4 ms·

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

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!