PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: pstwo on December 08, 2001, 10:16:45 AM
-
This info was posted by TheDoomsdayMonster on the IGN.com board. This is interesting.
"The numbers indicate that this is the case.
In gameplay environments, the Xbox has a peak fill rate of about 933 million pixels per second.
This translates to about 29 mpps.
The ps2 on the other hand has a peak in-game fill rate of about 1.2 billion pixels per second.
This translates to about 37.5 mpps.
Now this refers to "rendering" only as NV2A has more "T" power than the ps2\'s VU1 (116.5 million geometric transformations per second for NV2A vs 66 million geometric transformations per second for VU1).
Here\'s the catch though......although NV2A Can do a lot more geometric transformations than VU1, NV2A\'s fill rate will not allow the Xbox to push more than 29 mpps in game-play environments!
Conversely, the ps2\'s GS could allow, in theory, the VU1 to draw as many as 37.5 mpps!
Interesting....aint it? The ps2 may actually (when its all said and done) be the greatest (in-game) poly pushing machine in this generation of consoles......despite it being over a year older than the other two systems........... "
Some other member ask this question:
How do you translate pixels into polygons?
TheDoomsdayMonster replies:
Take the peak fill rate and divide it by 32 (32 pixel polys) and that gives the peak poly pushing figure.
Example the peak fill rate of the ps2\'s GS is about 2.4 billion pixels per second........divide this by 32 and you get 75 mpps......which is what Sony stated for the GS........
Look at when the Xbox\'s GPU was to run at 250mhz (it currently runs at 233mhz, so the number I\'m getting ready to state is no longer the correct figure), it had a peak pixel fill rate of 4 giga-pixels..........
Divide that by 32 and you get that 125 mpps figure Microsoft advocated for the Xbox.
See how it works?...........
-
interesting
i am really interested though in come five years whose console will look most impressive graphically
because it just doesnt seem possible since you cant keep the texture quality of games on PS2 as with other consoles
still though it would be something if come 4-5 years the PS2 looks better graphically then xbox
but xbox will reach its graphic peak much faster then PS2 thats for sure
-
933 million pixels a second, I always thought it was something like 2.3 billion pixels
forget it, xbox is more powerfull
-
welp I keep hearing that that with Sony\'s performance analyzer no PS2 game pushed the sytem more then 40%
but thats all talk, gotta see it to believe it
-
Agreed.
It doesn\'t really matter anyway. We in the next generation now all we need to do is hope that the PS2 doesn\'t go bust which I very much doubt it will. Which ever console is getting games developed for it in 4 years time is the one I want to own (hopefully PS2 as I don\'t want to fork out for another console for ages yet :)).
-
mpps??? isnt that Micro Polygons per second? if so, that is a completely different thing to Polygons, and are unrelated...
someone correct me if i be wrong...
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
mpps??? isnt that Micro Polygons per second? if so, that is a completely different thing to Polygons, and are unrelated...
someone correct me if i be wrong...
Million Polygons Per Second.. :p
-
yes, i got that...but i have also seen it referred to as Micro Polygons Per Second...you second rate elvis impersonator from New Jersey (penis)
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
yes, i got that...but i have also seen it referred to as Micro Polygons Per Second...you second rate elvis impersonator from New Jersey (penis)
Hey you..
I like Abba better!
Im a Benny impersonator you numbnuts! :p
But I used to preform as Elvis, before I heard Abba.. (http://eilertpilarm.to/images/Leftarm.jpg)
Listen to my first hit here.. (RealPlayer) (http://eilertpilarm.to/rms/EilertBlueMoonSmpl.rm)
-
And I guess theDoomsdaymonster has worked on games for ps2 and xbox rite :rolleyes: Jeesh why not just ask my little newphew and he will tell you gamecube is better.
We all know xbox is more powerfull but has it really mattered yet no. So I think thedoomsdaymonster should reconfigure his calculations.
-
GOSHHHHHHHHH.
I don\'t really care who\'s more powerful. As long as I own the system that allows me to play my favorite games, I\'m cool. :cool:
-
I believe Xbox is the most powerful. Not like it matters.
You\'ll never catch me alive Bill!
-
I don\'t really thing polys are the biggest issue now adays, it is more about textures and things like that.
Does anyone else think the same?
-
Originally posted by Ethan_Hunt
I don\'t really thing polys are the biggest issue now adays, it is more about textures and things like that.
Does anyone else think the same?
me :)
When it comes to triangles, quantity matters a lot, but quality matters as well,if not more...
today, both triangles and pixels per second are hard to capture with a single number. Triangle rate varies with many factors, such as number of textures and type of primitive. Fill rate is even harder to nail down, due to z and occlusion techniques that save varying amounts of work under different circumstances. Matters get even more complicated with antialiasing, which is evaluated in terms of how many samples would have to be drawn with box-filtered supersampling to produce a visually equivalent result, a measure that\'s difficult to quantify....
Now this refers to "rendering" only as NV2A has more "T" power than the ps2\'s VU1 (116.5 million geometric transformations per second for NV2A vs 66 million geometric transformations per second for VU1).
Nope ! I don\'t know where these guys found these crazy numbers :) ...
I know that the whole Emotion Engine(Main CPU + Vu0 + Vu1) can process 66 mpps with z-buffering and a-blending and 36 mpps with 1 texture,1 light,fog and other effects...but you\'re using all the power of the EE for processing polys and nothing else...
...so...the Vu1 alone cannot process 66 mpps with z-buffering and a-blending...
...but it\'s not the whole story...
most of the "futures and effects" that X-Box makes via hardware,are done by PS2 via software...and it means that you have to use,for example,a percentage of the power of the main CPU to do effects like AA,bump mapping,environment-mapping,multi pass-techniques,etc...and you\'re "losing" power for tasks like processing polys...
...and you have to spend further power of the main CPU,for example,for "normal tasks" of a game,animations and sound...and then you have to implement physics and AI(using,for example,the Vu0...)
but there\'s even more...with the release of SSX Tricky and NHL 2002 both by EA Sports, the second vector unit of the EE has actually been put to use in generating DTS sound effects for in-game 5.1 audio. The unfortunate downside to this is that it takes a decent amount of power to enable DTS encoding through one of the VUs which is power taken away from physics, AI or a 3D setup engine=that\'s the case I did...
so people...though PS2 is a great piece of hardware...it cannot process as many polys as X-Box does in the same conditions!...
...to be continued...:)
-
Yeah, seem a bit crazy. Would be nice if he could lay it out more detailed how he comes to that conclusion... :)
However, eventhough I can\'t back up what I have heard from EA-developers (either believe it or not, but don\'t quote me on this), but apperantly the PS2 has a higher in-game pixelfillrate than any of the other consoles - this is coming from people who have worked on both systems. Don\'t know if it\'s true, so take it with a grain of salt.
I know that the whole Emotion Engine(Main CPU + Vu0 + Vu1) can process 66 mpps with z-buffering and a-blending and 36 mpps with 1 texture,1 light,fog and other effects...but you\'re using all the power of the EE for processing polys and nothing else...
huh.. no, not to my knowledge. :) When Thoshiba designed the Emotion Engine, they customized the devices (CPU Core, VU0, VU1) to fit certain roles:
CPU + FPU: basic program control
CPU + FPU + VU0: behavior and emotion synthesis, physics calculations etc.
VU1: simply geometry calculation that produce display lists that are send to the GIF.
IPU: image decompression.
If you\'ve seen a basic layout of the EE, you will also see that VU1 that is ment for geometry calculations is directly connected to the GIF (Graphics Interface) and has its own bus, while CPU Core and VU0 need to send travel either through VU1 or the main CPU internal 128-bit bus. Toshiba specifically designed it this way, so I wouldn\'t bet that VU1 is being used 100% for graphic-specific calculations as well when thinking of the 66 million polygons/s number. I might be wrong, so if you could back it up, I\'d be thankful.
Since I also mentioned the IPU, might aswell also mention that the PS2 can handle MPEG compressed textures (Squaresoft developer quoted so), but that this isn\'t very sufficiant. The use some sort of vector compression method with VU1 if I stand correct.
BTW:
The EE can handle:
+66 million polygons/s while doing Perspective Transformation
+38 million polygons/s while adding lightning
+36 million polygons/s while adding fog.
The GS can handle:
~20 million polygons/s with Z-buffering, textures, lightning and alpha blending. (Not sure if these stats are 100% correct though, I\'d rather here it from a developer)
...so...the Vu1 alone cannot process 66 mpps with z-buffering and a-blending...
...but it\'s not the whole story...
most of the "futures and effects" that X-Box makes via hardware,are done by PS2 via software...and it means that you have to use,for example,a percentage of the power of the main CPU to do effects like AA,bump mapping,environment-mapping,multi pass-techniques,etc...and you\'re "losing" power for tasks like processing polys...
Huh, wait a minute. Now you are waaaay underestimating the GS here... Give it some credit!
1. Alpha-blending is done via GS -> Hardware
2. Anti-Aliasing is done via GS -> Hardware
3. Bump-Mapping is done via GS -> Hardware
All those features can be done via software (CPU), but are ment to be used hardware if you know how to handle the Graphics Synthesizer features (less impact on CPU). I know that there have been many reasons to believe that PS2 could not handle AA or Bump-Mapping like other consoles of this generation, but if you look at present games now - it is possible.
Baldur\'s Gate: Dark Alliance -> crisp, clear graphics, no aliasing)
Jak & Daxter -> no aliasing, engine can apperantly do bumb-mapping, but was not implemented in the final game.
Both released this month.
-
Toshiba specifically designed it this way, so I wouldn\'t bet that VU1 is being used 100% for graphic-specific calculations as well when thinking of the 66 million polygons/s number. I might be wrong, so if you could back it up, I\'d be thankful.
Yes...the Vu1 was specifically designed for graphic-specific calculations but the beauty of the PS2(EE) is that you can use both Vu0 and Vu1 for everything you want...they are very similar...and if you want a Game with mindblowing animations,very very strong physics and AI and a very complex collision-system...you could theoretically use 100% of Vu0 and 50% of Vu1 for these things...
what I meant is that the EE can process 66 mpps(when you use all the power of the main CPU plus Vu0 plus Vu1)...not the Vu1 alone...I\'m almost sure...
-
okay true :)
BTW; I spotet a stupid error in my post, which I will now correct:
"If you\'ve seen a basic layout of the EE, you will also see that VU1 that is ment for geometry calculations is directly connected to the GIF (Graphics Interface) and has its own bus, while CPU Core and VU0 need to send travel either through VU1 or the main CPU internal 128-bit bus. Toshiba specifically designed it this way, so I wouldn\'t bet that VU0 is being used 100% for graphic-specific calculations as well when thinking of the 66 million polygons/s number. I might be wrong, so if you could back it up, I\'d be thankful."
Since VU0 isn\'t connected to the GIF directly, and considering the great freedom the EE gives developers, that VU0 can take of work or help out VU1 with geometry calculations, but I am not sure if it could be used 100% parallel to VU1.
Maybe it\'s me, but I can\'t really think of two independent VU\'s being both used for graphics-specific calculations (I am sure you could, but it\'s a damn struggle to keep two independent units working parallel I could imagine) and developers have also stated that it\'s already hard enough to make use of VU0 and VU1 at the same time. Anyway, the thing I was trying to get at, is; how accurate are the figures that Sony is published?
I think it\'s a safe estimate to find out the raw processing power if you can messure the data accoardingly - the question though is, how sufficiant and accurate is the data? Is there a chance that the PS2 could do more with different techniques? And the messured data (66 mpps), is that considering a maximum use of the DMAC, EE-Core, VU0, FPU, VU1? And having asked that, the second question is, now since the Performance Analyzer 2 is out, can this data be estimated even better than before?
Sure this is the wrong place to ask these questions, but unfortunately I am not Jason Rubin\'s nextdoor neighbour (sp?), but it would be nice. :)
-
Originally posted by seven
okay true :)
BTW; I spotet a stupid error in my post, which I will now correct:
"If you\'ve seen a basic layout of the EE, you will also see that VU1 that is ment for geometry calculations is directly connected to the GIF (Graphics Interface) and has its own bus, while CPU Core and VU0 need to send travel either through VU1 or the main CPU internal 128-bit bus. Toshiba specifically designed it this way, so I wouldn\'t bet that VU0 is being used 100% for graphic-specific calculations as well when thinking of the 66 million polygons/s number. I might be wrong, so if you could back it up, I\'d be thankful."
Since VU0 isn\'t connected to the GIF directly, and considering the great freedom the EE gives developers, that VU0 can take of work or help out VU1 with geometry calculations, but I am not sure if it could be used 100% parallel to VU1.
Maybe it\'s me, but I can\'t really think of two independent VU\'s being both used for graphics-specific calculations (I am sure you could, but it\'s a damn struggle to keep two independent units working parallel I could imagine) and developers have also stated that it\'s already hard enough to make use of VU0 and VU1 at the same time. Anyway, the thing I was trying to get at, is; how accurate are the figures that Sony is published?
I think it\'s a safe estimate to find out the raw processing power if you can messure the data accoardingly - the question though is, how sufficiant and accurate is the data? Is there a chance that the PS2 could do more with different techniques? And the messured data (66 mpps), is that considering a maximum use of the DMAC, EE-Core, VU0, FPU, VU1? And having asked that, the second question is, now since the Performance Analyzer 2 is out, can this data be estimated even better than before?
I\'ve not the knowledge to answer this :( ...:)
Sure this is the wrong place to ask these questions, but unfortunately I am not Jason Rubin\'s nextdoor neighbour (sp?), but it would be nice. :) [/B]
Very true...it should be nice to have a forum devoted to Hardware but...it shouldn\'t be successful here...:(
-
WOW!! I\'m lost. Phil, I\'ve notice that PS2 GS has a 75 Million Polygons per second rate and the Xbox rate is 125 Micropolygons/particles per second. Polygons or Micropolygos which is more? :D
-
Originally posted by pstwo
WOW!! I\'m lost. Phil, I\'ve notice that PS2 GS has a 75 Million Polygons per second rate and the Xbox rate is 125 Micropolygons/particles per second. Polygons or Micropolygos which is more? :D
Nope :)
the XGPU can achieve 116.5Mvertices/sec and 233 million particles/second !
""the XGPU can additionally generate one "particle" per clock cycle, a particle being what nVidia describes as a "simple" polygons. So its effective particle rate is 233 million particles/second.""
http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,apn%253D14%2526s%253D1017%2526a%253D19278%2526app%253D12%2526ap%253D13,00.asp
...so...we should compare 66 mpps(PS2) to 116.5 mpps(XBox)...but...there\'s something "unclear"...how many polys can the Vu1 alone process ? Both PS2 and X-Box are "essentially" 3 processors machine :
PS2 :
- The Main CPU
- Vu0
- Vu1 directly connected to the GIF + GS
X-Box :
...and when it comes to processing polys...we have to compare the performance of the Vu1(PS2) and NV2a(X-Box)-generally-...right? ...and not "all" the EE and the NV2a...
I want prof ! :)
-
BizioEE
Okay, I just had a chat with a developer of Square and he varified the following issue about that 66/75 million of polygons that the EE/GS could handle:
That number Sony has posted is the performance of only VU1 running microprograms. He followed on with "It\'s acutally possible to exceed the 75million polygon/sec rating of the GS by running both VU0 and VU1 in micromode and feeding the GS triangle strips instead of triangles...".
What that basically means is, that the PS2 can do 66 million polygons (just the rate of the perspect transformation of VU1), in-game, since VU0 could handle the physics, AI and other in-game important calculations at the same time. Since VU0 holds slightly less performance VU1, I wonder what number it could be pushing if both VU0 and VU1 were used for perspect transformation... not that it matters, but it\'s interesting to know that the numbers Sony published are more than valid.
Originally posted by pstwo
WOW!! I\'m lost. Phil, I\'ve notice that PS2 GS has a 75 Million Polygons per second rate and the Xbox rate is 125 Micropolygons/particles per second. Polygons or Micropolygos which is more? :D
Well, hmm.. well, if you\'re interested in my personal opinion, it\'s just some good marketing Microsoft is doing here to build in some extra hype. If you ask me, micropolygons and just polygons are the same thing. Not that it matters really, since probably PS2 and Xbox are in the long run about equal in terms of overall performance (both having their pluses and negatives).
-
Seven we\'ve had this discussion before--you seem to be the only one out there that thinks the PS2 and xbox are equal in terms of power. Other than that I\'m not going to get into it.
-
Originally posted by seven
BizioEE
Okay, I just had a chat with a developer of Square and he varified the following issue about that 66/75 million of polygons that the EE/GS could handle:
That number Sony has posted is the performance of only VU1 running microprograms. He followed on with "It\'s acutally possible to exceed the 75million polygon/sec rating of the GS by running both VU0 and VU1 in micromode and feeding the GS triangle strips instead of triangles...".
It should be great...and...if it were true...PS2 potentially should be more powerful in processing power then GC,for example...GC GPU=more than 30mpps with no textures...Vu1=66mpps with no textures...is it possible? (well...I know that GC can do 8 pass technique so...when you add textures...these numbers decrease less drastically...-- but I even read that Naughty Dog are implementing multi pass technique on PS2 via software in their next game...and it should be interesting to see the quality of the result--...,and it has more effective texture bandwidth(GC),so polys should be prettier...)
What that basically means is, that the PS2 can do 66 million polygons (just the rate of the perspect transformation of VU1), in-game, since VU0 could handle the physics, AI and other in-game important calculations at the same time. Since VU0 holds slightly less performance VU1, I wonder what number it could be pushing if both VU0 and VU1 were used for perspect transformation... not that it matters, but it\'s interesting to know that the numbers Sony published are more than valid.
Can you give me a link ?
Well, hmm.. well, if you\'re interested in my personal opinion, it\'s just some good marketing Microsoft is doing here to build in some extra hype. If you ask me, micropolygons and just polygons are the same thing. Not that it matters really, since probably PS2 and Xbox are in the long run about equal in terms of overall performance (both having their pluses and negatives).
seven,I\'m interested in your opinion,what you have said is interesting:)...but I\'m sceptical now...I mean...I\'ve watched Brute Force on the X-Box,and it looks amazing(X-Box was released a month ago and sure future X-Box games will improve in 2nd,3rd,etc generation of games).....yes...PS2 is a lot more difficult to develop for then X-Box ,it has a higher step learning curve,but it is out since march 2000,and I don\'t want to believe that developers haven\'t still learnt how to push it...
-
Seven & BizioEE,
Well done exchange of information on both sides of the fence. I was even able to comprehend a portion of what was being said \':surprised\'
BizioEE,
Your doubtfulness about PS2 developers not having learned to push it yet is justified but I believe you may be underestimating just how radical a change in programing thought is required in order to really reap the potential benefits. Early on a developer for Nintendo was quoted (I believe he was from either Rare or Factor5) making a statement along the lines of the major drawback with the design of the PS2 was the learning curve appeared so steep it would be near the end of its life span before its ultimate power would begin to be fulfilled. The words stuck with me because Nfanboys used to keep dragging them out over and over to prove how bad GC was gonna to kick PS2s ass when it launches.
Watchdog,
Be fair! Seven\'s stance of "probably PS2 and Xbox are in the long run about equal in terms of overall performance (both having their pluses and negatives)" is not the same as saying "PS2 and xbox are equal in terms of power" and he is most certainly not alone in thinking so. Go visit the Ars Technica forums where employed programers show up regularly and they\'ll tell you the same thing in answer to which of the three consoles is best. It boils down to each having strengths and weaknesses, there being not a whole lot of separation between three.
-
It should be great...and...if it were true...PS2 potentially should be more powerful in processing power then GC,for example...GC GPU=more than 30mpps with no textures...Vu1=66mpps with no textures...is it possible?
Well, as I said, I am in contact with a Square developer (got to know him through ArsTechnica) and was able to ask him a few question. He stated, that he went higher with pushing polygons than the numbers Sony had published (75 million polygons/sec GS) and that 66 million polygons is just the performance of VU1. I can\'t really varify if this is true, but seing what reputation this guy holds on the forums and what knowledge he\'s got, I think it\'s fair to believe so. And it\'s first hand information which he holds, not second/third hand like most authors of those comparasment-tech-articles.
But to say this again, I\'ll repost my Q&A with him:
"...the other thing is, how realistic are the estimates that both Sony and Microsoft make of their consoles? PS2 with 75, while Xbox comes in somewhere at 125 mil. if I stand correct. The other thing that I was also wondering is, if those number that Sony posted with the EE (66 million polygons/sec) is that considering a 100% usage of both VU0 and VU1 or just the VU1 (since it handles the geometry calculations)?
Answer:
The 66million is just VU1 running microprograms (as far as I know, I\'ve gone higher using both)... It\'s acutally possible to exceed the 75million polygon/sec rating of the GS by running both VU0 and VU1 in micromode and feeding the GS triangle strips instead of triangles...
(well...I know that GC can do 8 pass technique so...when you add textures...these numbers decrease less drastically...-- but I even read that Naughty Dog are implementing multi pass technique on PS2 via software in their next game...and it should be interesting to see the quality of the result--...,and it has more effective texture bandwidth(GC),so polys should be prettier...)
Actually, the Cube is not multipass technique (I think it\'s called differently), more like 8 within one pass. That means it can render it 8 times in one single pass. Don\'t forget though, that the PS2 holds a rendering bandwidth of 2560-bits or 48 GB/sec - so while it can only render 1 in one pass (textures have about 10 GB/sec bandwidth (512-bits)), it can do it very very fast.
Can you give me a link ?
Huh, that was the conclusion out of the above question from the developer. You can read it in the manual of the EE how much the VU0 is cabable compared to VU1.
Here is the clue why VU1 is noticably quicker than VU0:
Co-processor1 FPU (FMAC x 1, FDIV x 1)
Co-processor2 VU0 (FMAC x 4, FDIV x 1)
Vector Processing Unit VU1 (FMAC x 5, FDIV x 2)
As you can see VU1 holds 1 Floating-Point Multiply-Accumulator more than VU0. It also holds one FDIV more. Now, since VU1 is connected directly to the GIF, it also has another advantage there, but doesn\'t mean VU0 couldn\'t take off a considerable amount of perspective transformation calculations. I won\'t estimate how powerful VU0 is compared to VU1, but it is powerful enough to make a big difference in polygons counts if it were to be used to help out VU1.
You can find a lot of tech articles which hold information like this on the Arstechnica (http://www.arstechnica.com) site and also visit the forum, because like Heretic already mentioned, there are a lot of developers (PS2 and other platforms) that visit these forums regularly.
seven,I\'m interested in your opinion,what you have said is interesting...but I\'m sceptical now...I mean...I\'ve watched Brute Force on the X-Box,and it looks amazing(X-Box was released a month ago and sure future X-Box games will improve in 2nd,3rd,etc generation of games).....yes...PS2 is a lot more difficult to develop for then X-Box ,it has a higher step learning curve,but it is out since march 2000,and I don\'t want to believe that developers haven\'t still learnt how to push it...
It\'s not a suprise that Xbox has a lot of power that can be tapped fairly easy compared to the PS2. Remember, Xbox is very PC like; an architecture that is very similar to the ones found in todays PC\'s or older consoles. The PS2 is brandnew and developers have to rethink there way of programming. It might not be hard to get out a game, but it is very hard to get the true potential out of this new hardware. Remember, while Xbox (or any other console at the moment) holds big memory, PS2 has only very little and now real texture buffer to consider. It may sound simple in theory, but time is proving how hard it actually is. But there are making progress, and games like Jak & Daxter are slowly making the hardware shine.
-
Thanks seven for the info...it\'s very interesting :) ...I\'ll try to find other informations about it...
-
BizioEE, since you seem to be interested (I find that very cool by the way), here\'s a link you should definately keep your eye on.
ArsTechnica Perspetual PS2 Programming Post (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=39309975&m=3550964623)
They just started it and I think you can learn a lot by following it. Make sure to download all the files from the link (second post) *hint* *cough* *hint*. :) This should be quite some fun to follow... also, keep out for a guy that calls himself "Archie4Oz". :)
-
Thanks seven ;)
-
WOAH, I worked through the other day at work and while I was there, I printed about 2/5th of the PlayStation 2\'s User manual (about 500 pages so far). I have slowly began to read it and I can\'t wait until the Linux Kit is out so that I can try to program some games for it.
For those who are interested in the Linux Kit for developing games for their PS2 - I asked this Square guy and he said it is a fairly powerful programming kit. If you know what you\'re doing, it is possible to reach graphics seen on Dreamcast. That is pretty powerful IMHO for a devkit on the PS2.
Anyway, I was also wondering who on these boards is interested in this techstuff? I know it won\'t be enough to fill a Tech & Hardware forum, but if the interest is there, we could devote a thread to it. I was kind of thinking about asking questions and having them aswered. It would also be neat for those who are reading through the manual and don\'t unterstand certain things and it would be cool to learn more about the hardware. It\'s a bit like the post at ArsTechnica (which I posted a link above), just on these boards. :) what do you think?
BizioEE, Heretic, IronFist... anyone?
PS. I\'ll post this in the main-forum aswell, since the intention of this post has nothing to do with the other consoles.
-
For those who are interested, the link to the post in the main-forum would be:
Linux-Kit: PlayStation 2 development (http://www.psx2central.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16893)
-
Originally posted by pstwo
This info was posted by TheDoomsdayMonster on the IGN.com board. This is interesting.
"The numbers indicate that this is the case.
In gameplay environments, the Xbox has a peak fill rate of about 933 million pixels per second.
This translates to about 29 mpps.
The ps2 on the other hand has a peak in-game fill rate of about 1.2 billion pixels per second.
This translates to about 37.5 mpps.
Now this refers to "rendering" only as NV2A has more "T" power than the ps2\'s VU1 (116.5 million geometric transformations per second for NV2A vs 66 million geometric transformations per second for VU1).
Here\'s the catch though......although NV2A Can do a lot more geometric transformations than VU1, NV2A\'s fill rate will not allow the Xbox to push more than 29 mpps in game-play environments!
Conversely, the ps2\'s GS could allow, in theory, the VU1 to draw as many as 37.5 mpps!
Interesting....aint it? The ps2 may actually (when its all said and done) be the greatest (in-game) poly pushing machine in this generation of consoles......despite it being over a year older than the other two systems........... "
Some other member ask this question:
How do you translate pixels into polygons?
TheDoomsdayMonster replies:
Take the peak fill rate and divide it by 32 (32 pixel polys) and that gives the peak poly pushing figure.
Example the peak fill rate of the ps2\'s GS is about 2.4 billion pixels per second........divide this by 32 and you get 75 mpps......which is what Sony stated for the GS........
Look at when the Xbox\'s GPU was to run at 250mhz (it currently runs at 233mhz, so the number I\'m getting ready to state is no longer the correct figure), it had a peak pixel fill rate of 4 giga-pixels..........
Divide that by 32 and you get that 125 mpps figure Microsoft advocated for the Xbox.
See how it works?...........
My brother\'s friend\'s girlfriend said that Commodore 64 can render more polygons than the PS2 is this true?
Are we desperate or what? Did God give you a brain? Use your damn brain... duh!
Of course the Xbox can render more polygons, thats a given, including fillrate. The xbox is newer technology than the PS2.
I don\'t mean to be rude, but there are a lot of simple minded people on some of these boards.
Simple minded people should be banned from having sex.
-
:rolleyes: who cares?
-
Of course the Xbox can render more polygons, thats a given, including fillrate. The xbox is newer technology than the PS2.
I don\'t think I should bother, but I\'ll just say that much; while Microsoft\'s stats are pretty much questioned, Sony\'s are more than valid. Newer technology? I doubt it - but we\'ve already had this debate, I won\'t bother a second time:
Debate (starts I think on the second page) (http://www.psx2central.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15660&highlight=xbox)
And by the way, you might want to check the above replies in this thread. We\'ve already discussed our concerns about the opening thread and what we think about it. ;)
-
the XGPU can achieve 116.5Mvertices/sec and 233 million particles/second
This is interesting. Isn\'t a vertice one point in the polygon? If u\'r gonna make a triangle polygon, that\'s 3 vertices right?
That means 116.5M / 3 = 38.33million polygons/sec?
Well, someone correct if I\'m wrong.
-
WOW seven, you seem to know your stuff. I love tech stuff, but thi stuff goes waay beyond me. Do you work for sony or someting?
As for the Linux kit, yes Im one of those few who is interested. But I doubt it\'ll be a huge success, it will have a cult following just like the black yaroze psx had.
And a Question can ps2 do proper volumetric effects such as fog lighting etc I would also like to see some games using proper bump mapping and shadow effects.
-
The ps2 to my knowledge is not the most powerful but is powerful none the less,(my console of choice). I\'m not sure if its been said or not but the Ps2 can do more floating point calculations than the other counsoles which are very important. Another is that the X-Box, though it has a p3 clocking at 733mgz or whatever it is a cisc processor wich is significantly slower than a risc processor of the same speed, (what is in both the ps2 and the gamecube). I think that the gamecube is actually the fastest system but surprisingly some of its games have some undesireable slowdown that has been conquerd in games like thps3 on ps2. * Im tired so i forgot all the really important stuff i wanted to include to the tech jargon : (* one more thing: Jak and Daxter pushes over 15mpps with tons of effects and its only naughty dogs first for ps2. Gamecube games with all effects has said to do 12mpps, (which i know can grow to larger heights just with fewer effects i guess *shrugs*). Thats pretty damn impressive. (dope game by the way)
-
Originally posted by Lord Nicon
The ps2 to my knowledge is not the most powerful but is powerful none the less,(my console of choice). I\'m not sure if its been said or not but the Ps2 can do more floating point calculations than the other counsoles which are very important.
Nope...X-Box can do more floating point thanks to the NV2a...GC is second and then PS2...
Another is that the X-Box, though it has a p3 clocking at 733mgz or whatever it is a cisc processor wich is significantly slower than a risc processor of the same speed, (what is in both the ps2 and the gamecube).
The EE in the PS2,the X-CPU and the Gekko processor are not directly comparable...they have to do a different mass of work!
While the EE has to process polys with lighting,shading,bump mapping via software,etc plus sound,physics and AI,animations and "normal tasks" in a game...the X-CPU has to calculate meshes of polys only,physics,AI(and here integer are important,and the X-CPU is by far more powerful than the Gekko and EE),animations and "normal tasks" of a game,while the NV2a takes care of the majority of the floating point calculations and the MCPX takes care of sound!
I think that the gamecube is actually the fastest system but surprisingly some of its games have some undesireable slowdown that has been conquerd in games like thps3 on ps2. *
Nope...GC is not the fastest...it\'s somewhere between PS2 and X-Box...overall...
Games like THPS3,Madden,SSX are not a perfect example to show the difference among these three consoles...don\'t you agree ?
Im tired so i forgot all the really important stuff i wanted to include to the tech jargon : (* one more thing: Jak and Daxter pushes over 15mpps with tons of effects and its only naughty dogs first for ps2. Gamecube games with all effects has said to do 12mpps, (which i know can grow to larger heights just with fewer effects i guess *shrugs*). Thats pretty damn impressive. (dope game by the way)
Jak and Daxter doesn\'t push more than 15mpps...though I truly think it\'s beautiful...can\'t stop playing it ! Controls and gameplay are perfect !
GC was said to do 6-12 mpps in actual games...but you know that number of polys is not the only important thing...the "quality" of polys is more important...so...hypothetically,a game which pushes 12mpps could be more impressive than another game wich pushes 15-18-20 mpps...if it has better texturing with impressive bump-mapping,lighting,shading,better AA...etc...(it\'s an example...I\'m not referring to PS2,GC or X-Box..)
Merry Christmas people ! :)
-
All of those numbers for G-Flops MS keeps throwing around are for rasterization only, It can not be used for Physics and AI. Just like The Geforce 2 This high number seems due to the T&L engine. Geforce 2 could do 40 G-Flops but no one seemed to think that it was a super computer, I assure it is only for rendering.
-
Originally posted by PahnCrD
All of those numbers for G-Flops MS keeps throwing around are for rasterization only, It can not be used for Physics and AI. Just like The Geforce 2 This high number seems due to the T&L engine. Geforce 2 could do 40 G-Flops but no one seemed to think that it was a super computer, I assure it is only for rendering.
If someone asks : "which Console has more GFlops?"...you have to answer X-Box...because it\'s more GFlops...though most of them are used for rendering...
The EE in the PS2 has 6.2 GFlops and less integer than a P3 500...so...if you use all the power of the Vu1 for rendering,and a percentage of the Main CPU to do extra effects on polys and sound...how many GFlops and integer do you still have for animations,physics and AI ? ...this is the question...
For what I know...the NV2a in the X-Box can even do a little "extra" in physics and animations(but I don\'t know the entity of this "extra") while the X-CPU with its 2.9 GFlops and 1900 Dmips(more or less) has to do only meshes of polys,most of physics and animations(a "little" extra by the NV2a),AI and "normal tasks" in a game...
...in a word...I don\'t know how to quantify the differences among PS2,GC and X-Box in each area...rendering,physics,AI,animations,etc...
-
we all know the xbox is more powerful ther was no reason to drag this debate on this long. Seven has been drinking from the river of denile.
-
me, I don\'t really care about which is the most powerful system.. I\'m more into the games. :)