Did Nintendo change its mind about 68000 SNES?Did all NES “Black Box” games come in carts with five screws?Why did so many early microcomputers use the MOS 6502 and variants?Why did Nintendo change their copyright title between Donkey Kong Set 1 and 2?What technological factors drove the rise of “high-speed” modems in the early 1990s?Apple II GS versus Mac Plus costManufacturing cost breakdown for a 16-bit computerHow does the SNES (Super Nintendo) calculate the address of a character?Were 64k RAM chips $5 in 1981?Was 1991's Hellcats the first instance of incremental screen updates?Is the NES controller port identical to the port on a Wii remote?
Does fire aspect on a sword, destroy mob drops?
Friend wants my recommendation but I don't want to
Unfrosted light bulb
Determine voltage drop over 10G resistors with cheap multimeter
Fair way to split coins
Print last inputted byte
Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?
label a part of commutative diagram
Why is "la Gestapo" feminine?
Weird lines in Microsoft Word
Output visual diagram of picture
Is xar preinstalled on macOS?
DisplayForm problem with pi in FractionBox
Pre-Employment Background Check With Consent For Future Checks
Should I be concerned about student access to a test bank?
Hackerrank All Women's Codesprint 2019: Name the Product
How to balance a monster modification (zombie)?
If I cast the Enlarge/Reduce spell on an arrow, what weapon could it count as?
What is 管理しきれず?
Imaginary part of expression too difficult to calculate
Which partition to make active?
What (if any) is the reason to buy in small local stores?
Hot air balloons as primitive bombers
Air travel with refrigerated insulin
Did Nintendo change its mind about 68000 SNES?
Did all NES “Black Box” games come in carts with five screws?Why did so many early microcomputers use the MOS 6502 and variants?Why did Nintendo change their copyright title between Donkey Kong Set 1 and 2?What technological factors drove the rise of “high-speed” modems in the early 1990s?Apple II GS versus Mac Plus costManufacturing cost breakdown for a 16-bit computerHow does the SNES (Super Nintendo) calculate the address of a character?Were 64k RAM chips $5 in 1981?Was 1991's Hellcats the first instance of incremental screen updates?Is the NES controller port identical to the port on a Wii remote?
Compared to its main rival from Sega, the Super Nintendo has a weaker CPU but a more powerful graphics chip.
According to http://web.archive.org/web/20080505070423/http://www.eidolons-inn.net/tiki-index.php?page=SegaBase+Genesis
The system as originally designed was way too expensive to be produced in a version affordable for the average consumer, let alone cost-effective for Nintendo. On top of that, project leader Masayuki Uemura was unable to meet Yamauchi's demand that the new box be back-compatible with the NES. The back-compatability feature was eventually abandoned; however, that only saved about US$75 on the anticipated end-user price tag. The chief culprit of the cost was, of course, the all-new graphics and sound processing suite upon which Yamauchi insisted. Designed in anticipation of the coming multimedia boom, it drove up the cost of the system so much that Nintendo was again forced to cut costs elsewhere or scrap it and risk being left behind. The problem was eventually solved by installing a slower CPU - a Motorola-based WDC65816 CPU - instead of the faster 10 Mhz MC68000 that Uemura originally intended. This meant that the new box would not be that much faster than the NES itself, so a math coprocessor (as cheap as Nintendo could cobble together) was thrown in to ease the processing strain a bit.
Okay, I'm not surprised they contemplated making the machine backward-compatible. I could imagine that motivating the choice of a 6502-derived CPU. I could imagine the backward compatibility feature being eventually dropped to save cost, and someone deciding it wasn't worth redesigning with a different CPU at that late stage.
But I am very surprised by the claim that an originally planned 68000 was dropped for cost reasons, simply because by the end of the eighties, the 68000 only cost a few dollars anyway. E.g. Byte, December 1988, advertises it for $9.95, and that's retail price in quantity one; in quantities of millions, the unit price would've been considerably less. (It doesn't give a price for the 65816, but does advertise the 65C02 for $7.95.) The data bus would be sixteen bits either way, so the impact on system cost would seem to be essentially zero.
Did Nintendo really change their mind about using the 68000? If so, how does this square with that CPU being so cheap even two years before the launch of the new console?
history nintendo snes motorola-68000
asked 7 hours ago
rwallacerwallace
9,679449143
add a comment |
Compared to its main rival from Sega, the Super Nintendo has a weaker CPU but a more powerful graphics chip.
According to http://web.archive.org/web/20080505070423/http://www.eidolons-inn.net/tiki-index.php?page=SegaBase+Genesis
The system as originally designed was way too expensive to be produced in a version affordable for the average consumer, let alone cost-effective for Nintendo. On top of that, project leader Masayuki Uemura was unable to meet Yamauchi's demand that the new box be back-compatible with the NES. The back-compatability feature was eventually abandoned; however, that only saved about US$75 on the anticipated end-user price tag. The chief culprit of the cost was, of course, the all-new graphics and sound processing suite upon which Yamauchi insisted. Designed in anticipation of the coming multimedia boom, it drove up the cost of the system so much that Nintendo was again forced to cut costs elsewhere or scrap it and risk being left behind. The problem was eventually solved by installing a slower CPU - a Motorola-based WDC65816 CPU - instead of the faster 10 Mhz MC68000 that Uemura originally intended. This meant that the new box would not be that much faster than the NES itself, so a math coprocessor (as cheap as Nintendo could cobble together) was thrown in to ease the processing strain a bit.
Okay, I'm not surprised they contemplated making the machine backward-compatible. I could imagine that motivating the choice of a 6502-derived CPU. I could imagine the backward compatibility feature being eventually dropped to save cost, and someone deciding it wasn't worth redesigning with a different CPU at that late stage.
But I am very surprised by the claim that an originally planned 68000 was dropped for cost reasons, simply because by the end of the eighties, the 68000 only cost a few dollars anyway. E.g. Byte, December 1988, advertises it for $9.95, and that's retail price in quantity one; in quantities of millions, the unit price would've been considerably less. (It doesn't give a price for the 65816, but does advertise the 65C02 for $7.95.) The data bus would be sixteen bits either way, so the impact on system cost would seem to be essentially zero.
Did Nintendo really change their mind about using the 68000? If so, how does this square with that CPU being so cheap even two years before the launch of the new console?
history nintendo snes motorola-68000
asked 7 hours ago
rwallacerwallace
9,679449143
1
The 65816 is also backwards compatible with the 6502, which allowed developers to leverage experience and tools designed for the NES. And the 65816 is faster at accessing memory and registers than the 68000 at the same clock speed. But who's to say which was the deciding factor? This question may not be answerable.
– traal
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Compared to its main rival from Sega, the Super Nintendo has a weaker CPU but a more powerful graphics chip.
According to http://web.archive.org/web/20080505070423/http://www.eidolons-inn.net/tiki-index.php?page=SegaBase+Genesis
The system as originally designed was way too expensive to be produced in a version affordable for the average consumer, let alone cost-effective for Nintendo. On top of that, project leader Masayuki Uemura was unable to meet Yamauchi's demand that the new box be back-compatible with the NES. The back-compatability feature was eventually abandoned; however, that only saved about US$75 on the anticipated end-user price tag. The chief culprit of the cost was, of course, the all-new graphics and sound processing suite upon which Yamauchi insisted. Designed in anticipation of the coming multimedia boom, it drove up the cost of the system so much that Nintendo was again forced to cut costs elsewhere or scrap it and risk being left behind. The problem was eventually solved by installing a slower CPU - a Motorola-based WDC65816 CPU - instead of the faster 10 Mhz MC68000 that Uemura originally intended. This meant that the new box would not be that much faster than the NES itself, so a math coprocessor (as cheap as Nintendo could cobble together) was thrown in to ease the processing strain a bit.
Okay, I'm not surprised they contemplated making the machine backward-compatible. I could imagine that motivating the choice of a 6502-derived CPU. I could imagine the backward compatibility feature being eventually dropped to save cost, and someone deciding it wasn't worth redesigning with a different CPU at that late stage.
But I am very surprised by the claim that an originally planned 68000 was dropped for cost reasons, simply because by the end of the eighties, the 68000 only cost a few dollars anyway. E.g. Byte, December 1988, advertises it for $9.95, and that's retail price in quantity one; in quantities of millions, the unit price would've been considerably less. (It doesn't give a price for the 65816, but does advertise the 65C02 for $7.95.) The data bus would be sixteen bits either way, so the impact on system cost would seem to be essentially zero.
Did Nintendo really change their mind about using the 68000? If so, how does this square with that CPU being so cheap even two years before the launch of the new console?
history nintendo snes motorola-68000
asked 7 hours ago
rwallacerwallace
9,679449143
Compared to its main rival from Sega, the Super Nintendo has a weaker CPU but a more powerful graphics chip.
According to http://web.archive.org/web/20080505070423/http://www.eidolons-inn.net/tiki-index.php?page=SegaBase+Genesis
The system as originally designed was way too expensive to be produced in a version affordable for the average consumer, let alone cost-effective for Nintendo. On top of that, project leader Masayuki Uemura was unable to meet Yamauchi's demand that the new box be back-compatible with the NES. The back-compatability feature was eventually abandoned; however, that only saved about US$75 on the anticipated end-user price tag. The chief culprit of the cost was, of course, the all-new graphics and sound processing suite upon which Yamauchi insisted. Designed in anticipation of the coming multimedia boom, it drove up the cost of the system so much that Nintendo was again forced to cut costs elsewhere or scrap it and risk being left behind. The problem was eventually solved by installing a slower CPU - a Motorola-based WDC65816 CPU - instead of the faster 10 Mhz MC68000 that Uemura originally intended. This meant that the new box would not be that much faster than the NES itself, so a math coprocessor (as cheap as Nintendo could cobble together) was thrown in to ease the processing strain a bit.
Okay, I'm not surprised they contemplated making the machine backward-compatible. I could imagine that motivating the choice of a 6502-derived CPU. I could imagine the backward compatibility feature being eventually dropped to save cost, and someone deciding it wasn't worth redesigning with a different CPU at that late stage.
But I am very surprised by the claim that an originally planned 68000 was dropped for cost reasons, simply because by the end of the eighties, the 68000 only cost a few dollars anyway. E.g. Byte, December 1988, advertises it for $9.95, and that's retail price in quantity one; in quantities of millions, the unit price would've been considerably less. (It doesn't give a price for the 65816, but does advertise the 65C02 for $7.95.) The data bus would be sixteen bits either way, so the impact on system cost would seem to be essentially zero.
Did Nintendo really change their mind about using the 68000? If so, how does this square with that CPU being so cheap even two years before the launch of the new console?
history nintendo snes motorola-68000
history nintendo snes motorola-68000
asked 7 hours ago
rwallacerwallace
9,679449143
asked 7 hours ago
rwallacerwallace
9,679449143
asked 7 hours ago
rwallacerwallace
9,679449143
asked 7 hours ago
rwallacerwallace
9,679449143
asked 7 hours ago
rwallacerwallace
9,679449143
9,679449143
1
The 65816 is also backwards compatible with the 6502, which allowed developers to leverage experience and tools designed for the NES. And the 65816 is faster at accessing memory and registers than the 68000 at the same clock speed. But who's to say which was the deciding factor? This question may not be answerable.
– traal
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1
The 65816 is also backwards compatible with the 6502, which allowed developers to leverage experience and tools designed for the NES. And the 65816 is faster at accessing memory and registers than the 68000 at the same clock speed. But who's to say which was the deciding factor? This question may not be answerable.
– traal
6 hours ago
1
1
The 65816 is also backwards compatible with the 6502, which allowed developers to leverage experience and tools designed for the NES. And the 65816 is faster at accessing memory and registers than the 68000 at the same clock speed. But who's to say which was the deciding factor? This question may not be answerable.
– traal
6 hours ago
The 65816 is also backwards compatible with the 6502, which allowed developers to leverage experience and tools designed for the NES. And the 65816 is faster at accessing memory and registers than the 68000 at the same clock speed. But who's to say which was the deciding factor? This question may not be answerable.
– traal
6 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Did Nintendo really change their mind about using the 68000?
Hard to say, as these decisions where never public.
If so, how does this square with that CPU being so cheap even two years before the launch of the new console?
Because the price of the CPU dropped to almost zero when using the 65816 as IP. After all, they didn't use the stock CPU, but had their own chip done. The 5A22 was custom made for the SNES and integrated several additional components that would have been external to the 68k. Having one simple chip instead of a spaceous 68k plus external logic is a great cost saver - especially when planing for a large production. Being a more simple CPU it also saved on chips space and thus again cost.
While contemporary sales prices are always a good first step, they also need to apply to for the situation in question to become more than a hint.
answered 7 hours ago
RaffzahnRaffzahn
53.1k6127214
2
Yep, the original 68000 came in a humungous 0.9" DIP package and required (as was common at the time) quite a lot of external bits.
– Rich
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9373%2fdid-nintendo-change-its-mind-about-68000-snes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Did Nintendo really change their mind about using the 68000?
Hard to say, as these decisions where never public.
If so, how does this square with that CPU being so cheap even two years before the launch of the new console?
Because the price of the CPU dropped to almost zero when using the 65816 as IP. After all, they didn't use the stock CPU, but had their own chip done. The 5A22 was custom made for the SNES and integrated several additional components that would have been external to the 68k. Having one simple chip instead of a spaceous 68k plus external logic is a great cost saver - especially when planing for a large production. Being a more simple CPU it also saved on chips space and thus again cost.
While contemporary sales prices are always a good first step, they also need to apply to for the situation in question to become more than a hint.
answered 7 hours ago
RaffzahnRaffzahn
53.1k6127214
2
Yep, the original 68000 came in a humungous 0.9" DIP package and required (as was common at the time) quite a lot of external bits.
– Rich
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Did Nintendo really change their mind about using the 68000?
Hard to say, as these decisions where never public.
If so, how does this square with that CPU being so cheap even two years before the launch of the new console?
Because the price of the CPU dropped to almost zero when using the 65816 as IP. After all, they didn't use the stock CPU, but had their own chip done. The 5A22 was custom made for the SNES and integrated several additional components that would have been external to the 68k. Having one simple chip instead of a spaceous 68k plus external logic is a great cost saver - especially when planing for a large production. Being a more simple CPU it also saved on chips space and thus again cost.
While contemporary sales prices are always a good first step, they also need to apply to for the situation in question to become more than a hint.
answered 7 hours ago
RaffzahnRaffzahn
53.1k6127214
2
Yep, the original 68000 came in a humungous 0.9" DIP package and required (as was common at the time) quite a lot of external bits.
– Rich
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Did Nintendo really change their mind about using the 68000?
Hard to say, as these decisions where never public.
If so, how does this square with that CPU being so cheap even two years before the launch of the new console?
Because the price of the CPU dropped to almost zero when using the 65816 as IP. After all, they didn't use the stock CPU, but had their own chip done. The 5A22 was custom made for the SNES and integrated several additional components that would have been external to the 68k. Having one simple chip instead of a spaceous 68k plus external logic is a great cost saver - especially when planing for a large production. Being a more simple CPU it also saved on chips space and thus again cost.
While contemporary sales prices are always a good first step, they also need to apply to for the situation in question to become more than a hint.
answered 7 hours ago
RaffzahnRaffzahn
53.1k6127214
Did Nintendo really change their mind about using the 68000?
Hard to say, as these decisions where never public.
If so, how does this square with that CPU being so cheap even two years before the launch of the new console?
Because the price of the CPU dropped to almost zero when using the 65816 as IP. After all, they didn't use the stock CPU, but had their own chip done. The 5A22 was custom made for the SNES and integrated several additional components that would have been external to the 68k. Having one simple chip instead of a spaceous 68k plus external logic is a great cost saver - especially when planing for a large production. Being a more simple CPU it also saved on chips space and thus again cost.
While contemporary sales prices are always a good first step, they also need to apply to for the situation in question to become more than a hint.
answered 7 hours ago
RaffzahnRaffzahn
53.1k6127214
edited 6 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
RaffzahnRaffzahn
53.1k6127214
answered 7 hours ago
RaffzahnRaffzahn
53.1k6127214
answered 7 hours ago
RaffzahnRaffzahn
53.1k6127214
53.1k6127214
2
Yep, the original 68000 came in a humungous 0.9" DIP package and required (as was common at the time) quite a lot of external bits.
– Rich
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Yep, the original 68000 came in a humungous 0.9" DIP package and required (as was common at the time) quite a lot of external bits.
– Rich
4 hours ago
2
2
Yep, the original 68000 came in a humungous 0.9" DIP package and required (as was common at the time) quite a lot of external bits.
– Rich
4 hours ago
Yep, the original 68000 came in a humungous 0.9" DIP package and required (as was common at the time) quite a lot of external bits.
– Rich
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9373%2fdid-nintendo-change-its-mind-about-68000-snes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
The 65816 is also backwards compatible with the 6502, which allowed developers to leverage experience and tools designed for the NES. And the 65816 is faster at accessing memory and registers than the 68000 at the same clock speed. But who's to say which was the deciding factor? This question may not be answerable.
– traal
6 hours ago