I am repeating myself, but imagine now C128 on the left screen with 4MHz :-)) And on top of that with 121 colors from Plus 4. haha... That would have blew the competition away with ease back in the days! Thanks for the efforts btw. It is always interesting to see what Commodore computers were since always capable to do even with limited resources.
Actually, MHz don‘t compare 1:1 between 6502 and 8088 architectures. Given the PCs 4,77 MHz, the c128 with 2MHz should be an equal contender (the MHz Ratio changed with 286s, though)
Your study of EGA and the C64 is amazing! It brings up questions I have had recently about the relative merits of an early x86 PC with EGA versus the Commodore 64. It seems as if the C64 was a really great gaming computer for its time. Better than the early IBM PC with CGA. With EGA, it becomes somewhat closer. A 286 with EGA could run games like Keen 1. However, that setup is much more expensive than a C64, and came much later. So it feels as if the value proposition of a C64 was very high relative to IBM, for a long time. EGA cards were bitmap-based in their drawing, I think. VIC-II had HW sprites. So the latter would have been far more efficient for platforming and other functions. I'm just wondering, what do you get for all that $$$ and giant EGA card in an IBM? It seems EGA had an advantage in bitmap graphics. If you look at some of the adventure games that ran on it, they were more detailed and higher-resolution than what a C64 would produce. And 8086 with EGA could run a game like F-19 Stealth Fighter sharper than C64. But it shouldn't have been so close! I guess maybe an IBM PC with composite CGA-out would have been a closer match to a C64. The Commodore had many games optimized for it come out, but IBM PC with composite CGA had far fewer games that were optimized for that specific configuration. Otherwise, gaming on that particular model of PC could have been better. So it's partly about optimization.
I agree with everything you said. And you can even add sound and music to the comparison. For gaming, the c64 was the much better option for the price. Maybe the c128 with it’s 80 column output is closer to the PC‘s definition. With regards to gaming, I like the CGA-composite you‘re bringing up. This wasn’t an option for non-NTSC regions, btw. Thanks for your input!
First of all in 1986-1987, which is when both PC gaming took off and the C64 was at its peak, a turbo XT clone with 640k 8088@8mhz and EGA cost just over US$500. By 1989-1990 a 286@12-16mhz with VGA cost the same. By comparison a c64c with a 1541c disk drive was $420. PC clones were actually cheaper than the C128 (with a disk drive) while offering more memory, faster & cheaper storage options, better resolutions, better keyboards, and the ability to run real software. In terms of gaming, the c64 was definitely better than the original IBM 5150 but it was purely a business machine not intended for gaming or the home market and hence games in 1981-1985 were never made to take advantage of its capabilities. However a turbo XT with EGA was capable of running games well beyond what the C64 could do and was actually reasonably competitive with the ST and Amiga other than sound. For examples Prince of Persia, Quest for Glory, Monkey Island, Ultima 6, F-19 stealth fighter, Pools of Radiance, and Commander Keen to name a small list. Even older titles like Elite and Ultima 5 played far better on a turbo XT thanks to the faster cpu, higher memory and much faster storage. A fast 286 with VGA was actually more capable than the Amiga 500 hence why the PC game market started to pull ahead of the Amiga one by 1990-1991.
I am repeating myself, but imagine now C128 on the left screen with 4MHz :-))
And on top of that with 121 colors from Plus 4.
haha... That would have blew the competition away with ease back in the days!
Thanks for the efforts btw. It is always interesting to see what Commodore computers were since always capable to do even with limited resources.
Actually, MHz don‘t compare 1:1 between 6502 and 8088 architectures. Given the PCs 4,77 MHz, the c128 with 2MHz should be an equal contender (the MHz Ratio changed with 286s, though)
I have to admit, EGA version has warmer and more vibrant colours.
Right, at least on PAL C64s. Supposedly, NTSC C64s had at least a bit more vibrant colors.
Really good point, thanks for bringing this up!
Your study of EGA and the C64 is amazing!
It brings up questions I have had recently about the relative merits of an early x86 PC with EGA versus the Commodore 64.
It seems as if the C64 was a really great gaming computer for its time. Better than the early IBM PC with CGA.
With EGA, it becomes somewhat closer. A 286 with EGA could run games like Keen 1.
However, that setup is much more expensive than a C64, and came much later. So it feels as if the value proposition of a C64 was very high relative to IBM, for a long time.
EGA cards were bitmap-based in their drawing, I think. VIC-II had HW sprites. So the latter would have been far more efficient for platforming and other functions. I'm just wondering, what do you get for all that $$$ and giant EGA card in an IBM?
It seems EGA had an advantage in bitmap graphics. If you look at some of the adventure games that ran on it, they were more detailed and higher-resolution than what a C64 would produce. And 8086 with EGA could run a game like F-19 Stealth Fighter sharper than C64. But it shouldn't have been so close!
I guess maybe an IBM PC with composite CGA-out would have been a closer match to a C64. The Commodore had many games optimized for it come out, but IBM PC with composite CGA had far fewer games that were optimized for that specific configuration. Otherwise, gaming on that particular model of PC could have been better. So it's partly about optimization.
I agree with everything you said. And you can even add sound and music to the comparison. For gaming, the c64 was the much better option for the price.
Maybe the c128 with it’s 80 column output is closer to the PC‘s definition.
With regards to gaming, I like the CGA-composite you‘re bringing up. This wasn’t an option for non-NTSC regions, btw.
Thanks for your input!
First of all in 1986-1987, which is when both PC gaming took off and the C64 was at its peak, a turbo XT clone with 640k 8088@8mhz and EGA cost just over US$500. By 1989-1990 a 286@12-16mhz with VGA cost the same. By comparison a c64c with a 1541c disk drive was $420. PC clones were actually cheaper than the C128 (with a disk drive) while offering more memory, faster & cheaper storage options, better resolutions, better keyboards, and the ability to run real software. In terms of gaming, the c64 was definitely better than the original IBM 5150 but it was purely a business machine not intended for gaming or the home market and hence games in 1981-1985 were never made to take advantage of its capabilities. However a turbo XT with EGA was capable of running games well beyond what the C64 could do and was actually reasonably competitive with the ST and Amiga other than sound. For examples Prince of Persia, Quest for Glory, Monkey Island, Ultima 6, F-19 stealth fighter, Pools of Radiance, and Commander Keen to name a small list. Even older titles like Elite and Ultima 5 played far better on a turbo XT thanks to the faster cpu, higher memory and much faster storage. A fast 286 with VGA was actually more capable than the Amiga 500 hence why the PC game market started to pull ahead of the Amiga one by 1990-1991.