Speccy vs CPC - battle of the Ages

[Ygdrazil]

What?

Since when is the CPC not as powefull as the C64 or the Speccy???

Did I miss something?? 

/Ygdrazil

It's not as powerful as the C64 or Speccy 128K, but it's still a worthy contender and actually does some things better. Most games are really colourful, but can sometimes lack smooth scrolling, use a small playing area or feature a flick screen. However; there are literally hundreds of classics on this system, and some games like Operation wolf and Chase HQ even rival the same games of the other two machines. The 6128 model with 128K memory, disk drive and colour screen would be my personal choice, and the 6128 Plus (90's Model) packs a serious punch. I wouldn't say the CPC was a remarkable machine, just that it was the machine I grew up with, and several programmers, especially from the 'Ocean' stable, produced remarkable results.

[ukmarkh]

It just has a few flaws, the 16K screen being one of them, especially with a 64K model. The equivalent speccy games nearly always tend to run a bit faster and smoother... run 'Lotus Esprit turbo' from Gremlin side by side to see what I'm on about. Then there's the whole side scrolling issue.

[Gryzor]

Er, yes. But if you mention the 16k screen size on the CPC, how can you ommit the horrible (HORRIBLE I say!) colour clashing?

Your comment did strike me as awfully strange...

[ukmarkh]

Er, yes. But if you mention the 16k screen size on the CPC, how can you ommit the horrible (HORRIBLE I say!) colour clashing?

Your comment did strike me as awfully strange...

Because colour clash doesn't cripple the system, or make the game slower, the 16k screen on a CPC kinda does. Look, I love the CPC to bits - play the game I mentioned earlier if you don't beleive me... it takes a lot longer to complete a lap, and isn't as smooth. I too used to think the same way until I did a shed load of comparisons. That 16k heavy screen seriously crippled the CPC, if they'd have added more memory to compensate, then that might have helped. That's not to say it's incapable of great games, because there are many, but the CPC 464 with 64k of memory is just not as powerful as either the C64 or Speccy.

Welcome, dear daznic. The CPC was certainly more powerful than the poor Speccy. If you compare it to the c64 then it depends on what you look at. the c64 did have great scrolling and fantastic sound* but the colours and resolution were not up to the CPC's standards.

The C64 could match the CPC's resolution, although your spot on about the colour, but the C64 could run a side scroller full screen with hardly any borders showing, and so could the Speccy. The CPC nine times out of ten would use a much reduced screen. I love the CPC as much as you, but facts are facts, and as hard as it is to swallow - these shouldn't be cemented over, or instill otherwise when a newbie asks a question. Especially when on a techy level the claims just don't add up.

[Executioner]

Especially when on a techy level the claims just don't add up.

That's almost entirely a matter of opinion. Although many of the games from the '80s and '90s weren't as good as their Spectrum or C64 counterparts, that was mainly down to poor programming, lack of effort and lack of knowledge. Almost all the scrolling games of the time used software scrolling for a start. There are games (including the recent ones such as Star Sabre) in almost all genres which are at least equal with their Spectrum and C64 equivalents, and in many cases, much better. Increased border sizes are usually due to reducing the screen resolution down to Spectrum levels (256x192). This provides a screen memory usage of 12K as opposed to the Spectrum's 7K or so if you include attribute RAM.

Technically the CPC464 has 64K, not 48K, a greater screen resolution with more colours available, better sound, and a faster, more flexible CPU than the C64.

[ukmarkh]

That's almost entirely a matter of opinion. Although many of the games from the '80s and '90s weren't as good as their Spectrum or C64 counterparts, that was mainly down to poor programming, lack of effort and lack of knowledge.

Well I did make the comparisons based on the games from the 80's and 90's... and was just simply highlighting the factual results. I'd also like to add that it might not have been solely down to poor programming, but time constraints, as the CPC rarely got the same development time the other two received, I imagine this is why we had so many Speccy ports?   

Almost all the scrolling games of the time used software scrolling for a start. There are games (including the recent ones such as Star Sabre) in almost all genres which are at least equal with their Spectrum and C64 equivalents, and in many cases, much better.

Well, Star sabre runs at 25fps, most C64 shooters run at 50FPs, as do the Speccy equivelents... but yes I understand what you mean, although the letterbox view in Star Sabre is a right pain, would have preffered full screen. The 464 version ran out of memory and didn't feature any music... the equivalent on the C64 could easily have included music, and from the majority of games I tested, they did. due to the memory savings and the way the screen and sprites were handled.     

Increased border sizes are usually due to reducing the screen resolution down to Spectrum levels (256x192). This provides a screen memory usage of 12K as opposed to the Spectrum's 7K or so if you include attribute RAM.

But on the CPC 464, (64k - 16k screen = 48k) the same as the Speccy, then there is the issue that the sprites take up more memory to draw than the equivelent on the Speccy... All the in-game graphics take up twice the RAM because 2 bits were required for every pixel, rather than 1 bit on the Spectrum. This doubled the size of all the graphics, using a similar amount of free RAM, and an Amstrad version of a Spectrum game seems to always require drastic cuts to fit into RAM. This perception that the two machines were more or less the same, doesn't hold true when you do the maths, so when people state the Amstrad was slightly better, at the moment, unless I'm missing something - this statement simply doesn't stack up.   

[Gryzor]

I firmly believe that saying that the CPC was below the Speccy in thechnical terms is way too much. Saying that "colour clashing does not make the game slower" is like saying "the bullet did not make the victim any deader". For me colour clashing always was a deal breaker, and combined with the (non-) palette of the Speccy it made games painful to watch.

Also, in any case, I think you should add that the CPC was inferior only when it comes to games - because with everything else the CPC blows the competition dead out of the water...

[ukmarkh]

I firmly believe that saying that the CPC was below the Speccy in thechnical terms is way too much. Saying that "colour clashing does not make the game slower" is like saying "the bullet did not make the victim any deader". For me colour clashing always was a deal breaker, and combined with the (non-) palette of the Speccy it made games painful to watch.

Well, it doesn't matter what you or I think, the facts are facts... and we can't hide from them. R-Type, Chase HQ, Renegade, Target Renegade, Narc and many more, are they really that painful to watch? I think you're doing the Speccy an injustice by saying this - especially considering the sum of its parts. The Amstrad is my favourite machine, the one I grew up with... and I love a lot of the games produced for it, Renegade, Gryzor, Wec-le mans, Operation Wolf, Prince of persia, all excellent games. So it's not all bad.     

Also, in any case, I think you should add that the CPC was inferior only when it comes to games - because with everything else the CPC blows the competition dead out of the water...

Maybe...but do you really know enough about the other 8-bits out there to back that up? Writing this CPC book has taught me that you have to back up what you say, comments like 'blown out the water' have to have some weight behind them.

[Longshot]

Well, it doesn't matter what you or I think, the facts are facts... and we can't hide from them. R-Type, Chase HQ, Renegade, Target Renegade, Narc and many more, are they really that painful to watch?

You've forgotten Batman, Head over Heals, Elite, Mercenary, Starstrike or some 3D games like Total Eclipse. You cannot compare these versions to the speccy or c64 ones. Juste because (due to the 16 k or more video ram), each pixel can have its own color. And the isometric monochrom games on speccy are really poor comparatively to the cpc.

The speccy owners were fighting with the oric owners in the early 80's. Don't forget it has juste a "buzzer" instead of the ay-3-8912 of the oric. The cpc outsider was the c64. It's just history. (you cannot speak about speccy 128 and omit cpc 6128 or amstrad plus, btw)

A very few games were using hardware splitting technics for scrolling (genocide is smooth for example. one of the first splitscreen on cpc) and using dual playfield technic gives a smooth games but graphically bad as the c64 or speccy ones. And was a 50 fps game more playable than a slower game ? I don't think it was such important for cpc owners when they played to green beret or ghost'n goblins...

Depending of domain application, each computer have his advantages.
The c64 sid was really great for example.
The cpc was harware-designed on an an ibm-pc basis (crtc 6845, ppi 8255, fdc 765). It was cp/m compatible and this computer was used by lot of little companies, able to run very early turbo pascal, forth, fortran, cobol, ..., used in professionnal domain. It was the victim of bad-port of lot of monochrom speccy games.

So this subject is just a long old fellow now called troll. 

[ukmarkh]

I have no idea what you're talking about  very broken English. The comments seem a bit random. 

[Gryzor]

Well, it doesn't matter what you or I think, the facts are facts... and we can't hide from them. R-Type, Chase HQ, Renegade, Target Renegade, Narc and many more, are they really that painful to watch?

Well, it's funny, because I didn't understand your point, precisely because the game syou mentioned were so awesome on the CPC that a comparison is really unjust (ok, I know CPC R-Type has taken a beating over time, but I never understood why - I still love it to bits, and its gfx are just great).

I think you're doing the Speccy an injustice by saying this - especially considering the sum of its parts. The Amstrad is my favourite machine, the one I grew up with... and I love a lot of the games produced for it, Renegade, Gryzor, Wec-le mans, Operation Wolf, Prince of persia, all excellent games. So it's not all bad.    

I didn't say it's "all bad", but precisely the games you mention (and many more) are so advanced that just prove the point that the CPC was much more advanced than the speccy. Only yesterday I was playing North and South on WinCPC - just try transferring THAT over to the Spectrum... the difference will be as big as it is from the original 16-bitters to the CPC.

Maybe...but do you really know enough about the other 8-bits out there to back that up? Writing this CPC book has taught me that you have to back up what you say, comments like 'blown out the water' have to have some weight behind them.

I do know quite a bit. the Enterprise64/128 was arguably better, and the later MSX versions too. But neither much of a foothold (at least in the west, in the case of the MSX). Incidentally, I do have a few MSXs, an E64 and a SAM Coupe (lovely lovely machine) and have seen first hand what they can do...

But, let's get back to the CPC/Speccy issue. Just try running CP/M, or a decent word-processor, or a WIMP system on Speccy - oh, wait....

Longshot's post, btw, is quite clear, I think, He may have confused what you meant by the games you mentioned, as I was

[ukmarkh]

Well this is an Amstrad site... not sure what I was thinking trying to state facts, should have know I'd get a biased view on things.

I suppose It'd be like buying a commodore mag back in the day, writing in and asking what they thought about the amstrad CPC.

[Gryzor]

Well this is an Amstrad site... not sure what I was thinking trying to state facts, should have know I'd get a biased view on things.

I suppose It'd be like buying a commodore mag back in the day, writing in and asking what they thought about the amstrad CPC.

Well, I'm sorry, but before accusing us of being partial and biased you could just explain what makes the Spectrum more powerful than the Amstrad. I *know* we are biased, like everybody when it comes to thinks they like (duh), but I did mention computers better and stronger than the CPC. The ZX... well, let's just say it's the absolute first time that I've heard someone claiming it's more powerful than the CPC... Usually the discussion revolves around which system's games *play better*, not which one is more powerful. That's a non-issue, really... Unless you believe Sinclair and try to run a nuclear plant with a chiclet keyboard and a beeper for sound, and at a resolution of... wait, is that 32x24 or something? I must be wrong, this actually sounds WAY too low...

[ukmarkh]

Usually the discussion revolves around which system's games *play better*, not which one is more powerful.

Ok, on the whole and as part of my experiment - 80% of all the classic games produced on both the CPC and Speccy play better, or faster than the Amstrad CPC 464 equivalent. Everyone on here knows I'm a CPC geek, and it's really hard for me to accept this, but unfortunately it's the truth. And R-Type on the amstrad runs really slow compared to the 48K Speccy version, looks worse and the scrolling flicks onto the screen. A good game, but again... better on the Speccy.   

[Gryzor]

Ok, on the whole and as part of my experiment - 80% of all the classic games produced on both the CPC and Speccy play better, or faster than the Amstrad CPC 464 equivalent. Everyone on here knows I'm a CPC geek, and it's really hard for me to accept this, but unfortunately it's the truth. And R-Type on the amstrad runs really slow compared to the 48K Speccy version, looks worse and the scrolling flicks onto the screen. A good game, but again... better on the Speccy.  

But now you shift the issue. That's totally different than what you said before...

Ok, as far as games go; I think this has been discussed so many times before that it's kinda moot, but anyway, the Speccy had lots of great games (and a shitload of crappy ones, but most seem to forget that!), and Amstrad had the potential that was rarely exploited due to the programmers and producers involved. For every game that is arguably better on the Speccy, though, I can probably show you another that is better on the CPC.

And, besides, for me (and lots of others) colourful games with a decent resolution and some troubles in other aspects are much better than  awful colour clashing, terribly limited palette and speccy's <irony>high-res</irony> gfx that speed along nicely... If that were the case then let's all play 2600 games, shall we? Perfect scrolling and animation! And, hey, even the colours were so much better than the Spectrum's

[Executioner]

Well this is an Amstrad site... not sure what I was thinking trying to state facts, should have know I'd get a biased view on things.

I suppose It'd be like buying a commodore mag back in the day, writing in and asking what they thought about the amstrad CPC.

Well, actually, what you originally posted was:

It's not as powerful as the C64 or Speccy 128K, but it's still a worthy contender and actually does some things better.

Which is not technically correct, simply a matter of opinion. It's like writing a letter to a C64 magazine (or forum) saying the C64 is not as powerful as the CPC464 or Speccy 128K. Go try that at Lemon64 and see what the responses are like. 

About the only thing technically I may concede is that the SID is better than the AY, and I'm not even totally convinced of that. As for the Speccy, I don't think it's possible to soft-scroll 6K of screen RAM at 50 frames per second with a 3.5MHz Z80, the maximum is about 4K.

[ukmarkh]

But now you shift the issue. That's totally different than what you said before...

How am I shifting the issue, I was simply replying to your analogy of 'which system's games *play better*'. My original comment still stands, set in stone if you like. And I don't subscribe to this idea that colourful graphics make a great game.   

Amstrad Action reviewed and raved about 'Lotus Turbo Esprit' I gave this as an example, but still you choose to ignore the basics of what I'm trying to highlight? The game is choppier and slower on the CPC, it's as smooth as a babies arse on the Speccy... why is this? Super Hangon is also slower, Chase HQ that recieved the same development time is slightly slower, and many many more games follow this suite? I'm after an explanation, not a slanging match.

I'm also aware of the good games that are available on the CPC, so no need to recycle info in an attempt at teaching me to suck eggs... after playing many games on both systems, there are several games on the CPC, that deliver a better gaming experience on the CPC than their counterparts. This should be celebrated, as these few programmers acheived truely remarkable results, considering the CPC wasn't that remarkable.

[Gryzor]

Man, it's really not that hard. You shifted the issue the moment you went from "the CPC is underpowered compared to the Speccy" to "Speccy games play better", can't you see it?? Two totally different issues.

I don't basically disagree with you on the games issue, since it's subjective more or less, but the argument about the 2600 is relevant and valid. There *are* games that play better on the Speccy, but:

a. there are LOTS and LOTS of crappy titles for the platform
b. I'd take the CPC Chase HQ any day over any other version (yes, I do prefer it slightly more slow but full of colour brilliance and nice voice)
c. relevant to b., smoother animation and/or scrolling do not make a better game,
d. the speccy came earlier and had a larger user and developer base, so chances are it was much better exploited over its lifecycle.

But, really, really, I can't stand the bland (non-)palette and awful colour characteristics of the Spectrum. It just ruins it for me, even if it runs at 200 fps. I think Gryzor is scrolling on the Spectrum, but really, is it better than the CPC's flip-screen?

I haven't really played Lotus on the CPC, as I had moved on to the ST by then, so I don't have an opinion. I might try it though.

[ukmarkh]

Well, actually, what you originally posted was:Which is not technically correct, simply a matter of opinion. It's like writing a letter to a C64 magazine (or forum) saying the C64 is not as powerful as the CPC464 or Speccy 128K. Go try that at Lemon64 and see what the responses are like. 

There is a post on Lemon64; not from me, but someone asking a similar line of questioning. In the main apart from one or two idiots - the conversation went quite well.

About the only thing technically I may concede is that the SID is better than the AY, and I'm not even totally convinced of that. As for the Speccy, I don't think it's possible to soft-scroll 6K of screen RAM at 50 frames per second with a 3.5MHz Z80, the maximum is about 4K.


This is more like it, how come you're not technically convinced the SID chip isn't better?

[Gryzor]

Ok, I just compared Lotus on Speccy 128 and CPC. Although the CPC version looks like a speccy conversion (not a good use of the resolution chosen), it runs a bit smoother here. NOT smooth, but smoother compared to the Spectrum version. And, sound...

[ukmarkh]

Ok, I just compared Lotus on Speccy 128 and CPC. Although the CPC version looks like a speccy conversion (not a good use of the resolution chosen), it runs a bit smoother here. NOT smooth, but smoother compared to the Spectrum version. And, sound...

Are you stating that Lotus on the CPC is smoother and faster than the Speccy version, or just smoother?

[Gryzor]

You're splitting hair here. I didn't notice any speed difference but I may be wrong; the fact is that it's so choppy on the Spectrum it's almost unbearable...

The point here is, it's easy to make a game 'faster' this way: the Lotus could be travelling at a blistering 300MPH - and at 2FPS. Wouldn't it be better if it had a top speed of 150MPH and a framerate of 15fps?

[ukmarkh]

You're splitting hair here. I didn't notice any speed difference but I may be wrong; the fact is that it's so choppy on the Spectrum it's almost unbearable...

The CPC version is missing frames compared to the Speccy version, isn't as smooth when cornering, thus choppier. The fact that you can cross the finish line on the Speccy a whole two seconds before you can on the CPC should surely show the clues are there and it's slower on the CPC. You can record both games and then break them down into frames, this'll show that the CPC version not only runs slower, but misses frames in order to keep up. 

[Gryzor]

Two whole seconds? Wow, that must be a bad game then :p

As for missing frames - I don't need to record videos; how can you not *see* with your eyes that the Spectrum version is shoppy as hell? Especially when the car is jumping in the air, you have no clue what's going to happen next because the speed ir a few frames per second!

The only thing I can think of that you may mean is that the Spectrum is supposed to run at x fps, the CPC at z fps, with x<z, and Spectrum manages to keep up with x while CPC falls under z. But even the eventual z with dropped frames is smoother than the constant x!

The bottom line is, the CPC is a crappy little game and the Spectrum is an awful one

[ukmarkh]

Two whole seconds? Wow, that must be a bad game then :p

Just slightly inferior... 

As for missing frames - I don't need to record videos; how can you not *see* with your eyes that the Spectrum version is shoppy as hell?

Complete balls mate...

The only thing I can think of that you may mean is that the Spectrum is supposed to run at x fps, the CPC at z fps, with x<z, and Spectrum manages to keep up with x while CPC falls under z. But even the eventual z with dropped frames is smoother than the constant x!

Spaghetti 

The bottom line is, the CPC is a crappy little game and the Spectrum is an awful one

Not according to Amstrad Action or Sinclair User.