How does the Atari Lynx's hardware compare to the Genesis's?

[Da_Shocker]

Lynx

Technical specifications

* MOS 65SC02 processor running at up to 4 MHz (~3.6 MHz average)
o 8-bit CPU, 16-bit address space
o Sound engine
+ 4 channel sound (Lynx II with panning)
+ 8-bit DAC for each channel (4 channels × 8-bits/channel = 32 bits commonly quoted)
o Video DMA driver for liquid-crystal display
+ 4,096 color (12-bit) palette
+ 16 simultaneous colors (4 bits) from palette per scanline (more than 16 colors can be displayed by changing palettes after each scanline)
o 8 System timers (2 reserved for LCD timing, one for UART)
o Interrupt controller
o UART (for ComLynx) (fixed format 8E1, up to 62500Bd)
o 512 bytes of bootstrap and game-card loading ROM
* Suzy (16-bit custom CMOS chip running at 16 MHz)
o Graphics engine
+ Hardware drawing support
+ Unlimited number of high-speed sprites with collision detection
+ Hardware high-speed sprite scaling, distortion, and tilting effects
+ Hardware decoding of compressed sprite data
+ Hardware clipping and multi-directional scrolling
+ Variable frame rate (up to 75 frames/second)
+ 160 x 102 standard resolution (16,320 addressable pixels)
o Math co-processor
+ Hardware 16-bit × 16-bit → 32-bit multiply with optional accumulation; 32-bit ÷ 16-bit → 16-bit divide
+ Parallel processing of CPU and a single multiply or a divide instruction
* RAM: 64 KB 120ns DRAM
* Storage: Cartridge - 128, 256 and 512 KB exist, up to 2 MB is possible with bank-switching logic.

Some (homebrew) carts with EEPROM to save hi-scores.

* Ports:
o Headphone port (3.5 mm stereo; wired for mono on the original Lynx)
o ComLynx (multiple unit communications, serial)
* LCD Screen: 3.5" diagonal
* Battery holder (six AA) ~4-5 hours

[Joe Redifer]

Well, the Lynx has more colors and hardware scaling and seems pretty zippy, but that doesn't hide the fact that all Lynx graphics look horribly blocky and ugly. I'd rather look at Genesis graphics.

[Black_Tiger]

The SMS and Game Gear are much closer to the Genesis. What good are tricks or even horsepower if everything is strained through such a low resolution and uses such limited color (games look like they have 16 colors per screen)? Plus the sound is about SMS quality.

[tomaitheous]

The res is painfully low. The original GB looks better IMO. And only 16 colors natively (scanline updates don't mean much in realworld design unless you're all about that vertical gradient look). Somehow reminds me of the ST display paired with a nice blitter system (which it should have had from the beginning, but that's a different topic). How could they *not* use a palette index system with tiles (and sprites) like lots of consoles were already doing?

Sound, iirc, was basically POKEY minus any filters and the DACs extended to 8bit instead of 4bit. I'm sure the frequency/period dividers were better than POKEY too (i.e. don't have to pair channels to get a decent frequency range).

[MN12BIRD]

16 colors per scan line is better than zero colors on the Game Boy and Game Gear witch hadn't even been thought up yet. The Lynx was a powerful machine for 1989 standards and the fact it was a hand held puts Atari over the top for being so insane. The scaling hardware makes for some great eye candy in Blue Lightning and the math co processors polygon pushing power makes for a true 3D flight sim (War Birds) that actually runs smooth.... on a hand held... from 1989!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMTF6OVsvxg

Machine deserves the utmost respect IMHO.

Granted the sound does suck, and the battery life, and the 3rd party support, oh gezz and it was big enough to surf on! Hardly practical! But impressive none the less.

[kool kitty89]

The vertical resolution is lower than the Gamboy/Game Gear, though the hoizontal is the same. The master palette is the same for both (both 4,096 colors -12-bit palette) but the GG (and SMS) can display 32-colors (in 2 seperate 4-bit/16-color palettes), while the Lynx has a single 16-color palette.

The video hardware is a bit different on the Lynx compared to contemporary consoles, I beleive using a bitmapped display along with framebuffers. (hence part of the resolution limit- higher resolutions require too much memory for the buffers. Plus it has scaling, rotation, and polygon rendering capabilities, granted they're rather limited. (and aided by the low resolution)

The actual screen size is slightly wider and quality (brighness and motion blur) is a bit better than the GG (and GB).

The audio is generally better than the GG/SMS's simple PSG, and more flexible than the Gameboy's, but at the same time limited. As I understand it, the sound generating capabiities are similar to the way the Atari TIA and POKEY sound chips work and similar in some ways to the PCE/TG-16 as well, and also has access to the 4 8-bit DAC's to allow sapmple playback. (though I think the CPU has to handle this)

The CPU should be quite a bit more powerful than the GG or GB's (which are both very similr, as a Z80 and derivative, with the GB's slightly faster), while being a similar speed (at 3.6-4 MHz vs 3.58/~4.19 MHz), theLynx's 65C02 is about 2x as clock efficient as the Z80, hence why the NES's CPu is similar in power to the SMS's despite bing 1/2 the clock speed.

See: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=144632&st=25


The Lynx's audio actually is somewhat similar in structure to the TIA and POKEY. Each of the four channels is composed of a down counter, polynomial counter, waveform generator, and DAC. The heart of everything is in the polynomial counter, which allows you to (cheaply) make a wide variety of waveforms instead of just square waves. So the sound programmer can easily use square, saw (ish), triangle (ish), and noise waveforms with varying duty cycle and "accuracy." The strength of the Lynx audio is that you have all of this waveform variety, but the hardware has no volume or pitch sweeps built into it, so you must do complex envelopes in software (Which isn't too big a deal, the PC Engine is in a similar situation, albeit with much greater capability per channel). You can also shut off the audio hardware for any of the four channels and write directly to the DAC(s) for sample playback, but this of course takes some CPU time.

Compared to the GameBoy, the Lynx's audio hardware has a few strengths, most notably the DAC access, but the GameBoy's structure is extremely good for music. Hardware sweeps, variable duty-cycle square waves, and even a small sample playback system (PC Engine style). The GameBoy really is a fantastic design. The Game Gear, honestly, has some of the most boring audio hardware I've ever seen. You have to be really creative to get good tunes out of it.




Edit:
MN12BIRD, that's generally true (though the GG hardware was already around as the Master System, albeit with a much smaller -64-color- master palette and higher resolution), but that compilation video you show is with emulation and is often much smoother than RL hardware, as some of the comments mention.

ANd technically speaking (in terms of the video processor) the Gameboy is capable of displaying 4 colors (shades), though with the monochrome screen it's only showing 4-shades of green (or gray on the GBP), not to mention a 4-golor display won't really look better than a 4-shade monochrome one. (in fact they often tend to look worse)

[MN12BIRD]

I should mention if I was stranded on a desert island and could only take either an original GB, GG or Lynx I'd take the GG. Its the perfect compromise as I see it. The GB has the most top rated games, the Lynx has hardly any. The GG has lots of good games. Not as many as the GB but more than enough and its in color! Plus it has a TV tuner and here in Canada its still useful!

[sketch]

The res is painfully low. The original GB looks better IMO. And only 16 colors natively (scanline updates don't mean much in realworld design unless you're all about that vertical gradient look). Somehow reminds me of the ST display paired with a nice blitter system (which it should have had from the beginning, but that's a different topic). How could they *not* use a palette index system with tiles (and sprites) like lots of consoles were already doing?

Sound, iirc, was basically POKEY minus any filters and the DACs extended to 8bit instead of 4bit. I'm sure the frequency/period dividers were better than POKEY too (i.e. don't have to pair channels to get a decent frequency range).

Okay, being an original Lynx owner (purchased in 1990, brand new), I have to defend it. Compared to the Genesis? No comparison. The Genesis is much more powerful, and yes, the low res screen keeps it from approaching the Genny's graphics.

But the original Gameboy?!? The Lynx kicks its ASS hands down. I'm not sure how many Lynx games you've seen, but games like Xenophobe, Zarlor Mercenary, and Todd's Adventure in Slimeworld are so far above a GB's graphics, I don't even know where to begin.

The low definition screen does have shortcomings, but there are some good looking games for it, and compared to its contemporaries, it stands up with the best of the (i.e. handhelds).

[Joe Redifer]

Why do people think the Lynx has rotation? It sure doesn't look like it to me. No game used it if it was available, however lots of games use the scaling. Why use one all the time but never the other? Now before you go crying "Look at Warbirds the clouds rotate so stfu!!". Yes, the clouds rotate, but I do not believe that is hardware rotation at all. Hell, not even software rotation. Look at the clouds as they rotate. They are redrawn as they do. The detail changes, just like sprites do on the Genesis in Space Harrier 2 as they get closer to you, just done on rotation instead of scaling. Look at MN12Bird's video. Just be sure to skip the waaaaay too long intro and text at the beginning.

These same people think the Neo Geo has rotation built in, too.

[Black_Tiger]

16 colors per scan line is better than zero colors on the Game Boy and Game Gear witch hadn't even been thought up yet. The Lynx was a powerful machine for 1989 standards and the fact it was a hand held puts Atari over the top for being so insane. The scaling hardware makes for some great eye candy in Blue Lightning and the math co processors polygon pushing power makes for a true 3D flight sim (War Birds) that actually runs smooth.... on a hand held... from 1989!


The Lynx may have been a powerful machine by 1989 (portable) standards, but months later in 1990 the PC Engine GT was released. ;)

It is a neat system, but in practical terms the Genesis blows it away and I'm sure that most people would prefer the SMS and its games (or the Game Gear or Nomad).

[MN12BIRD]

Yeah the clouds rotation is super jumpy. I think people might just assume hardware scaling and rotation go hand in hand but that's not always the case!

Yeah my intro used to be stupid long. Its not anymore my new one is short. Funny thing is when I changed it everyone started to complain! Gezz even I knew it was WAY to long!

[sketch]

The Lynx may have been a powerful machine by 1989 (portable) standards, but months later in 1990 the PC Engine GT was released. ;)

It is a neat system, but in practical terms the Genesis blows it away and I'm sure that most people would prefer the SMS and its games (or the Game Gear or Nomad).

Well, if you're talking affordable portables:) The PC Engine GT was $400 (that's serious scratch, esp. considering it's 1990 dollars - hell, people are already complaining about $250 2009 dollars for a PSP Go). The Lynx was $100.

I'd take the Lynx over the SMS any day. The controller feels better, and the game library is unique, with a lot of good Atari retro titles (like Ms. Pac Man, Gauntlet, Joust, Roadblasters, etc.).

I liked the Turbo Express, but it did have its shorcomings as well. The screen, though active matrix, is SMALL, making it unplayable for some games. Games for the Lynx was programmed and designed for the Lynx.

[Black_Tiger]

Yeah the clouds rotation is super jumpy. I think people might just assume hardware scaling and rotation go hand in hand but that's not always the case!

"Scaling" and "Rotation" seemed to catch on as mainstream buzz words and concepts after the SNES was released. Except that the media always used the single term "Scaling and Rotation" or "Mode 7" to describe pretty much any graphic warping trick in 2D'ish games.

[MN12BIRD]

The Turbo Express/PCE GT had such an amazing active matrix LCD screen for its time. I was so amazed the first time I saw one how crisp it was and it doesn't blur at all with motion like the Game Gear or LYNX screens did. But yeah it was insanely expensive! How did anyone afford that thing back then?

[sketch]

"Scaling" and "Rotation" seemed to catch on as mainstream buzz words and concepts after the SNES was released. Except that the media always used the single term "Scaling and Rotation" or "Mode 7" to describe pretty much any graphic warping trick in 2D'ish games.

I'm not technically oriented, but you can tell that scaling was a hardware function. It's used a ton in games and it does work seamlessly and smoothly. The rotation does seem choppy in most games, which leads me to believe that, yes, rotation as a feature is a bogus claim.

[sketch]

The Turbo Express/PCE GT had such an amazing active matrix LCD screen for its time. I was so amazed the first time I saw one how crisp it was and it doesn't blur at all with motion like the Game Gear or LYNX screens did. But yeah it was insanely expensive! How did anyone afford that thing back then?

It was the Rolls Royce of handhelds:) Active matrix screens were cutting edge back then. They really shot themselves in the foot by including that, and thereby ensuring no one of gaming age could afford one.

[Rusty Venture]

INFLATION CALCULATOR.....ENERGIZE!


$400 in 1990 = $651 in 2008 monies

$100 in 1990 = $163 in 2008 monies

The Sega Genesis, in 1990, at a price of $189.99 = $309 in 2008 monies.

Makes the price of the PS3 not look quite so bad.

[sketch]

INFLATION CALCULATOR.....ENERGIZE!


$400 in 1990 = $651 in 2008 monies

$100 in 1990 = $163 in 2008 monies

The Sega Genesis, in 1990, at a price of $189.99 = $309 in 2008 monies.

Makes the price of the PS3 not look quite so bad.

Can you imagine paying $650 for a handheld?

[Rusty Venture]

For $650, I'd buy a computer instead.

[Black_Tiger]

Well, if you're talking affordable portables:) The PC Engine GT was $400 (that's serious scratch, esp. considering it's 1990 dollars - hell, people are already complaining about $250 2009 dollars for a PSP Go). The Lynx was $100.

The Lynx was more like $200. The PCE GT/TE is still a much better value even at launch prices. But if retail price is the standard used to judge these systems, then yes the Lynx does crush the Genesis.





I'd take the Lynx over the SMS any day. The controller feels better, and the game library is unique, with a lot of good Atari retro titles (like Ms. Pac Man, Gauntlet, Joust, Roadblasters, etc.).

Like I said, you'd be in the minority. There are multiple controllers for the SMS, including the 6-button Genesis pad. There are many more unique SMS games, as well as lots of retro Atari titles (like Ms. Pac Man, Gauntlet, Centipede, Breakout, Missile Command, etc).




I liked the Turbo Express, but it did have its shorcomings as well. The screen, though active matrix, is SMALL, making it unplayable for some games. Games for the Lynx was programmed and designed for the Lynx.

The only reason some TE games might be unplayable for some people is because they were designed for a real TV and are detailed. But having a TE early on and most HuCard games, neither I nor anyone who tried my TE ever did have any problems.

The Lynx's biggest problem was all the games designed specifically for it, just like early Gameboy games. Something like Double Dragon looks way better on Lynx than Batman returns. Just like the difference between Super Mario Land which was designed for the Gameboy and SML2 which was designed like an NES (or TG-16) game.

[sketch]

The Lynx was more like $200. The PCE GT/TE is still a much better value even at launch prices. But if retail price is the standard used to judge these systems, then yes the Lynx does crush the Genesis.

No, I don't mean to judge the systems on price. But the main point is that the TG wasn't really a competitor to the other handhelds. It was something most people couldn't afford, and it became pretty scarce pretty quickly. Even the Lynx outlasted it retail. At any rate, at that time, yes, even if the Lynx were $200 (I paid $100 for mine, although it might not have been right at launch), $400 would be out of the question for most.




Like I said, you'd be in the minority. There are multiple controllers for the SMS, including the 6-button Genesis pad. There are many more unique SMS games, as well as lots of retro Atari titles (like Ms. Pac Man, Gauntlet, Centipede, Breakout, Missile Command, etc).

Sorry, brain spasm. I meant the pad for the Lynx is much better than the GG. The SMS controller is fine. And although there are plenty of retro Atari titles on most platforms, the Lynx ones are my favorites. Also, the comlynx feature allowed unique capabilities, like playing Gauntlet with four people where all four people could wander away from each other, not constrained by one screen. To this day, I've not found a better version of Joust than on the Lynx. And that doesn't even cover some of the great original games, like Checkered Flag, Battlewheels, Warbirds, etc.




The only reason some TE games might be unplayable for some people is because they were designed for a real TV and are detailed. But having a TE early on and most HuCard games, neither I nor anyone who tried my TE ever did have any problems.

Well, that's sort've my point. There were a number of great games that didn't play on it because of its size. I'm not knocking the system. I like the TE. I'm just saying it had shortcomings in different ways that kept it from being clearly superior to the Lynx at that time (including cost and screen size).


The Lynx's biggest problem was all the games designed specifically for it, just like early Gameboy games. Something like Double Dragon looks way better on Lynx than Batman returns. Just like the difference between Super Mario Land which was designed for the Gameboy and SML2 which was designed like an NES (or TG-16) game.

Double Dragon didn't look like a port, but looked like it was built from the ground up for the Lynx (of course, I'm going from memory). The lynx's biggest problem IMHO was the resolution, but that didn't keep it from having a lot of good looking, fun games. They just didn't look anywhere near as nice as the TE. Even the GG had the advantage of higher resolution (although I find the screen to be less crisp).

[sketch]

The Lynx II launched at $100 (I waited for the Lynx II - the Lynx I was gigantic).

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Various/Handheld+Classics/feature.asp?c=11260

That would make it a quarter of the price of an express:)

[Iron Lizard]

Why do people think the Lynx has rotation? It sure doesn't look like it to me. No game used it if it was available, however lots of games use the scaling. Why use one all the time but never the other? Now before you go crying "Look at Warbirds the clouds rotate so stfu!!". Yes, the clouds rotate, but I do not believe that is hardware rotation at all. Hell, not even software rotation. Look at the clouds as they rotate. They are redrawn as they do. The detail changes, just like sprites do on the Genesis in Space Harrier 2 as they get closer to you, just done on rotation instead of scaling. Look at MN12Bird's video. Just be sure to skip the waaaaay too long intro and text at the beginning.

These same people think the Neo Geo has rotation built in, too.

EGM often mentioned it. I think that is why.

[Chris]

The Turbo Express/PCE GT had such an amazing active matrix LCD screen for its time. I was so amazed the first time I saw one how crisp it was and it doesn't blur at all with motion like the Game Gear or LYNX screens did. But yeah it was insanely expensive! How did anyone afford that thing back then?

I still regret paying as much for the Turbo Express as I did. I already had a Gameboy and a Lynx, I bought each from two different guys named Adam, whom I found out later both stole them from a guy named Chris, I think the Lynx was the replacement for the Gameboy.I paid $20 dollars for the Gameboy with two games and $100 dollars for the Lynx with one game.
Then I wanted a Turbo Express. I waited for months trying to find one, the stores kept telling me they'd be in soon. Then finally I was at the mall one day and Compucenter had finally got them in. The price... $529.00! I was crazy to get one but there was no way I was going to pay $529.00 plus tax so I left and went and checked Save-On-Foods. They had three of them for what I thought at the time was a bargain...$388.00. I did'nt have the cash on me so I took the bus home, got the money and went straight back.
In the time I was gone they had sold two of them and only had one left so I bought it, although missing the wrist strap.
I still have it and think it's definately the best overall of the three, although I probably got more use out of the Gameboy, due to a larger library of games, but thinking that I paid that much money for the thing still kind of hurts because it never really lived up to that price tag.

[Black_Tiger]

I bought a Turbo Express at full price for $500 Canadian. Within 2 or 3 years I bought a Sega CDX 'on sale' for $400. A Genesis, Sega-CD and 32X ran for about $200 a piece when most people I knew bought them.

When I was 15 I had a part-time job at a bowling alley working 11 hours total, between 2 days a week. I made just over minimum wage, but took home enough without any extra shifts to pay for a Turbo Express with only 2 months pay. I think a better question is if you were a teenager or adult who had a real interest in video games, how could you not afford one?




Well, that's sort've my point. There were a number of great games that didn't play on it because of its size. I'm not knocking the system. I like the TE. I'm just saying it had shortcomings in different ways that kept it from being clearly superior to the Lynx at that time (including cost and screen size).

I used to do laps of Dragon's Curse (Wonderboy III) at work using the game's tiny password system on my TE. I really can't think of any games that posed any problems and I owned about most of them back then.




Double Dragon didn't look like a port, but looked like it was built from the ground up for the Lynx (of course, I'm going from memory). The lynx's biggest problem IMHO was the resolution, but that didn't keep it from having a lot of good looking, fun games. They just didn't look anywhere near as nice as the TE. Even the GG had the advantage of higher resolution (although I find the screen to be less crisp).

It's actually a pixel for pixel port. The screen may always be crowded, but it looks freaking amazing. :)




The Lynx II launched at $100 (I waited for the Lynx II - the Lynx I was gigantic).

That would make it a quarter of the price of an express:)

By that time, the price of the Express would've dropped to $200 within a year.

It's too bad that the Lynx II wasn't the launch model.

[otaku]

I need to get a turbo express next. Just had a lynx (for a week!) before selling it off. THing is way to big (I can't believe the lynx 1 is bigger?) and most of the games are mediocre or terrible.
\
650 is a lot of money for a console let alone a handheld but I'd spend way more on a computer and regularly do

[bohokii]

Okay, being an original Lynx owner (purchased in 1990, brand new), I have to defend it. Compared to the Genesis? No comparison. The Genesis is much more powerful, and yes, the low res screen keeps it from approaching the Genny's graphics.

But the original Gameboy?!? The Lynx kicks its ASS hands down. I'm not sure how many Lynx games you've seen, but games like Xenophobe, Zarlor Mercenary, and Todd's Adventure in Slimeworld are so far above a GB's graphics, I don't even know where to begin.

The low definition screen does have shortcomings, but there are some good looking games for it, and compared to its contemporaries, it stands up with the best of the (i.e. handhelds).


i too am an origional owner

and games like rampage and ninja gaiden worked great on the system

i have to say rampage on the lynx looks best of all home versions

and comparing lynx slime world to genesis slime world the lynx looks better

[sketch]

It's actually a pixel for pixel port. The screen may always be crowded, but it looks freaking amazing. :)


I didn't know that. It's a great looking game, but unfortunately, one I don't have in my collection (cause it's damn pricey). Amusingly, I used to have a Double Dragon game on the Gameboy. It didn't look as good, but it was surprisingly fun (and hard).


It's too bad that the Lynx II wasn't the launch model.

Agreed. I doubt its fate would have been any different, but it would have sold a bit better at least. The battery life on the II was also significantly better (5 hours vs 3 for the Lynx I).

[sketch]

i too am an origional owner

and games like rampage and ninja gaiden worked great on the system

i have to say rampage on the lynx looks best of all home versions

and comparing lynx slime world to genesis slime world the lynx looks better

Ninja Gaiden was VERY good. I think people who knock the system's library never got to the cream of the crop, and there are a number of good games on the system. The library is super small, but that makes it easier for completists:) On the whole, the Lynx has pretty good quality games (for its time). Strangely, it seriously lacked in platformers and one-on-one fighters. This fact definitely correlates to the Lynx's failure, as these were the two hottest genres at the time. There also aren't a ton of shmups, but there are a few good ones.

Edit: And yes, from what I've heard, Slime World for the Lynx is graphically superior to the Genny version. My understanding is the Genny version is a sloppy port (which is why I never bought it). Also, the cool deathmatch features of Slime World wouldn't work on a console.

[tomaitheous]

16 colors per scan line is better than zero colors on the Game Boy and Game Gear witch hadn't even been thought up yet. The Lynx was a powerful machine for 1989 standards and the fact it was a hand held puts Atari over the top for being so insane. The scaling hardware makes for some great eye candy in Blue Lightning and the math co processors polygon pushing power makes for a true 3D flight sim (War Birds) that actually runs smooth.... on a hand held... from 1989!


The res man, the res. The low vertical res really kills it. Especially back then. Yeah, the GB had no color and only 4 shades of monochrome - but it wasn't all blocky like the Lynx. All the scaling and sprites onscreen don't resolve the issue.

The Lynx get's little respect from me (mostly though 'cause it has a crappy library) ;)




The audio is generally better than the GG/SMS's simple PSG, and more flexible than the Gameboy's, but at the same time limited. As I understand it, the sound generating capabiities are similar to the way the Atari TIA and POKEY sound chips work and similar in some ways to the PCE/TG-16 as well, and also has access to the 4 8-bit DAC's to allow sapmple playback. (though I think the CPU has to handle this)


If you're doing all sample playback, then in that respect it's better. But other than that it's not much different/better than SMS/GG. From what I read of the audio tech docs, the CPU has to drive the DAC for sample playback. No too bad on the CPU if you keep the sample rate low and use a fixed rate playback routine. Also, how is it like the PCE/TG?

[sketch]

The res man, the res. The low vertical res really kills it. Especially back then. Yeah, the GB had no color and only 4 shades of monochrome - but it wasn't all blocky like the Lynx. All the scaling and sprites onscreen don't resolve the issue.

The Lynx get's little respect from me (mostly though 'cause it has a crappy library) ;)




If you're doing all sample playback, then in that respect it's better. But other than that it's not much different/better than SMS/GG. From what I read of the audio tech docs, the CPU has to drive the DAC for sample playback. No too bad on the CPU if you keep the sample rate low and use a fixed rate playback routine. Also, how is it like the PCE/TG?

Gameboy had an expansive library, long battery life, and more portability. But the issues you're talking about are ones that are relative to current gaming. At that time, the Lynx looked FANTASTIC. It blew me away. And I already owned a Gameboy, but there was no comparison in the display, blockiness included. A simple game like Gauntlet made the Gameboy screen look like a turd. You can call the Gameboy superior depending on your criteria, but you can't say it looks better than the Lynx, because that's just absurd.

[tomaitheous]

Gameboy had an expansive library, long battery life, and more portability. But the issues you're talking about are ones that are relative to current gaming. At that time, the Lynx looked FANTASTIC. It blew me away. And I already owned a Gameboy, but there was no comparison in the display, blockiness included. A simple game like Gauntlet made the Gameboy screen look like a turd. You can call the Gameboy superior depending on your criteria, but you can't say it looks better than the Lynx, because that's just absurd.

Hey, some of us are just sensitive to crappy (relatively speaking) resolution ;)

I was serious gamer at the time of its release. I was not impressed. The screen was lower res and just as large, if not larger vertically than, the GB screen. It was a turn off for me. But more importantly, I didn't care for any games on it anyway. The simplicity of handheld gaming and games, of GB to be more precise, was fine - because we had home consoles that could deliver what we needed/wanted otherwise. If not the GB, the GBC is definitely a better portable. Has color and isn't low res. Gotta love it. (I'm sorry, but GG screens look like ass. I have two and they are totally washed out - when they're blurring and when they're not blurring).

The only thing that looks exciting is the new shooter coming out for it. I would buy a Lynx for that :cool:

[Ghaleon]

The only thing that looks exciting is the new shooter coming out for it. I would buy a Lynx for that :cool:

Link?

[kool kitty89]

I've read the US launch price for the TG-16 was around $250, which is still a lot more than the others, but anywhere near $400.

tomaitheous,
Se the quote I refrenced for what I meant (or go to the page I linked if you're interested in the rest of the discussion on that, though there's not much else pertinant to this subject)
Here they are again with the PCE notations hilighted:
http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=144632&st=25


The Lynx's audio actually is somewhat similar in structure to the TIA and POKEY. Each of the four channels is composed of a down counter, polynomial counter, waveform generator, and DAC. The heart of everything is in the polynomial counter, which allows you to (cheaply) make a wide variety of waveforms instead of just square waves. So the sound programmer can easily use square, saw (ish), triangle (ish), and noise waveforms with varying duty cycle and "accuracy." The strength of the Lynx audio is that you have all of this waveform variety, but the hardware has no volume or pitch sweeps built into it, so you must do complex envelopes in software (Which isn't too big a deal, the PC Engine is in a similar situation, albeit with much greater capability per channel). You can also shut off the audio hardware for any of the four channels and write directly to the DAC(s) for sample playback, but this of course takes some CPU time.

Compared to the GameBoy, the Lynx's audio hardware has a few strengths, most notably the DAC access, but the GameBoy's structure is extremely good for music. Hardware sweeps, variable duty-cycle square waves, and even a small sample playback system (PC Engine style). The GameBoy really is a fantastic design. The Game Gear, honestly, has some of the most boring audio hardware I've ever seen. You have to be really creative to get good tunes out of it.


I misspoke on the rotation comment as well, looking at the intro on MN12BIRD's video threw me off a bit (in addition to "scaling and rotation" being stated together so often; though I'm not sure if "scaling" is the correct term in some cases either: sprite "zooming" has been referred to seperately, but I'm not sure what the difference would be)

According to wikipedia the Lynx is capable of:

Hardware high-speed sprite scaling, distortion, and tilting effects

[CMA Death Adder]

Link?

www.zaku-lynx.com (http://www.zaku-lynx.com/)

[TmEE]

The Lynx's CPU and VDP share RAM and bus, the more VDP is doing, the slower the rest of the system is. You'll have to find a good balance point. There's a ton of timers to use too, lot of fancy stuff can be done with them :)

[tomaitheous]

I've read the US launch price for the TG-16 was around $250, which is still a lot more than the others, but anywhere near $400.

I remember it being $199 launch price and down to $149 in '90 IIRCC. Who mention it was $400?


tomaitheous,
Se the quote I refrenced for what I meant (or go to the page I linked if you're interested in the rest of the discussion on that, though there's not much else pertinant to this subject)
Here they are again with the PCE notations hilighted:

Ahh ok, thanks. So the similarity would be the lack of hardware envelopes. I guess I could see that as a similarity, but that's kinda small. The PCE/TG on the other hand has two volume systems per channel. One being specifically for volume envelopes and the second one being for overall volume+pan (like TL). And the DACs are independent of the volume mechanisms (unlike POKEY and apparently Lynx audio too).



The Lynx's CPU and VDP share RAM and bus, the more VDP is doing, the slower the rest of the system is. You'll have to find a good balance point. There's a ton of timers to use too, lot of fancy stuff can be done with them

Could be setup like some other systems. Where the ram is faster than the CPU speed, and accessing odd cycles by the video hardware and even by the CPU. Thus no interfering or slowing down. CoCo does this (can't remember off hand what other systems also do this). But yeah, the Lynx definitely looks like a portable computer.

[Chilly Willy]

Could be setup like some other systems. Where the ram is faster than the CPU speed, and accessing odd cycles by the video hardware and even by the CPU. Thus no interfering or slowing down. CoCo does this (can't remember off hand what other systems also do this).

The Amiga did that for chip memory and bogo memory. As long as you didn't set a video mode that required more than 4 bitplanes in low-res mode, or 2 in hi-res mode, the video took only even cycles, leaving the odd cycles for the copper, blitter, and cpu. As you added bitplanes, more cycles were taken from the odd cycles for video. That's why 16 color hi-res mode was so damn slow - ALL cycles during the active video were taken.

That was for OCS/ECS - AGA improved things by adding two options to the data fetch: you could double the fetch width (fetch longs instead of words), and you could increase the fetch rate (used burst mode on the rams, and held off anything else until the burst was done).

[kool kitty89]

I remember it being $199 launch price and down to $149 in '90 IIRCC. Who mention it was $400?

Sorry, I meant the Turbo Express, not TG-16; it was refrenced at $400 previously.

[sketch]

Hey, some of us are just sensitive to crappy (relatively speaking) resolution ;)

I was serious gamer at the time of its release. I was not impressed. The screen was lower res and just as large, if not larger vertically than, the GB screen. It was a turn off for me. But more importantly, I didn't care for any games on it anyway. The simplicity of handheld gaming and games, of GB to be more precise, was fine - because we had home consoles that could deliver what we needed/wanted otherwise. If not the GB, the GBC is definitely a better portable. Has color and isn't low res. Gotta love it. (I'm sorry, but GG screens look like ass. I have two and they are totally washed out - when they're blurring and when they're not blurring).

Well, we have some common ground. The GG screen is horrible, and it's the principle reason I'm not a fan.

The GB may have been a better portable (that's dependent on your criteria, and if a large library of quick-play games and portability are your criteria, it beats the Lynx hands down), but saying the GB's screen is better is a tough sell. Whats more, the color screen on the Lynx allowed for different gameplay (like Klax, which would be unplayable on the GB).

Again, my only argument is that the screen on the Lynx is, overall, much nicer than the GB. To me, the GB hasn't aged well at all. The "slightly" lower vertical resolution is hardly enough in my mind to make it inferior to the GB screen. The two are like night and day.

Of course, I prefer the Lynx as a portable over the GB, but your other arguments for the GB as a portable are quite valid. You're just not going to sell me on the screen mullarky:)


The only thing that looks exciting is the new shooter coming out for it. I would buy a Lynx for that :cool:

I will be one of the first in line for Zaku:) My understanding is that the version of Raiden on the Lynx is quite good, although I haven't ponied up for a copy. Zarlor Mercenary is also a fun shooter on the Lynx.

One other strong suit of the Lynx is it could handle a good amount of sprites (much like the Genesis). Unfortunately, this aspect was not taken advantage of for shooters (with the exceptions already listed).

[tomaitheous]

Again, my only argument is that the screen on the Lynx is, overall, much nicer than the GB. To me, the GB hasn't aged well at all. The "slightly" lower vertical resolution is hardly enough in my mind to make it inferior to the GB screen. The two are like night and day.


You know, I have to admit. I haven't played an original GB in a looooooong time. I've played the GBC recently, and it looks fine, but that's not being discussed here. From memory, I don't remember having any problems with looking at the GB as long as it wasn't fast action (damn blurring). But that's from memory. My most recent memory of GB games are emulation. Same with Lynx. So my argument about the vertical res short coming of the Lynx might be a little week, if comparing the real hand helds in action.

[sketch]

You know, I have to admit. I haven't played an original GB in a looooooong time. I've played the GBC recently, and it looks fine, but that's not being discussed here. From memory, I don't remember having any problems with looking at the GB as long as it wasn't fast action (damn blurring). But that's from memory. My most recent memory of GB games are emulation. Same with Lynx. So my argument about the vertical res short coming of the Lynx might be a little week, if comparing the real hand helds in action.

To be fair, I'm going from memory also. It is my direct memory of comparing the two original hardware, but memory nonetheless.

Honestly, the biggest problem I have with the Lynx screen is the ghosting (as with all passive matrix screens). And the viewing angle is pretty small. These were the limitations of the time, however, and I do have a GG to compare to directly, and it is still much better than that.

I don't have a GBC any more, but recall that the display was nice and crisp. I've pondered reacquiring one if only to play Tetris DX. DX was the best version of the game I've ever played.