The SNES lasted a while in the market, and—almost uniquely among consoles—it ramped up in power over its lifetime by putting coprocessors like the SuperFX into game carts. By the end of its lifetime, the "system" of the SNES + a cart like Starfox, was much closer to the N64 than the base SNES, making the N64 much less of a shift than it seemed.
Interestingly, if you think of the PSX as descending from the SNES architecturally, it's nearly identical to the end-state of "SNES + SuperFX GSU-1", but with the one added feature of DMA-streamed block IO from the CD device. (Thus why the FF7 demo on the N64 used polygonal backgrounds, while on the PSX you get pre-rendered backgrounds. Each version plays to its console's strength. Makes you wonder what would have been possible in an alternate world where the N64 had a CD drive as well as its better polygon-pushing abilities.)
This also means that the PSX->PS2 likely represents the largest single-generation leap in power of any console: it was a catch-up from "basically a SNES" to modern-for-the-time hardware, representing a literal 10x jump in CPU and GPU power.
You're stretching it. The N64 was a beast even quite some time after introduction. I understand the point about SNES 3D ability blurring the line for the average consumer. But 1 minute into play and you'd understand the massive leap. I remember when Zelda 64 was released, a friend got all the latest PSX games (moto racer N, Tomb Raider 3, whatever).
We played Zelda a few minutes, but then switched to the PSX. We tried all games in a row less than 5 minutes each, they were disgusting in comparison. And these were mature sequels not launch lineup. When Zelda 64 was on screen we realized how much better everything was on the N64.
Comparing the N64 and PSX is painful on many levels, I've always found the polygon tearing effect on the PSX extremely distracting and off-putting visually. (This artifact is an apparent result a lack of floating point support[0])
However the massive size of disc based PSX games vs N64 carts yielded visual variety that we just didn't get on the N64.
Not to mention the music, although N64 Tetrisphere's amazing music by Neil Voss was actually implemented as an interpreted mod track composed in FastTracker complete with samples. Such a good game.
It's not tearing, it's called affine swim, and on PC is a tell tale sign of a software renderer. Overall the N64 was ok (I had one). The PS2 was so much better though, there was just a way better variety of good games. N64 kind of sucked if you didn't want to play Goldeneye, Zelda or Super Mario 64 clones.
Also, Tetrisphere! There is a game I had forgotten about. It was so good!
> It's not tearing, it's called affine swim, and on PC is a tell tale sign of a software renderer.
I've never hear the term "affine swim" before. Is it an artifact in rasterization (leaving gaps between triangles) or texturing (the term "affine" suggests that)?
For the rasterization, I've heard the term "watertight rasterization" (or airtight?) being used for a gapless rasterizer. It's not necessarily a software vs. hardware render issue, you can implement a watertight software rasterizer (of course) but I guess in the 1990s this was a performance vs. fidelity issue. And even with early 3d accelerators, the vertex processing was still done in the CPU.
Yeah there was no floating point for a while on consoles. I remember spending a week or two making a renderer that subdivided geometry so the textures would tear less. It was more expensive so had to be done based on view distance.
He is completely wrong and must be confusing PS1 with the unreleased add-on, which would make more sense. The Nintendo Playstation is not much more than an SNES with a CD-ROM drive and some extra memory:
He is probably too young to have grown up with a PS1. I believe reading at the time that Sony poured close to $1bn into developing the PS1 hardware. This made sense-- the Sony brand then was what Apple is now, and this was their first full foray into the games industry.
If you compare Star Fox running at 15fps on a SuperFX chip w/ untextured polys to Gran Turismo 2 running at 30fps, you will see why OP is spewing clueless garbage. The PS1 was a monster for its time. It blew away the hardware of Saturn and 3DO, when it came to 3D at least. 3D acceleration was new, and even PC gamers were jealous of what the PS1 had to offer at launch. And arguably it was not even dethroned by the N64 a year later.
I think the argument is still worth hearing, even if it's off your lawn. I mean, I also think it can't possibly be right but it can probably be sorted out without getting into a 'you were too young' pee-fest.
According to Square programmers about the power of PSX vs N64, (source from the recent excellent article about Final Fantasy 7: http://www.polygon.com/a/final-fantasy-7)
"I kind of had a suspicion that things weren’t going too well for the 64 at that point, because … one of my responsibilities … was to write performance applications that compared how well the 64 fared against the prototype [PlayStation]. And we’d be running parallel comparisons between the [PlayStation] where you’d have a bunch of 2D sprites bouncing off the screen and see how many polygons you could get within a 60th of a second. And even without any kind of texturing or any kind of lighting, it was less than 50% of what you would be able to get out of the [PlayStation]. Of course, the drawback of the [PlayStation] is it didn’t really have a z-buffer, so you’d have these overlapping polygons that you’d have to work around so that you wouldn’t get the shimmering [look]. But on the other hand, there was no way you’d be able to get anything close to what FF7 was doing [on PlayStation] on the 64 at that time."
So, at least according to the square programmers the PSX was more powerful when it came to raw polygon processing power. Of course N64 was doing much more with it's hardware, and also having a Z-buffer for real depth information, so these numbers are not really directly comparable.
I wouldn't call that 'ridiculously far'—it's "only" a 3x difference ;) The SuperFX GSU-1 clocked at 21MHz; the N64's RCP is 62.5MHz. (There's also an order-of-magnitude CPU power differential, but Mario 64 didn't use the CPU for much anyway.)
Now, given that the SuperFX's lifetime was short and its capabilities were likely never fully explored/exploited in that lifetime; and given that the SNES's on-cart coprocessors could completely override the console processor and just bang bits onto the video-output lines themselves (like the Super Gameboy does!); and given that the only thing stopping devs from sticking even more powerful chips into carts was cost (and even then, some producers just didn't care, and stuck ridiculous ARM7 cores into games like Megaman X3 for no useful reason at all...), I really do believe you would have seen something very much like Mario 64 for the SNES if it had lived just one more year.
(Heck, I bet that we know enough about the hardware today that someone from the demoscene could pull off a Mario-64-alike on a cycle-accurate SNES (with SuperFX) emulator. That'd be a fun competition.)
>" The SuperFX GSU-1 clocked at 21MHz; the N64's RCP is 62.5MHz."
You can't compare clock speeds in that way and get an accurate picture on performance. If you could, then a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 would be faster than a 2.8 GHz Kaby Lake Core i7.
To give a better (but still not completely accurate) idea of how far apart the SNES and N64 were in power, look at the difference in MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second) in just their CPUs:
Exactly. OP's misinformation is making my head hurt. If you were alive at the time instead of playing emulators on your PC now, you'd have no doubt the N64 was a huge leap.
And how could it not be? The two systems were released 6 years apart (if you count SNES in Japan 1990), back when Moore's law was in full effect.
Right, you added a bunch of interesting details (thanks!) to your post after I glibly replied but I'm still not entirely convinced the SuperFX carts really count. It's a bit like saying your Apple ][ was just like a Mac because you could shove a 68020 card into it.
The SNES was a 3.5 MHz 16 bitter. The n64 was a 3d-capable machine with a 100ish MHz R4k, the RCP, an analog controller, etc, in the box. The advance just seems enormous (matching similar advances in personal computers in the same timeframe). If I'm understanding you right, you're making a case the advance was maybe not as discontinuous. But the scale of it still seems qualitatively greater than any of the subsequent ones, to me.
Well, yeah but that's handheld vs console, etc. Then we'd get into even sillier comparisons of nintendo card games vs mechanical games vs electronic games. In the console space, SNES->N64 seems like the bigger jump qualitative jump to me. You can do 3d, vs you can't.
