were released and people began to see (key word see) that the turbografx was just a powerful 8 bit console. So as far as I'm concerned it was over rated.
I might also point out the megadrive also had a cd add on which provided pretty much the same extra abilities as the turbo CD. I would have said it was the most over rated system but it wasnt a system really and it was only the games that killed that.
penpusher
Also, your claims about Japan are incorrect. When the Sega Mega Drive released in Japan, it was unsuccessful there. The PC Engine completely dominated the Mega Drive throughout the entire 16-bit era. The reason it was a huge success in Japan is because its game library there (especially when it comes to RPGs) was much larger, with North America only receiving a fraction of those games. If many more of those games were localized for North America, then the TurboGrafx-16 would have stood a much better chance in North America like it did in Japan.
Anyway, for the time it came out in 1987, the PC Engine was far ahead of its time. It had numerous console firsts, including 16-bit GPU (a year before the Mega Drive), dual-GPU (which is rare in consoles even today), CD-ROM storage and CD-quality audio (three years before the Sega CD, which wasn't utilized anywhere near as much as the PCE-CD), and RAM expansion packs (many years before the N64). What was holding back the PC Engine is not its (higher-clocked) 8-bit CPU, but its RAM, which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. This was later addressed with the Arcade Card, which added a lot of RAM that allowed the PC Engine's 16-bit dual-GPU to work to its full potential, surpassing the graphics of both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated with Fatal Fury Special (with the PCE version being second only to the original Neo Geo version). What made the PCE unique in the 16-bit era is that, whereas other consoles stayed static throughout the years, the PCE was continuously improving, almost like a PC. The PCE was never an "overrated" console, but on the contrary it was an underrated console (in the West, that is).
You know i was gonna respond until read this massive article and my eyes cant keep up with the strain. I think we'll agree to disagree, i reckon the graphics being inferior are important because my point was that they were hindered by that 8 bit cpu which was unwisely shoved into a console that was advertised as 16bit. If you fancy condensing that into a sensible sized responce then we'll talk dude, as it is I think youre going over board on detail, most of which I already know.
Fine, I'll compress my argument down in a bullet-point format:- PCE was released 1 year before Mega Drive and over 3 years before SNES. Like the Dreamcast in its time, the PCE was far ahead of every other home system at the time of its release.
- Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet that never "bottle-necked" its graphics, which were the best of its era. Like the Xbox, the PCE compensated for its lower-bit CPU with higher MHz clock rate.
- It's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, hence why the Xbox had the best graphics of its era and how the Xbox 360 can rival the PS3 despite an inferior CPU.
- SNES version of Rondo of Blood (released 2 years after PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but had inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.
- PCE completely dominated the Mega Drive in Japan throughout the 16-bit era.
- PCE had a huge game library in Japan, but North America only received a fraction of it.
- PCE was first console with 16-bit GPU, dual-GPU, CD-ROM storage, CD-quality audio, and RAM expansion packs.
- What held back the PCE is not the 8-bit CPU, but its RAM which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. The Arcade Card later added more RAM which allowed the PCE's dual 16-bit GPU to produce better graphics than both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated by Fatal Fury Special.
- The PCE was underrated, not overrated.
[QUOTE="penpusher"]
[QUOTE="Jag85"] You clearly missed the point I was making. I was never suggesting the PC Engine had better graphics than the SNES or Mega Drive, but that your claim of it being "overrated" is incorrect. You have to keep in mind that the PCE was released a full year before the Mega Drive and over three years before the SNES, so of course it wouldn't have better graphics than consoles that came later. To suggest that makes it "overrated" is about as nonsensical as saying the Dreamcast is overrated just because it's technically weaker than the Xbox, ignoring the fact that the Dreamcast (much like the PCE before it) was far superior to every other home system released in its time. And for the record, the Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet did that ever "bottle-neck" its graphics? Of course not. Much like the PCE, the Xbox compensated for its lower-bit CPU with a higher MHz clock rate. And more importantly, it's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, which is why the Xbox 360 can still rival the PS3's graphics despite its inferior CPU. As for Rondo of Blood, the SNES version (which came two years after the PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but it was worse in other ways, including inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.
Also, your claims about Japan are incorrect. When the Sega Mega Drive released in Japan, it was unsuccessful there. The PC Engine completely dominated the Mega Drive throughout the entire 16-bit era. The reason it was a huge success in Japan is because its game library there (especially when it comes to RPGs) was much larger, with North America only receiving a fraction of those games. If many more of those games were localized for North America, then the TurboGrafx-16 would have stood a much better chance in North America like it did in Japan.
Anyway, for the time it came out in 1987, the PC Engine was far ahead of its time. It had numerous console firsts, including 16-bit GPU (a year before the Mega Drive), dual-GPU (which is rare in consoles even today), CD-ROM storage and CD-quality audio (three years before the Sega CD, which wasn't utilized anywhere near as much as the PCE-CD), and RAM expansion packs (many years before the N64). What was holding back the PC Engine is not its (higher-clocked) 8-bit CPU, but its RAM, which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. This was later addressed with the Arcade Card, which added a lot of RAM that allowed the PC Engine's 16-bit dual-GPU to work to its full potential, surpassing the graphics of both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated with Fatal Fury Special (with the PCE version being second only to the original Neo Geo version). What made the PCE unique in the 16-bit era is that, whereas other consoles stayed static throughout the years, the PCE was continuously improving, almost like a PC. The PCE was never an "overrated" console, but on the contrary it was an underrated console (in the West, that is).Jag85
You know i was gonna respond until read this massive article and my eyes cant keep up with the strain. I think we'll agree to disagree, i reckon the graphics being inferior are important because my point was that they were hindered by that 8 bit cpu which was unwisely shoved into a console that was advertised as 16bit. If you fancy condensing that into a sensible sized responce then we'll talk dude, as it is I think youre going over board on detail, most of which I already know.
Fine, I'll compress my argument down in a bullet-point format:- PCE was released 1 year before Mega Drive and over 3 years before SNES. Like the Dreamcast in its time, the PCE was far ahead of every other home system at the time of its release.
- Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet that never "bottle-necked" its graphics, which were the best of its era. Like the Xbox, the PCE compensated for its lower-bit CPU with higher MHz clock rate.
- It's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, hence why the Xbox had the best graphics of its era and how the Xbox 360 can rival the PS3 despite an inferior CPU.
- SNES version of Rondo of Blood (released 2 years after PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but had inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.
- PCE completely dominated the Mega Drive in Japan throughout the 16-bit era.
- PCE had a huge game library in Japan, but North America only received a fraction of it.
- PCE was first console with 16-bit GPU, dual-GPU, CD-ROM storage, CD-quality audio, and RAM expansion packs.
- What held back the PCE is not the 8-bit CPU, but its RAM which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. The Arcade Card later added more RAM which allowed the PCE's dual 16-bit GPU to produce better graphics than both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated by Fatal Fury Special.
- The PCE was underrated, not overrated.
To be honest it didn't really matter that Xbox's processor was 32-bit because it was simply better architecture than the PS2. Only thing PS2 had over it was a theoretically higher FLOPS performance but that ment next ot nothing in the real world. Xbox could run Half-Life 2 with unchanged physics from the PC version which was quite an achievement. It was funny watching the Emotion Engine in the PS2 getting beat by a gimped Pentium III in the Xbox (kinda how the "mighty" Cell in PS3 had a hard time keeping up with the 360 in multi-plats).
Also, PC Engine/TG-16 was the strongest games console when it came out, not system. Sharp X68000 computers were surely superior to it.
Fine, I'll compress my argument down in a bullet-point format:[QUOTE="Jag85"]
[QUOTE="penpusher"]
You know i was gonna respond until read this massive article and my eyes cant keep up with the strain. I think we'll agree to disagree, i reckon the graphics being inferior are important because my point was that they were hindered by that 8 bit cpu which was unwisely shoved into a console that was advertised as 16bit. If you fancy condensing that into a sensible sized responce then we'll talk dude, as it is I think youre going over board on detail, most of which I already know.
nameless12345
- PCE was released 1 year before Mega Drive and over 3 years before SNES. Like the Dreamcast in its time, the PCE was far ahead of every other home system at the time of its release.
- Xbox used a 32-bit CPU, and yet that never "bottle-necked" its graphics, which were the best of its era. Like the Xbox, the PCE compensated for its lower-bit CPU with higher MHz clock rate.
- It's the GPU that always matters most when it comes to graphics, hence why the Xbox had the best graphics of its era and how the Xbox 360 can rival the PS3 despite an inferior CPU.
- SNES version of Rondo of Blood (released 2 years after PCE version) may have looked slightly better, but had inferior audio quality, removed cut-scenes, and removed gameplay features.
- PCE completely dominated the Mega Drive in Japan throughout the 16-bit era.
- PCE had a huge game library in Japan, but North America only received a fraction of it.
- PCE was first console with 16-bit GPU, dual-GPU, CD-ROM storage, CD-quality audio, and RAM expansion packs.
- What held back the PCE is not the 8-bit CPU, but its RAM which was lower than the SNES and Mega Drive. The Arcade Card later added more RAM which allowed the PCE's dual 16-bit GPU to produce better graphics than both the SNES and Mega Drive, as demonstrated by Fatal Fury Special.
- The PCE was underrated, not overrated.
To be honest it didn't really matter that Xbox's processor was 32-bit because it was simply better architecture than the PS2. Only thing PS2 had over it was a theoretically higher FLOPS performance but that ment next ot nothing in the real world. Xbox could run Half-Life 2 with unchanged physics from the PC version which was quite an achievement. It was funny watching the Emotion Engine in the PS2 getting beat by a gimped Pentium III in the Xbox (kinda how the "mighty" Cell in PS3 had a hard time keeping up with the 360 in multi-plats).
Also, PC Engine/TG-16 was the strongest games console when it came out, not system. Sharp X68000 computers were surely superior to it.
the X68000 weren't just better, they were significantly better, in fact the CPS1 arcade machine (SF2, Final Fight) was essentially a X68000 in an arcade cabinet, the first system to beat it in any way was the Neo Geo (although even then , the Neo Geo isn't that much more capable)
I'll gave to give that crown as many others have to the Jaguar. Man in 1993 when all us dumb kids were playing 16 bit system I could only imagine what a system 4 time as powerful would do lol. Well it sucked and thank god I never got one, yea AvP was decent, but not a system purchase good.
To the PCE/TG-16 argument what held back the system graphically wasn't not so much its 8bit cpu, but the fact that it only supported a sprite layer and a background layer. What this translate to is most games do not have parallax scrolling, something I consider a trademark of the 16bit gen.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]
what do you mean overrated technically? you mean a system where the visuals don't match the hype? a whole bunch of systems can be put in that catagory.
nameless12345
Yea, most consoles actually. For example the N64 was supposed to do The Terminator 2 quality graphics and the PS2 Toy Story quality graphics.
Actually it was the N64 that was supposed to be able to produce Toy Story quality visuals, there is even a video on youtube that has a nintendo rep referring to them as such, even when they so obviously weren't. I'd say....The Jaguar, the N64, the PS2, and the PS3 by far![QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]
what do you mean overrated technically? you mean a system where the visuals don't match the hype? a whole bunch of systems can be put in that catagory.
AlexKidd5000
Yea, most consoles actually. For example the N64 was supposed to do The Terminator 2 quality graphics and the PS2 Toy Story quality graphics.
Actually it was the N64 that was supposed to be able to produce Toy Story quality visuals, there is even a video on youtube that has a nintendo rep referring to them as such, even when they so obviously weren't. I'd say....The Jaguar, the N64, the PS2, and the PS3 by far! just about everybody in the games industry made bogus claims about their hardware, even going so far as to give theoretical performance I remember seeing a press conference with Trip Hawkins where he claimed in 1995 that the 3DO was on par with the PS1 and Saturn for instance.The Jaguar was 64-bit? *blinks innocently* I didn't know, really. Then again, the only Jaguar game I ever saw gameplay was a stinkin' Bubsy game that looked worse than a NES one.[QUOTE="Spinnerweb"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]
Well, all console systems were hyped and usually fell a little short of the premise but if I have to pick one it's probably the Atari Jaguar with it's "64-bitness" which untimatley didn't give it any real advantages over the competition.
nameless12345
64-bits doesn't mean "twice better graphics than 32-bit". It simply means that some operations can be performed with twice better precision (which can be slower than 32-bit precision actually).
And also, is it true that 64bit CPU's need more RAM to get better performance? That would explain why 64bit versions of windows reccomend 2GB of RAM as opposed to 1GB for the 32bit version. Putting a 64bit CPU in a console like the N64 would be pointless. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that any game for the N64 was even programed in 64bit anyway.[QUOTE="AlexKidd5000"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]Actually it was the N64 that was supposed to be able to produce Toy Story quality visuals, there is even a video on youtube that has a nintendo rep referring to them as such, even when they so obviously weren't. I'd say....The Jaguar, the N64, the PS2, and the PS3 by far! just about everybody in the games industry made bogus claims about their hardware, even going so far as to give theoretical performance I remember seeing a press conference with Trip Hawkins where he claimed in 1995 that the 3DO was on par with the PS1 and Saturn for instance. Yup, very true. I think I also remember Jack Tramiel claiming that the Jaguar was in the same league as the PS1 and saturn too lolYea, most consoles actually. For example the N64 was supposed to do The Terminator 2 quality graphics and the PS2 Toy Story quality graphics.
Darkman2007
A system that had games and sound that could compete with the Genesis for years was obsolete when the Genesis came out?The TurboGrafx 16 seems over rated technically I think. It was boasted to be the most powerful system out there but the 8 bit cpu bottle necked it's abilities and resulting in the console being obsolete as soon as the megadrive came out
I know bits now arent a very good way to judge console power but back then they did mean something, and at anyrate giving a console 16bity gpus then shoving an 8 bit central processor in was an awful mistake
penpusher
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment