[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The 65816 -is- 16-bit! (Re: Does SNES really...)
- Subject: The 65816 -is- 16-bit! (Re: Does SNES really...)
- From: irsman@iastate.edu (Ian Schmidt)
- Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 00:12:54 GMT
- Followup-to: comp.sys.apple2,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega
- Keywords: sega,lame,lame,lame
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2, rec.games.video.nintendo, rec.games.video.sega
- Organization: Two Meg Software GS Engineering Center near Waco, Texas
- References: <1993May3.180316.2034@cirrus.com> <C6Gvwq.EJn@news.iastate.edu> <1993May3.172601.8944@hellgate.utah.edu>
- Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
- Summary: These architechure-snobs never learn
- Xref: gmd.de comp.sys.apple2:27147 rec.games.video.nintendo:606 rec.games.video.sega:618
[crossposted so csa2 experts can have a crack at it]
> Sega Genesis SNES Lynx IBM PC 386SX PC
> ------------ ---- ---- ------ --------
>processor 68000 65816 6502 8088 80386SX
>external data bus 16 bits 8 bits 8 bits 8 bits 16 bits
>internal data bus 32 bits 16 bits 8 bits 16 bits 32 bits
>clock speed 7.6MHz 3.6MHz 4.0MHz 4.77MHz 16-33MHz
>The average number of cycles per instruction and the richness of the
>instruction set and addressing modes determines which is faster, the 65816
>or the 68000. I have programmed the 68000 and the 6502, and assuming the
>65816 is similar to the 6502, I'd say the 68000 in the Genesis can do raw
>data-crunching much faster than the 65816 in the SNES. Of course, raw
>data-crunching is only part of what goes on in a game, so if you want to
>know which is better, the only way is to try both of them out. An example
>of how raw CPU speed isn't everything, try to find any game on an original
>IBM PC that even comes close to the SNES in speed or quality. Just by
>looking at the CPU speed, you would expect the PC to be a little bit faster,
>but this obviously isn't the case, since the graphics hardware on a PC is
>garbage compared to the SNES.
That's correct, and the 65816 uses a lot fewer average cycles/instruction than
the 680x0 or 80x86. The general formula for real world performance per Mhz
looks like this...
80x86 Mhz = 2 * 680x0 Mhz = 2 * 65816 Mhz.
Of course, that's solely based on raw CPU performance. Machine design in
general throws a lot of hooks and curves into it; game consoles typically
aren't the best designs in which to exploit a CPU's power. Of course, neither
are a lot of computers...a 486-50 running on an 8 mhz ISA bus is pretty sad :)
--
Ian Schmidt: irsman@iastate.edu
"I will choose a path that's | /~~~\ irsman@aol.com
clear: I will choose free will" | | < o o o o o o o o o o o
- N. Peart, 1980 | \___/ twbv4@isuvax.bitnet