PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: nonamer on May 07, 2002, 12:37:42 PM
-
I\'ve just read this article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=528&e=9&cid=528&u=/ap/20020506/ap_on_hi_te/japan_sony_4 , and I must say that Sony comes close to madness. Especially this part:
The new PlayStation would work over super-fast fiber-optics connections and would be Sony\'s first console to run games without a digital video disc, Kyodo said.
First, how many people you know has a optic cable hook-up? Approximately zero. And I\'d doubt enough people will get anything close to a optic cable til 2015+ to warrant a system like this. Hell, even T1\'s are probably over decade off. Second, without a DVD, there will be almost no games for this thing at all. My bet is that Sony will pack a DVD or something at the last moment, and the "super-fast fiber-optics connections" online plan will be abandon just after launch. Otherwise, the PS3 has no chance of success.
Also,
The new game console will run on a computer chip expected to be around 200 times faster than those currently installed in personal computers and game units, Kyodo News agency said.
Yeah, sure. Remind me again how this won\'t break Moore\'s Law.:rolleyes:
-
Who cares about PS3 right now, let Sony spout out whatever that want to say. As long as they back some of their **** up I couldn\'t care less what they say now.
-
Originally posted by nonamer
I\'ve just read this article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=528&e=9&cid=528&u=/ap/20020506/ap_on_hi_te/japan_sony_4 , and I must say that Sony comes close to madness. Especially this part:
Yeah, sure. Remind me again how this won\'t break Moore\'s Law.:rolleyes:
Already posted like last week pal sorry.:rolleyes:
-
Gordon Moore made his famous observation in 1965, just four years after the first planar integrated circuit was discovered. The press called it "Moore\'s Law" and the name has stuck. In his original paper, Moore predicted that the number of transistors per integrated circuit would double every couple of years. He forecast that this trend would continue through 1975. Through Intel\'s technology, Moore\'s Law has been maintained for far longer, and still holds true as we enter the new century. The mission of Intel\'s technology development team is to continue to break down barriers to Moore\'s Law.
Seen by this quote from Intel\'s site, Moore made his prediction in 1965. We\'ll see if this chip will be 200x more powerful - and I certainly hope so. I\'m asuming this the article is refering to CPU\'s such as Pentiums in todays PCs and they do run on quite an old architecture and are seriously limited therefore. I do expect it to be quite a bit more powerful.. after all, the chip is being backed by 3 big companies (most noticably IBM) and over 1 billion US dolars.
First, how many people you know has a optic cable hook-up? Approximately zero. And I\'d doubt enough people will get anything close to a optic cable til 2015+ to warrant a system like this. Hell, even T1\'s are probably over decade off. Second, without a DVD, there will be almost no games for this thing at all. My bet is that Sony will pack a DVD or something at the last moment, and the "super-fast fiber-optics connections" online plan will be abandon just after launch. Otherwise, the PS3 has no chance of success.
I pretty much doubt that it will just work over a highspeed network. Other articles indicated that a DVD medium will remain as the standard - eventhough the chip will be used as interface to a fast network. And don\'t question Sony - their not stupid. With competition such as Microsoft, Nintendo and many others, they won\'t bring out something that people can\'t afford or use. Anyway, we\'ll see how it shapes up - after all it\'s still a view years off and a lot can change and those articles are based upon rumours and not backed up by any official press release. Therefore, no reason to get excited.
-
Until Sony anounces their next console will only play games online, any talk of such a premature concept needs to be flaty ignored.
Morre\'s law applies to number of transistors and costs to manufacture them, not to the efficiency with which they are used to produce 3D graphics. Yeah I agree, the number 200 was probably pulled out of a grab bag, just like last year the PS3\'s cell was projected to be ‘1000 to 500\' times more powerful than PS2\'s EE. Doesn\'t mean those figures can\'t turn out be roughly close though.
-
Seen by this quote from Intel\'s site, Moore made his prediction in 1965. We\'ll see if this chip will be 200x more powerful - and I certainly hope so. I\'m asuming this the article is refering to CPU\'s such as Pentiums in todays PCs and they do run on quite an old architecture and are seriously limited therefore. I do expect it to be quite a bit more powerful.. after all, the chip is being backed by 3 big companies (most noticably IBM) and over 1 billion US dolars.
In your dreams seven, in your dreams.:p
Morre\'s law applies to number of transistors and costs to manufacture them, not to the efficiency with which they are used to produce 3D graphics. Yeah I agree, the number 200 was probably pulled out of a grab bag, just like last year the PS3\'s cell was projected to be ‘1000 to 500\' times more powerful than PS2\'s EE. Doesn\'t mean those figures can\'t turn out be roughly close though.
No. At best we can hope a 4-6 times increase in power, but 200? Not even close. Unless Sony somehow manages a 200 times power increase using only about 4 times the transistors, that\'s not going to happen.
-
Talking about numbers: you do know that the original PSX launched in 1994 could process roughly about 360\'000 polygons per second. That is the raw number of polygons mind you. PS2 launched in 2000 with a performance of 66\'000\'000 polygons. Taken by these numbers, that would mean PS2 is roughly 183 times more powerful. And 66 million polygons is the number on 1 vector unit chip dedicated only to perspective calculations. If you pull in the second VU for the same tasks, you\'re number will turn out much higher, letting assume that there could be well over a 200 times increase between PSX and PS2.
I\'d say it\'s possible, especially since IBM is taking a big role in designing this chip. Heretic is right though, it still is far too early and nothing is official yet. And he\'s also right on the transistor numbers. Transistors aren\'t everything when comparing performance.
-
also another thing about transistors:
The CPU of the Xbox has over 20 million transistors in there, the EE however almost half the amount. Which is more powerful? Ironically, not the Pentium/Celeron with more than double the amount of transistors.
-
Sony Corp has started work on developing a successor to its popular PlayStation 2 game console by 2005 with a view to putting it on the market after use of fiber-optic networks becomes widespread, according to Sony sources.
The third-generation PlayStation will feature a powerful micro processing unit (MPU), roughly 200 times faster than those currently used for video game consoles and personal computers, they said.
Sony Computer Entertainment Inc, a unit of Sony, Toshiba Corp and International Business Machines Corp (IBM) plan to spend a total of $400 million on developing the MPU, they said.
The next-generation PlayStation is designed for online use on high-speed fiber-optic networks, making it likely it will be free of memory devices such as DVDs, they said.
Connection to the Internet will place no limits on memory capacity for the envisioned game console, making it possible to play an "endless" game, the sources said.
The newly developed MPU will be capable of processing data at the same speed as supercomputers, enabling users to download video and music data on the Internet and edit and save on a server with specially designed software, they said.
Sony intends to make the new product free of any peripherals, other than a monitor screen and a game control unit, and has yet to decide whether to use the PlayStation brand name for it, they said.
Sony is considering providing the new MPU to other companies as the MPU is designed for use in TVs and audio equipment as well, they said.
Sony Corp. said last month that shipments of the PlayStation 2 game console doubled in fiscal 2001 ended March 31 from the year before to 18.07 million units.
Shipments of the console since March 2000 totaled more than 28 million units, according to Sony.
Source: http://www.japantoday.com
i hate this idea..
-
in that case...
I LIKE IT!! :D
just not sure of its practicality though...I can see widespread availability of traditional broadband ie ADSL and Cable, but Fibre Optic Connections r wayyy off. Other than that, it\'ll be just like Vavle\'s new on-line distribution initiative.... which I like.
-
By 2006, there will be enough broadband customers to merit Sony\'s decision. But I\'m sure they\'ll have plenty of games for single players like me.
Sounds like a plan.
May Xbox2 be crushed! ;)
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
May Xbox2 be crushed! ;)
if they decide to make a second one ;)
//me says that after looking at the latest sales figures ;)
Floppyy doooo daaaa DAyyyyyyyyy
-
Originally posted by seven
Talking about numbers: you do know that the original PSX launched in 1994 could process roughly about 360\'000 polygons per second. That is the raw number of polygons mind you. PS2 launched in 2000 with a performance of 66\'000\'000 polygons. Taken by these numbers, that would mean PS2 is roughly 183 times more powerful.
But of course, PS1 wasn\'t close to the maximum power graphics systems could achieve then, while PS2 comes a lot closer to max when it came out. In short, it started greatly behind and got to the front, which is a huge lead, but going from the cutting edge to the cutting edge 3 years from now isn\'t going to be 183 times greater or anything close to that. Plus polygons don\'t mean everything.:p
And 66 million polygons is the number on 1 vector unit chip dedicated only to perspective calculations. If you pull in the second VU for the same tasks, you\'re number will turn out much higher, letting assume that there could be well over a 200 times increase between PSX and PS2.
And you know this, how? And pulling a few numbers from Sony\'s PR division and rumors here and there don\'t count.:p
I\'d say it\'s possible, especially since IBM is taking a big role in designing this chip. Heretic is right though, it still is far too early and nothing is official yet. And he\'s also right on the transistor numbers. Transistors aren\'t everything when comparing performance.
Nothing is certain now, but you can\'t say 200x out of a 10x increase in transistors. That\'s like asking a V4 to put out 1000+ hp, so it\'s a no go.:p
also another thing about transistors:
The CPU of the Xbox has over 20 million transistors in there, the EE however almost half the amount. Which is more powerful? Ironically, not the Pentium/Celeron with more than double the amount of transistors. [/B]
Ironically, you have no idea what you\'re talking about.:p
P.S. :p
-
Originally posted by nonamer
Ironically, you have no idea what you\'re talking about.:p
P.S. :p
Ops.. You shouldn’t have said that..
Go get him Phil ;)
-
But of course, PS1 wasn\'t close to the maximum power graphics systems could achieve then, while PS2 comes a lot closer to max when it came out. In short, it started greatly behind and got to the front, which is a huge lead, but going from the cutting edge to the cutting edge 3 years from now isn\'t going to be 183 times greater or anything close to that. Plus polygons don\'t mean everything.
PSX was more powerful than PC\'s at the time when it launched. Plus, what else do you want to compare?
Polygons => geometry => very relevant to 3d graphics rendering.
And you know this, how? And pulling a few numbers from Sony\'s PR division and rumors here and there don\'t count.
No, actually it\'s quite logical. You just need to look at the internal layout of the Emotion Engine. VU1 is dedicated for geometry and holds a few more FMACs while being connected directly to the GIF. VU0 is for AI, phyiscs etc - although a developer can choose what tasks he wants to give away. Theoretically he can use both for geometry which would result in more polygons.
And another thing; this has been said by PS2 developers (most noticably Square). Talk to any Software engineer who understands the complex layout of the EE and he\'ll tell you this.
Ironically, you have no idea what you\'re talking about.
Got to love that comment. Come on buddy, prove me wrong, if you can. ;)
BTW: I think you\'re missing one important thing here: you\'re forgeting what the PC architecture was concepted for? Certainly not for 3d gaming and this factor will remain a limiting factor until they manage to change the architecture of todays PCs.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course, PS1 wasn\'t close to the maximum power graphics systems could achieve then, while PS2 comes a lot closer to max when it came out. In short, it started greatly behind and got to the front, which is a huge lead, but going from the cutting edge to the cutting edge 3 years from now isn\'t going to be 183 times greater or anything close to that. Plus polygons don\'t mean everything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSX was more powerful than PC\'s at the time when it launched. Plus, what else do you want to compare?
Polygons => geometry => very relevant to 3d graphics rendering.
Yeah, I\'m sure PSX would\'ve matched a Silicon Graphics workstation of the time.:rolleyes: Besides, at the time the most power graphics accelerator was the Voodoo1, which too does not max out Moore\'s Law.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you know this, how? And pulling a few numbers from Sony\'s PR division and rumors here and there don\'t count.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, actually it\'s quite logical. You just need to look at the internal layout of the Emotion Engine. VU1 is dedicated for geometry and holds a few more FMACs while being connected directly to the GIF. VU0 is for AI, phyiscs etc - although a developer can choose what tasks he wants to give away. Theoretically he can use both for geometry which would result in more polygons.
And another thing; this has been said by PS2 developers (most noticably Square). Talk to any Software engineer who understands the complex layout of the EE and he\'ll tell you this.
Where you\'d get that from, a Mad Lib? I guess I should\'ve said that bits and pieces of computing concepts don\'t count either.:p
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironically, you have no idea what you\'re talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to love that comment. Come on buddy, prove me wrong, if you can.
Prove you wrong? Prove yourself right.:p
BTW: I think you\'re missing one important thing here: you\'re forgeting what the PC architecture was concepted for? Certainly not for 3d gaming and this factor will remain a limiting factor until they manage to change the architecture of todays PCs.
Well it\'s not like PCs are wholesomely inadequate for "3d gaming." It\'s not like you could change the design of PCs and BOOM, 10x more power (w/o adding transistors, of course). Even if you could, isn\'t that what they did for PS2? I find hard to imagine that they could do that again.
-
Yeah, I\'m sure PSX would\'ve matched a Silicon Graphics workstation of the time. Besides, at the time the most power graphics accelerator was the Voodoo1, which too does not max out Moore\'s Law.
PSX was the first to really get 3d gaming going. Ridge Racer was a milestone at the time and not possible on the current pc hardware available then. And I never said PSX matched a silicon graphics workstation - and neither did Sony. We\'re talking about 200 times more powerful than current PC\'s, remember?
Where you\'d get that from, a Mad Lib? I guess I should\'ve said that bits and pieces of computing concepts don\'t count either.
I\'m not going to spend a few hours to write down the basics of the Emotion Engine design and how it works. VU1 is a dedicated vector unit for processing geometry, while VU0 is dedicated to physics and other in-game elements. When speaking of polygon performance, VU1 is ment specifically due to its nature of sitting right next to the GIF.
Well it\'s not like PCs are wholesomely inadequate for "3d gaming." It\'s not like you could change the design of PCs and BOOM, 10x more power (w/o adding transistors, of course). Even if you could, isn\'t that what they did for PS2? I find hard to imagine that they could do that again.
I think this more\'s law is getting a bit to you. A pentium 3 has roughly over 20 million transistors, while the EE only has 10.5. Which is better for 3d rendering? It certainly is not the Pentium. The EE has far more FMACs (Floating-Point Multiply-Accumulators) than a Pentium chip. This pretty much proves that transistors can\'t be used to compare the performance of two chips. The Pentium might be better for worksheets etc, but the EE wipes the floor when it comes to 3d rendering eventhough it has much less transistors.
-
Originally posted by seven
PSX was the first to really get 3d gaming going. Ridge Racer was a milestone at the time and not possible on the current pc hardware available then. And I never said PSX matched a silicon graphics workstation - and neither did Sony. We\'re talking about 200 times more powerful than current PC\'s, remember?
That\'s my point. PSX wasn\'t that powerful and get something 200x more powerful in 5 years wasn\'t that hard.
I\'m not going to spend a few hours to write down the basics of the Emotion Engine design and how it works. VU1 is a dedicated vector unit for processing geometry, while VU0 is dedicated to physics and other in-game elements. When speaking of polygon performance, VU1 is ment specifically due to its nature of sitting right next to the GIF.
Well, you\'re not convincing anybody so you better start writing.:p Anyways, this line of debate is totally off-topic and it probably wouldn\'t matter.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it\'s not like PCs are wholesomely inadequate for "3d gaming." It\'s not like you could change the design of PCs and BOOM, 10x more power (w/o adding transistors, of course). Even if you could, isn\'t that what they did for PS2? I find hard to imagine that they could do that again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this more\'s law is getting a bit to you. A pentium 3 has roughly over 20 million transistors, while the EE only has 10.5. Which is better for 3d rendering? It certainly is not the Pentium. The EE has far more FMACs (Floating-Point Multiply-Accumulators) than a Pentium chip. This pretty much proves that transistors can\'t be used to compare the performance of two chips. The Pentium might be better for worksheets etc, but the EE wipes the floor when it comes to 3d rendering eventhough it has much less transistors.
You should\'ve read what I wrote more carefully.
P.S. The quote function is messed up.
-
nonamer, not to be rude but you don\'t seem to know a lot about the inner workings of pc\'s nor consoles judging from your responses. The fact of the matter is that the PS3 will be built on IBM\'s Cell techology, which is a new technology. So how do you know for sure that it won\'t be 200 times more powerful?
You don\'t. And neither does seven know for sure if it will be. But judging from past experience it is far more likely to be 200 times more powerful than it won\'t.
Let\'s just wait and see and stop the foolish speculations instead. Hell let\'s even try and enjoy the ps2 while we still can. :)
-
That\'s my point. PSX wasn\'t that powerful and get something 200x more powerful in 5 years wasn\'t that hard.
Well, that\'s my point too. Current PC\'s today aren\'t that powerful either in 3d rendering due to a lot of bottlenecks that still exist. The PC platform is good for worksheets and word programs but not for 3d rendering. Imagine how much faster things would progress if they would just change the architecture?
Well, you\'re not convincing anybody so you better start writing. Anyways, this line of debate is totally off-topic and it probably wouldn\'t matter.
Trust me, there are enough people on this board who do believe me and have enough knowledge on their own to see it. I don\'t expect everyone to take my word for it - that\'s why, find someone who\'s opinion you trust and has the necessary knowledge and ask him. He\'d be able to confirm it. Or visit my site and hit the development section and you might find some useful manuals of the PS2 hardware and perhaps even understand it. ;)
You should\'ve read what I wrote more carefully.
P.S. The quote function is messed up.
Don\'t worry about it, I quoted the wrong paragraph. You should still read though what I wrote above. By the way, it\'s not in 2 years. Expect the chip to be finished in 2005 which still leaves a bit more than 3 years to go. And the chip is new technology so who knows how much more advanced it could be? And until we\'ll see this chip in a ready to buy console, it might be even 4 years.
-
Originally posted by seven
Talking about numbers: you do know that the original PSX launched in 1994 could process roughly about 360\'000 polygons per second. That is the raw number of polygons mind you. PS2 launched in 2000 with a performance of 66\'000\'000 polygons. Taken by these numbers, that would mean PS2 is roughly 183 times more powerful. And 66 million polygons is the number on 1 vector unit chip dedicated only to perspective calculations.
Excuse me seven,but you have to show me a reliable source...otherwise I won\'t believe you...
...you assert that the Vu1 alone is capable of delivering 66 mpps with z-buffering and a-blending(I think)...but,from what I know(Sony said so 2 years ago),the whole EE can process 66 mpps,not the Vu1 alone !
...in any case...if the Vu1 alone can deliver 66mpps with z-buffering,etc and 36 mpps with most effects(I think),how is it possible that TTT and RR5 pushed only 2-4 mpps? and J&D ? why "only" 10-13 mpps ? It\'s a contradiction in terms !
...and if it were true,it should mean that PS2 is FAR FAR superior than GCN in processing polygon power(Vu1 alone 66?? and Flipper\'s geometry rate somewhat higher at 20-30 million polygons/second!) and it\'s a nonsense if you think that RL2 pushes 12-15 mpps with 5-8 textures for poly at launch !
http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,apn=6&s=1017&a=19278&app=4&ap=5,00.asp
If you pull in the second VU for the same tasks, you\'re number will turn out much higher, letting assume that there could be well over a 200 times increase between PSX and PS2.
...you\'re still assuming that the Vu1 alone can process 66 mpps and I\'ve just explained to you why I don\'t believe that...and if you use even the Vu0 for processing polys...you have not much power for more important things as physics,AI,animations,system-collision,other effects on polys,"extra sound",etc...I think nobody wants more graphics for PSX game-play and animations? right? So you can\'t take that into account,it\'s only theory!
Trust me, there are enough people on this board who do believe me and have enough knowledge on their own to see it. I don\'t expect everyone to take my word for it - that\'s why, find someone who\'s opinion you trust and has the necessary knowledge and ask him. He\'d be able to confirm it. Or visit my site and hit the development section and you might find some useful manuals of the PS2 hardware and perhaps even understand it.
Please,even ND has 0 credibility for what I\'ve seen and heard from them...
...no offense seven,but you didn\'t prove anything and you can\'t prove anything !
Leave this argument! :)
-
Excuse me seven,but you have to show me a reliable source...otherwise I won\'t believe you...
...you assert that the Vu1 alone is capable of delivering 66 mpps with z-buffering and a-blending(I think)...but,from what I know(Sony said so 2 years ago),the whole EE can process 66 mpps,not the Vu1 alone !
...in any case...if the Vu1 alone can deliver 66mpps with z-buffering,etc and 36 mpps with most effects(I think),how is it possible that TTT and RR5 pushed only 2-4 mpps? and J&D ? why "only" 10-13 mpps ? It\'s a contradiction in terms !
...and if it were true,it should mean that PS2 is FAR FAR superior than GCN in processing polygon power(Vu1 alone 66?? and Flipper\'s geometry rate somewhat higher at 20-30 million polygons/second!) and it\'s a nonsense if you think that RL2 pushes 12-15 mpps with 5-8 textures for poly at launch !
http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,...p=4&ap=5,00.asp
If you dont trust seven (or his source). Then ask someone else who knows what they are talking about.. :)
You know that 66mpps+ figure is RAW polygons with no effects. Just like the Xbox 125mpps figure.
Ingame its about 20-25mpps (30mpps according to Renderware – though I don’t know under what circumstances.) for PS2.. 15-20mpps something for GC and 31mpps for Xbox.
...you\'re still assuming that the Vu1 alone can process 66 mpps and I\'ve just explained to you why I don\'t believe that...and if you use even the Vu0 for processing polys...you have not much power for more important things as physics,AI,animations,system-collision,other effects on polys,"extra sound",etc...I think nobody wants more graphics for PSX game-play and animations? right? So you can\'t take that into account,it\'s only theory!
Here is what the layout of the EE looks like.
FPU + VU0 = general floating-point calculations
VU1 = geometry
IPU = image processing (MPEG2)
You can take BOTH VectorUnits and start pushing polygons.. But then, that’s all they\'ll be doing.. Nothing else.. (75mpps is max for PS2, because its the maximum polygon count the GS can show)
Please,even ND has 0 credibility for what I\'ve seen and heard from them...
...no offense seven,but you didn\'t prove anything and you can\'t prove anything !
Leave this argument!
:rolleyes:
Get out buddy, before its to late.. Leave while you still have your pride left :)
-
Bizio, you don\'t need to believe me. As Fast already said (and I did aswell further up in my reply to nonamer) - ask someone, who\'s opinion and knowlegde you trust and he\'ll confirm it.
Excuse me seven,but you have to show me a reliable source...otherwise I won\'t believe you...
...you assert that the Vu1 alone is capable of delivering 66 mpps with z-buffering and a-blending(I think)...but,from what I know(Sony said so 2 years ago),the whole EE can process 66 mpps,not the Vu1 alone !
...and if it were true,it should mean that PS2 is FAR FAR superior than GCN in processing polygon power(Vu1 alone 66?? and Flipper\'s geometry rate somewhat higher at 20-30 million polygons/second!) and it\'s a nonsense if you think that RL2 pushes 12-15 mpps with 5-8 textures for poly at launch !
Sony released messured numbers on PS2 of doing 66 MPolygons without any effects. As explained above, this is only for VU1, since VU1 is the dedicated vector unit for geometry. VU0 is a bit weaker (it has less FMACs - Floating-Point Multiply Accumulators) and hence it\'s position is dedicated for physics and other in-game elements (as Fast pointed, "general floating-point calculations").
Why is VU1 dedicated for geometry (calculation polygons)? Hence its postion next to the GIF (Graphical Interface) and its slightly more powerful hardware (more FMACs). It would be quite unlogical for developers to use it the other way around, since you would make your program very unefficiant and loose a lot of performance. Due to freedom of development however, a developer could use both Vector units both for processing geometry. In how much of an increasment this would end, I don\'t know, but a fair bit. However, is it worth it? Probably not, since you\'d want more in a game than just graphics without in-game elements and the GS can only render 75 MPolygons/s under "normal conditions".
I brought this up, to prove how much more powerful PS2 is over PSX. I don\'t know the real numbers for GameCube, but I am pretty sure that it is lower than PS2s. Talking about rendering however, Xbox is slightly ahead. PS2 can render over 2 times more polygons than Xbox (believe it or not, it\'s fact) witout any texture layers.
Xbox can render maximum 31.25 MPolygons per second, while PS2 can render 75 MPolygons. However, with 4 texture layers, Xbox can still render 31.25 while PS2s number decreases significantly. I think at 2 layers, PS2 could do about 20 MPolygons.
And about PS2 being superiour or whatever, there are other things to worry about than just polygons. As I have always said, each console has their pros and cons.
...in any case...if the Vu1 alone can deliver 66mpps with z-buffering,etc and 36 mpps with most effects(I think),how is it possible that TTT and RR5 pushed only 2-4 mpps? and J&D ? why "only" 10-13 mpps ? It\'s a contradiction in terms !
Learning curve, use of textures etc. Doesn\'t mean the system is maxed out however. 66 MPolygons is the raw performance of only VU1.
...you\'re still assuming that the Vu1 alone can process 66 mpps and I\'ve just explained to you why I don\'t believe that...and if you use even the Vu0 for processing polys...you have not much power for more important things as physics,AI,animations,system-collision,other effects on polys,"extra sound",etc...I think nobody wants more graphics for PSX game-play and animations? right? So you can\'t take that into account,it\'s only theory!
PS2 could do a game with 75 MPolygons in-game without textures. but I doubt will see a game like that in the future...
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
the whole EE can process 66 mpps,not the Vu1 alone !
...in any case...if the Vu1 alone can deliver 66mpps with z-buffering,etc and 36 mpps with most effects(I think),how is it possible that TTT and RR5 pushed only 2-4 mpps? and J&D ? why "only" 10-13 mpps ? It\'s a contradiction in terms !
:laughing:
yeah, Tekken Tag Tournament and Ridge Racer 5 are maxing out the PS2 :rolleyes:
"how is it possible" haha, good one.. yunno, we are talking stricly the MAXIMUM that can be pushed
J&D is pushing 10 - 13 mpps, with information, without Jasin Rubin says they could push well over 20 million
Gran Turismo 3 has an engine that can push over 20 million pps
we know that even these games arent maxing out the PS2.. "how is it possible" that RRV and TTT only uses 2 - 4 mpps?? because PS2 is a son of a ***** to develope for and developers (especially at launch) could hardly use the machine worth a ****.
*taps noggin* common sense boy
-
You know that 66mpps+ figure is RAW polygons with no effects. Just like the Xbox 125mpps figure.
Ingame its about 20-25mpps (30mpps according to Renderware – though I don’t know under what circumstances.) for PS2.. 15-20mpps something for GC and 31mpps for Xbox.
1) Nope! :) 66 mpps is what the EE can process with z-buffering and a-blending...116.5(not 125) is what the NV2a can process with one texture!
2) 20-25 for PS2? 31 for the XBox?? under which conditions? Both XBox and GCN can easy process polys with 5-6-8 textures for poly...and PS2 ? you have no idea what you\'re talking about...
-
1) Nope! 66 mpps is what the EE can process with z-buffering and a-blending...116.5(not 125) is what the NV2a can process with one texture!
That is incorect. Xbox CAN NOT render more than 31.25 MPolygons. Forget the 125 MPolygon/s number, you\'ll never see it. ;)
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
1) Nope! :) 66 mpps is what the EE can process with z-buffering and a-blending...116.5(not 125) is what the NV2a can process with one texture!
2) 20-25 for PS2? 31 for the XBox?? under which conditions? Both XBox and GCN can easy process polys with 5-6-8 textures for poly...and PS2 ? you have no idea what you\'re talking about...
1. Then what are the raw numbers for EE? ;)
2. Yes.. its 20-25 for PS2.. 31 for Xbox.. PS2 can do multitextures aswell.. but the polygon count drops :)
-
Originally posted by seven
That is incorect. Xbox CAN NOT render more than 31.25 MPolygons. Forget the 125 MPolygon/s number, you\'ll never see it. ;)
Why XBox cannot render more than 31.25 mpps?:)
-
Originally posted by fastson
1. Then what are the raw numbers for EE? ;)
2. Yes.. its 20-25 for PS2.. 31 for Xbox.. PS2 can do multitextures aswell.. but the polygon count drops :)
not only polygons drastically drop...but you have a crappy result compared to both GCN and XBox :)
-
This is nothing more than the ongoing Sony hype train...
That and I would believe that these PS3 plans are at least 10 years off...I would be super impressed if they manage to do this and keep it affordable by 2005/06.
-
Dr Yassam,I\'m astonished:D
and you?:)
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
Why XBox cannot render more than 31.25 mpps?:)
Because Xbox only has a Fillrate of 1 GPixels per Second, not 4 GPixels as Microsoft quoted.
4 GPixels/s = 4\'000\'000\'000 Pixels/s
4\'000\'000\'000 / 32 pixel Polygons = 125 MPolygons/s.
but, Xbox only has a 1 GPixels/s fillrate, so:
1 GPixels/s = 1\'000\'000\'000 Pixel/s
1\'000\'000\'000 / 32 pixel Polygons = 31.25 MPolygons/s.
Xbox can do this though with 4 texture layers without a drop in polygons. So with 4 texture layers, Xbox still performs 31.25 MPolygons/s.
-
When Sony says that PS3 will be 200 times more powerfull they mean it.
To think that computers never will get more than 200 times the power today just because a physical law says it cant be done is crayzy.
To get a CPU that is more than 200 times more powerful will require new technology (or multiple proccesors).
We already got optical and nano chips and we are looking at something that have been around for only about 50 years.
-
200 times more powerful is in part a misnomer. More accurately it should read; 200 times more efficient at 3D/graphics rendering. And the statement specifically refers to CPU vs MPU, working outside of a law that applies to transistor size/numbers and cost that has been fairly accurate for the last thirty plus years, without predicting in any way how efficiently the transistors would be/could be used.
Really best to grasp a more complete picture before dismissing it simply as hype
-
Originally posted by seven
Because Xbox only has a Fillrate of 1 GPixels per Second, not 4 GPixels as Microsoft quoted.
4 GPixels/s = 4\'000\'000\'000 Pixels/s
4\'000\'000\'000 / 32 pixel Polygons = 125 MPolygons/s.
but, Xbox only has a 1 GPixels/s fillrate, so:
1 GPixels/s = 1\'000\'000\'000 Pixel/s
1\'000\'000\'000 / 32 pixel Polygons = 31.25 MPolygons/s.
Xbox can do this though with 4 texture layers without a drop in polygons. So with 4 texture layers, Xbox still performs 31.25 MPolygons/s.
(by a guy,from another forum)
""
THAT\'S where that number came from? LOL. That\'s ridiculous.
As polygon counts go up, the average polygon size goes DOWN, (or depth complexity goes up, and most of it isn\'t rendered anyway)
If you kept the same depth complexity but doubled poly counts, the average poly would now be 16 pixels.
Now you\'d be pushing 62.5 million! It\'s MAGIC, LOL.
The only concrete poly spec I\'d throw out there for Xbox is 116.5 million unlit, shaded, dual-textured polys per second.""
I started a Thread on another forum and I\'ll show you how much crap seven\'s talking about...
-
last time you went to another forum to get help because you dont know enough about the PS2
but this time its about the XBox..
so its twice as funny :D
-
""
THAT\'S where that number came from? LOL. That\'s ridiculous.
As polygon counts go up, the average polygon size goes DOWN, (or depth complexity goes up, and most of it isn\'t rendered anyway)
If you kept the same depth complexity but doubled poly counts, the average poly would now be 16 pixels.
Now you\'d be pushing 62.5 million! It\'s MAGIC, LOL.
That\'s how you calculate the triangle performance from the fillrate. And we are comparing PS2 to Xbox, so lets keep them both at 32 pixels shall we? ;)
The only concrete poly spec I\'d throw out there for Xbox is 116.5 million unlit, shaded, dual-textured polys per second.""
I\'d love to see how the NV2a performs that many polygons, especially considering that the fillrate maxes out at 1 GPixel/s. And with how many pixel per polygon is that? Certainly not 32 pixels. ;)
BTW: Does anyone have the "real" official specs of Xbox (from a reliable source)? All I find on the net are those laughable numbers of 600 MHz PIII and the 300 MHz X-GPU.. thanks
-
What idiots we have here!(no offense) Don\'t you guys know that fillrate has nothing to do with polygon output?!
-
Originally posted by nonamer
What idiots we have here!(no offense) Don\'t you guys know that fillrate has nothing to do with polygon output?!
nonamer, we are speaking of the rendering (aka "drawing")capabilities, and therefore, pixelfillrate plays a significant role. Please do some research, will you.
Rendering != Processing/Perspective calculation.
-
Originally posted by seven
I\'d love to see how the NV2a performs that many polygons, especially considering that the fillrate maxes out at 1 GPixel/s. And with how many pixel per polygon is that? Certainly not 32 pixels. ;)
BTW: Does anyone have the "real" official specs of Xbox (from a reliable source)? All I find on the net are those laughable numbers of 600 MHz PIII and the 300 MHz X-GPU.. thanks
I am also looking for extreme detailed specs and explanations of effects.
-
Originally posted by seven
nonamer, we are speaking of the rendering (aka "drawing")capabilities, and therefore, pixelfillrate plays a significant role. Please do some research, will you.
Rendering != Processing/Perspective calculation.
I don\'t know what you\'re talking about, but polygons are totally independent of fillrates! If you\'re talking about rendering polygons, you must know that they could be of virtually any size; anywhere from taking up the whole screen and then some to less than one! Even if you were to "fix" their sizes for some benchmarking reason that may be attempting, did you ever think of hidden polygons that are behind one another? I think you\'re the one who needs research.:p;)
EDIT: Almost forgot, "Rendering != Processing/Perspective calculation." :p
-
Hey guys, it all comes down to this...
Xbox>PS2
as far as graphics and capabilities go.
Really, what\'s there to argue??
-
Originally posted by nonamer
I don\'t know what you\'re talking about, but polygons are totally independent of fillrates! If you\'re talking about rendering polygons, you must know that they could be of virtually any size; anywhere from taking up the whole screen and then some to less than one! Even if you were to "fix" their sizes for some benchmarking reason that may be attempting, did you ever think of hidden polygons that are behind one another? I think you\'re the one who needs research.:p
EDIT: Almost forgot, "Rendering != Processing/Perspective calculation." :p
I don\'t know too:) ...he has no clue what he\'s talking about...and now he proved he\'s not a software engineer!!
another skilled guy...
""First off, there is no coralation between the number of pixels, and number of polys that can be rendered.
Just because 4 Billion pixels per second runs with 125 million polys per second does NOT mean that 1 Billion pixels per second lowers the polygon output to 31.5 Million.
Polygons are easy to calculate, and have NOTHING to do with fill-rate.
Polygons = Clock speed divided by # of clock cycles required to complete a Transform.
ie. 250MHZ (Million clock cycles per second) Divided by 2 Clock Cycles per Transform = 125 Million polys per second.
That said, the TRUE MAXIMUM number of polys per second the Xbox can render is 116.5 Million. The 125 Million number was released before the clock speed of the GPU was lowered from 250MHZ to 233MHZ.
233MHZ Divided by 2 Clock Cycles per Transform = 116.5 Million polys per second.
It is TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of fill-rate.
Now, as for the fill-rate, the Xbox does 1 Billion pixels per second with NO FSAA, but with 4X FSAA turned on, each pixel is rendered 4 times, which is where the 4 Billion pixels per second number comes from.""
seven,you know nothing about XBox or...I\'m wrong?
Hey guys, it all comes down to this...
Xbox>PS2
as far as graphics and capabilities go.
Really, what\'s there to argue??
Nothing! XBox has easy 3 times the graphics capabilities of PS2!:)
Hey Bobs...I posted links and explained to him this kind of things a lot of times...but he does not believe...
...so...if you show that other 100 members think he\'s full of crap maybe it\'s more credible,right?:p
A poster on the Beyond3D console boards who has an Xbox dev kit and GC dev kit at his desk at work claimed that he has broken the 100 million poly per second barrier on actual Xbox hardware, and that it is easy.
Unlit polys aren\'t very pretty, though. Wait a minute... if you used lightmaps for the backgrounds, and light sources only for moving objects, you could get some pretty huge in-game poly counts.
I\'ll do a research about it ! (don\'t flame me!)
-
I don\'t know what you\'re talking about, but polygons are totally independent of fillrates! If you\'re talking about rendering polygons, you must know that they could be of virtually any size; anywhere from taking up the whole screen and then some to less than one! Even if you were to "fix" their sizes for some benchmarking reason that may be attempting, did you ever think of hidden polygons that are behind one another? I think you\'re the one who needs research.
If you would have taken the time to look at what I wrote down, you would have seen that I took for 32 pixels for the size of one polygon. And we are comparing two systems, so in order to do that fairly, we have to compare them both using the same conditions. Now, I don\'t know what you know or where you do your research little guy, but speaking strictly of rendering polygons (you know the "drawing those polygons on screen") is dependend on fillrate.
Now, off course a game could be drawn with smaller polygons (i.e. less pixels), but don\'t forget we want to compare both systems under the same conditions right. Not much point in Microsoft saying that the NV2a can draw 116.5 MTris/sec of 8 pixel Polygons (compared to the 75 MTris/sec of 32 pixel polygohns that the GS can render) right? Other people have done the maths and quoted a performance of 125 (now 116.5) MTris/sec using 32 Pixel Triangles. That was asuming a drawing fillrate of 4 GPixels/sec.
Now, anyone want the truth of how big Xbox\'s real fillrate is? Certainly not 4 GPixel/sec.
Xbox has got 4 pixelpipelines and is clocked at 233 MHz. That means, the NV2a can perform 4 pixels per clock cycle, so in 1 second, its:
Fillrate = 4 * 233 MHz
Fillrate = 0.932 GPixels/sec
That number is the drawing fillrate of the system, thus how many pixels can be rendered per second. Want a link to back this up?
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/xboxtech/page4.asp (http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/xboxtech/page4.asp)
There! Confirmed source of Xbox having a fillrate of 0.932 GPixels/sec (or 932 MPixels/sec). Now, since this is a comparasment between the two (Xbox - PS2), we\'ll compare them both under the same conditions (using 32 Pixel polygons):
Triangles = 0.932 GPixels/sec / 32 Pixel Polygons
Triangles = 29.125 MTris/sec
PS2 has got 16 pixelpipelines and the GS is clocked at 150 MHz. So, 16 pixels done with each clock cycle. Fillrate = 16 * 150 MHz; Fillrate = 2.4 GPixels/sec
Triangles = 2.4 GPixels/sec / 32 Pixel Polygons
Triangles = 75 MTris/sec (the number Sony quoted)
Now this might seem that PS2 is much better at rendering polygons. While this is true to a certain extend, the above calculation shows one extreme witout any textures being rendered. While Xbox can do 2 texels (texel = textured pixel) per pass, it has a texelfillrate of 1.8 GTexels/sec.
The GS however needs 2 clock cycles to perform one texel, so the texelfillrate is 1.2 GTexels/sec. This basically means, that the Xbox can render up to 2 texture layers without a drop in polygons performance, while PS2\'s drops significantly. Using two texture layers, Xbox can do 29.125 MTris/sec (still using 32 Pixel polygons, same conditions) and PS2 drops down to 18 MTris/sec.
Now, as for the fill-rate, the Xbox does 1 Billion pixels per second with NO FSAA, but with 4X FSAA turned on, each pixel is rendered 4 times, which is where the 4 Billion pixels per second number comes from.""
Xbox still only has a drawing fillrate of 0.932 GPixels/sec.
Source: http://www.gdconf.com/archives/proceedings/2001/abrash.ppt (http://www.gdconf.com/archives/proceedings/2001/abrash.ppt)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conceptics.ch%2Fshared%2Fgdc_xboxfillrate.jpg&hash=13b2d2c40735e8d127f765708cba2a267d514550)
Nothing! XBox has easy 3 times the graphics capabilities of PS2!
A statement that only a fanboy would say. The above shows that PS2 has a edge from untextured polygons and with 1 texture layer. You\'d have to prove to me where Xbox is "easy" 3 times the graphics capabilities of PS2. That is simply laughable.
I\'ll do a research about it ! (don\'t flame me!)
Yep, using 8 pixel Polygons. It is possible, but for the comparasment above, we did use 32 pixel polygons to compare the 2 systems.
Really, what\'s there to argue??
I wasn\'t argueing - simply aswered Bizio\'s question above. You can\'t argue against facts.
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
you have no idea what you\'re talking about...
i have absolutly no idea what ANY of you are talking about :shy: :surprised ;)
-
There! Confirmed source of Xbox having a fillrate of 0.932 GPixels/sec (or 932 MPixels/sec). Now, since this is a comparasment between the two (Xbox - PS2), we\'ll compare them both under the same conditions (using 32 Pixel polygons):
when you use 4xFSAA you have 3.7 GPixel/sec(4x0.932)--->29.125 MTris/sec X 4=116.5Mtris/sec(using 32 Pixel polygons)...right?
...however I don\'t know why you continue to make a fool of yourself...PS2 is a flawed piece of hardware compared to both GCN and XBox in the graphics capabilities...while GCN can process more or less the same number of polys then PS2 but with FAR prettier textures...XBox can do everything better(more polys and better textures) and I don\'t understand why you fool deny the evidence...
XBox can process more polys with 0 textures
XBox can process FAR more polys with 1 textures
XBox can process FAR FAR FAR more polys with 4 textures than PS2!
anything else? :yawn:
Stop talking crap about the XBox...you know nothing about it...
http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,apn%253D11%2526s%253D1017%2526a%253D19278%2526app%253D9%2526ap%253D10,00.asp
-
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fw1.480.telia.com%2F%7Eu48019256%2Fbizzan.jpg&hash=5462dfd6122692ec2acedf211cc8ed5c4317404c)
You have difficulty with engrish? Hello?
-
when you use 4xFSAA you have 3.7 GPixel/sec(4x0.932)--->29.125 MTris/sec X 4=116.5Mtris/sec(using 32 Pixel polygons)...right?
LOL, you\'re missing the point. Xbox can NOT draw more than 0.932 GPixels/sec.
...however I don\'t know why you continue to make a fool of yourself...PS2 is a flawed piece of hardware compared to both GCN and XBox in the graphics capabilities...while GCN can process more or less the same number of polys then PS2 but with FAR prettier textures...XBox can do everything better(more polys and better textures) and I don\'t understand why you fool deny the evidence...
Who\'s in denial here? You? Or me? ;)
XBox can process more polys with 0 textures
Maybe, but it can only render 29.125 MTis/sec whereas PS2 can render 75 MTRis/sec. Can you see it? PS2 > Xbox with o Textures.
XBox can process FAR more polys with 1 textures
Not in rendering though. PS2 can redner 37.5 MTris/sec, Xbox 29.125 MTris/sec. PS2 > Xbox with 1 Texture.
XBox can process FAR FAR FAR more polys with 4 textures than PS2!
Not far far far more. But it can render more than PS2. PS2 < Xbox with 4 textures.
-
The pixel fill-rate of the NV2a with 4xFSAA is 3.7 Gpixel/sec!
XBox=3.7 with 0 textures
PS2=2.4 with 0 textures
XBox>PS2
XBox=3.7 with 1 texture
PS2=1.2 with 1 texture
XBox>>PS2
XBox=3.7 with 2 textures
PS2=0.6 with 2 textures
XBox>>>PS2
No one will develop game with less than 2 textures per poly=PS2 is a flawed piece of hardware compared to XBox!:)
anything else?
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
No one will develop game with less than 2 textures per poly=PS2 is a flawed piece of hardware compared to XBox!:)
anything else?
yeah but isn\'t amusing that the all mighty X box :rolleyes: is being out sold by the "FLAWED" PS2.
FFS people....... this BS and Technobable mean nothing to Joe Public out there
they buy the console that lets them play the games they like on.
yeah its as EASY as that...just a pitty that M$$$$ fail to realise this...
hmm maybe theis is the reason why they are doing piss poor Copyrighted © ooseven 2002 in Japan and Europe.
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
The pixel fill-rate of the NV2a with 4xFSAA is 3.7 Gpixel/sec!
XBox=3.7 with 0 textures
PS2=2.4 with 0 textures
XBox>PS2
XBox=3.7 with 1 texture
PS2=1.2 with 1 texture
XBox>>PS2
XBox=3.7 with 2 textures
PS2=0.6 with 2 textures
XBox>>>PS2
No one will develop game with less than 2 textures per poly=PS2 is a flawed piece of hardware compared to XBox!:)
anything else?
That is none sense Bizio. Read the presentation from Michael Abrash. XBox CAN ONLY DRAW 0.932 GPixels/sec[/u]. You\'re denying the facts above. You have yet to explain to me how 2xFSAA magically doubles the fillrate 2 times. And also, if this is true :rolleyes: how come none of the games to date have AA?
And yes, games are being developed with less than 2 textures per polygons. Objects that are far away don\'t need 2 textures. For what, if you don\'t see them? Close up objects, yes - but not all of them. Stop denying the facts bizio.
-
Another thing about that 4 GPixels/sec fillrate that Xbox supposedly has using 2xFSAA:
Nvidia started listing "sample fillrates" of their graphics cards, demonstrating how much it would be when FSAA is enabled. This is however not the effective pixelfillrate that can be drawn on screen.
Therefore, Xbox only has a maximum fillrate of no more than 0.932 GPixels/sec and a so call "Nvidia AA sample fillrate" of ~4 GPixels/sec with FSAA.
Source: http://216.12.218.25/domain/www.beyond3d.com/articles/gf4launch/index1.php (http://216.12.218.25/domain/www.beyond3d.com/articles/gf4launch/index1.php)
Note that nVIDIA are now listing \'AA Samples\' rather than fillrate in Pixels / Texels per second, I\'ve supplied what I would assume the relevant Pixel/Texel fillrates would be (for reference the specs of the highest GeForce3 are included):
-
That is none sense Bizio. Read the presentation from Michael Abrash. XBox CAN ONLY DRAW 0.932 GPixels/sec. You\'re denying the facts above. You have yet to explain to me how 2xFSAA magically doubles the fillrate 2 times. And also, if this is true how come none of the games to date have AA?
It\'s nothing to do with fill-rate,it\'s due to memory bandwidth...once dev will optimize the usage of memory and find new ways and tricks to "squeeze" the best from UMA you\'ll see most games using FSAA and a boost in fill-rate performance...
Having said all that, the Xbox GPU will be able, even at 233 MHz, to handle up to 116.5 million Gouraud-shaded, two-texture triangles per second, complete with transformation, clipping, and perspective projection. With one infinite hardware light added, the rate will be at least 58-59 Mtris/sec.
The GPU\'s raw fill rate at 233 MHz will be 0.932 Gpix/sec. To provide some context for that number, at a resolution of 640×480, it is sufficient to draw every pixel on the screen more than 50 times per frame, at a frame rate of 60 Hz. (TV is the normal Xbox output device, although HDTV and VGA monitors are supported. TV is interlaced, but Xbox will normally render noninterlaced, then filter the interlaced fields from the full frame, so I\'ll use full 640×480 TV-frame resolution in this article.) There\'s also occlusion-detection circuitry that can increase fill rate by up to 4X=3.7 Gpixel/sec); the effect varies depending on whether pixels are occluded when they\'re drawn, but tends to be greatest exactly when it\'s needed most,when there\'s a lot of overdraw. Finally, antialiased drawing can produce still higher equivalent fill rates!
anything else? :yawn:
-
Bizio, you\'re a idiot. Stop denying the facts by taking "AA sample fillrates". Here\'s a valid source from Microsoft themselves, showed at the Game Developer Conference:
Source: http://www.gdconf.com/archives/proceedings/2001/abrash.ppt (http://www.gdconf.com/archives/proceedings/2001/abrash.ppt)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conceptics.ch%2Fshared%2Fgdc_xboxfillrate.jpg&hash=13b2d2c40735e8d127f765708cba2a267d514550)
Now I don\'t know if you\'re blind or something, but that is a FACT. In case you haven\'t seen it yet, it says:
Really can NOT-DRAW AT 4 GPixels/sec Those are the old numbers (asuming a clock rate of 250 MHz), so you do the maths and Xbox still can\'t draw at 3.7 GPixels/sec.
Now, stop this arguement, it\'s pathetic. Unless you have a "intelligent" reply, consider this my last reply.
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
anything else? :yawn:
NEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!
i hope not because if i see another Tech spec in this forum...i Won\'t Be held responcible for my actions !
BizioEE...Seven shame on you\'s
in fact Shame on ALL of you !
this place is turing more and more into GEEKS Heaven ever day :crying:
like i SAID
triangles per second
and
perspective projection
and what not.......does absolutly F all to Console Sales as ..."for the second time" Joe Public nither knows or carses how much console A can pump pixels out over Console B.
they like me just want to play Games !
not measure Geekyness like what is going on in here.
After all everyone buying a console looks at the following
- Console price
- Game Price
- Availability of AAA games
- potential future of the console
- potential Killer Apps
- Controller feal / size (for comfort)
- Will this Console get me layed ?
- back Catalogue of games
- Exclusive titles that they like
- Etc etc etc etc
lets face it if you where toget 100 people today who just bought a console and asked them what a perspective projection(what ever the fook that is ?)
i bet you that barely a hand full (if at all any)
will know that the Fricking hell you are talking about !
-
Note that nVIDIA are now listing \'AA Samples\' rather than fillrate in Pixels / Texels per second, I\'ve supplied what I would assume the relevant Pixel/Texel fillrates would be (for reference the specs of the highest GeForce3 are included)
The NV2a is more like a GeForce4-NV25(not GF3), hence the name NV2A.
It got most of the straits found in a final NV25, and it was done 2-3 months before the NV25. Both the NV2A and the NV25 have:
1. nfiniteFX II engine (dual fully programmable vertex shaders). The Geforce3 has the nfiniteFX engine.
2. Improved Z-Occlusion Culling: Z-Occlusion Culling has already been found in the Geforce3. But in the NV25, this feature has been improved to be able to cull more pixel while using less memory bandwidth to do it. The most of the cullings are now done by using on-chip cache to avoid off-chip memory accesses. The NV2A is able to cull 3.7 gigapixels per seconds
(--->I think it\'s only in theory=that\'s why you won\'t see 3.7 Gpixel/sec in game but--->it doesn\'t mean you won\'t see more than 0.932 Gpixel/sec//occlusion-detection circuitry can increase fill rate by up to 4X but the effect varies depending on whether pixels are occluded when they\'re drawn, but tends to be greatest exactly when it\'s needed most,when there\'s a lot of overdraw//so you\'ll see it at different degrees).
This spec puts it right up there with the chips in the NV25 family.
3. Vertex Cache, Dual Texture Cache, and Pixel Cache
4. Accuview
5. 4xS FSAA (confirmed by Xbox developers)
Note that the Geforce 3 doesn\'t have the Accuview and 4xS FSAA features.
Now proofs:
Geforce4\'s features (according to Tomshardware):
Vertex Cache: storing vertices after they were sent across the AGP. It\'s used to make the AGP more efficient, by avoiding multiple transmissions of teh same vertices (e.g. primitives that share edges).
Primitive Cache: assembles vertices after processing (after vertex shader) into fundamental primitives to pass onto triangle setup.
Dual Texture Caches: those were already found in Geforce3. The new cache algorithms are advanced to "look ahead" more efficiently in cases of multi-texturing or higher quality filtering. This contributes to the significantly improved 3 and 4 texture performance of Geforce4 Ti.
Pixel Cache: This cache at the end of the rendering pipeline is a coalescing cache, which is very similar to the "write combining" feature of Intel and AMD processors. It waits until a certain amount of pixels have been drawn until it writes them to memory in burst modes.
Improved Z-occlusion culliing: This feature was also found in Geforce3 already, but for NV25 it has been tuned to cull more pixels while using less memory bandwidth to do it. The culling is now done in a certain culling surface cache on-chip to avoid off-chip memory accesses.
Accuview: makes AA look better and run faster
4xS FSAA: this mode is supposed to look a lot better than 4x AA mode, due to a 50% increase in subpixel coverage.
NV2A\'s features (according to ExtremeTech):
Vertex Cache/Dual Texture Caches/Pixel Cache: Other plumbing of interest is the XGPU\'s texturing caching scheme, which is configured in a kind of L1/L2 layout. According to Microsoft\'s Seamus Blackley, textures are decompressed between the two caches. nVidia was willing to state that the XGPU has vertex, texture and pixel caches, though declined to detail their respective sizes.
Improved Z-occlution culling: There are however both L1 and L2 texture caches on the XGPU, and while nVidia was unwilling to disclose their sizes, developers will likely look to tune their engines to get as many cache hits as possible to minimize memory touches. According to Microsoft, many of the Z-occlusion tests occur on-chip and don\'t even touch the caches, never mind system memory.
Accuview: Nvidia provided some additional detail regarding how they architected the XGPU to be as miserly in its memory usage as possible. For instance, with its 4X multisampling antialiasing enabled, the XGPU gains what can be thought of as four-fold increase in performance. That\'s not a typo, here\'s how it works: XGPU has dedicated multisampling hardware than can generate up to four sub-samples per pixel per clock cycle, meaning the "rest" of the XGPU doesn\'t have to spend pixel processing power to generate these samples. In addition, nVidia states that this multisampling hardware doesn\'t have to fetch textures from memory to generate its sub-samples, which is a huge relief for beleaguered memory bandwidth that traditionally gets hammered when super-sampling FSAA is enabled. nVidia likely does this by generating the sub-samples when a texture has already been fetched for some other operation, so as not to duplicate the accesses.
4xS FSAA: there is a 4-sample 9X multi-sampling AA mode on the Xbox that looks even more amazing than 4x FSAA (leaked info from developers)!
Please seven,XBox is not a GF3...
-
[sarcasm mode]
BizioEE...Seven ....you two are prime for a job in M$$$$ PR devision in Europe and Japan.
i mean with intresting debate like that :rolleyes:
you are sure to excite the public with your talk of , Dual Texture Cache, and Pixel Cache and what not.
and get them to but the console
you pair of Smooth talking \'tards you ;)
after all anything you 2 bring to the devison a much higher level of excitment that already exsists in the section of MS you are bound to take high ranking jobs within the company.
;)
[/sarcasm mode]
Good God has anyone told you that you can bore the hind legs of a donkey ?
-
ooseven im with u on this one
really who cares which console is better, if i had the money i would buy all three consoles,
and if u like a particular system then thats yer choice who cares what anyone else thinks.
BTW all these technical specs and paragraphs upon paragraphs make no sense to the average person, heck they make my head hurt without even reading them.
-
Originally posted by Tyrant_246
ooseven im with u on this one
really who cares which console is better, if i had the money i would buy all three consoles,
and if u like a particular system then thats yer choice who cares what anyone else thinks.
BTW all these technical specs and paragraphs upon paragraphs make no sense to the average person, heck they make my head hurt without even reading them.
too True my like minded friend
i just wish that these to nuckleheads would realise that.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
too True my like minded friend
i just wish that these to nuckleheads would realise that.
Sorry mate:)...
...but don\'t worry,I\'ve finished and I won\'t reply to seven any more!
ps: you know...I "hate" him:p
ps2: :D you know...I\'m joking seven,I don\'t hate you...
-
ooseven im with u on this one
really who cares which console is better, if i had the money i would buy all three consoles,
BTW all these technical specs and paragraphs upon paragraphs make no sense to the average person, heck they make my head hurt without even reading them.
ooseven and tyrant,
I had no intention to bring up this technical stuff, if Bizio had not asked for my explenation. If I had the money, I would also get all 3 consoles - but that\'s besides the point and you can still lead a very interesting debate on the potential of a system.
-
bah, i was interested in that
ooseven everyone KNOWS that these specs have no affect on the outcome of the console war, so what do YOU care what they argue about? shut up and let them have at eachother, i for one find it interesting..
and now they will stop :(
-
BizioEE: Where did Seven say that the NV2a was a GF3? He quoted from a GF4 test..
The point is that Nvidia likes to quotes "Sample AA fillrate numbers" on their newer graphics card (also GF4). This hasn\'t got any relevance to which graphics card nor did he say or even imply that the NV2a is a GF3.
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?PAGE=geforce4ti
Btw.. Are you saying MS themselves dont know their hardware? Cuz looky here.. I zoomed in the important stuff cuz you seem to have a problem with your eyes..
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fw1.480.telia.com%2F%7Eu48019256%2Fnvid.JPG&hash=45513151ac5afeb23028070dcd8a210515236879)
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
bah, i was interested in that
ooseven everyone KNOWS that these specs have no affect on the outcome of the console war, so what do YOU care what they argue about? shut up and let them have at eachother, i for one find it interesting..
and now they will stop :(
Sorry matey
have no fear bobby boy :bounce:
for Fastson is here to fire the argument right back up
and don\'t forget we have the other members who will fight over this one
so please kick back grab the popcorn and what this B&tch fight go ;).
me soo sorry
me will agrue on geeky techspecs long time for you !
in fact i can fire it up my self
Hey Seven
BizioEE said you where gay ;)
-
Faston...I can\'t waste my time with you...you are at the same level of Bossieman and Chrono...
...I want seven...
...I\'ve just explained to all you...
""
Improved Z-Occlusion Culling: Z-Occlusion Culling has already been found in the Geforce3. But in the NV25, this feature has been improved to be able to cull more pixel while using less memory bandwidth to do it. The most of the cullings are now done by using on-chip cache to avoid off-chip memory accesses. The NV2A is able to cull 3.7 gigapixels per seconds(--->I think it\'s only in theory=that\'s why you won\'t see 3.7 Gpixel/sec in game but--->it doesn\'t mean you won\'t see more than 0.932 Gpixel/sec(if you really can draw 0.932 Gpixel/sec---can you understand?)//occlusion-detection circuitry can increase fill rate by up to 4X but the effect varies depending on whether pixels are occluded when they\'re drawn, but tends to be greatest exactly when it\'s needed most,when there\'s a lot of overdraw//so you\'ll see it at different degrees).""
They didn\'t say: the NV2a can not draw at more than 0.932!
...simply...can not draw at 3.7,which is a theoretical limit!
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Hey Seven
BizioEE said you where gay ;)
Im not Seven but.. When one is out of real arguments, they start making personal attacks.. Pretty pathetic ;)
-
Originally posted by fastson
Im not Seven but.. When one is out of real arguments, they start making personal attacks.. Pretty pathetic ;)
hey don\'t make me come overthere and B$tch slap you !
;)
i was trying to restart the flame war for Bob\'s entertainment
-
Originally posted by fastson
Im not Seven but.. When one is out of real arguments, they start making personal attacks.. Pretty pathetic ;)
out of arguments? maybe with you...
...but I have arguments with seven...leave...you pointless:)
-
They did\'t say: the NV2a can not draw at more than 0.932!
Look at the closeup Fast did for you. It\'s in clear and plain english that it can not draw at 4 GPixels/sec (or 3.7 GPixels/sec). That\'s from a realiable source within Microsoft. I rest my case.
Faston...I can\'t waste my time with you...you are at the same level of Bossieman and Chrono...
Yeah, you\'re absolutely right on that one. Everyone seems to be on a much higher level than you.. and I am beginning to ask myself why I\'m wasting my time with you. Read through the whole debate, I\'ve said everything already, layed down all the facts from realiable sources. There\'s nothing more to say. Xbox is not superiour in rendering. Plain and simple.
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
Faston...I can\'t waste my time with you...you are at the same level of Bossieman and Chrono...
...I want seven...
...I\'ve just explained to all you...
""
Improved Z-Occlusion Culling: Z-Occlusion Culling has already been found in the Geforce3. But in the NV25, this feature has been improved to be able to cull more pixel while using less memory bandwidth to do it. The most of the cullings are now done by using on-chip cache to avoid off-chip memory accesses. The NV2A is able to cull 3.7 gigapixels per seconds(--->I think it\'s only in theory=that\'s why you won\'t see 3.7 Gpixel/sec in game but--->it doesn\'t mean you won\'t see more than 0.932 Gpixel/sec(if you really can draw 0.932 Gpixel/sec---can you understand?)//occlusion-detection circuitry can increase fill rate by up to 4X but the effect varies depending on whether pixels are occluded when they\'re drawn, but tends to be greatest exactly when it\'s needed most,when there\'s a lot of overdraw//so you\'ll see it at different degrees).""
They didn\'t say: the NV2a can not draw at more than 0.932!
...simply...can not draw at 3.7,which is a theoretical limit!
read again idiot!
try again...
Xbox is not superiour in rendering. Plain and simple.
in what sense? :)
Read through the whole debate, I\'ve said everything already, layed down all the facts from realiable sources. There\'s nothing more to say.
sure? ...I\'m missing something:yawn:
-
something tells me that Bobs_hardware is right..this B%thc fight is entertaining
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.penny-arcade.com%2Fimages%2F2001%2F20010212l.jpg&hash=ce783752326d8563423a391349633d6b7f604c6e)
-
so all this comes down to a theorrtical possibility that may/may not ever come into effect onto XBox games? :)
bah, such a ho-hum ending :(
it prooves neither person right, nor wrong! baaah! screw you BizioEE! screw you Seven! *shakes fist VIOLENTLY while making a menacing face*
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
Faston...I can\'t waste my time with you...you are at the same level of Bossieman and Chrono...
Since when is it allowed to write what you just did? I have never affended you or anyone else at this forum. Everyone has the right to have their opinion about things.
So why are you starting to offend mee?
-
/me is glad I avoided this thread
/me cares more about games and is extremly excited about the new contra, and many RPGs
-
"arguing over the internet is like the special olympics. even if you win, yer still frickin retarded"
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
so all this comes down to a theorrtical possibility that may/may not ever come into effect onto XBox games? :)
bah, such a ho-hum ending :(
it prooves neither person right, nor wrong! baaah! screw you BizioEE! screw you Seven! *shakes fist VIOLENTLY while making a menacing face*
Sure? BizioEE is not the only one who thinks seven is full of BS CRAP...
>>>>If you would have taken the time to look at what I wrote down, you would have seen that I took for 32 pixels for the size of one polygon. And we are comparing two systems, so in order to do that fairly, we have to compare them both using the same conditions. <<<<<
A 1.94 million poly scene and a 1.1 million poly scene are hardly the same conditions, now are they?
>>>>Now, I don\'t know what you know or where you do your research little guy, but speaking strictly of rendering polygons (you know the "drawing those polygons on screen") is dependend on fillrate.
Now, off course a game could be drawn with smaller polygons (i.e. less pixels), but don\'t forget we want to compare both systems under the same conditions right.
Not much point in Microsoft saying that the NV2a can draw 116.5 MTris/sec of 8 pixel Polygons (compared to the 75 MTris/sec of 32 pixel polygohns that the GS can render) right? <<<<<
WRONG.
Just what part of more polys = smaller polys don\'t you understand?
I\'ve changed my avatar to an illustration of the phenomena to make it simpler for you...
<-----------------------------
116.5 million polys per second WOULD likely mean that each poly would only be approximately a fourth the size of the polys of a 31 million poly per second game. (an average of 8.5 pixels in size vs. 32 pixels, so it\'s a perfectly fair comparison.
>>>>Other people have done the maths and quoted a performance of 125 (now 116.5) MTris/sec using 32 Pixel Triangles. That was asuming a drawing fillrate of 4 GPixels/sec. <<<<
The 125 million and 116.5 million triangle figures for Xbox were NOT derived from fillrate specs.
They are transform rate specs, like the 66 million poly figure for PS2.
The specs also claim that Xbox can draw those 116.5 million polys to screen with two textures per poly, and real-world benchmarks bear out this claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
seven reasoning is based on flawed logic=seven is wrong!
XBox can really process more than 50-60 mpps in game while PS2 can not even dream that=XBox>PS2 in real world number(technically)
Why XBox can do it technically? in a few words,because it has enough memory bandwidth,enough fill rate to draw whatever it wants at least at 640X480! yes sir...58-59 Gouraud-shaded, two-texture triangles per second,with one infinite hardware light added! PS2 can not even dream to do this "in game" !
...but I don\'t expect someone believes me on a PS2 forum:D
-
The 125 million and 116.5 million triangle figures for Xbox were NOT derived from fillrate specs.
They are transform rate specs, like the 66 million poly figure for PS2.
The specs also claim that Xbox can draw those 116.5 million polys to screen with two textures per poly, and real-world benchmarks bear out this claim.
Okay, fair enough. But you still missed the original point. Under the same circumstances, PS2 can draw more polygons on screen, due to the GS having a much higher draw fillrate. The picture changes while rendering more than 1 texture layer, but that\'s besides the point. Don\'t bother anymore Bizio. I proved you wrong on the drawing fillrate debate, by sources and facts confirmed by Microsoft themselves. You should know when to stop, but what you\'re trying to prove is pathetic.
-
BizioEE, you disappoint me..
http://forums.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?threadid=90846
http://forums.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?threadid=90841
:rolleyes:
Letting other people fight your battles.. Now THATS really brave..
Copy and paste.. Copy and paste.. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
-
Originally posted by fastson
BizioEE, you disappoint me..
http://forums.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?threadid=90846
http://forums.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?threadid=90841
:rolleyes:
Letting other people fight your battles.. Now THATS really brave..
Copy and paste.. Copy and paste.. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
hehehehe:laughing:
that was a good one fastson
-
Slam....
Dunk.....
Score!!!!!
Bwahahahahahah... BizioEE, that\'s some funny schiznits. Telling seven he\'s an idiot when you don\'t even know what the hell you\'re talking about in the first place.. jus letting other people fight your battles for you!! Not to say that he\'s right or anything (I don\'t have the technical knowlage to say what\'s what) but he has a f*ckload more credibility than you do now.
You can just go hang yourself from the rafters now... it\'s over. Great Job Fasty! *Thumbs up*
-
AAAAHHHH!!!! TOO MUCH BS WHILE I WAS GONE!!!
Let me say this: It takes four clock cycles for each vertex shader on the NV2a to do a transform, so 250Mhz/4 = 62.5M polygons per second(not using 233Mhz for simplicity\'s sake). Since it has two, it becomes 125M polygons per second (or 116 or whatever). That is all there is to it. I don\'t what you two are trying to get with fillrate but that\'s relatively independent of geometry. All I can say about the fillrate it that it won\'t be a problem since where not dealing with hi-rez monitors.
Originally posted by fastson
Letting other people fight your battles.. Now THATS really brave..
Copy and paste.. Copy and paste..[/b]
As if seven doesn\'t do that either.:rolleyes:
-
My very last contribution to this thread (in a reply to nonamer):
Calculation perspective transformation and actually rendering the polygons on screen are two different things. I never said that Xbox couldn\'t perform the calculations on 125 MTris/sec (or 116.5) necessary for perspective transformation - I was simply argueing the fact that Xbox can not render more polygons under the same conditions as PS2 which was proven above (given that the fillrate is important when it comes to drawing those "triangles" on screen). You guys should really read my replies more careful before jumping to conclusions. ;)
As I said before this debate started rolling: polygons aren\'t everything. I also appologise for taking this off topic, eventhough it wasn\'t my intention to do so.
As for Bizio, well, don\'t have much to say about that, as it really speaks for its self.
-
Originally posted by fastson
BizioEE, you disappoint me..
http://forums.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?threadid=90846
http://forums.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?threadid=90841
:rolleyes:
Letting other people fight your battles.. Now THATS really brave..
Copy and paste.. Copy and paste.. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
you are a poor idiot...most of posts are mine and then I added in other posts(and I said that) what other members think about the fool seven...
BizioEE thinks seven if a BS fool...much other members think seven is a BS fool...is it enough simple for you slowson?:D
-
Originally posted by Tyrant_246
hehehehe:laughing:
that was a good one fastson
naah...slowson is only a poor idiot:)
I\'ve already said I opened another thread about this...to show what other members think about the crap of seven...
I ""fought"" with my strenghts here...and then I added something else for the reason I\'ve just explained...
I easy kick the ass of the fool seven...all his posts are based on flawed logic...
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
Slam....
Dunk.....
Score!!!!!
Bwahahahahahah... BizioEE, that\'s some funny schiznits. Telling seven he\'s an idiot when you don\'t even know what the hell you\'re talking about in the first place.. jus letting other people fight your battles for you!! Not to say that he\'s right or anything (I don\'t have the technical knowlage to say what\'s what) but he has a f*ckload more credibility than you do now.
You can just go hang yourself from the rafters now... it\'s over. Great Job Fasty! *Thumbs up*
great fasty? I said I started a thread about it...to show what other members think about his crap...
I fought with my strenghts(my own posts) and then added(in other 2 posts) what other members think about seven...but I said that...
read all my posts and then read the thread at Team !
Sure? BizioEE is not the only one who thinks seven is full of BS CRAP...
and I added something from another guy...but I said that a line before! read before talking crap!;)
...and then come back dear Sony!
Fastson is only a poor and bs fanboy who spend his whole life on videogames-forums...I know very well that the "time waster" fast er...slowson could easy find the thread(and I said that) and I would never have pasted and copied things and pretend to be mine--->I wrote my posts and added other 2 from other 2 guys!!
As if seven doesn\'t do that either.
He\'s the only one who pastes and copies garbage from arstecnica...
...the posts are mine! apart from2--->and I said that!
Try again fasty fasty slowly:)
-
Hahaah.. :laughing:
Pure comedy.. That’s a desperate man speaking.. :laughing:
Don’t boil over with rage BizioEE --> (https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unique-hardware.co.uk%2Fserver-smilies%2Fotn%2Fangry%2Fzx11pissed.gif&hash=2f6ac50e9788e0eda797c4603cad97824e3b1da4)
Thanks, I needed that laugh :cool:
-
Originally posted by seven
My very last contribution to this thread (in a reply to nonamer):
Calculation perspective transformation and actually rendering the polygons on screen are two different things. I never said that Xbox couldn\'t perform the calculations on 125 MTris/sec (or 116.5) necessary for perspective transformation
opss...but you said(look at second page)...""That is incorect. Xbox CAN NOT render more than 31.25 MPolygons. Forget the 125 MPolygon/s number, you\'ll never see it.""
it isn\'t true...because XBox can render more than the number you said! ops...first bul**** at the beginning of the debate...
- I was simply argueing the fact that Xbox can not render more polygons under the same conditions as PS2 which was proven above (given that the fillrate is important when it comes to drawing those "triangles" on screen).
Which conditions? you mean utopian with no textures and lighting? let\'s come to "in game" conditions...you\'re talking nonsense...
As I said before this debate started rolling: polygons aren\'t everything. I also appologise for taking this off topic, eventhough it wasn\'t my intention to do so.
ohh...I\'m starting to cry...
As for Bizio, well, don\'t have much to say about that, as it really speaks for its self.
as for seven,well,don\'t have much to say about that, as it really speaks for its self....look slowson...I pasted and copied seven\'s comment:)
-
Originally posted by fastson
Hahaah..
Pure comedy.. That’s a desperate man speaking..
Don’t boil over with rage BizioEE --> Thanks, I needed that laugh
why...it\'s simply the truth...read all my posts...you have so much time to waste...:)
-
Hahahaah to funny faston, but I it very interesting on how much time your spending at Txb???:confused:
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
Hahahaah to funny faston, but I it very interesting on how much time your spending at Txb???:confused:
Not much.. I spent 5 mins looking for the post :)
I already knew BizioEE\'s username..
why...it\'s simply the truth...read all my posts...you have so much time to waste...
Yes.. Today I had. Im was free from school.
-
Not much.. I spent 5 mins looking for the post
I already knew BizioEE\'s username..
Yes.. Today I had. Im was free from school.
only today? :laughing: ...you waste 100% of your life here and on Team because you\'re a loser!:)
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
only today? :laughing: ...you waste 100% of your life here and on Team because you\'re a loser!:)
You got busted dude deal with it. It\'s not like your mom walk in on you coming out of the shower:D
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
You got busted dude deal with it. It\'s not like your mom walk in on you coming out of the shower:D
why?
look at this...
(by a guy,from another forum)
""
THAT\'S where that number came from? LOL. That\'s ridiculous.
As polygon counts go up, the average polygon size goes DOWN, (or depth complexity goes up, and most of it isn\'t rendered anyway)
If you kept the same depth complexity but doubled poly counts, the average poly would now be 16 pixels.
Now you\'d be pushing 62.5 million! It\'s MAGIC, LOL.
The only concrete poly spec I\'d throw out there for Xbox is 116.5 million unlit, shaded, dual-textured polys per second.""
I started a Thread on another forum and I\'ll show you how much crap seven\'s talking about...
I said that at the beginning of the post--->the first added...and I said that:)
and at the end I said the rest...
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
only today? :laughing: ...you waste 100% of your life here and on Team because you\'re a loser!:)
Yes.. Your lame attempts of trying to insult me is really getting to me.. :rolleyes:
I hope the people in here can see the real BizioEE now.. The true sad man.. So sad, so sad.. *sniff*
-
Sure? BizioEE is not the only one who thinks seven is full of BS CRAP...
>>>>If you would have taken the time to look at what I wrote down, you would have seen that I took for 32 pixels for the size of one polygon. And we are comparing two systems, so in order to do that fairly, we have to compare them both using the same conditions. <<<<<
A 1.94 million poly scene and a 1.1 million poly scene are hardly the same conditions, now are they?
>>>>Now, I don\'t know what you know or where you do your research little guy, but speaking strictly of rendering polygons (you know the "drawing those polygons on screen") is dependend on fillrate.
Now, off course a game could be drawn with smaller polygons (i.e. less pixels), but don\'t forget we want to compare both systems under the same conditions right.
Not much point in Microsoft saying that the NV2a can draw 116.5 MTris/sec of 8 pixel Polygons (compared to the 75 MTris/sec of 32 pixel polygohns that the GS can render) right? <<<<<
WRONG.
Just what part of more polys = smaller polys don\'t you understand?
I\'ve changed my avatar to an illustration of the phenomena to make it simpler for you...
<-----------------------------
116.5 million polys per second WOULD likely mean that each poly would only be approximately a fourth the size of the polys of a 31 million poly per second game. (an average of 8.5 pixels in size vs. 32 pixels, so it\'s a perfectly fair comparison.
>>>>Other people have done the maths and quoted a performance of 125 (now 116.5) MTris/sec using 32 Pixel Triangles. That was asuming a drawing fillrate of 4 GPixels/sec. <<<<
The 125 million and 116.5 million triangle figures for Xbox were NOT derived from fillrate specs.
They are transform rate specs, like the 66 million poly figure for PS2.
The specs also claim that Xbox can draw those 116.5 million polys to screen with two textures per poly, and real-world benchmarks bear out this claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
seven reasoning is based on flawed logic=seven is wrong!
XBox can really process more than 50-60 mpps in game while PS2 can not even dream that=XBox>PS2 in real world number(technically)
Why XBox can do it technically? in a few words,because it has enough memory bandwidth,enough fill rate to draw whatever it wants at least at 640X480! yes sir...58-59 Gouraud-shaded, two-texture triangles per second,with one infinite hardware light added! PS2 can not even dream to do this "in game" !
and...another skilled guy...
""First off, there is no coralation between the number of pixels, and number of polys that can be rendered.
Just because 4 Billion pixels per second runs with 125 million polys per second does NOT mean that 1 Billion pixels per second lowers the polygon output to 31.5 Million.
Polygons are easy to calculate, and have NOTHING to do with fill-rate.
Polygons = Clock speed divided by # of clock cycles required to complete a Transform.
ie. 250MHZ (Million clock cycles per second) Divided by 2 Clock Cycles per Transform = 125 Million polys per second.
That said, the TRUE MAXIMUM number of polys per second the Xbox can render is 116.5 Million. The 125 Million number was released before the clock speed of the GPU was lowered from 250MHZ to 233MHZ.
233MHZ Divided by 2 Clock Cycles per Transform = 116.5 Million polys per second.
It is TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of fill-rate.
Now, as for the fill-rate, the Xbox does 1 Billion pixels per second with NO FSAA, but with 4X FSAA turned on, each pixel is rendered 4 times, which is where the 4 Billion pixels per second number comes from.""
again...I said at the beginning that this post is not mine...to show etc etc...
all the other posts are mine !
anything else?:yawn:
-
QuDDus...what did you mean?
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
QuDDus...what did you mean?
Nonthing just forget I even posted in this thread.
-
Originally posted by seven
My very last contribution to this thread (in a reply to nonamer):
NOOOO!!!!!!!;)
Calculation perspective transformation and actually rendering the polygons on screen are two different things. I never said that Xbox couldn\'t perform the calculations on 125 MTris/sec (or 116.5) necessary for perspective transformation
- I was simply argueing the fact that Xbox can not render more polygons under the same conditions as PS2 which was proven above (given that the fillrate is important when it comes to drawing those "triangles" on screen). You guys should really read my replies more careful before jumping to conclusions. ;)
Let\'s make this one thing clear: You will never see a game with anywhere near 100 MTris/sec, and I would seriously doubt 30M too, especially if each polygon averages 32 pixels. The scenarios you\'ve given are unrealistic. Why? The highest resolution HDTV I know of is 1920 x 1080 interlaced. That\'s 1920 X 1080 / 2 (due to being interlaced) * 60 (Refresh rate of TV) = 62,208,000 pixels. Or in other words, the fillrate of the Xbox and PS2 are far larger than necessary to fill the screen. This is because much of the fillrate will be eaten up by overdraw or dedicated to textures. In more real world cases, Xbox has the advantage with textures and its early Z detection will reduce overdraw. The simply, unrealistic situations you\'ve given are just that, unrealistic.
As I said before this debate started rolling: polygons aren\'t everything. I also appologise for taking this off topic, eventhough it wasn\'t my intention to do so.
As for Bizio, well, don\'t have much to say about that, as it really speaks for its self.
I couldn\'t agree more.;)
-
Let\'s make this one thing clear: You will never see a game with anywhere near 100 MTris/sec, and I would seriously doubt 30M too, especially if each polygon averages 32 pixels. The scenarios you\'ve given are unrealistic. Why? The highest resolution HDTV I know of is 1920 x 1080 interlaced. That\'s 1920 X 1080 / 2 (due to being interlaced) * 60 (Refresh rate of TV) = 62,208,000 pixels. Or in other words, the fillrate of the Xbox and PS2 are far larger than necessary to fill the screen. This is because much of the fillrate will be eaten up by overdraw or dedicated to textures. In more real world cases, Xbox has the advantage with textures and its early Z detection will reduce overdraw. The simply, unrealistic situations you\'ve given are just that, unrealistic.
Your talking about a 2D image.. flat..
Games are 3D.. they have depth.. The depth will be constructed by polygons.. A big world will take alot of polygons, alot more than the pixels available on the screen. (they will be hidden, like you\'re standing on a hill.. you can see into the distance but you cant see what’s hidden behind some hills.. Or your looking at a character from the left.. you cant see the other side of his head but its still being drawn)
-
Originally posted by fastson
Your talking about a 2D image.. flat..
Games are 3D.. they have depth.. The depth will be constructed by polygons.. A big world will take alot of polygons, alot more than the pixels available on the screen. (they will be hidden, like you\'re standing on a hill.. you can see into the distance but you cant see what’s hidden behind some hills.. Or your looking at a character from the left.. you cant see the other side of his head but its still being drawn)
What has that got to do with nonamer\'s post ?
-
WTF are you people all b!tching about? We all know that the only true super Uber console is the original Atari :eek:
-
Oh well, I was bored and this is after all a good reply on your side, so I might aswell reply:
Let\'s make this one thing clear: You will never see a game with anywhere near 100 MTris/sec, and I would seriously doubt 30M too, especially if each polygon averages 32 pixels. The scenarios you\'ve given are unrealistic. Why? The highest resolution HDTV I know of is 1920 x 1080 interlaced. That\'s 1920 X 1080 / 2 (due to being interlaced) * 60 (Refresh rate of TV) = 62,208,000 pixels. Or in other words, the fillrate of the Xbox and PS2 are far larger than necessary to fill the screen. This is because much of the fillrate will be eaten up by overdraw or dedicated to textures. In more real world cases, Xbox has the advantage with textures and its early Z detection will reduce overdraw. The simply, unrealistic situations you\'ve given are just that, unrealistic.
As Fast pointed out, those 62\'208\'000 pixels is a flat image. Triangles are there though to give it depth, thus making a 3d image (hence the name 3d games). And my calculations above are correct and even if 32 pixels triangles might be unrealistic for in-game situations, it\'s there to make a comparasment where both systems are compared equally. You can\'t argue which system is better by comparing both using different values. If the game will use an average of 32 pixel triangles or more - who cares? The math is still the same and the result proportional. That means that no matter what polygons you use, the larger draw fillrate on the PS2\'s hardware will allow for more polygons using 0 and 1 texture layers. How many they\'ll use is entirely up to the developer and in real in-game situations, I believe it will be a mix between 1 texture layer and up to many more. As said in a reply further up, objects futher away don\'t need more than 1 texture layer because you won\'t see them as good anyway. Objects up close however will benefit from more texture layers, so on average PS2 might have a slight edge (example: Jak and Daxter, more polygons, but worse textures up close than Xbox games). And I also believe that the developer will have to program their engine to exclude overdraw situations.
-
Originally posted by seven
Oh well, I was bored and this is after all a good reply on your side, so I might aswell reply:
As Fast pointed out, those 62\'208\'000 pixels is a flat image. Triangles are there though to give it depth, thus making a 3d image (hence the name 3d games).
*Suddenly, the images from my monitor pops out of the screen and starts dancing*:rolleyes:
Fastson is wrong on this point. It may be 3d gaming, but TV screens are flat. They only look 3d because 3d games use polygons to give a 3d perspective. What he is right about is that polygons do get hidden. This is called overdraw, something that is best avoided and games are usually designed to have as little of it as possible. With Xbox\'s early Z detection, overdraw can be greatly reduced, more so than PS2, so Xbox isn\'t at any big disadvantage. Judging from how the Xbox seems to be designed, I\'d say that the extra polygons that the PS2 can draw simply don\'t matter. Xbox is more of a balance between textures and and polygons, where PS2 is almost pure polygons.
And my calculations above are correct and even if 32 pixels triangles might be unrealistic for in-game situations, it\'s there to make a comparasment where both systems are compared equally. You can\'t argue which system is better by comparing both using different values. If the game will use an average of 32 pixel triangles or more - who cares? The math is still the same and the result proportional.[/b]
Read above.
That means that no matter what polygons you use, the larger draw fillrate on the PS2\'s hardware will allow for more polygons using 0 and 1 texture layers. How many they\'ll use is entirely up to the developer and in real in-game situations, I believe it will be a mix between 1 texture layer and up to many more. As said in a reply further up, objects futher away don\'t need more than 1 texture layer because you won\'t see them as good anyway. Objects up close however will benefit from more texture layers, so on average PS2 might have a slight edge (example: Jak and Daxter, more polygons, but worse textures up close than Xbox games). And I also believe that the developer will have to program their engine to exclude overdraw situations.
This may get a bit confusing, but here goes: Any decent game programmer will put LOD (Level of Detail) methods on their games, so as objects get farther away, the # of polygons and possibly the # of texture will decrease. I don\'t think objects in the distance will mean more at all to either PS2 or Xbox, since they should have very low amounts of detail. Close up however, the most important thing is probably textures. For PS2 I\'m afraid, textures are a crash and burn matter. I\'m not that clear on the details, but AFAIK, for every texture layer you add, fillrate halves. From a start of 1.2 Gtexels/sec with 1, 0.6 with 2, and so on. Xbox on the other hand, has two TMUs per pipeline, so in fact, it has 2 Gtexels/sec effectively. Plus, it can do it twice in a pass, or produce 4 texels w/o redoing geometry (I\'m guess a bit here I\'m afraid). So basically, with 4 texture layers, texel fillrate is 1.33 Gt/s, which the PS2\'s drops to 0.15:eek:. I believe there was another problem with how the Graphics synthizer(sp?) is connected. I\'ll look into that later.
-
What? No reply to my awesome:D post? Damn, it took me a half an hour to write that.
-
If my IQ was over 200 I would read it.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
If my IQ was over 200 I would read it.
So you\'re saying that no one is able to respond because they don\'t know how. HELL YA!!!:thepimp: