The PC Engine CPU is highly underrated. People like to go "haha, it was the TurboGrafx-16 but its CPU was 8-bit" like that makes it a joke, but that clock speed boost on top of the 6502 architecture is a big deal. (The S-CPU on the SNES still has an 8-bit data bus too, so the 16-bit advantage isn't as strong as it seems)
The Arcade Card add-on was designed specifically around using the transfer instructions to rapidly transfer graphics into VRAM, something it was very good at. Made some really good Neo Geo ports possible.
>"haha, it was the TurboGrafx-16 but its CPU was 8-bit"
Amusingly, TurboGrafx-16 is a US-specific name, so is the huge shell.
In Japan, the console was called PC Engine and was really compact. Later revised as CoreGrafx and CoreGrafx II, both still the same fundamental hardware.
I own the later variant. Very solid little box that sips power and produces stable a/v output.
NEC made some great looking consoles, in Japan. The PC Engine, the PC Engine Shuttle, the IFU-30 unit "briefcase", and the SuperGrafx. I think console design peaked with the SuperGrafx.
In the back of my mind, I have the idea that US regulations required extra shielding that the Japanese model lacked. Maybe this isn't the case. Maybe some American marketer decided it was just too cute or too small.
I restored a PC Engine a year or two ago and I also became fascinated by the hardware. The HuC6270 VDC/HuC6260 VCE graphics system is actually very flexible for the kinds of games the system was designed to play. If I remember correctly, it has background tilemaps, sprites, scrolling, 64kb video RAM, and a 512 colour palette. The hardware sprites/scrolling is what makes it feel more arcadey a lot of the time.
Given the 8-bit CPU it feels a lot more like a 16-bit system to me. The dedicated sprites/scrolling hardware instead of a more bitmap/framebuffer focused design meant things like shooters and platform games played amazingly well.
Soldier Blade, R-Type, Air Zonk, Bonk, etc felt amazing. Given the formfactor and the cool card cartridge format I can see why it was so popular in Japan.
The PC Engine's CPU is probably its strongest aspect, Hudson did a great job here. Going with a really fast 8-bit CPU makes much more sense than Nintendo's choice of going with a slow 16-bit CPU, especially when the screen is 256 pixels wide so most of the calculations a game would be doing are only 8 bits anyway. Even when you have to do 16-bit calculations, the SNES CPU still has an 8-bit data bus so it doesn't have much of an advantage over the PC Engine (all 16-bit operations take extra cycles compared to their 8-bit counterparts). In practice, fast action games like shooters play a lot more smoothly on the PC Engine than on the SNES. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the SNES CPU provides the option of running at ~3/4 speed if the publisher didn't want to pay for faster ROMs, so a lot of games have unnecessary slowdown because the publisher wanted to save 50 cents per cartridge.
Where the PC Engine ends up weaker is in the video processor. That generation of consoles was able to do more with the video hardware than previous generations (like the NES and Master System) due to faster RAM becoming available. The PC Engine used the additional bandwidth to make it possible for the CPU to access video memory while the screen is being drawn, while the SNES kept the restriction that you can only access video memory during vblank and instead used the additional bandwidth for more background layers. Being able to access video memory all the time is definitely a useful feature, but the result is that PC Engine games often look more flat than SNES games.
As someone who owns a SNES and a TG-16, I think I disagree. The TG-16 graphics really pop compared to the SNES.
The SNES can only render 256 simultaneous colours. The TG-16 could do twice that at 512. Its video processor was also full 16-bit.
I’m not sure where you’re getting that the video was the weakness of the TG-16. At the time, that was the Turbografx’s whole claim to fame in that it was superior graphically to the SNES.
Source: Old enough to remember the commercials and bought both consoles to compare like nerds did back then
The PC Engine could theoretically do more colours on screen (though things like colour math and mid-screen palette changes do complicate that a bit...), but only had 9-bit wide palette entries compared to the SFC's 15-bit colour depth, which allowed for a lot more subtlety and richness.
Remember that the PC Engine came out in 1987, over three years before the SFC did. That makes Nintendo's CPU decisions even more questionable, but also explains the huge gap in graphics hardware - not just more background layers, but also effects like transparency, scaling and rotation, and richer colours.
The PC Engine CPU is highly underrated. People like to go "haha, it was the TurboGrafx-16 but its CPU was 8-bit" like that makes it a joke, but that clock speed boost on top of the 6502 architecture is a big deal. (The S-CPU on the SNES still has an 8-bit data bus too, so the 16-bit advantage isn't as strong as it seems)
The Arcade Card add-on was designed specifically around using the transfer instructions to rapidly transfer graphics into VRAM, something it was very good at. Made some really good Neo Geo ports possible.
The amazing Street Fighter II' port didn't even need any add-ons! (Well, aside from the 6 button controller)
The article notes that the cartridge had some extra bank switching inside it though, as it went over the address space limit for HuCards.
>"haha, it was the TurboGrafx-16 but its CPU was 8-bit"
Amusingly, TurboGrafx-16 is a US-specific name, so is the huge shell.
In Japan, the console was called PC Engine and was really compact. Later revised as CoreGrafx and CoreGrafx II, both still the same fundamental hardware.
I own the later variant. Very solid little box that sips power and produces stable a/v output.
NEC made some great looking consoles, in Japan. The PC Engine, the PC Engine Shuttle, the IFU-30 unit "briefcase", and the SuperGrafx. I think console design peaked with the SuperGrafx.
In the back of my mind, I have the idea that US regulations required extra shielding that the Japanese model lacked. Maybe this isn't the case. Maybe some American marketer decided it was just too cute or too small.
I restored a PC Engine a year or two ago and I also became fascinated by the hardware. The HuC6270 VDC/HuC6260 VCE graphics system is actually very flexible for the kinds of games the system was designed to play. If I remember correctly, it has background tilemaps, sprites, scrolling, 64kb video RAM, and a 512 colour palette. The hardware sprites/scrolling is what makes it feel more arcadey a lot of the time.
Given the 8-bit CPU it feels a lot more like a 16-bit system to me. The dedicated sprites/scrolling hardware instead of a more bitmap/framebuffer focused design meant things like shooters and platform games played amazingly well.
Soldier Blade, R-Type, Air Zonk, Bonk, etc felt amazing. Given the formfactor and the cool card cartridge format I can see why it was so popular in Japan.
Still own multiple TG-16’s. The CD-ROM attachment plus Ys: Book I & II was a modern technical marvel at the time.
Hearing full hi-fi stereo anime rock and roll instead of chip tunes blew my mind back in the day.
The PC Engine's CPU is probably its strongest aspect, Hudson did a great job here. Going with a really fast 8-bit CPU makes much more sense than Nintendo's choice of going with a slow 16-bit CPU, especially when the screen is 256 pixels wide so most of the calculations a game would be doing are only 8 bits anyway. Even when you have to do 16-bit calculations, the SNES CPU still has an 8-bit data bus so it doesn't have much of an advantage over the PC Engine (all 16-bit operations take extra cycles compared to their 8-bit counterparts). In practice, fast action games like shooters play a lot more smoothly on the PC Engine than on the SNES. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the SNES CPU provides the option of running at ~3/4 speed if the publisher didn't want to pay for faster ROMs, so a lot of games have unnecessary slowdown because the publisher wanted to save 50 cents per cartridge.
Where the PC Engine ends up weaker is in the video processor. That generation of consoles was able to do more with the video hardware than previous generations (like the NES and Master System) due to faster RAM becoming available. The PC Engine used the additional bandwidth to make it possible for the CPU to access video memory while the screen is being drawn, while the SNES kept the restriction that you can only access video memory during vblank and instead used the additional bandwidth for more background layers. Being able to access video memory all the time is definitely a useful feature, but the result is that PC Engine games often look more flat than SNES games.
As someone who owns a SNES and a TG-16, I think I disagree. The TG-16 graphics really pop compared to the SNES.
The SNES can only render 256 simultaneous colours. The TG-16 could do twice that at 512. Its video processor was also full 16-bit.
I’m not sure where you’re getting that the video was the weakness of the TG-16. At the time, that was the Turbografx’s whole claim to fame in that it was superior graphically to the SNES.
Source: Old enough to remember the commercials and bought both consoles to compare like nerds did back then
The PC Engine could theoretically do more colours on screen (though things like colour math and mid-screen palette changes do complicate that a bit...), but only had 9-bit wide palette entries compared to the SFC's 15-bit colour depth, which allowed for a lot more subtlety and richness.
Remember that the PC Engine came out in 1987, over three years before the SFC did. That makes Nintendo's CPU decisions even more questionable, but also explains the huge gap in graphics hardware - not just more background layers, but also effects like transparency, scaling and rotation, and richer colours.