Originally posted by fastson
Good ol\' Master Basher Bizio is back..
The guy who cant fight his own battles..
Pure comedy.
Now where was I? Oh yes.. Leaving this pathetic thread.
why pathetic? here a little tech info for you...hope you understand why PS2 is so poor in texturing capabilities...Sony opted for a innovative,"tangled",complex design for the PS2...and I think it was not a smart move...
The theoretical fillrate of the GS is great,but theory is not always reality.
First of all, trying to keep 16 pixel pipelines busy is very very difficult!
Ask any programmers how difficult it is to load balance over multiple processors!...and consider that PS2 has only one pixel unit per pipeline,so if you wanted to have 2 textures per pixel instead of 1,you would have to halve the fillrate.
The Xbox has two pixel processing units per pipeline, so doing 2 textures per pixel would actually not decrease max fillrate at all...and it\'s not the whole story...I know for sure PS2 only does 1 texture per pass,so it requires a huge amount of memory reads.
Look at these two cases!...
4 textures per pixel --->On the PS2, the max theoretical fillrate would be (1/2)^4, or 1/16th of the stated fillrate at hardware sites. Plus,the PS2 would need 4 reads to accomplish this. All this is simply max fillrate,because real fillrate will be lower due to textures not being resident on the VRAM,which is even more important when you must read for each pass.
All this would take a minimum of 4 cycles which would be about 27 nanoseconds.
On the GCN, you also have only one pixel processing unit per pipeline,which yields 1/16th of the max theoretical fillrate. The upside is that the GC only needs 1 read to accomplish this.
All this would take a minimum of 4 cycles which would be about 25 nanoseconds.
On the Xbox,you have 2 pixel processing units per pipeline,so the max theoretical fillrate would be 1/2 of the max theoretical fillrate. The Xbox would only need one read to do this,and it would require at least 2 cycles or about 9 nanoseconds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 textures per pixel --->On the PS2, the max theoretical fillrate would be (1/2)^8,or 1/256th of the stated fillrate at hardware sites.
Plus,the PS2 would need 8 reads to accomplish this. All this would take a minimum of 8 cycles which would be about 53 nanoseconds.
On the GCN,you also have only one pixel processing unit per pipeline,which yields 1/256th of the max theoretical fillrate. The upside is that the GC only needs 1 read to accomplish this.
All this would take a minimum of 8 cycles which would be about 49 nanoseconds.
On the Xbox,you have 2 pixel processing units per pipeline,so the max theoretical fillrate would be 1/8 of the max theoretical fillrate. The Xbox would need two reads to do this,and it would require at least 4 cycles or about 17 nanoseconds.
So,if you wanna multitexture, the PS2 is "poor",the GCN is very Good and the XBox the best!
...however,in conclusion,I should say that in terms of hardware, the GC would be the most efficient of them all and the PS2 is the least efficient console!
fasty fasty go play your PS2 games:laughing: instead of wasting your fanboysh time here!
