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

[BizioEE]

Toshiba specifically designed it this way, so I wouldn\'t bet that VU1 is being used 100% for graphic-specific calculations as well when thinking of the 66 million polygons/s number. I might be wrong, so if you could back it up, I\'d be thankful.

Yes...the Vu1 was specifically designed for graphic-specific calculations but the beauty of the PS2(EE) is that you can use both Vu0 and Vu1 for everything you want...they are very similar...and if you want a Game with mindblowing animations,very very strong physics and AI and a very complex collision-system...you could theoretically use 100% of Vu0 and 50% of Vu1 for these things...

what I meant is that the EE can process 66 mpps(when you use all the power of the main CPU plus Vu0 plus Vu1)...not the Vu1 alone...I\'m almost sure...

okay true

BTW; I spotet a stupid error in my post, which I will now correct:

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

Since VU0 isn\'t connected to the GIF directly, and considering the great freedom the EE gives developers, that VU0 can take of work or help out VU1 with geometry calculations, but I am not sure if it could be used 100% parallel to VU1.

Maybe it\'s me, but I can\'t really think of two independent VU\'s being both used for graphics-specific calculations (I am sure you could, but it\'s a damn struggle to keep two independent units working parallel I could imagine) and developers have also stated that it\'s already hard enough to make use of VU0 and VU1 at the same time. Anyway, the thing I was trying to get at, is; how accurate are the figures that Sony is published?

I think it\'s a safe estimate to find out the raw processing power if you can messure the data accoardingly - the question though is, how sufficiant and accurate is the data? Is there a chance that the PS2 could do more with different techniques? And the messured data (66 mpps), is that considering a maximum use of the DMAC, EE-Core, VU0, FPU, VU1? And having asked that, the second question is, now since the Performance Analyzer 2 is out, can this data be estimated even better than before?

Sure this is the wrong place to ask these questions, but unfortunately I am not Jason Rubin\'s nextdoor neighbour (sp?), but it would be nice.

[BizioEE]

Originally posted by seven
okay true

BTW; I spotet a stupid error in my post, which I will now correct:

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

Since VU0 isn\'t connected to the GIF directly, and considering the great freedom the EE gives developers, that VU0 can take of work or help out VU1 with geometry calculations, but I am not sure if it could be used 100% parallel to VU1.

Maybe it\'s me, but I can\'t really think of two independent VU\'s being both used for graphics-specific calculations (I am sure you could, but it\'s a damn struggle to keep two independent units working parallel I could imagine) and developers have also stated that it\'s already hard enough to make use of VU0 and VU1 at the same time. Anyway, the thing I was trying to get at, is; how accurate are the figures that Sony is published?

I think it\'s a safe estimate to find out the raw processing power if you can messure the data accoardingly - the question though is, how sufficiant and accurate is the data? Is there a chance that the PS2 could do more with different techniques? And the messured data (66 mpps), is that considering a maximum use of the DMAC, EE-Core, VU0, FPU, VU1? And having asked that, the second question is, now since the Performance Analyzer 2 is out, can this data be estimated even better than before?

I\'ve not the knowledge to answer this ...

Sure this is the wrong place to ask these questions, but unfortunately I am not Jason Rubin\'s nextdoor neighbour (sp?), but it would be nice. [/B]

Very true...it should be nice to have a forum devoted to Hardware but...it shouldn\'t be successful here...

WOW!!  I\'m lost.  Phil, I\'ve notice that PS2 GS has a 75 Million Polygons per second rate and the Xbox rate is 125 Micropolygons/particles per second.   Polygons or Micropolygos which is more?  

[BizioEE]

Originally posted by pstwo
WOW!!  I\'m lost.  Phil, I\'ve notice that PS2 GS has a 75 Million Polygons per second rate and the Xbox rate is 125 Micropolygons/particles per second.   Polygons or Micropolygos which is more?  

Nope

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

""the XGPU can additionally generate one "particle" per clock cycle, a particle being what nVidia describes as a "simple" polygons. So its effective particle rate is 233 million particles/second.""

http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,apn%253D14%2526s%253D1017%2526a%253D19278%2526app%253D12%2526ap%253D13,00.asp

...so...we should compare 66 mpps(PS2) to 116.5 mpps(XBox)...but...there\'s something "unclear"...how many polys can the Vu1 alone process ? Both PS2 and X-Box are "essentially" 3 processors machine :

PS2 :

• The Main CPU
• Vu0
• Vu1 directly connected to the GIF + GS

X-Box :

• X-CPU
• NV2a
• MCPX

...and when it comes to processing polys...we have to compare the performance of the Vu1(PS2) and NV2a(X-Box)-generally-...right? ...and not "all" the EE and the NV2a...

I want prof !

BizioEE

Okay, I just had a chat with a developer of Square and he varified the following issue about that 66/75 million of polygons that the EE/GS could handle:

That number Sony has posted is the performance of only VU1 running microprograms. He followed on with "It\'s acutally possible to exceed the 75million polygon/sec rating of the GS by running both VU0 and VU1 in micromode and feeding the GS triangle strips instead of triangles...".

What that basically means is, that the PS2 can do 66 million polygons (just the rate of the perspect transformation of VU1), in-game, since VU0 could handle the physics, AI and other in-game important calculations at the same time. Since VU0 holds slightly less performance VU1, I wonder what number it could be pushing if both VU0 and VU1 were used for perspect transformation... not that it matters, but it\'s interesting to know that the numbers Sony published are more than valid.

Originally posted by pstwo
WOW!!  I\'m lost.  Phil, I\'ve notice that PS2 GS has a 75 Million Polygons per second rate and the Xbox rate is 125 Micropolygons/particles per second.   Polygons or Micropolygos which is more?  

Well, hmm.. well, if you\'re interested in my personal opinion, it\'s just some good marketing Microsoft is doing here to build in some extra hype. If you ask me, micropolygons and just polygons are the same thing. Not that it matters really, since probably PS2 and Xbox are in the long run about equal in terms of overall performance (both having their pluses and negatives).

Seven we\'ve had this discussion before--you seem to be the only one out there that thinks the PS2 and xbox are equal in terms of power.  Other than that I\'m not going to get into it.

[BizioEE]

Originally posted by seven
BizioEE

Okay, I just had a chat with a developer of Square and he varified the following issue about that 66/75 million of polygons that the EE/GS could handle:

That number Sony has posted is the performance of only VU1 running microprograms. He followed on with "It\'s acutally possible to exceed the 75million polygon/sec rating of the GS by running both VU0 and VU1 in micromode and feeding the GS triangle strips instead of triangles...".

It should be great...and...if it were true...PS2 potentially should be more powerful in processing power then GC,for example...GC GPU=more than 30mpps with no textures...Vu1=66mpps with no textures...is it possible?  (well...I know that GC can do 8 pass technique so...when you add textures...these numbers decrease less drastically...-- but I even read that Naughty Dog are implementing multi pass technique on PS2 via software in their next game...and it should be interesting to see the quality of the result--...,and it has more effective texture bandwidth(GC),so polys should be prettier...)

What that basically means is, that the PS2 can do 66 million polygons (just the rate of the perspect transformation of VU1), in-game, since VU0 could handle the physics, AI and other in-game important calculations at the same time. Since VU0 holds slightly less performance VU1, I wonder what number it could be pushing if both VU0 and VU1 were used for perspect transformation... not that it matters, but it\'s interesting to know that the numbers Sony published are more than valid.

Can you give me a link ?

Well, hmm.. well, if you\'re interested in my personal opinion, it\'s just some good marketing Microsoft is doing here to build in some extra hype. If you ask me, micropolygons and just polygons are the same thing. Not that it matters really, since probably PS2 and Xbox are in the long run about equal in terms of overall performance (both having their pluses and negatives).

seven,I\'m interested in your opinion,what you have said is interesting:)...but I\'m sceptical now...I mean...I\'ve watched Brute Force on the X-Box,and it looks amazing(X-Box was released a month ago and sure future X-Box games will improve in 2nd,3rd,etc generation of games).....yes...PS2 is a lot more difficult to develop for then X-Box ,it has a higher step learning curve,but it is out since march 2000,and I don\'t want to believe that developers haven\'t still learnt how to push it...

Seven & BizioEE,

Well done exchange of information on both sides of the fence. I was even able to comprehend a portion of what was being said \':surprised\'

BizioEE,
Your doubtfulness about PS2 developers not having learned to push it yet is justified but I believe you may be underestimating just how radical a change in programing thought is required in order to really reap the potential benefits. Early on a developer for Nintendo was quoted  (I believe he was from either Rare or Factor5) making a statement along the lines of the major drawback with the design of the PS2 was the learning curve appeared so steep it would be near the end of its life span before its ultimate power would begin to be fulfilled. The words stuck with me because Nfanboys used to keep dragging them out over and over to prove how bad GC was gonna to kick PS2s ass when it launches.

Watchdog,
Be fair! Seven\'s stance of  "probably PS2 and Xbox are in the long run about equal in terms of overall performance (both having their pluses and negatives)" is not the same as saying "PS2 and xbox are equal in terms of power" and he is most certainly not alone in thinking so. Go visit the Ars Technica forums where employed programers show up regularly and they\'ll tell you the same thing in answer to which of the three consoles is best. It boils down to each having strengths and weaknesses, there being not a whole lot of separation between three.

It should be great...and...if it were true...PS2 potentially should be more powerful in processing power then GC,for example...GC GPU=more than 30mpps with no textures...Vu1=66mpps with no textures...is it possible?

Well, as I said, I am in contact with a Square developer (got to know him through ArsTechnica) and was able to ask him a few question. He stated, that he went higher with pushing polygons than the numbers Sony had published (75 million polygons/sec GS) and that 66 million polygons is just the performance of VU1. I can\'t really varify if this is true, but seing what reputation this guy holds on the forums and what knowledge he\'s got, I think it\'s fair to believe so. And it\'s first hand information which he holds, not second/third hand like most authors of those comparasment-tech-articles.

But to say this again, I\'ll repost my Q&A with him:

"...the other thing is, how realistic are the estimates that both Sony and Microsoft make of their consoles? PS2 with 75, while Xbox comes in somewhere at 125 mil. if I stand correct. The other thing that I was also wondering is, if those number that Sony posted with the EE (66 million polygons/sec) is that considering a 100% usage of both VU0 and VU1 or just the VU1 (since it handles the geometry calculations)?

Answer:
The 66million is just VU1 running microprograms (as far as I know, I\'ve gone higher using both)...  It\'s acutally possible to exceed the 75million polygon/sec rating of the GS by running both VU0 and VU1 in micromode and feeding the GS triangle strips instead of triangles...

(well...I know that GC can do 8 pass technique so...when you add textures...these numbers decrease less drastically...-- but I even read that Naughty Dog are implementing multi pass technique on PS2 via software in their next game...and it should be interesting to see the quality of the result--...,and it has more effective texture bandwidth(GC),so polys should be prettier...)

Actually, the Cube is not multipass technique (I think it\'s called differently), more like 8 within one pass. That means it can render it 8 times in one single pass. Don\'t forget though, that the PS2 holds a rendering bandwidth of 2560-bits or 48 GB/sec - so while it can only render 1 in one pass (textures have about 10 GB/sec bandwidth (512-bits)), it can do it very very fast.

Can you give me a link ?

Huh, that was the conclusion out of the above question from the developer. You can read it in the manual of the EE how much the VU0 is cabable compared to VU1.

Here is the clue why VU1 is noticably quicker than VU0:

Co-processor1 FPU (FMAC x 1, FDIV x 1)

Co-processor2 VU0 (FMAC x 4, FDIV x 1)

Vector Processing Unit VU1 (FMAC x 5, FDIV x 2)

As you can see VU1 holds 1 Floating-Point Multiply-Accumulator more than VU0. It also holds one FDIV more. Now, since VU1 is connected directly to the GIF, it also has another advantage there, but doesn\'t mean VU0 couldn\'t take off a considerable amount of perspective transformation calculations. I won\'t estimate how powerful VU0 is compared to VU1, but it is powerful enough to make a big difference in polygons counts if it were to be used to help out VU1.

You can find a lot of tech articles which hold information like this on the Arstechnica site and also visit the forum, because like Heretic already mentioned, there are a lot of developers (PS2 and other platforms) that visit these forums regularly.

seven,I\'m interested in your opinion,what you have said is interesting...but I\'m sceptical now...I mean...I\'ve watched Brute Force on the X-Box,and it looks amazing(X-Box was released a month ago and sure future X-Box games will improve in 2nd,3rd,etc generation of games).....yes...PS2 is a lot more difficult to develop for then X-Box ,it has a higher step learning curve,but it is out since march 2000,and I don\'t want to believe that developers haven\'t still learnt how to push it...

It\'s not a suprise that Xbox has a lot of power that can be tapped fairly easy compared to the PS2. Remember, Xbox is very PC like; an architecture that is very similar to the ones found in todays PC\'s or older consoles. The PS2 is brandnew and developers have to rethink there way of programming. It might not be hard to get out a game, but it is very hard to get the true potential out of this new hardware. Remember, while Xbox (or any other console at the moment) holds big memory, PS2 has only very little and now real texture buffer to consider. It may sound simple in theory, but time is proving how hard it actually is. But there are making progress, and games like Jak & Daxter are slowly making the hardware shine.

[BizioEE]

Thanks seven for the info...it\'s very interesting ...I\'ll try to find other informations about it...

BizioEE, since you seem to be interested (I find that very cool by the way), here\'s a link you should definately keep your eye on.

ArsTechnica Perspetual PS2 Programming Post

They just started it and I think you can learn a lot by following it. Make sure to download all the files from the link (second post) *hint* *cough* *hint*. This should be quite some fun to follow... also, keep out for a guy that calls himself "Archie4Oz".

[BizioEE]

Thanks seven

WOAH, I worked through the other day at work and while I was there, I printed about 2/5th of the PlayStation 2\'s User manual (about 500 pages so far). I have slowly began to read it and I can\'t wait until the Linux Kit is out so that I can try to program some games for it.

For those who are interested in the Linux Kit for developing games for their PS2 - I asked this Square guy and he said it is a fairly powerful programming kit. If you know what you\'re doing, it is possible to reach graphics seen on Dreamcast. That is pretty powerful IMHO for a devkit on the PS2.

Anyway, I was also wondering who on these boards is interested in this techstuff? I know it won\'t be enough to fill a Tech & Hardware forum, but if the interest is there, we could devote a thread to it. I was kind of thinking about asking questions and having them aswered. It would also be neat for those who are reading through the manual and don\'t unterstand certain things and it would be cool to learn more about the hardware. It\'s a bit like the post at ArsTechnica (which I posted a link above), just on these boards. what do you think?

BizioEE, Heretic, IronFist... anyone?

PS. I\'ll post this in the main-forum aswell, since the intention of this post has nothing to do with the other consoles.

For those who are interested, the link to the post in the main-forum would be:
Linux-Kit: PlayStation 2 development