Interesting Article on the Development of Sega Saturn's Hitachi SH-2 CPU's

gvx64

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2022
Messages
236
https://mdshock.com/2020/06/16/the-story-of-the-hitachi-sh-2-and-the-sega-saturn/

Just thought that I would share this. I love studying the technical and commercial decisions behind old video game consoles. This article is written from the perspective of Hitachi but it really shows the struggle that Sega was going through in trying to make the Saturn competitive with the Sony Playstation 1. Apparently, the decision to go with two SH-2 CPU's was made by Sega at the last minute because apparently Sega caught wind of a leak that the PS1 would have full 3D capabilities. The Saturn was originally planned to be a 2-2.5D console (eg. 2D play with 3D backgrounds) but the second SH-2 was added in late development to give it full 3D capabilities, which is covered from the Hitachi point of view in the later part of the article.

I can't think of many other consoles that had a primary dual cpu configurations in that era. Often, there were co-processors (such as the Reality Co-Processor in the N64) that handled DMA, etc, but one primary CPU. I wonder how much parallelization game developers were really able to achieve with the 2 x SH-2's, I had heard that most developers didn't know what to do with it. Some of the Saturn's later 3D games actually looked really impressive (eg. Panzar Dragoon Saga and the unreleased tech demo for Shenmue) and I wonder if it was because the second SH-2 eventually got utilized or if developers just found ways to squeeze the max potential out of a single SH-2 with the other providing minimal support.
 
https://mdshock.com/2020/06/16/the-story-of-the-hitachi-sh-2-and-the-sega-saturn/

Just thought that I would share this. I love studying the technical and commercial decisions behind old video game consoles. This article is written from the perspective of Hitachi but it really shows the struggle that Sega was going through in trying to make the Saturn competitive with the Sony Playstation 1. Apparently, the decision to go with two SH-2 CPU's was made by Sega at the last minute because apparently Sega caught wind of a leak that the PS1 would have full 3D capabilities. The Saturn was originally planned to be a 2-2.5D console (eg. 2D play with 3D backgrounds) but the second SH-2 was added in late development to give it full 3D capabilities, which is covered from the Hitachi point of view in the later part of the article.

I can't think of many other consoles that had a primary dual cpu configurations in that era. Often, there were co-processors (such as the Reality Co-Processor in the N64) that handled DMA, etc, but one primary CPU. I wonder how much parallelization game developers were really able to achieve with the 2 x SH-2's, I had heard that most developers didn't know what to do with it. Some of the Saturn's later 3D games actually looked really impressive (eg. Panzar Dragoon Saga and the unreleased tech demo for Shenmue) and I wonder if it was because the second SH-2 eventually got utilized or if developers just found ways to squeeze the max potential out of a single SH-2 with the other providing minimal support.
If I recall correctly, this was the reason the Saturn port of Symphony of the Night looked and ran so poorly. No effort at all was put into adapting the game to the Saturn's unique hardware configuration.
 
If I recall correctly, this was the reason the Saturn port of Symphony of the Night looked and ran so poorly. No effort at all was put into adapting the game to the Saturn's unique hardware configuration.

Which is a shame, Saturn was a 2D powerhouse and could've done that game superbly (plus the Saturn version contained the extra levels).

I thought I had watched a Youtuber showcase a community developed port of the Saturn version that 'fixed' a lot of the original releases 3D effect issues (ie: the transparencies).
 
Which is a shame, Saturn was a 2D powerhouse and could've done that game superbly (plus the Saturn version contained the extra levels).

I thought I had watched a Youtuber showcase a community developed port of the Saturn version that 'fixed' a lot of the original releases 3D effect issues (ie: the transparencies).
Yeah, some of those 2D Saturn games look impressive even today (eg. Princess Crown). The Saturn was clearly designed to kick the butt out of the 2.5D genre and it did an incredible job with sprite-based gameplay and combining in 3D elements such as the background. I play and enjoy 2D N64 games like Yoshi's Story and Mischief Makers but these games don't hold a candle to how crisp and clear the sprite-work was on the Saturn (honestly, I don't think the N64 could even do 2D as well as the SNES did).

It's too bad that the Saturn did so poorly in the west because it was actually reasonably successful in Japan (it sold more units than the Gamecube, N64, Genesis or Dreamcast did in that region) and it had some absolutely incredible JRPGs that, for some horrid reason, have never been re-released in any form by Sega. The Saturn actually sold boat-loads more units in Japan than the Genesis did and so the console must have done some major things right, at least in that part of the world. Unfortunately, Sony's whole "$299" surprise announcement in E3 1995 (when the Saturn was launching for $399) just put the Saturn on a path that it would never come back from in the west.

I just wonder how useful that second CPU actually ended up being for the console and how much it added to the manufacturing cost. I mean, could Sega have hit $299 if they had left it out? If it turned out at the end that developers really didn't use the second CPU in any kind of important way then was it really needed for 3D? I mean, it probably added a ton of complexity to the game development as well which turned off a lot of third parties, so was the second CPU a huge mistake?
 
Yeah, some of those 2D Saturn games look impressive even today (eg. Princess Crown). The Saturn was clearly designed to kick the butt out of the 2.5D genre and it did an incredible job with sprite-based gameplay and combining in 3D elements such as the background. I play and enjoy 2D N64 games like Yoshi's Story and Mischief Makers but these games don't hold a candle to how crisp and clear the sprite-work was on the Saturn (honestly, I don't think the N64 could even do 2D as well as the SNES did).

It's too bad that the Saturn did so poorly in the west because it was actually reasonably successful in Japan (it sold more units than the Gamecube, N64, Genesis or Dreamcast did in that region) and it had some absolutely incredible JRPGs that, for some horrid reason, have never been re-released in any form by Sega. The Saturn actually sold boat-loads more units in Japan than the Genesis did and so the console must have done some major things right, at least in that part of the world. Unfortunately, Sony's whole "$299" surprise announcement in E3 1995 (when the Saturn was launching for $399) just put the Saturn on a path that it would never come back from in the west.

I just wonder how useful that second CPU actually ended up being for the console and how much it added to the manufacturing cost. I mean, could Sega have hit $299 if they had left it out? If it turned out at the end that developers really didn't use the second CPU in any kind of important way then was it really needed for 3D? I mean, it probably added a ton of complexity to the game development as well which turned off a lot of third parties, so was the second CPU a huge mistake?
I'm not sure the Saturn as designed would have been successful in Western markets regardless of the addition of the second CPU. The world was starting to move to 3D in the home consumer market and Sega failed to see it. The console's tech needed to be reengineered from the ground up to compete with Sony and Nintendo.

Why the Dreamcast was a failure is a whole different discussion, but I am completely baffled with that one. One of the big selling points of consoles had always been about bringing the arcade experience home, and the Dreamcast was probably the first console to execute that perfectly at an affordable price point. Outside of that its library was really unique compared to other games on the market at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gvx64
like this
I'm not sure the Saturn as designed would have been successful in Western markets regardless of the addition of the second CPU. The world was starting to move to 3D in the home consumer market and Sega failed to see it. The console's tech needed to be reengineered from the ground up to compete with Sony and Nintendo.

Why the Dreamcast was a failure is a whole different discussion, but I am completely baffled with that one. One of the big selling points of consoles had always been about bringing the arcade experience home, and the Dreamcast was probably the first console to execute that perfectly at an affordable price point. Outside of that its library was really unique compared to other games on the market at the time.
Yeah, I guess it was more than just a difference of an extra CPU. Like you said, the Saturn lacked optimization for full 3D. It probably had weaker shader support than the psx and I do know that the Saturn used quadrahedrons instead of normal triangular polygons for rendering. I am not sure if quads were necessarily a problem for 3D rendering but it was extremely unusual and probably made development harder in some ways. Anyways, Sega's answer was to try to raise the frequency of the SH-2 (and then when that wasn't possible, just throw and entire additional SH-2 on the board) but that was probably more of a stop-gap measure to compensate for the general lack of 3D optimization, it was never the source of the problem.

I really believe that it was possible to get 3D graphics out of the Saturn that were on par with the psx (and maybe even some very early N64 games like Doom 64 before developers really started pushing the N64 hardware). Honestly, the tech demo for Shenmue on the Saturn looked breathtaking and I think even beats the pants off of most N64 games:



I think the main issue is that it was just extremely hard to do get the Saturn to this level. We can't forget that the Saturn had a crap ton of co-processors including two video processors and I assume that each had to be programmed and controlled independently (probably all using Assembly). What developer even wanted to bother with this when the playstation offered an amazing tool-set and easy development platform (not to mention that the games would probably sell 10x as much, at least in the west). I am sure that it was the lack of 3D optimization that hurt the Saturn, the hardware itself was capable of great stuff (including 3D) but without optimization the developer basically has to reinvent the wheel and that is just not a feasible thing when better options are available.

You are right, the Dreamcast was a travesty. With the Saturn, it was easy to see what went wrong as there was so much infighting at Sega, poor marketing, hardware decisions, corporate communication, etc. With the Dreamcast, Sega did everything right and was seriously firing on all cylinders: good marketing, great hardware, amazing RPGs, amazing sports games, two mainline Sonic games but ended up selling a little worse than the Saturn. To be completely honest with you, I don't understand 1) why the Saturn sold as well as it did (specifically its Japanese numbers, which were actually rather remarkable) and 2) why the Dreamcast sold as poorly as it did. The Dreamcast should have at least doubled the sales of the Saturn. I guess it was partly the consoles extremely short lifespan (1.5 years in the west, 2.5 years in Japan) due to Sega pulling the plug. Sega's poor financial footing during the Dreamcast era was likely the result of the Saturn era (which probably burned up all of the capital that the company obtained during the Genesis era). The Dreamcast was a final gasp of air for the company but the damage done was too severe, the PS2 was just the final nail in the coffin.
 
If I recall correctly, this was the reason the Saturn port of Symphony of the Night looked and ran so poorly. No effort at all was put into adapting the game to the Saturn's unique hardware configuration.
Which is odd; even when using incorrectly, the Saturn was still a 2D powerhouse compared to the PS1. I think "lazy port" comes to mind more then anything in this case.
 
Why the Dreamcast was a failure is a whole different discussion, but I am completely baffled with that one. One of the big selling points of consoles had always been about bringing the arcade experience home, and the Dreamcast was probably the first console to execute that perfectly at an affordable price point. Outside of that its library was really unique compared to other games on the market at the time.
By that point, Sega had burned it's bridges with third parties following the 32x/Saturn debacle, followed by the Saturn's short lifespan. EA flat out refused to support it (hence why what eventually became 2k sports was created). Throw in Sony's full backward compatibility, on paper superior specifications, and heavy marketing by Sony, and the Dreamcast (and literally every other console from that generation) didn't stand a chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gvx64
like this
By that point, Sega had burned it's bridges with third parties following the 32x/Saturn debacle, followed by the Saturn's short lifespan. EA flat out refused to support it (hence why what eventually became 2k sports was created). Throw in Sony's full backward compatibility, on paper superior specifications, and heavy marketing by Sony, and the Dreamcast (and literally every other console from that generation) didn't stand a chance.
I totally agree that Sega burned its Genesis profits with all of the unnecessary, failed add-ons for the Genesis and of course the Saturn was a big financial sink for the company that I am sure left them on the verge of having to ditch their home console business. The Dreamcast really must have been a last gasp for Sega where even if everything went great it could still be not enough. Because it was a great console and I think that Sega did almost everything right that they could have done. I actually think the Dreamcast could have outsold the Gamecube and maybe even the OG XBox if received the proper price-cuts to compete with the PS2 and had a full 5 year lifespan on the market. Sure Sega lost EA but the 2K sports series was amazing, it may have lacked the name recognition of EA Sports but I think that the 2K series exceeded a lot of what EA put out in that era. The Dreamcast did almost all of the same things right as the Genesis did and Sega really recaptured the essence of what made them successful with the Genesis. The Saturn had RPG's but lacking sports games and especially a mainline Sonic game was absolutely devastating in the west. The Dreamcast had all of these in abundance along with an RPG library that rivaled the Saturn (which is no small feet, the Saturn had incredible RPG's). I mean, Skies of Arcadia, Phantasy Star Online, Shenmue I & II are some of the greatest RPG's ever made, I can't imagine all of that coming out within the span of 1.5 years in the west. And I can't imagine how far ahead of it's time Shenmue would have been, technically-speaking in 1999. In 99/2000, I was replaying Ocarina of Time on the N64 because there was nothing interesting coming out that Christmas on the N64 meanwhile Shenmue came out on the Dreamcast and would look impressive on consoles that wouldn't even come out for two more years in the future.

I regret that I was such a Nintendo fanboy in those days. I remember my dad telling me about the Dreamcast in Sep '99 and quietly feeling pi*d off because of how much better the graphics looked than the N64. Now, I wish that more Nintendo fans like me had supported Sega at that time for the greater good of the industry. Honestly, the Dreamcast was a better console than the Gamecube in a lot of ways especially when we consider that a big part of what saved the Gamecube from major droughts and lack of RPG's to the same degree as what happened with the N64 is because Sega became such an amazing 3rd party for Nintendo during the GCN era. I really believe that if it wasn't for the Game Boy and Game Boy Advance supporting Nintendo during the 1998-'05 period, it would have been the other way around and Nintendo would have been making games for the Dreamcast after the Gamecube failed to reverse the downward trend Nintendo was on from the N64.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree that Sega burned its Genesis profits with all of the unnecessary, failed add-ons for the Genesis and of course the Saturn was a big financial sink for the company that I am sure left them on the verge of having to ditch their home console business. The Dreamcast really must have been a last gasp for Sega where even if everything went great it could still be not enough. Because it was a great console and I think that Sega did almost everything right that they could have done. I actually think the Dreamcast could have outsold the Gamecube and maybe even the OG XBox if received the proper price-cuts to compete with the PS2 and had a full 5 year lifespan on the market. Sure Sega lost EA but the 2K sports series was amazing, it may have lacked the name recognition of EA Sports but I think that the 2K series exceeded a lot of what EA put out in that era. The Dreamcast did almost all of the same things right as the Genesis did and Sega really recaptured the essence of what made them successful with the Genesis. The Saturn had RPG's but lacking sports games and especially a mainline Sonic game was absolutely devastating in the west. The Dreamcast had all of these in abundance along with an RPG library that rivaled the Saturn (which is no small feet, the Saturn had incredible RPG's). I mean, Skies of Arcadia, Phantasy Star Online, Shenmue I & II are some of the greatest RPG's ever made, I can't imagine all of that coming out within the span of 1.5 years in the west. And I can't imagine how far ahead of it's time Shenmue would have been, technically-speaking in 1999. In 99/2000, I was replaying Ocarina of Time on the N64 because there was nothing interesting coming out that Christmas on the N64 meanwhile Shenmue came out on the Dreamcast and would look impressive on consoles that wouldn't even come out for two more years in the future.

I regret that I was such a Nintendo fanboy in those days. I remember my dad telling me about the Dreamcast in Sep '99 and quietly feeling pi*d off because of how much better the graphics looked than the N64. Now, I wish that more Nintendo fans like me had supported Sega at that time for the greater good of the industry. Honestly, the Dreamcast was a better console than the Gamecube in a lot of ways especially when we consider that a big part of what saved the Gamecube from major droughts and lack of RPG's to the same degree as what happened with the N64 is because Sega became such an amazing 3rd party for Nintendo during the GCN era. I really believe that if it wasn't for the Game Boy and Game Boy Advance supporting Nintendo during the 1998-'05 period, it would have been the other way around and Nintendo would have been making games for the Dreamcast after the Gamecube failed to reverse the downward trend Nintendo was on from the N64.
In terms of game library, you can argue the Dreamcast was the second best console of it's era. It was certainly a more complete package then the Gamecube/Xbox. But sales tell the story, and once the PS2 came out everyone else was relegated to "Almost Ran" status.

Sega's mistake was the 32x/Saturn; developers got burned hard on the 32x (the Saturn was announced just a few months later), and the Saturn couldn't compete in 3d with the PlayStation, since it was really designed first and foremost to run Sega's Arcade software of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gvx64
like this
Back
Top