PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: GmanJoe on December 08, 2000, 10:09:13 AM
-
I know the architecture of the two chips are not the same. But how advanced IS the EE compared to, say, X-box\'s 733mhz processor?
We have a few high end PCs here at work, even with just standard software(ie Windows Office 2000), the PC still crashes.
I know that in a console, the PC chip will have less drivers and hardware to worry about so I guess it\'s not a fair comparison against traditional based PCs.
Can a 733mhz chip handle a game like Dynasty Warriors 2? One square kilometer game environment, 30 characters on the screen and still process the fights among the other 1000 or more characters in the battle field?
I heard about Oddworld being an exclusive title for the X-box because of it graphical prowess. Is this something for Sony to worry about?
-
The emotion engine basically kicks the snot out of any pentium class chip in terms of processing mathematical calculations. It is designed for 3-d so no pentium chip at this time even comes close, but at least the pentium is better for opening up spreadsheets :-)
-
yeah, thank god I don\'t have to wait but 1 second on my p1.5 ghz then 1.2 compared to my 1ghz
lol
-
how does any mips processor compare to the pentium chips. The EE is just a mips 3 type processor so it can run in the PS2 just as easy as it can run in a computer designed to use it. Their was some site that allowed you to compare your PC to the EE, with a benchmarking program. There was also another one that did the same with some graphics program. Maybe someone will rember those sites.
-
Think of it this way.
At 1.Ghz an P3 manages about 1,3gigaflops in floating point calculations.
Whereas the EE at 300Mhz manages about 6,4gigaflops.That is alot of processing power that little black box has.
-
Yep. MHZ isn\'t power anymore. The Xbox may be faster in PC standards, but EE is probably the most powefull chip known to man.
-
Yes but in defence of Xbox and Gamecube who both use PC and Mac based processors, there Graphics chips do alot of what the PS2\'s EE has to do.
Still I was on the Planetside BBS asking for info about a PS2 version (no confirmation yet) and some PC gamer used the MHz logic, They ssaid that there PC was already running at 700Mhz which is over 2x\'s as fast as the PS2, I was laughing pretty hard when I read that.
So in all honesty the PS2\'s Graphic Synthesiser is proving to be the PS2\'s weak link when compared to Xbox and GC. I\'m sure Sony will be adding more bells and whistles to future GS\'s, actually I expect them too.
-
I\'m pretty confused about Nintendo\'s gecko proc.
At first when I read some of their specs it said it had a PowerPC proc which made me think it was a stripped down G4.But it\'s supplied by IBM so it can\'t be a G4 because Motorola owns all the rights to the AltiVec engine which is a part of the G4.
So I came to the conclusion that either it was a modified G3 proc or a new proc designed by IBM for Nintendo based on the PowerPC arcitecture.
It might be a modded G3 but they are starting to show their age and Nintendo was bragging about their proc being the best.And I find it unlikely that IBM spent the amount of resorces needed to design a brand new proc just for the big N.
There has to be someone here who knows more than I do about the GameCube.
-
The PS2 GS is fast at what it does which is taking lines of info called display list which makes life easy for the GS. All the gs does is read the command and place the block circle or whatever where it is suppossed to be. It also recieves the commands for which texture goes were. Hell it has 16 pixel engines in parellel and if the developer writes thier game properly and allows their program code to multitask more graphics info then the PS can really punch out the graphics. Remember the PS2 is a very open system. All its power is only shown if the program is wrote to use it. That means the developer will have to break away from the old way of thinking and really dig into the code to get everything out of the system. Sony knew what they were doing when they put this system together and everyone else will pickup the idea and run with it. I can\'t what for 3rd and 4th gen games. Those are the ones that will really beat on our senses.
here\'s a good site for allot of indepth info on the EE, and other parts of the PS2.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/playstation2/ee-1.html
-
Originally posted by animal_mother1
Yep. MHZ isn\'t power anymore. The Xbox may be faster in PC standards, but EE is probably the most powefull chip known to man.
Well no. The deck Alpha is.. Its worth around $10.000 dollers.
-
EE is awesome and they said that the EE in the PS3 will be 16x greater than that of the PS2. Imagine that the power of 16 PS2\'s put together... we\'ll see what happens in 2005...
-
Originally posted by reddragon72
The PS2 GS is fast at what it does which is taking lines of info called display list which makes life easy for the GS. All the gs does is read the command and place the block circle or whatever where it is suppossed to be. It also recieves the commands for which texture goes were. Hell it has 16 pixel engines in parellel and if the developer writes thier game properly and allows their program code to multitask more graphics info then the PS can really punch out the graphics. Remember the PS2 is a very open system. All its power is only shown if the program is wrote to use it. That means the developer will have to break away from the old way of thinking and really dig into the code to get everything out of the system. Sony knew what they were doing when they put this system together and everyone else will pickup the idea and run with it. I can\'t what for 3rd and 4th gen games. Those are the ones that will really beat on our senses.
here\'s a good site for allot of indepth info on the EE, and other parts of the PS2.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/playstation2/ee-1.html
Well I am very aware of the article but the bottom line is the GS doesn\'t do FSAA without a performance hit, it doesn\'t do multilayer texturing nor does it do texture decompression. It relys on the EE for lighting, texture decompression and more.
-
And thats what developers are bitching about. They say it\'s to hard to do. But it REALLY looks like Silent Hill 2 uses both vector units and FSAA. What do you think Ddaryl?
-
Originally posted by animal_mother1
And thats what developers are bitching about. They say it\'s to hard to do. But it REALLY looks like Silent Hill 2 uses both vector units and FSAA. What do you think Ddaryl?
Its hard to say but I\'m sure most games are using both, they\'re just not using both in the most efficient manner.
Sony recently had a developers conference which I\'m sure they showed off techniques that are being used and perfected form Konami, Square, EA, and Sony themselves.
Still I\'m not sure how or why FSAA is being implemented,
and yes BOB I am looking forward to Naughty Dogs efforts as well as Insomniac\'s. i just hope they give us something a little less kiddish.
[Edited by ddaryl on 12-09-2000 at 01:35 AM]
-
I know its very immature, but i cant help but laugh in SSX whenever the commentator says "Front Flip with a Stiffy" I just think it must make the rick all that more difficult
1st of all what\'s a rick
2nd of all Could you imagine comig up just short when pulling off a Front Flip with a Stiffy and landing on the stiffy.
I think it would actually break. Do they put those things in casts ?????
Also to one up you Bob I think I giggle anytime he\'s says stiffy, especially with my wife in the room.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Can a 733mhz chip handle a game like Dynasty Warriors 2? One square kilometer game environment, 30 characters on the screen and still process the fights among the other 1000 or more characters in the battle field?
I heard about Oddworld being an exclusive title for the X-box because of it graphical prowess. Is this something for Sony to worry about?
I think Sony\'s EE will shine in some situations, large enviroments, physics and gameplay elements, but XBox and Gamecube do have grpahic chips that remove some of the work from the processor
Should SOny worry, of course, it\'ll also push them to be better.
Will it destroy SOny or the PS2 naw, Sony just needs to get the production lines moving, there are plenty of quality games come around the bend to keep th emasses interested
-
Yes.
The PS2 is more powerfull and its mostly underestimated than overestimated.
Critics about PS2 started in the launch games and generally firts gen games.Its still early for developers to show the PS2 capabilities while it they are not used to its hardware yet.
Imaging having the most powerfull weapon in the world but you dont know how to use it yet because you havent read the manual.Does it mean its not that powerfull?Hell no.
The same happens with the PS2.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
Originally posted by animal_mother1
Yep. MHZ isn\'t power anymore. The Xbox may be faster in PC standards, but EE is probably the most powefull chip known to man.
Well no. The deck Alpha is.. Its worth around $10.000 dollers. [/B]
pffft Alpha I want IBM\'s p4(Power.4 not pentium)those things are friggin impressive......I\'l go find a link to the specs.
Ohh and if you remember the rumor about some addon pack maybe it was an addon the the GS not the EE.A little extra processing power that the GS could use so it wouldn.t have to use the EE.
-
I like the g4 cube by apple :D
-
Yes it\'s great.But wait till January we should be seeing some interesting stuff from Apple.
-
Originally posted by nO-One
Think of it this way.
At 1.Ghz an P3 manages about 1,3gigaflops in floating point calculations. Whereas the EE at 300Mhz manages about 6,4gigaflops.That is alot of processing power that little black box has.
Hmmm, I\'m not sure where you got that info from, but it\'s common knowledge that the EE has about 3 times the floating point power of a PIII-500, or 2 times the power of a PIII-700. That gives it the processing power of a 1.5Ghz P3.
However, it must be remembered that the figure of 6.4Gflops on the EE is the collective power of it\'s general purpose FPU and two vector units all working in parallel (each vector unit has roughly the processing power of a PIII-600).
[Edited by Dr Yassam on 12-10-2000 at 12:17 PM]
-
This article right here is also from Arstechnica but it is not the same one as posted above. It is not the "Technical Overview." This article is on this exact topic, PS2 VS PC. Very interesting read if you\'re interested. It\'s at...
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/2q00/ps2/ps2vspc-1.html
-
Thanks. :)
-
the power of ps2 is actually greater than that of a computers!!!
Note: In some areas...
-
Originally posted by SyxxKorn
I like the g4 cube by apple :D
Very nice machines, unfortunately the G3/G4 processors are overrated and expensive. :(
-
Well maybe but remember thay have a much much lower pipeline that x86 processors+they have a risc arcitecture.
But Motorola hasn\'t really been doing it\'s job properly.It would be a dream come true if Mot would license it\'s AltiVec engine to IBM so they could use their superior Fab and their SOI technoligy.
But we will have to wait until January we sould be seeing higher clock speeds for the good\'ol G4 :)
-
Well, it seems everyone is dancing around the real answer and giving you half of an answer. So, the Reverend will provide you with the whole truth. In short, the EE will kick any Pentium\'s ass when it comes to 3D graphics. Why? Well, the EE was built from the ground up to process massive 3D graphics. However, when it comes to running business applications, the Pentium\'s kick the EE\'s ass. The truth is that the EE is like a fish out of water when processing business apps and the PIII is like a fish out of water when it comes to 3D graphics. Can the EE run business apps? Sure, but it will do no better than a x486 processor (to you younguns, that\'s before the Pentium I ). Can the PIII run 3D graphics? Sure, but not better than the EE.
The Emotion Engine is an awesome chip and it\'s power has yet to be fully tapped. However, one cannot assume that just because the Xbox uses a Pentium III that it won\'t be as powerful or much more powerful than the PS2. The fact is that the PIII isn\'t the "star" of the Xbox. The NV2A is. That\'s where the bulk of Xbox\'s massive specs are coming from. This is no mere Graphics Accelerator like the PS2\'s GS, this is a full blown Graphics Procesing Unit (GPU). This puppy does it\'s own job and it does it better than anything else. So, I don\'t know whether the guy that started this topic wanted to compare the PIII to the EE directly or compare the Xbox to the PS2 by means of the PIII and EE. For the former, the EE wins hands down, but for the latter a comparison is useless since the PIII won\'t be the work-horse of the Xbox like the EE is for the PS2. If you wanna compare chips, let\'s have some fun with the EE vs. the NV2A. Then we\'ll have a firm grip on the strengths and weaknesses of both platforms.
As far as developers getting the hang of the EE, it\'s not like having a sophisticated weapon and not reading the manual...it\'s like having a sophisticated weapon and no manual at all. Two different beasts, my friends. You see, I\'m a firm believer that two 32-bit chips are more powerful than one. Won\'t you agree? Well, that was the case with the Sega Saturn. You see, the power was there, but it\'s just that no one knew how to use it. The trick was not getting the full power of the processors, the problem was getting those dual Hitachi SH-2\'s to work in parallel. That was a bitch for developers. If the developers had given it time, the Saturn would have exceeded the PSX in graphics. It had more power and it had more RAM, so of course it should have. However, this is the key point, with the PSX easier to develop for and it\'s CPU and Geometry Engine easily accessible, they went the path of least resistance. The question I\'m raising is a legitimate one: Will developers want to struggle to untap PS2\'s potential once they have two more powerful and easier systems to work on? In light of the shipping difficulties and the meager software sales, will developers devote their time and money in something that\'s not such a sure thing anymore?
The PS2\'s potential is awesome. So was the Saturn\'s. I\'m not comparing both systems, but it\'s really unnatural for developers to be busting their butts and wallets on harder, less powerful hardware. It just doesn\'t make sense to me. Maybe Kojima-san and Naughty Dog will surprise and impress me, maybe they\'ll be some break-throughs in the future. Maybe. I fell in love the EE when I first saw it, but then I realized that what seemed like a huge step forward was really a jump backwards. I\'m coming from a RISC background and the EE is a representative of the RISC processor. However it defies the RISC philosophy! It\'s supposed to be small and fast, with a simple instruction-set. However, that was sacrificed for more power. I expected this kind of thing from Intel or AMD, not Sony. Enough of my bitchin\', I hope developers won\'t get discouraged when GC and Xbox come around.
-
Well they won\'t get discoureged Sony will make sure of that.The psx/ps.2 are very important to Sony so we can be sure the Ps.2 won\'t pull a Saturn on us :)
The X-Box/GC will also be awesome.I\'ll get the ps.2 for sure and maybe the X-Box not sure about the GC though.
Your right when you said the EE will kick the p3\'s behind when it comes to 3d graphics and your right to a sertein point about multimedia programs and such.But you have to remember that the heart of the EE is a MIPS.III chip and it is more powerful than the p3.But Sony did strip the proc down they disposed of all they considered unnecessesary so they could max out the 3d calculations.
-
Just hearsay but the Saturn was said to be hard to program for period. The same hurdles no matter what software libraries they came out with. As you say Rev, it remains to be seen if it will be a similar/same case for the PS2. Personally I\'m satisfied with seeing just ten times better [graphics]than the PSX. So far no developer has complained about working extra hard just to get that. Future goodies will be just icing on the cake if you ask me.
Anyway Rev, maybe you can help me with this one:
Originally posted by ProfessorX
Everything is going to fed directly to the GPU and not by the PIII therefore your bottleneck there is removed. In the PC the PIII has to feed it because of the way it handles information.
Now is this just a bunch of happy horse pucky or what? If anyone here can clear this one up it should be ReverendXbox. As far as I know the GPU has to get the numbers to crunch from the CPU and send the sipherin\' results back for the CPU to stream. Is that ol\' bottleneck really broken somehow? Inquiring minds want to know! Really!
p.s. I do think Xbox graphics will be better than PS2\'s eventual best, just not a whole lot better.
[Edited by Heretic on 12-12-2000 at 12:24 AM]
-
"The PS2\'s potential is awesome. So was the Saturn\'s. I\'m not comparing both systems, but it\'s really unnatural for developers to be busting their butts and wallets on harder, less powerful hardware." - RevX
Well, this is just hearsay since I don\'t have any actual proof or data to back me up, but I remember hearing that developers HAD to use all of the Saturn\'s processors in order to get a game to work right. That was the bitch. With the PS2, developers can (And have) developed entire games without using the vector units at all. However, doing that cripples the PS2 since it wasn\'t designed to have games using only the GS & EE without the vector units. The PS2 was designed with a specific programming philosophy in mind, and it\'s that new philosophy that\'s confusing developers. Even simple ideas like Texture Streaming, which has been discussed in detail since shortly after the PS2\'s Japaneese launch is only now being picked up by some developers. IGN ran an interview with the developers of MDK just a month ago. In that interview, they stated that they are just NOW picking up on the texture streaming idea. So much for staying on the cutting edge, eh?
Anyhow, there is one BIG difference between the Saturn and the PS2 in regards to developer support. The Saturn was a one generation archetecture philosophy. Why put the time and money into it, when by the time you make your cash back, the cycle is starting again? Sony\'s PS2 archecture, on the other hand, is currently slated as the basis for the the next 3 Playstations. In essence, it\'s now it\'s own platform. Time spent learning how to program for the PS2, is also time spent familiarizing yourself with the basic structures of 15 years worth of Playstation consoles. (According to Sony\'s current 20 year buisness model, which also included the PSOne. PSOne was of a different archetecture since at the time it was unknown weither or not the endevor would be profitable.)
As long as Sony continues at least a moderate level of success with the Playstation brand, the money developers sink into the PS2 now is more like an investment into the future, rather than five year waste of time.
-
Originally posted by Heretic
Now is this just a bunch of happy horse pucky or what? If anyone here can clear this one up it should be ReverendXbox. As far as I know the GPU has to get the numbers to crunch from the CPU and send the sipherin\' results back for the CPU to stream.
That is not correct. On the PC, the CPU has to stream vertices and textures because (despite AGP) the GPUs on the graphics cards do not have direct access to main memory and because most of the T&L operations were carried out by the Pentium processor (this is changing with the new generation of graphics cards).
Within the XBox, ALL T&L calculations are handled by nVidia\'s GPU and not the Pentium. In addition, the unified memory structure gives the GPU direct access to memory, meaning the CPU only needs to tell the GPU where the data is and the GPU will access the data directly.
Therefore yes, the CPU-to-GPU bottleneck has been removed.
-
Keep talking!!! :D
-
I\'ll just assume that telling the GPU where to find the info, as opposed to sending the info, causes very little or no lag. Now, is there left no relative hang up for sending the GPU\'s processed and T/L info to the CPU to be coordinated/streamed or is it fairly negligable in terms of a bottleneck? Doesn\'t the CPU have to do all the draw-in and not just AI, as some X-men have claimed? Isn\'t the draw-in rate kind of a big deal? Please forgive me if my questions are poorly worded or unclear. I\'m completely out of my element asking about this stuff and am just trying to get a grasp of what\'s going on, as is maybe fairly obvious.
-
With other words the "weapon" has its kind of "manual"
-
Originally posted by Heretic
I\'ll just assume that telling the GPU where to find the info, as opposed to sending the info, causes very little or no lag.
That\'s right (in terms of CPU-to-GPU data). Hence it\'s nolonger a bottleneck.
Now, is there left no relative hang up for sending the GPU\'s processed and T/L info to the CPU to be coordinated/streamed or is it fairly negligable in terms of a bottleneck? Doesn\'t the CPU have to do all the draw-in and not just AI, as some X-men have claimed?[/B]
Very little (if any) data has to be fed back to the CPU. The GPU handles all the rendering (drawing) as well! Therefore, once it has been instructed on which polygons and textures are needed, it will then render the scene itself. The CPU only needs to run the gamecode, AI and physics.
Basically, think of the GPUs in both the XBox and GC as being like PS2\'s GS processor plus the vector units of it\'s EE combined into one chip. The result is a processor which handles both T&L and rendering.
-
Anyway...now that we\'ve had our games(albeit only a few good ones....so far), it seems the games are looking better and better(and gameplay too).
Has the power of the EE been tapped to its fullest potential? Not yet. It\'s still new technology. Xbox developers will have the advantage of familiar software from the PC world to work with. DirectX was it? Nothing new but it\'s a tried and true program.
I understand that the programming language for the PS2 will continue on with the PS3, 4, 5 (of course, it will incorperate improvements of the new hardware). I guess Sony is going for long term planning. Also, I think it was their plan to make ports difficult from PS2 to another console. But what about ports TO the PS2?
Maybe in the future, there will be newer kits to make the PS2\'s complex programming easier. I can\'t recall which article but I do remember reading an interview with a developer about GameCube\'s software - that it\'s just as difficult as the PS2s.
-
I have to agree with the REV here. Saturn was an awesome machine for its time and I really think Sony after destroying it took some of Segas tech and that went into the PS2. I never realized how powerful the EE really was. A real beast. Those articules were very interesting. Good research on that one the subject gets an A plus. Now with all that power large bandwiths but small caching its seems like its going to be awhile before developers learn to use the full power of the PS2. Does this mean games will cost more to develop and take longer to get the desired results? Who cares as long as we get the best product from this 3D monster. NV2a GPU will be a force to deal with. Unified memory directed at that GPU wow. It seems someone has been holding back on us poor PC gamers. Deep stuff here.
________
The Cliff Condo Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)
-
This is now in Console Debating. Have fun.
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
wel, if you wanna talk Mhz, EE is about the equivelent of a 2700Mhz Pentium as far as speed goes, it would also have the advantage over that pareticular pentium anyway because of is high bandwidth etc.
2700Mhz? WOW! How did you get that number?[/b] :D
-
Since the Xbox has unified ram, doesnt that also offer a handicap in the fact that it doesnt access as fast as on-board RAM?
How big of a handicap is this, if it is true?
-
I WILL SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL.
The XBox\'s Processor is better. Because, underneath that wickedly overpriced GPU and 64MB RAM, you have genuine ELVES. See, the Pentium III is far more adaptable to elves, be they forest elves, mountain elves, or even Keebler elves. Polygons are being pushed, but it\'s the ELVES that do the pushing. Meanwhile, The EE, while it may have a substantial advantage in the AI department, is quite limited in Elf usage. In fact, most developers, being unable to properly harness the elves, must resort to using lawn gnomes and tree dwarves, thus resulting in what Sony calls "middleware". Microsoft\'s elves are far more efficient, and are less likely to sneak into your underpants. GameCube will be using a proprietary Oompah Loompah processor, but as to how they will be able to constantly feed cacao beans into the system has not yet been perfected. Not to mention, Oompah Loompahs tend to be smartasses. And that\'s the way it is.
-
yeah, microsoft probably told them elves that they would have to make a new windows, if they wouldn\'t do their very best in xbox j/k
-
Originally posted by Weltall
I WILL SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL.
The XBox\'s Processor is better. Because, underneath that wickedly overpriced GPU and 64MB RAM, you have genuine ELVES. See, the Pentium III is far more adaptable to elves, be they forest elves, mountain elves, or even Keebler elves. Polygons are being pushed, but it\'s the ELVES that do the pushing. Meanwhile, The EE, while it may have a substantial advantage in the AI department, is quite limited in Elf usage. In fact, most developers, being unable to properly harness the elves, must resort to using lawn gnomes and tree dwarves, thus resulting in what Sony calls "middleware". Microsoft\'s elves are far more efficient, and are less likely to sneak into your underpants. GameCube will be using a proprietary Oompah Loompah processor, but as to how they will be able to constantly feed cacao beans into the system has not yet been perfected. Not to mention, Oompah Loompahs tend to be smartasses. And that\'s the way it is.
Ah but the Elvis has the total disadvantage that it never performs at 100% unless it is in Las Vagus. Which means the X box will spend most of it\'s time at burger king tryingto make it\'s self feal better
The Elf has also the problem that at 100 nano meters it\'s smaller that the Elvis and as a result it feals left out. and seeing that it\'s a emosion engine it start to cry :crying:
Finally the ooompa Lummpa has the un-nerving ability to dance about with it\'s face painted orange !.
All of corse is total academic and if you realy understand what we are talking bout then you realy are a :nerd:.
Stop getting all hard on about CPU\'s and GPU\'s and start PLAYING THEM GAMES !
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Stop getting all hard on about CPU\'s and GPU\'s and start PLAYING THEM GAMES !
Now this makes more sense than anything I have read so far.
________
Live sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)
-
Although the e.e is a great processor and it kicks the snot out of the p3, but too sad the p3 is not the main processor in the xbox and only handles minor operations and the nivdia2A is what powers the xbox and it is the most power for chip out right now:p
-
It wasn\'t to long ago I was in the forum and was listening to all the DC FANBOYS ranting and raving at how much better the DC was than the PS2, and that the DC was going to remain the dominant console on the market. Well, times have changed, and for the better I might add. The DC is no more and Sega will soon be making games for all of the consoles.
My point however is this. We won\'t know for sure what the better console will be until they are all released. We can throw up as many specs as we want to make our console look the best, but it all comes down to the finished product. So far PS2 is an outstanding machine with very impressive graphics. The X-box will undoubtedly have very impressive graphics as well, we can see that already from the games that Microsoft puts out on the PC. The PS2 is a new piece of hardware that forces us to look at things in a new light.
Someone commented earlier on the Saturn and how it was new tech. and hard to program for, that\'s why it failed. I\'m sure that had a lot to do with it, but at the time the Saturn was released, the Video game industry as a whole wasn\'t anywhere near what it is today, and I\'m sure the programers weren\'t as eager to take on the challenge when they could just go the easier more popular consoles. Today videogames are everywhere and everyone is playing them, boy\'s, girl\'s, kids and adults. I think that the PS2 will keep improving for years to come and be one of if not the dominant consoles on the market.
-
Bah.
It\'s all about the elves, dammit!
-
The games on the PS2 is superior any High end PC game in graphics
-
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bossieman
The games on the PS2 is superior any High end PC game in graphics
Currently no.
In the future,probly for a while but PC.s are upgradable you can put in a new vid card and get better game performance.
But the problem with PC\'s is they must maintain backward compatability.They can\'t design games that will only work on 1Ghz+ processors and need atleast a GF or a Radeon card.
They are also using an outdated x86 architeture,they can\'t just create a new architecture a whole new and better microcode,they have to maintian backward compatability with both the hardware and the software.
Apple managed to do that a few years back when they moved to the PPC (PowerPC) architecture but sadly their OS didn\'t follow until now (MacOS X),but that was a lot smaller market than the PC market.
With consoles you can put really advanced hardware in it,a whole new design and write games for that,but in time it will become obsolite.
That is my biggest thing with the X-Box,the PS.2 is a completly new design using dynamic hardware isnstead od static hardware,while the X-Box uses current PC hardware.But keep in mind that developers don\'t need to think about backwards compatability so they can optimise the hell out the little box.
-
I haven\'t read through all the replies so I don\'t know if someone else already brought up this point. Let\'s not forget that the cpu in the xbox is working alone. There\'s another chip in there based on the upcoming nvidia geforce3 chipset. From what I\'ve seen so far. This new graphics chipset looks amazing.
-
oops, what I meant to say was that the cpu in the xbox is NOT working alone...sorry for any confusion.
-
Why is the G4 over-rated yassam?..oh yeah..it\'s the lack of the intel logo;)
a 733Mhz G4 beats a 1500Mhz Pentium4 in photoshop and many other applications....why do you think the Mac is the 3d artist\'s weapon of choice? because it\'s faster more stable efficent and affordable than a Wintel system.(Carmack uses a Mac for their maya animations:))
The Toshiba silicon(3) is about as powerfull as any pentium3 class CPU(Ken kutaragi said so him self) be it 500mhz or 1000Mhz....it truly is a powerfull CPU.
The xbox is a dinosaur in my opinion...it\'s made of mostly 20 year old technology and design...Dos based OS...20 year old 86x design..etc..etc..It\'s GPU is nothing revolutionary...the 4 year old pyramid3d(bitboys made) had everything the GF3 has...but 4 years ago;)
You want innovative technology? go with anything other than microsoft and nvidia and you will have it.
-
Originally posted by Nplayer-2
why do you think the Mac is the 3d artist\'s weapon of choice? because it\'s faster more stable efficent and affordable than a Wintel system.
Faster? maybe. More stable? More stable than Windows, yes. Affordable? Nope! The Mac is the most expensive kind of computer. And they are also the ugliest. :p:D I\'ll take a Linux based PC over a Mac any day.
-
Originally posted by Nplayer-2
Why is the G4 over-rated yassam?..oh yeah..it\'s the lack of the intel logo;)
At the same Mhz, the G3 beats a PIII and a G4 beats a P4 by about 15-20%. However, for the same cost, the G3/G4 offers less power than the P3/P4. More importantly, both the G3 and G4 are way behind in the MHz race. THIS has been Apple\'s main difficulty in catching up to the PC.
a 733Mhz G4 beats a 1500Mhz Pentium4 in photoshop and many other applications....why do you think the Mac is the 3d artist\'s weapon of choice?[/B]
Yes, WE ALL KNOW that Photoshop performs better on the G4 (thanks to Altivec optimisations), since EVERY TIME Apple claim the G3/G4 is superior, they ALWAYS mention the same benchmarks, i.e. Photoshop. As for many applications...well you can count other such applications on the fingers of one hand. For 99.999% of all other apps and games, the PC outperforms the Mac (and John Carmack AGREES, see comments below).
because it\'s faster more stable efficent and affordable than a Wintel system.(Carmack uses a Mac for their maya animations:))[/B]
Of which John Carmack (the world\'s greatest games programmer) says;
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0102/24.carmack.shtml
"The 733 G4 was not as fast as my 1GHz PIII in any of the trouble areas. Apple is doing a lot of good work, but the CPU\'s just aren\'t as fast as the x86 ones," said Carmack.
And to clarify his comments, he said;
http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/11934.html
"The position hasn\'t changed in years--PPC CPUs are as good as, or slightly better than, x86 on a clock for clock basis, but they can\'t overcome the large megahertz gap that exists," he said. "AltiVec has some wins, but it won\'t make any significant difference unless the performance is extremely focused in a small area, and the balance of computation and bandwidth is just right."
So, you were saying NP?
The xbox is a dinosaur in my opinion...it\'s made of mostly 20 year old technology...Blah Blah Blah...You want innovative technology? go with anything other than microsoft and nvidia and you will have it. [/B]
And yet you\'ve decided that such \'20 year old technology\' IS YOUR ULTIMATE GAMES MACHINE instead of consoles! Why are you now a PC gamer? And why don\'t you put your money where your mouth is and purchase a G4 Mac instead!
And no, the Pyramid3D DIDN\'T have all that the GF3 has today, not even close! If it appeared on the market, it could have been a great card at the time, but nothing more.
-
At the same Mhz, the G3 beats a PIII and a G4 beats a P4 by about 15-20%. However, for the same cost, the G3/G4 offers less power than the P3/P4. More importantly, both the G3 and G4 are way behind in the MHz race. THIS has been Apple\'s main difficulty in catching up to the PC.
So Mhz are the ONLY way to judge the power of a CPU?..the Toshiba silicon(3)which is a little less than 300Mhz is in the same league as ANY Pentium3 class CPU be it 500Mhz or a 1000Mhz...Mhz means NOTHINGS.
Yes, WE ALL KNOW that Photoshop performs better on the G4 (thanks to Altivec optimisations), since EVERY TIME Apple claim the G3/G4 is superior, they ALWAYS mention the same benchmarks, i.e. Photoshop. As for many applications...well you can count other such applications on the fingers of one hand. For 99.999% of all other apps and games, the PC outperforms the Mac (and John Carmack AGREES, see comments below).
This quote is funny because the ONLY thing you brought up that IS proven to be fact is: gaming on the PC is far superior on a wintel system....i am talking about which system is the 3D artist\'s weapon of choice...and that sir..is a MC...the editors at PC gamer use a mac for their graphics;)
Also, name all these 3D GRAPHICS applications artist\'s use and are proven to run better on a wintel system.
Of which John Carmack (the world\'s greatest games programmer)
agreed
"The 733 G4 was not as fast as my 1GHz PIII in any of the trouble areas. Apple is doing a lot of good work, but the CPU\'s just aren\'t as fast as the x86 ones," said Carmack.
he of course is talking about gaming...something i was not...when it comes to maya photoshop and all those 3d applications artist\'s use the Mac wins hands down.
"The position hasn\'t changed in years--PPC CPUs are as good as, or slightly better than, x86 on a clock for clock basis, but they can\'t overcome the large megahertz gap that exists," he said. "AltiVec has some wins, but it won\'t make any significant difference unless the performance is extremely focused in a small area, and the balance of computation and bandwidth is just right."
He is talking about gaming...and i NEVER said gaming on a Mac is better...but running photoshop maya or all those other 3d applications artist\'s use the Mac is better..far better.
So, you were saying NP?
3D applictions on the Mac is far better than on a wintel system..
And yet you\'ve decided that such \'20 year old technology\' IS YOUR ULTIMATE GAMES MACHINE instead of consoles! Why are you now a PC gamer? And why don\'t you put your money where your mouth is and purchase a G4 Mac instead!
The thing is...i do not see a single corporation trying to sell the PC based on the merit of it being "new" "revolutionary" "innovative" technology...which the xbox is doing....
If i was a 3d artist\'s i would run down to my local apple computer dealer ship and buy one..but i am not.
And no, the Pyramid3D DIDN\'T have all that the GF3 has today, not even close! If it appeared on the market, it could have been a great card at the time, but nothing more.
4 year old Pyramid3d technology:
Programmable per-pixel shaders/vertex shaders
Hardware T&L
Geforce3 most hyped features:
Programmable per-pixel shaders/vertex shaders
Hardware T&L
Geforce3 is nothing revolutionary...
also...the Kyro2 can do 8-texture\'s in a single PASS while the geforce3 can only do 4(same goes with xbox)(before you go and cry foul saying it can\'t do that with playable frame-rates...please show me if ANY of nvidias fill-rate numbers are possible in a game?;))
-
Hey N-player what ever happened to your friends at BITBOYS, huh. Oh yeah that\'s right all they do is blow smoke up people ass, just like you do.
I will be very impressed if those losers ever release a ****ing card.
-
All I can say is that My friends Thunderbird 1200 MHz with a geforce 2 did not impress me at all. What a waste of money.
-
Originally posted by nO-One
Currently no.
Ok, Tell me ONE game on ANY High end PC that looks better than MGS2, GT3, DMC, AC4. ONE game.
The best looking PC game is IMO B&W.
But there must be something I have missed.
-
Currently good looking games like Tribes.2 B&W and Giants.
But most of the games you mentioned are incomplete so I could just aswell mention Doom.3 and Unreal.2.
The point is,currently the PS.2 isn\'t being used the way it should be.The next gen games are using some of the PS.2\'s cababilities like FF.X GT.3 and MGS.2,but as of now the PS.2 isn\'t showing it\'s true capabilities.
The X-Box will be optimised far sooner than the PS.2 because the PS.2 has a very steep learning curve,while the X-Box uses DirectX.Which also means that once X-Box games have completly maximized the XB,the PS.2 still has a generation or two of games left.
And I\'m not bashing any console,I like them all.I know that each of them has their pros and cons :)
-
Originally posted by Nplayer-2
He is talking about gaming...and i NEVER said gaming on a Mac is better...but running photoshop maya or all those other 3d applications artist\'s use the Mac is better..far better.
The Mac is better for many reasons, which has nothing to do with the G4 being \'superior\'. Apple are in full control of BOTH the hardware and software, for which the result is a VERY stable, easy to use, but expensive platform. This has ALWAYS been true of Macs.
Also, the Macs were ahead of the typical PC in terms of resolution and colour depth for MANY years. This resulted in the Mac becoming the perfect machine for DTP and graphics/imaging software such as Photoshop, hence it established itself as THE machine for such areas, and it still holds true today.
This is the Mac\'s niche, this is where it\'s strengths lie, but again, this represents a mere fraction of the software out there. If you want to find an application where the latest G4 Mac out performs the latest PCs, then it will fall into the category above AND will be optimised for the Altivec instructions. Again, such applications can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
3D applictions on the Mac is far better than on a wintel system..[/B]
See above.
The thing is...i do not see a single corporation trying to sell the PC based on the merit of it being "new" "revolutionary" "innovative" technology...which the xbox is doing....[/B]
Provide a quote where MS have claimed this!
From reading many interviews, MS (at best) say that the XBox offers the kind of power and features which game developers can use to create revolutionary and/or innovative games, but they don\'t claim the hardware itself is revolutionary!
If i was a 3d artist\'s i would run down to my local apple computer dealer ship and buy one..but i am not.[/B]
Exactly. The Mac satisfies a niche market, and it does so very VERY well. They are superb machines, but wouldn\'t satify all my computing needs either.
4 year old Pyramid3d technology:
Programmable per-pixel shaders/vertex shaders
Hardware T&L
Geforce3 most hyped features:
Programmable per-pixel shaders/vertex shaders
Hardware T&L[/B]
The demos they showed, if I remember, demonstrated bump mapping (in a scene running at something like 20fps?), and another demo in a church/cathedral showed some nice lighting effects as sunlight streamed through the windows (radiosity I believe)?
Yes the Pyramid3D promised much, and their bump mapping technology was licenced by MS for DirectX(6?), but with no product on the market, who can say good or bad the actual product would have been. Regardless of the features it boasted, the Pyramid3D didn\'t deliver.
However, if the Pyramid3D made it to the market, it most certainly would have blown away the Voodoo and PVR graphics cards, but against the Voodoo2 and TNT...who knows!
Anyway, all of this is from memory so my facts may not be accurate. However, I\'m sure I have an old magazine article about the Pyramid3D somewhere, therefore I\'ll check it out tomorrow.
-
Also, the Macs were ahead of the typical PC in terms of resolution and colour depth for MANY years. This resulted in the Mac becoming the perfect machine for DTP and graphics/imaging software such as Photoshop, hence it established itself as THE machine for such areas, and it still holds true today.
This what i have been trying to say all along....thank you:D
This is the Mac\'s niche, this is where it\'s strengths lie, but again, this represents a mere fraction of the software out there. If you want to find an application where the latest G4 Mac out performs the latest PCs, then it will fall into the category above AND will be optimised for the Altivec instructions. Again, such applications can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
exactly...the Mac smacks any wintel system when it comes to high-end computer 3d graphics...which is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.
Provide a quote where MS have claimed this!
From reading many interviews, MS (at best) say that the XBox offers the kind of power and features which game developers can use to create revolutionary and/or innovative games, but they don\'t claim the hardware itself is revolutionary!
They said it is innovative which it is NOT...this is a fact and a well known fact..i do not need to prove a proven fact;)
Exactly. The Mac satisfies a niche market, and it does so very VERY well. They are superb machines, but wouldn\'t satify all my computing needs either.
Who said it would?...all I ever said was that the Mac beats any wintel system when it comes to high-end computer 3d graphics...which YOU agree it does..:D
The demos they showed, if I remember, demonstrated bump mapping (in a scene running at something like 20fps?), and another demo in a church/cathedral showed some nice lighting effects as sunlight streamed through the windows (radiosity I believe)?
You are talking about Enviromental bumb-mapping which the bitboys created and microsoft and matrox later aquired for their software/hardware....20fps? i don\'t think so...more than that.
Yes the Pyramid3D promised much, and their bump mapping technology was licenced by MS for DirectX(6?), but with no product on the market, who can say good or bad the actual product would have been. Regardless of the features it boasted, the Pyramid3D didn\'t deliver.
Their technology 4 years ago would have smacked anything and everything around(yes even the godly voodoo2)....it was just bad luck that kept it from coming out...Tritech lost a lawsuit(nothing to do with graphics) it was about sound and they went bankrupt...which of course kept the revolutionary pyramid3d from every coming out...
-
Originally posted by Nplayer-2
exactly...the Mac smacks any wintel system when it comes to high-end computer 3d graphics...which is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.
No Nplayer, this is for DTP and STATIC 2D/3D graphics! For realtime 3D graphics (as seen in games), the PC has been more powerful than the Mac for many MANY years, both in terms of processor AND 3D graphics card.
The G3/G4 Macs were crippled by Apple\'s choice of ATI graphics cards for these machines (VERY poor cards compared with those available on the PC). It is ONLY today, with the introduction of the GF3 option for the G4 Macs, that the Mac is now comparible to a PC for realtime 3D graphics. However, this doesn\'t change the fact that the best G4s are weaker than the best P4s and Athlons and that Apple\'s machines are still very expensive compared to similar spec PCs.
They said it is innovative which it is NOT...this is a fact and a well known fact..i do not need to prove a proven fact;)[/B]
It\'s not proven until you provide a link to back your claims. :)
Who said it would?...all I ever said was that the Mac beats any wintel system when it comes to high-end computer 3d graphics...which YOU agree it does..:D[/B]
No I didn\'t, see above.
Their technology 4 years ago would have smacked anything and everything around(yes even the godly voodoo2)....it was just bad luck that kept it from coming out...[/B]
Bad luck, possibly, but given that we\'re STILL waiting for their next product (Glade3D), I doubt bad luck is the reason! Whatever the reasons, the product never came out (like 3DO\'s Bulldog/M2 processor), therefore you can only speculate on what it might have been but never was.
The following article is quite interesting;
http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/SO3D/SO3D.htm
"The only thing this Finnish company was known for was designing the very late and failed Tri-Tech Pyramid chip, whose only exciting feature was environmental bump mapping. This chip was never released because it was still slow for its day."