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

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

 
"The numbers indicate that this is the case.

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

This translates to about 29 mpps.


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


This translates to about 37.5 mpps.


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


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


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


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



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


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

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

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


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



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

interesting

i am really interested though in come five years whose console will look most impressive graphically

because it just doesnt seem possible since you cant keep the texture quality of games on PS2 as with other consoles

still though it would be something if come 4-5 years the PS2 looks better graphically then xbox

but xbox will reach its graphic peak much faster then PS2 thats for sure

933 million pixels a second, I always thought it was something like 2.3 billion pixels

forget it, xbox is more powerfull

welp I keep hearing that that with Sony\'s performance analyzer no PS2 game pushed the sytem more then 40%

but thats all talk, gotta see it to believe it

Agreed.

It doesn\'t really matter anyway. We in the next generation now all we need to do is hope that the PS2 doesn\'t go bust which I very much doubt it will. Which ever console is getting games developed for it in 4 years time is the one I want to own (hopefully PS2 as I don\'t want to fork out for another console for ages yet ).

[Bobs_Hardware]

mpps???  isnt that Micro Polygons per second?  if so, that is a completely different thing to Polygons, and are unrelated...

someone correct me if i be wrong...

Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
mpps???  isnt that Micro Polygons per second?  if so, that is a completely different thing to Polygons, and are unrelated...

someone correct me if i be wrong...

Million Polygons Per Second..

[Bobs_Hardware]

yes, i got that...but i have also seen it referred to as Micro Polygons Per Second...you second rate elvis impersonator from New Jersey (penis)

Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
yes, i got that...but i have also seen it referred to as Micro Polygons Per Second...you second rate elvis impersonator from New Jersey (penis)

Hey you..
I like Abba better!
Im a Benny impersonator you numbnuts!

But I used to preform as Elvis, before I heard Abba..
Listen to my first hit here.. (RealPlayer)

And I guess theDoomsdaymonster has worked on games for ps2 and xbox rite :rolleyes: Jeesh why not just ask my little newphew and he will tell you gamecube is better.

We all know xbox is more powerfull but has it really mattered yet no. So I think thedoomsdaymonster should reconfigure his calculations.

GOSHHHHHHHHH.

I don\'t really care who\'s more powerful. As long as I own the system that allows me to play my favorite games, I\'m cool. :cool:

I believe Xbox is the most powerful.  Not like it matters.  

You\'ll never catch me alive Bill!

I don\'t really thing polys are the biggest issue now adays, it is more about textures and things like that.
Does anyone else think the same?

[BizioEE]

Originally posted by Ethan_Hunt
I don\'t really thing polys are the biggest issue now adays, it is more about textures and things like that.
Does anyone else think the same?

me

When it comes to triangles, quantity matters a lot, but quality matters as well,if not more...
today, both triangles and pixels per second are hard to capture with a single number. Triangle rate varies with many factors, such as number of textures and type of primitive. Fill rate is even harder to nail down, due to z and occlusion techniques that save varying amounts of work under different circumstances. Matters get even more complicated with antialiasing, which is evaluated in terms of how many samples would have to be drawn with box-filtered supersampling to produce a visually equivalent result, a measure that\'s difficult to quantify....

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

Nope ! I don\'t know where these guys found these crazy numbers ...

I know that the whole Emotion Engine(Main CPU + Vu0 + Vu1) can process 66 mpps with z-buffering and a-blending and 36 mpps with 1 texture,1 light,fog and other effects...but you\'re using all the power of the EE for processing polys and nothing else...

...so...the Vu1 alone cannot process 66 mpps with z-buffering and a-blending...

...but it\'s not the whole story...
most of the "futures and effects" that X-Box makes via hardware,are done by PS2 via software...and it means that you have to use,for example,a percentage of the power of the main CPU to do effects like AA,bump mapping,environment-mapping,multi pass-techniques,etc...and you\'re "losing" power for tasks like processing polys...

...and you have to spend further power of the main CPU,for example,for "normal tasks" of a game,animations and sound...and then you have to implement physics and AI(using,for example,the Vu0...)

but there\'s even more...with the release of SSX Tricky and NHL 2002 both by EA Sports, the second vector unit of the EE has actually been put to use in generating DTS sound effects for in-game 5.1 audio. The unfortunate downside to this is that it takes a decent amount of power to enable DTS encoding through one of the VUs which is power taken away from physics, AI or a 3D setup engine=that\'s the case I did...

so people...though PS2 is a great piece of hardware...it cannot process as many polys as X-Box does in the same conditions!...

...to be continued...

Yeah, seem a bit crazy. Would be nice if he could lay it out more detailed how he comes to that conclusion...

However, eventhough I can\'t back up what I have heard from EA-developers (either believe it or not, but don\'t quote me on this), but apperantly the PS2 has a higher in-game pixelfillrate than any of the other consoles - this is coming from people who have worked on both systems. Don\'t know if it\'s true, so take it with a grain of salt.

I know that the whole Emotion Engine(Main CPU + Vu0 + Vu1) can process 66 mpps with z-buffering and a-blending and 36 mpps with 1 texture,1 light,fog and other effects...but you\'re using all the power of the EE for processing polys and nothing else...

huh.. no, not to my knowledge. When Thoshiba designed the Emotion Engine, they customized the devices (CPU Core, VU0, VU1) to fit certain roles:

CPU + FPU: basic program control
CPU + FPU + VU0: behavior and emotion synthesis, physics calculations etc.
VU1: simply geometry calculation that produce display lists that are send to the GIF.
IPU: image decompression.

If you\'ve seen a basic layout of the EE, you will also see that VU1 that is ment for geometry calculations is directly connected to the GIF (Graphics Interface) and has its own bus, while CPU Core and VU0 need to send travel either through VU1 or the main CPU internal 128-bit bus. Toshiba specifically designed it this way, so I wouldn\'t bet that VU1 is being used 100% for graphic-specific calculations as well when thinking of the 66 million polygons/s number. I might be wrong, so if you could back it up, I\'d be thankful.

Since I also mentioned the IPU, might aswell also mention that the PS2 can handle MPEG compressed textures (Squaresoft developer quoted so), but that this isn\'t very sufficiant. The use some sort of vector compression method with VU1 if I stand correct.

BTW:
The EE can handle:
+66 million polygons/s while doing Perspective Transformation
+38 million polygons/s while adding lightning
+36 million polygons/s while adding fog.

The GS can handle:
~20 million polygons/s with Z-buffering, textures, lightning and alpha blending. (Not sure if these stats are 100% correct though, I\'d rather here it from a developer)

...so...the Vu1 alone cannot process 66 mpps with z-buffering and a-blending...

...but it\'s not the whole story...
most of the "futures and effects" that X-Box makes via hardware,are done by PS2 via software...and it means that you have to use,for example,a percentage of the power of the main CPU to do effects like AA,bump mapping,environment-mapping,multi pass-techniques,etc...and you\'re "losing" power for tasks like processing polys...

Huh, wait a minute. Now you are waaaay underestimating the GS here... Give it some credit!

1. Alpha-blending is done via GS -> Hardware
2. Anti-Aliasing is done via GS -> Hardware
3. Bump-Mapping is done via GS -> Hardware

All those features can be done via software (CPU), but are ment to be used hardware if you know how to handle the Graphics Synthesizer features (less impact on CPU). I know that there have been many reasons to believe that PS2 could not handle AA or Bump-Mapping like other consoles of this generation, but if you look at present games now - it is possible.

Baldur\'s Gate: Dark Alliance -> crisp, clear graphics, no aliasing)
Jak & Daxter -> no aliasing, engine can apperantly do bumb-mapping, but was not implemented in the final game.

Both released this month.