Can the ps2 actually render more polys in game-play environments than the Xbox!?.....

Originally posted by pstwo
This info was posted by TheDoomsdayMonster on the IGN.com board.    This is interesting.

 
"The numbers indicate that this is the case.

In gameplay environments, the Xbox has a peak fill rate of about 933 million pixels per second.

This translates to about 29 mpps.


The ps2 on the other hand has a peak in-game fill rate of about 1.2 billion pixels per second.


This translates to about 37.5 mpps.


Now this refers to "rendering" only as NV2A has more "T" power than the ps2\'s VU1 (116.5 million geometric transformations per second for NV2A vs 66 million geometric transformations per second for VU1).


Here\'s the catch though......although NV2A Can do a lot more geometric transformations than VU1, NV2A\'s fill rate will not allow the Xbox to push more than 29 mpps in game-play environments!


Conversely, the ps2\'s GS could allow, in theory, the VU1 to draw as many as 37.5 mpps!


Interesting....aint it? The ps2 may actually (when its all said and done) be the greatest (in-game) poly pushing machine in this generation of consoles......despite it being over a year older than the other two systems........... "



Some other member ask this question:
How do you translate pixels into polygons?


TheDoomsdayMonster replies:
Take the peak fill rate and divide it by 32 (32 pixel polys) and that gives the peak poly pushing figure.

Example the peak fill rate of the ps2\'s GS is about 2.4 billion pixels per second........divide this by 32 and you get 75 mpps......which is what Sony stated for the GS........

Look at when the Xbox\'s GPU was to run at 250mhz (it currently runs at 233mhz, so the number I\'m getting ready to state is no longer the correct figure), it had a peak pixel fill rate of 4 giga-pixels..........


Divide that by 32 and you get that 125 mpps figure Microsoft advocated for the Xbox.



See how it works?...........

My brother\'s friend\'s girlfriend said that Commodore 64 can render more polygons than the PS2 is this true?

Are we desperate or what?  Did God give you a brain? Use your damn brain... duh!

Of course the Xbox can render more polygons, thats a given, including fillrate.  The xbox is newer technology than the PS2.

I don\'t mean to be rude, but there are a lot of simple minded people on some of these boards.

Simple minded people should be banned from having sex.

:rolleyes: who cares?

Of course the Xbox can render more polygons, thats a given, including fillrate. The xbox is newer technology than the PS2.

I don\'t think I should bother, but I\'ll just say that much; while Microsoft\'s stats are pretty much questioned, Sony\'s are more than valid. Newer technology? I doubt it - but we\'ve already had this debate, I won\'t bother a second time:

Debate (starts I think on the second page)

And by the way, you might want to check the above replies in this thread. We\'ve already discussed our concerns about the opening thread and what we think about it.

the XGPU can achieve 116.5Mvertices/sec and 233 million particles/second

This is interesting. Isn\'t a vertice one point in the polygon? If u\'r gonna make a triangle polygon, that\'s 3 vertices right?

That means 116.5M / 3 = 38.33million polygons/sec?

Well, someone correct if I\'m wrong.

WOW seven, you seem to know your stuff. I love tech stuff, but thi stuff goes waay beyond me. Do you work for sony or someting?

As for the Linux kit, yes Im one of those few who is interested. But I doubt it\'ll be a huge success, it will have a cult following just like the black yaroze psx had.

And a Question can ps2 do proper volumetric effects such as fog lighting etc I would also like to see some games using proper bump mapping and shadow effects.

The ps2 to my knowledge is not the most powerful but is powerful none the less,(my console of choice). I\'m not sure if its been said or not but the Ps2 can do more floating point calculations than the other counsoles which are very important. Another is that the X-Box, though it has a p3 clocking at 733mgz or whatever it is a cisc processor wich is significantly slower than a risc processor of the same speed, (what is in both the ps2 and the gamecube). I think that the gamecube is actually the fastest system but surprisingly some of its games have some undesireable slowdown that has been conquerd in games like thps3 on ps2. * Im tired so i forgot all the really important stuff i wanted to include to the tech jargon : (*  one more thing: Jak and Daxter pushes over 15mpps with tons of effects and its only naughty dogs first for ps2. Gamecube games with all effects has said to do 12mpps, (which i know can grow to larger heights just with fewer effects i guess *shrugs*). Thats pretty damn impressive. (dope game by the way)

[BizioEE]

Originally posted by Lord Nicon
The ps2 to my knowledge is not the most powerful but is powerful none the less,(my console of choice). I\'m not sure if its been said or not but the Ps2 can do more floating point calculations than the other counsoles which are very important.

Nope...X-Box can do more floating point thanks to the NV2a...GC is second and then PS2...

Another is that the X-Box, though it has a p3 clocking at 733mgz or whatever it is a cisc processor wich is significantly slower than a risc processor of the same speed, (what is in both the ps2 and the gamecube).

The EE in the PS2,the X-CPU and the Gekko processor are not directly comparable...they have to do a different mass of work!
While the EE has to process polys with lighting,shading,bump mapping via software,etc plus sound,physics and AI,animations and "normal tasks" in a game...the X-CPU has to calculate meshes of polys only,physics,AI(and here integer are important,and the X-CPU is by far more powerful than the Gekko and EE),animations and "normal tasks" of a game,while the NV2a takes care of the majority of the floating point calculations and the MCPX takes care of sound!

 I think that the gamecube is actually the fastest system but surprisingly some of its games have some undesireable slowdown that has been conquerd in games like thps3 on ps2. *

Nope...GC is not the fastest...it\'s somewhere between PS2 and X-Box...overall...

Games like THPS3,Madden,SSX are not a perfect example to show the difference among these three consoles...don\'t you agree ?

 Im tired so i forgot all the really important stuff i wanted to include to the tech jargon : (*  one more thing: Jak and Daxter pushes over 15mpps with tons of effects and its only naughty dogs first for ps2. Gamecube games with all effects has said to do 12mpps, (which i know can grow to larger heights just with fewer effects i guess *shrugs*). Thats pretty damn impressive. (dope game by the way)

Jak and Daxter doesn\'t push more than 15mpps...though I truly think it\'s beautiful...can\'t stop playing it !  Controls and gameplay are perfect !  

GC was said to do 6-12 mpps in actual games...but you know that number of polys is not the only important thing...the "quality" of polys is more important...so...hypothetically,a game which pushes 12mpps could be more impressive than another game wich pushes 15-18-20 mpps...if it has better texturing with impressive bump-mapping,lighting,shading,better AA...etc...(it\'s an example...I\'m not referring to PS2,GC or X-Box..)

Merry Christmas people !

All of those numbers for G-Flops MS keeps throwing around are for rasterization only, It can not be used for Physics and AI.  Just like The Geforce 2 This high number seems due to the T&L engine.  Geforce 2 could do 40 G-Flops but no one seemed to think that it was a super computer, I assure it is only for rendering.

[BizioEE]

Originally posted by PahnCrD
All of those numbers for G-Flops MS keeps throwing around are for rasterization only, It can not be used for Physics and AI.  Just like The Geforce 2 This high number seems due to the T&L engine.  Geforce 2 could do 40 G-Flops but no one seemed to think that it was a super computer, I assure it is only for rendering.

If someone asks : "which Console has more GFlops?"...you have to answer X-Box...because it\'s more GFlops...though most of them are used for rendering...

The EE in the PS2 has 6.2 GFlops and less integer than a P3 500...so...if you use all the power of the Vu1 for rendering,and a percentage of the Main CPU to do extra effects on polys and sound...how many GFlops and integer do you still have for animations,physics and AI ? ...this is the question...

For what I know...the NV2a in the X-Box can even do a little "extra" in physics and animations(but I don\'t know the entity of this "extra") while the X-CPU with its 2.9 GFlops and 1900 Dmips(more or less) has to do only meshes of polys,most of physics and animations(a "little" extra by the NV2a),AI and "normal tasks" in a game...

...in a word...I don\'t know how to quantify the differences among PS2,GC and X-Box in each area...rendering,physics,AI,animations,etc...

we all know the xbox is more powerful ther was no reason to drag this debate on this long. Seven has been drinking from the river of denile.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

me, I don\'t really care about which is the most powerful system.. I\'m more into the games.