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...
