←back to thread

Super Mario 64 for the PS1

(github.com)
300 points LaserDiscMan | 4 comments | 10 Dec 25 18:58 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Larrikin ◴[10 Dec 25 19:24 UTC] No.46222319[source]▶
Are there any pictures or video of it running? I understand why they are not on the GitHub page
replies(2): >>46222338 #>>46222969 #
platevoltage ◴[10 Dec 25 20:04 UTC] No.46222969[source]▶
here's another video that showed good gameplay shots that I happened to see last night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kscCFfXecTI

replies(3): >>46223146 #>>46223788 #>>46228331 #
ginko ◴[10 Dec 25 20:18 UTC] No.46223146[source]▶
The distorted textures and weird triangle clipping issues are exactly what you'd expect from an unoptimized port to a platform that doesn't support perspective correct texturing or depth testing.
replies(3): >>46223921 #>>46224353 #>>46224532 #
bluedino ◴[10 Dec 25 21:49 UTC] No.46224353[source]▶
It looks pretty decent but seeing the texture warping and glitching reminds me of why I was team N64
replies(4): >>46225124 #>>46226611 #>>46227141 #>>46231464 #
01HNNWZ0MV43FF ◴[10 Dec 25 22:51 UTC] No.46225124[source]▶
The N64 definitely has the nicer GPU of the two. An N64 with a CD-ROM drive would have been amazing.
replies(3): >>46226246 #>>46230823 #>>46234770 #
klipklop ◴[11 Dec 25 00:52 UTC] No.46226246[source]▶
And a bit more texture memory!
replies(2): >>46226999 #>>46227453 #
1. redox99 ◴[11 Dec 25 03:54 UTC] No.46227453[source]▶
The RAMBUS speed is the main issue. The RDP can literally be stalled over 70% of the time waiting for memory. It's extremely flawed.

They could have used SDRAM and it would perform so much better, and I believe the cost is around the same.

If you wanted to cut something, cut the antialiasing. While very cool, it is a bit wasted on CRTs. Worst of all, for some reason they have this blur filter which smears the picture horizontally. Luckily it can be deblured by appliying the inverse operation.

replies(1): >>46228356 #
2. eru ◴[11 Dec 25 06:39 UTC] No.46228356[source]▶
Would SDRAM have been faster and cheaper? Why did they pick RAMBUS?
replies(1): >>46228418 #
3. redox99 ◴[11 Dec 25 06:52 UTC] No.46228418[source]▶
I think the main reason is that when they architected it, RDRAM seemed like the better choice based on price and bandwidth at that time, and they underestimated the performance issues it would cause (RDRAM has amazing bandwidth but atrocious latency).

By the time the N64 launched, SDRAM was better and cheaper, and they considered it was too late to make the switch. Allegedly SGI wanted to make changes but Nintendo refused.

Basically they made the wrong bet and didn't want to change it closer to release.

replies(1): >>46228529 #
4. eru ◴[11 Dec 25 07:08 UTC] No.46228529{3}[source]▶
Thanks!

OK, I also just read that basically Nintendo bet on ram bandwidth, but ignored latency.

A more general lesson: Nintendo bet on cutting edge, speculative technology with RDRAM, instead of concentrating on 'Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology'.