4 ms·

> It added 6 megabits of RAM. The order of magnitude is forgetting to divide by 8. Ack dang it. You're right. Though even at 8Mb it's still significantly great

> It added 6 megabits of RAM. The order of magnitude is forgetting to divide by 8. Ack dang it. You're right. Though even at 8Mb it's still significantly greater than the GP's estimations. > And the SNES-CD that they were talking about only added a 256KB ram bank onto a main memory of 128KB. The SNES CD was cancelled with only one known prototype made. One could speculate whether those specifications would have made it to the final console or not had the project continued but it would be pure speculation. So I don't think it's all that constructive to compare the SNES CD with the Sega CD.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> Ack dang it. You're right. Though even at 8Mb it's still significantly greater than the GP's estimations. Well also the specific phrase of "few dozen or low hundred kilobytes at most" was about ROM-based systems.
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  But there were systems in that realm that weren't ROM based. In fact in the 80s it was more common for systems to load from slower media like floppy disk or cassette than it was from ROM cartridge. I'm not denying that the access speed of optical media was definitely noticable (than and now) and required designing games a little differently to cartridge based systems, but the GP's claim that it was a deal breaker is completely false. And I have a collection of Mega CD (PAL) games sat behind me that demonstrate just how good the device really was. As well as Famicom FDD games. And games for various Commodore, Amstrad, Acorn, Atari, Sinclair and IBM-compatible PC systems too. The downfall of the Mega CD had nothing to do with CD access times.