3 ms·

Does the C64 does this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6qGP1xP1EA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6qGP1xP1EA So, no, it wasn't the best

kragen 4y ago
Those graphics look comparable to the NES, which as I said above had better graphics than the C64, but it seems that the MSX2 had a much slower CPU (a 3.58 MHz Z80), and possibly as a result it apparently didn't have a GUI environment comparable to the C64's GEOS. Also it only had 48K.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  I'm confused, because if I look at Wikipedia it lists the CPU for the C64 as "MOS Technology 6510/8500 @ 1.023 MHz", whereas the (newer) C128 has the same 4MHz Z80 CPU that the MSX had. But you're saying the C64 was actually faster? > Also it only had 48K. I think you mixed up the numbers here? The 48K refers to the ROM size (C64 had 20K), not RAM (MSX2 machines commonly came with 128K RAM, but you also had 256K models).
  - pkroll 4y ago
    The C-128 had both a Z-80 for CP/M, and a 2 Mhz version of the 6510 (the 8502). Could only run the 8502 at full speed with the regular graphics processor off/using the 80 character display.
  - kragen 4y ago
    You're right about the RAM, and I was wrong. Yes, a 3.58 MHz Z80 (or even 4 MHz) is generally slower than a 1.023 MHz 6502, but it's not much slower as I said. As pkroll points out, the C128 also had a 6510 as well as the Z80—Commodore was hardly going to ship a C64 follow-on that couldn't run C64 software!
actionfromafar 4y ago
The C64 didn't have that horrible sound chip, no. :-)
vintermann 4y ago
The MSX2 was certainly fascinating, and better on most graphics measures (more colours, more sprites, better scrolling - unless you use the unintended C64 VSP techniques, which breaks on a small number of machines.) However, it had far inferior sound, and despite the higher clock rate it wasn't usually faster, since most 6510 instructions execute in 2-7 clock cycles whereas the z80 typically uses 5-25 cycles. The later MSXes could in theory have a lot more banked memory than the c64, but I don't know how common that was (there were RAM extenders for the c64 too but they were vanishingly rare). Apart from more colours and higher resolution, there's nothing in those 50 games you linked that would be clearly impossible on a c64. You should link to a demoscene showreel instead ;)
- kragen 4y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcVa0zviOJw&list=PLFxDEp8RK4OH2OQxVI9sCVPlrOMBtlg78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcVa0zviOJw&list=PLFxDEp8RK4... is a C64 demo playlist, but I'm not sure it shows anything a MSX2 couldn't do either, except for much better sound. It certainly has a lot of stuff that's more visually impressive than those MSX2 games, but I suspect that's because it was made by better programmers and graphicians, not because of the limitations of the hardware. Definitely if I'd seen stuff like those C64 demos in 01982 when the C64 came out, my reaction would have been total incredulity; it is so far beyond what I imagined computers were capable of that it would have seemed like alien technology. And that is not true of the MSX2 games. But to a significant extent that's not really about the capabilities of the computers themselves but about the SID and the VIC-II, and to a smaller extent it's about algorithms and tricks that were developed years after the C64 itself. Boogie Factor, for example, is from 02005. MSX* demos I've seen like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=busiDuS94qY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=busiDuS94qY are more visually impressive than the games linked upthread, and very impressive indeed for a Z80, but still not in the league of the C64 demos, despite having lots more RAM to work in. I suspect the anemic CPU is to blame; that demo leans on raster shears pretty hard. Really, though, I'm more convinced by GEOS. In GEOS the C64 had a WIMP GUI with a WYSIWYG word processor with multiple proportional fonts, a pixel paint program like MacPaint, a faxing program, etc. Because what's really important is how computers increase human ability and especially how they empower human creativity, not how many colors they can show.

kragen 4y ago

Those graphics look comparable to the NES, which as I said above had better graphics than the C64, but it seems that the MSX2 had a much slower CPU (a 3.58 MHz Z80), and possibly as a result it apparently didn't have a GUI environment comparable to the C64's GEOS. Also it only had 48K.

Beltalowda 4y ago
I'm confused, because if I look at Wikipedia it lists the CPU for the C64 as "MOS Technology 6510/8500 @ 1.023 MHz", whereas the (newer) C128 has the same 4MHz Z80 CPU that the MSX had. But you're saying the C64 was actually faster? > Also it only had 48K. I think you mixed up the numbers here? The 48K refers to the ROM size (C64 had 20K), not RAM (MSX2 machines commonly came with 128K RAM, but you also had 256K models).
- pkroll 4y ago
  The C-128 had both a Z-80 for CP/M, and a 2 Mhz version of the 6510 (the 8502). Could only run the 8502 at full speed with the regular graphics processor off/using the 80 character display.
- kragen 4y ago
  You're right about the RAM, and I was wrong. Yes, a 3.58 MHz Z80 (or even 4 MHz) is generally slower than a 1.023 MHz 6502, but it's not much slower as I said. As pkroll points out, the C128 also had a 6510 as well as the Z80—Commodore was hardly going to ship a C64 follow-on that couldn't run C64 software!

actionfromafar 4y ago

The C64 didn't have that horrible sound chip, no. :-)

vintermann 4y ago

The MSX2 was certainly fascinating, and better on most graphics measures (more colours, more sprites, better scrolling - unless you use the unintended C64 VSP techniques, which breaks on a small number of machines.) However, it had far inferior sound, and despite the higher clock rate it wasn't usually faster, since most 6510 instructions execute in 2-7 clock cycles whereas the z80 typically uses 5-25 cycles. The later MSXes could in theory have a lot more banked memory than the c64, but I don't know how common that was (there were RAM extenders for the c64 too but they were vanishingly rare). Apart from more colours and higher resolution, there's nothing in those 50 games you linked that would be clearly impossible on a c64. You should link to a demoscene showreel instead ;)

kragen 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcVa0zviOJw&list=PLFxDEp8RK4OH2OQxVI9sCVPlrOMBtlg78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcVa0zviOJw&list=PLFxDEp8RK4... is a C64 demo playlist, but I'm not sure it shows anything a MSX2 couldn't do either, except for much better sound. It certainly has a lot of stuff that's more visually impressive than those MSX2 games, but I suspect that's because it was made by better programmers and graphicians, not because of the limitations of the hardware. Definitely if I'd seen stuff like those C64 demos in 01982 when the C64 came out, my reaction would have been total incredulity; it is so far beyond what I imagined computers were capable of that it would have seemed like alien technology. And that is not true of the MSX2 games. But to a significant extent that's not really about the capabilities of the computers themselves but about the SID and the VIC-II, and to a smaller extent it's about algorithms and tricks that were developed years after the C64 itself. Boogie Factor, for example, is from 02005. MSX* demos I've seen like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=busiDuS94qY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=busiDuS94qY are more visually impressive than the games linked upthread, and very impressive indeed for a Z80, but still not in the league of the C64 demos, despite having lots more RAM to work in. I suspect the anemic CPU is to blame; that demo leans on raster shears pretty hard. Really, though, I'm more convinced by GEOS. In GEOS the C64 had a WIMP GUI with a WYSIWYG word processor with multiple proportional fonts, a pixel paint program like MacPaint, a faxing program, etc. Because what's really important is how computers increase human ability and especially how they empower human creativity, not how many colors they can show.