Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
so all this comes down to a theorrtical possibility that may/may not ever come into effect onto XBox games? 
bah, such a ho-hum ending 
it prooves neither person right, nor wrong! baaah! screw you BizioEE! screw you Seven! *shakes fist VIOLENTLY while making a menacing face*
Sure? BizioEE is not the only one who thinks seven is full of BS CRAP...
>>>>If you would have taken the time to look at what I wrote down, you would have seen that I took for 32 pixels for the size of one polygon. And we are comparing two systems, so in order to do that fairly, we have to compare them both using the same conditions. <<<<<
A 1.94 million poly scene and a 1.1 million poly scene are hardly the same conditions, now are they?
>>>>Now, I don\'t know what you know or where you do your research little guy, but speaking strictly of rendering polygons (you know the "drawing those polygons on screen") is dependend on fillrate.
Now, off course a game could be drawn with smaller polygons (i.e. less pixels), but don\'t forget we want to compare both systems under the same conditions right.
Not much point in Microsoft saying that the NV2a can draw 116.5 MTris/sec of 8 pixel Polygons (compared to the 75 MTris/sec of 32 pixel polygohns that the GS can render) right? <<<<<
WRONG.
Just what part of more polys = smaller polys don\'t you understand?
I\'ve changed my avatar to an illustration of the phenomena to make it simpler for you...
<-----------------------------
116.5 million polys per second WOULD likely mean that each poly would only be approximately a fourth the size of the polys of a 31 million poly per second game. (an average of 8.5 pixels in size vs. 32 pixels, so it\'s a perfectly fair comparison.
>>>>Other people have done the maths and quoted a performance of 125 (now 116.5) MTris/sec using 32 Pixel Triangles. That was asuming a drawing fillrate of 4 GPixels/sec. <<<<
The 125 million and 116.5 million triangle figures for Xbox were NOT derived from fillrate specs.
They are transform rate specs, like the 66 million poly figure for PS2.
The specs also claim that Xbox can draw those 116.5 million polys to screen with two textures per poly, and real-world benchmarks bear out this claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
seven reasoning is based on flawed logic=seven is wrong!
XBox can really process more than 50-60 mpps in game while PS2 can not even dream that=XBox>PS2 in real world number(technically)
Why XBox can do it technically? in a few words,because it has enough memory bandwidth,enough fill rate to draw whatever it wants at least at 640X480! yes sir...58-59 Gouraud-shaded, two-texture triangles per second,with one infinite hardware light added! PS2 can not even dream to do this "in game" !
...but I don\'t expect someone believes me on a PS2 forum:D
