TOUKO wrote:
So with the same RAM/ROM and a 1 phase 65816 you can go up to 5mhz in the snes without any design change like hudson did.
So the PCE uses 7MHz RAM? I don't think I'm understanding this correctly...
TOUKO wrote:
You're right but there is not much MD that accept this frequency,but you can find all superCPU for C64 which are all 65816 @14mhz overclocked to 20mhz, close to 50% more .The 65816 was by himself very oveclocable, but not in the snes.
That's what I was wondering. They'd probably be one of the most powerful chips used in an embedded system, assuming "fast" ram chips are available for this use. (65816's are still being produced, if I'm not mistaken). Then again, I can't think of a single appliance or whatnot that couldn't get by with a 1MHz Z80.

Stef wrote:
In fact ROM cost was the big deal here (not only the RAM).
I know I complain about the SNES a lot, but I really don't know what Nintendo was thinking when they decided they needed a whopping 128KB of RAM, but that it could be slower than the CPU. What do you think it would have cost comparatively for Nintendo to have used 64KB of RAM at 3.58MHz?
Stef wrote:
(higher bandwidth / higher ALU rate with 32/16 bits)
The majority of 16 bit instructions on the 65816 only use on extra cycle; the ones that use two are basically all bit shift operations. I don't think x or y being 16 bit makes a difference either, unless you're moving data in and out of them, in which case it's one extra cycle. As such, I didn't find any instructions where there is an extra speed penalty for both a 16 bit accumulator and a 16 bit x and y. (I'm of course basing what I've said of this:
https://wiki.superfamicom.org/65816-reference) The 68000 is always going to be significantly better at 32 bit operations other than just moving data, unless you push the 65816 to well over half the frequency of the 68000.
psycopathicteen wrote:
They mean purposely flip flopping the definition of "sprites" back and forth for the sake of disagreeing.
Are you sure it's not that they didn't know the difference?

tepples wrote:
SMWCentral users think the limits of the SMW engine are the limits of the Super NES because no comparable engine is available to them.
I can think of 100 games on the SNES that couldn't work on that shitty engine without a complete rewrite.