I wouldn't touch PCG yet. It's based on a single paper submitted to a journal which hasn't even been reviewed yet. Has there been any independent testing of the algorithm? Not that I know of. And the entire PCG website appears to have been built by the paper author as a promotional tool, which is a bit spooky given that the paper hasn't even been published.
MT is far from a "bad generator". It doesn't pass a few stringent TestU01 tests, which is the case for a number of very well regarded generators.
MT is far from a "bad generator". It doesn't pass a few stringent TestU01 tests, which is the case for a number of very well regarded generators.