DirectX sh*t > PS2 ???

Originally posted by Black Samurai
Yeah you guys are right. I guess it is better to have the smaller developers put out pretty games with no substance(because they spent too much time working on the graphics engine and didn\'t have enough to spend on the gameplay) and wait months for the larger developers to put out a game that looks good AND plays good.

Hav eyou noticed that a huge number of PC games use a similar interface?
And I cant recall a huge number of PC games that were perfect examples of inovation when compared to console games.

BTW, What was the last AAA game to come out on the PS2?  What the was the last one before that? How many AAA PC games have come out in that timespan? I bet PC gamers HATE the development environment they have to put up with.

What was the last AAA title game to come out on the XBOX that uses outdated PC hardware and a direct X to create a unique AAA title?
Ninja Gaiden?It has been in development for years.

Now if we compare PC to consoles (not XBOX included) thats becuase PC\'s evolve faster in hardware than consoles(thus  XBOX doesnt do better than PS2 or GC or as well as PCs.Direct X doesnt do much  to help.Many usless ports are being released on an outdated PC hardware).And lets bring another question.Why doesnt support on GC exist as much as the PS2?Its much much easier to develop on.But has less support.
Lets face it.Variety in gameplay styles exist more on consoles.The GC has few games but many great if we make a ratio.Still Nintendo spends lots of time to develop ONE great game for GC despite the easiness on programming.There are tons of useless developers on PC though that make games with fairly good graphics and mediocre gameplay in a short period of time.Just becuase its very very easy to create a game on a direct X.They develop a game easily and release it.Its still a game.Just like most PC games.And what about the number of the mediocre and bad PC games.If we make a ratio of : dont expect to find one superb AAA title to appear in a very small number of PC games released in a certain period of time.
Greater numbers of games are being developed for PCs in a certain period of time than any console.Or even all existing consoles combined.

Originally posted by Unicron!
As I said PS2 introduced a new method.Its needs time to evolve.If developers continue to support this kind of architecture and programming you ll start seeing the difference I am talking about.
The only reason why you see such a difference in PCs is becuase the evolve fast when it comes to hardware.Faster than what games on PCs seem to show you.You think its the Direct X that does the biggest difference?No.Its the hardware.And most of it is left untapped.

1. - New method, old method...who cares. What the consumer wants to see is the end result and developers want to do it in least possible time to save cost. Why spend 10 years to achieve something similar that can be done in 6 months. One rule of development cycle: DO NOT RE-INVENT THE WHEEL.

2. Yes...so there is a lot of untapped power in the PC GPU...who cares...it still looks 20 times better than a PS2 running at 50% of the potential!!! Isn\'t that great!!!

Originally posted by Unicron!
Do you like Burnout3 sunshine?Thank Middleware.How many racing games on XBOX look as good as Burnout3 or GT4?And XBOX is using Directx tools, on a GF2?Now whats wrong with that?
Its funny that developing on PS2 helped the appearance of a variety of visuals on XBOX when its titles became multiplatform
And thats just the beginning.A new start is always hard.Developers have been accustomed to Direct X  for more than a decade.And yet comparing XBOX de direct X GF2 super console(appeared late 2001), with what PS2 has offered (harwdware released in 1999) isnt the huge gap you make it seem to be. [/B]

1. Hello...I believe BurnOut 3 will destined to be multiplatform like BurnOut 2. And FYI, BurnOut 2 on XBOX does look SLIGHTLY better than the PS2 version. Comparing GT4 is null and void...there isn\'t a GT4 on XBOX. How about comparing Splinter Cell, NFS:UG, Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Soul Calibur 2 etc etc?? The PS2 falls flat on it\'s face...like it\'s texture. And i found no improvement between GT3 and GT4. The PS2 has reached it\'s limit. But i do agreed the GT series (especially GT3) is really the best racing simulator bar none on any platform...too bad i prefer arcade racers.

And so, the BEST VERSION of BO3 will likely be on the XBOX...like BurnOut 2...AGAIN. (and the Dobly Digital 5.1 effects in BO2 is just so much better than the PS2...heavy bass and accurate separation!)


2. Huh XBOX DirectX on GF2?? I was referring to the PS2=GF2+. I hope you realized that the XBOX is actually a GF3.5...an enhanced GF3. That is why you get bump mapping and pixel shaders...PS2 can never do this because it\'s in a generation similar to GF2(DX7) which doesn\'t have these features. The gap isn\'t that huge except for better frame rates, minimal jaggies, higher resolution, detail texture with more variety and mind boogling texture that looks 3D thanks to bump mapping....

Originally posted by Unicron!
Not to mention the similar looking games.On XBOX we see the same effects and similar engines repeated again and  angain and again.At the end although they may look great and above anything seen in PS2 (like detailed textures and bumb mapping)they dont impress anymore. "I ve seen that thing done before there.I ve seen that done before here"

Let me get this straight.....same effects and similar engines??
Ok...so you\'re IMPRESSED by the same bland texture, frame drops and jaggies in nearly every PS2 games and yet you\'re not impressed by the fantastic and superior graphics in nearly every XBOX game (ex: Ninja Gaiden, Panzer Orta..)...and finally maybe 5 years later, some geek managed to the same level of bump mapping and texture on the PS2 and you\'re gonna claim it\'s the next coming??

My replied:"But i\'ve seen it on the XBOX 5 YEARS AGO!!!!!!"

:clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown:

Originally posted by Unicron!
What was the last AAA title game to come out on the XBOX that uses outdated PC hardware and a direct X to create a unique AAA title?
Ninja Gaiden?It has been in development for years.
[/B]

Err....Huh?? Just what the heck r u saying?? Outdated PC hardware? U mean XBOX? of course it is....but Ninja Gaiden still looks better than anything similar on the PS2...(Say..Shinobi?? Urrgghhh..)..and can compare to my respectable Raddy ATI 9700 in terms of graphics quality....

It puts the PS2 even more to shame as a 3 year old "outdated" P3 733Mhz manage to make the PS2 so pale in comparison.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

I love the way you compare PC based hardware to the EE and GS.

Can\'t do bump mapping wtf!  Sorry to tell you man, it can.

 Oh and the EE is more powerful then the xbox cpu.
heres a few reasons why
-Data bus, cache memory as well as all registers are 128 bit on the PS2 CPU while the XBox CPU is 32 bits.
-It has a max. performance of 6.2GFLOPS while the XBox CPU can only do a bit over 3 GFLOPS.
-It incorporates two 64-bit integer units (IU) with a 128-bit SIMD multi-media command unit, two independent floating point vector calculation units (VU0, VU1), an MPEG 2 decoder circuit (Image Processing Unit/IPU) and high performance DMA controllers.
All within the EE

3 words dood.

Get a clue.


Not to say the xbox isn\'t more powerful. Although i\'d like to see a ps2 game using 100% of its power compared to a Xbox game with 100% power too.  Right now, i doubt theres 1 title that uses 100% of ps2s power. But there most likely is already xbox titles that are close, or even using 100% of its power.

I\'m just saying don\'t compare the hardware via PC wise. the GS isn\'t a GF2, don\'t compare it to one. Just as the EE isn\'t a P3 cpu.  What, you thought MHZ means more powerful lol.

Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
I love the way you compare PC based hardware to the EE and GS.

Can\'t do bump mapping wtf!  Sorry to tell you man, it can.

 Oh and the EE is more powerful then the xbox cpu.
heres a few reasons why
-Data bus, cache memory as well as all registers are 128 bit on the PS2 CPU while the XBox CPU is 32 bits.
-It has a max. performance of 6.2GFLOPS while the XBox CPU can only do a bit over 3 GFLOPS.
-It incorporates two 64-bit integer units (IU) with a 128-bit SIMD multi-media command unit, two independent floating point vector calculation units (VU0, VU1), an MPEG 2 decoder circuit (Image Processing Unit/IPU) and high performance DMA controllers.
All within the EE

3 words dood.

Get a clue.

 

You would think that ps2 would be the most powerful system out then.

 The PS2 may have a more innovative, effective and powerful design of hardware but it is also much more complex system to learn and nobody will truely ever know if was more powerful.

But the xbox has the most power Gpu in the game which makes it the more powerful system out. No other console can compare.

When you look at a game like d0a3 there not game on any other console that comes close.

But I do think if devs could some how harnest the full power of ps2 it would really show it\'s true strengths.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

If you read up on what the GS can do, then you\'d be amazed. Its just untapped power, which may never be used. Shame really. But what can u do.

Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
I love the way you compare PC based hardware to the EE and GS.

Can\'t do bump mapping wtf!  Sorry to tell you man, it can.

Really?? Please post a screen shot, pleeezzzz!!! I would really love to see EVIDENCE.

Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD

 Oh and the EE is more powerful then the xbox cpu.

heres a few reasons why
-Data bus, cache memory as well as all registers are 128 bit on the PS2 CPU while the XBox CPU is 32 bits.
-It has a max. performance of 6.2GFLOPS while the XBox CPU can only do a bit over 3 GFLOPS.
-It incorporates two 64-bit integer units (IU) with a 128-bit SIMD multi-media command unit, two independent floating point vector calculation units (VU0, VU1), an MPEG 2 decoder circuit (Image Processing Unit/IPU) and high performance DMA controllers.
All within the EE

3 words dood.

Get a clue.

The PS2 CPU > XBOX CPU?? Err...we\'re comparing system as  A WHOLE. Not a specific part of the system. The XBOX has many other sub-system to compensate...like the built in Dobly digital encoder, the PS2 will need to sacrifice one VU unit to do it..

What\'s the point of having a P4 3Ghz CPU with a TNT2 M64 GPU?? It\'ll perform worst than a lowly XP1800 with a ATI9800 Pro.

Bottom line: XBOX games graphics > PS2. texture variety and detail, resolution, bump mapping, frame drops is SUPERIOR.

You get a REAL clue.

Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD

Not to say the xbox isn\'t more powerful. Although i\'d like to see a ps2 game using 100% of its power compared to a Xbox game with 100% power too.  Right now, i doubt theres 1 title that uses 100% of ps2s power. But there most likely is already xbox titles that are close, or even using 100% of its power.

I\'m sorry SoulGrind...bwa ha ha!!! That\'s really such a bias unfounded statement. All games actually uses 100% of the CPU power..it\'s just how it\'s optimized. And please don\'t tell me after 5 years and nobody knows how to make use of the so called "PS2 power"...and where did u get the idea that XBOX "already uses 100%" while the PS2 "haven\'t reach 100%" yet???

Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD

I\'m just saying don\'t compare the hardware via PC wise. the GS isn\'t a GF2, don\'t compare it to one. Just as the EE isn\'t a P3 cpu.  What, you thought MHZ means more powerful lol.

I use it as a rough measure to gauge the performance and feature. Without the bump mapping and pixel shaders, the PS2 is definitely in the generation of GF2( with enhanced T&L architecture), but with maybe higher polygon count.

In fact on a white specs comparison, i do agreed that the PS2 CPU is > than Intel\'s P3 733Mhz CPU. But what\'s the use of all those CPU power if it\'s let down by the GPU and inadequate VRAM?( and pls don\'t give me that ancient story about the 4MB VRAM is a buffer..yadda..yadda..and the PS2 can stream 100MB or so texture from the DVD in real-time yadda-yadda...). The PS2 CPU has to compensate and waste it\'s processing power to swap texture in/out and a host of other stuff that is not supported by the GPU as well...

That\'s why PS2=bland texture, jaggies, no 5.1 sound, no bump map and no pixel shading.

If you need evidence, just about 99% of cross platform games look better on the XBOX than PS2. The 1% that don\'t are probably bad ports or lousy developers.

And i really want to see your PS2 bump mapping screen please. It would be interesting. And I\'ve like 40+ titles on the PS2 at one time and i haven\'t see one bump map, just FYI.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

It puts the PS2 even more to shame as a 3 year old "outdated" P3 733Mhz manage to make the PS2 so pale in comparison.

When you were talking about the p3 making the ps2 pale inc omparison, i was simply stating that the p3 processor isn\'t on par with the EE. You said it yourself the directx is far more easier to develope for. How long have developers been using and growing with it now??  and you wanna compare that to a 5 year old system lol.  I doubt ps2 is maxed out.

Bump mapping, Primal is said to use it, although i haven\'t played the game.  Champions of Norrath is another.  Go look em up. Or play them whatever,  btw ps2 can do any effect in software. Its just coding.


Nice little read.

The Graphics Chip and VRAM
This is where the images are rendered. The XBox uses an Nvidia Graphics Processing Unit running at 250MHz and the PS2 uses the Graphics Synthesizer running at 150MHz. Again, judging by these specs the XBox looks better. The XBox GPU has a few advantages (or maybe not) over the PS2 GS, for example:

-The XBox GPU can do 125 million polygons (according to Microsoft) while the PS2 GS can only do 75million polygons
-The XBox GPU has a max. resolution of 1920x1080 and the PS2 GS can do 1280x1024, the rest of the graphics chip will be comparable to NV-20 chip.

There are alot of neat effects the XBox GPU can do with its hardware, but all those effects can be done by the Emotion Engine in software too (while the XBox\' CPU is not powerful enough to do complex visual effects in software). But the catch is that these advantages (talking about higher resolutions here) don\'t make a lot of difference on a TV screen, even on an HDTV screen the difference would be barely noticeable (when the console\'s hardware is used properly). So, is the XBox Graphics Processing Unit better than the PS2 GS? It doesn\'t look like it, the architecture of the PS2 GS looks far more advanced. For example, PS2 has a parallel rendering engine that contains a 2,560 bit wide data bus that is 20 times the size of leading PC-based graphics accelerators. The Graphics Synthesizer architecture can execute recursive multi-pass rendering processing and filter operations at a very fast speed without the assistance of the main CPU or main bus access. In the past, this level of real-time performance was only achieved when using very expensive, high performance, dedicated graphics workstations. There is a 48-Gigabyte/sec memory access bandwidth achieved via the integration of the pixel logic and the video memory on a single high performance chip. The quality of the resulting screen image is comparable to high quality pre-rendered 3D graphics. (that is once the game developers have learned how to use it properly) There has also been a misunderstanding about the VideoRAM on the PS2. The VRAM is included in the 32MB of main RAM on the CPU (the developer chooses how much of it he wants to dedicate to VRAM). Everyone thought the 4MB of memory on the GS was the VRAM while that is just a buffer in which all the rendering is done so no external bandwidth is needed (only for texture streaming). Another rumor that\'s been spread by several gaming sites is that the XBox is capable of texture compression and full scene anti-aliasing while the PS2 isn\'t. This is simply not true. The PS2 can compress/decompress textures and do full scene anti-aliasing without causing as much slow-down as on the XBox. And although the XBox GPU can do a lot of effects that are not \'built-in\' in the PS2 GS, the PS2 can do all these effects and more in software mode (but at least at the same quality) through the Emotion Engine. XBox fanboys will probably tell you that the XBox GPU is more powerful because of its vertex shaders while the coprocessors on the Emotion Engine of the PS2 can be used to get the same effects as the XBox\' vertex shaders (but the vertex shaders can\'t do everything that the EE\'s coprocessors can do).

Now let\'s take a look at how Microsoft got the idea that their graphics chip can do 125 million polygons, because this is a little unclear... (I\'m going to go in some tech details now) The PS2\'s Graphics Synthesizer has the highest pixel fill rate of the next generation of consoles. Most remeber the 4.0 GPixels on Microsoft\'s spec comparence sheet. Well, Microsoft was nice to include a "(anti-aliased)" next to it. What does "4.0 GPixels (anti-aliased)", mean? It\'s misleading. The Xbox has hardwired 4x FSAA, when this is turned on the actual total of 1.0 GPixels is re-rendered 4 times to remove aliasing. Another possible reason for Microsoft to say Xbox\'s fill-rate is 4 GPixels per second. Is that the 1 GPixels is with 2 texture layers, if it is NOT used Xbox would not gain any performance and if it is used Xbox wouldn\'t lose any performance. It remains 1.0 GPixels w/ 2 textures, so what MS possibly did was it doubled the fill rate twice. Trying to compare it to PS2\'s fill rate w/ no texture. What MS did was it came up with misleading numbers. The Xbox can\'t go higher than 1 GPixels per second. The NV2a in the Xbox has 4 pixel units running at 250 MHz, that\'s 1 billion pixels/second. While the GS in the PS2 has 16 pixel units running at 150 MHz, which is 2.4 billion pixels every second. Now let\'s talk about polygons. Right here I\'m talking about polygon rendering and not polygon transformations. To calculate polygon rendering performance, you take the pixel fill rate, and write it in millions. So PS2s pixel fill rate is 2400 Million. When Sony says polygons, it is refering to 32 pixel polygons. Divide 2400 Million by 32. You get 75 Million (32-pixel) polygons per second. That is raw and doesn\'t include textures, they use up pixels also. Now let\'s take Microsoft\'s allegged pixel fill rate of 4000 Million, which MS has on it\'s spec sheet and divide it by 32, you get, yes you guessed it, 125 Million (32 pixel) polygons per second. Here\'s the problem, the NV2a doesn\'t have a 4000 M fill rate but a 1000 M fill rate. So it\'s 31 Million (32 pixel) polygons per second. This isn\'t raw, since there\'s also 2 texture units for each pixel unit. So that\'s 31 million with 2 texture layers, the PS2 is around 38 Million with 1 texture layer and 20 million with 2 texture layers. The Xbox maxes out at 31 MPolygons per second, if textures aren\'t placed on those polygons- Xbox will not gain a polygon rendering increase in performance. The PS2\'s Graphic Synthesizer could render 75 MPolygons per second with no texture. The NV2a in the Xbox can\'t render higher than 31 MPolygons per second at all.

Okay now take that all into account and then check out the following... The XBox graphics chip does not really give you the same power you get out of a GeForce3 3D accelerator card. It is only a graphics chip, similar to the one on that card but it shares its memory with the XBox\'s system RAM and has a 250mhz RAMDAC. While a standard GeForce3 accelarator card gives you an additional 64MB of video memory with 350MHz RAMDAC. The NV2A compensates for this by having a second vertex shader, as opposed by the GeForce3\'s single vertex shader. However, Microsoft claims that this second vertex shader instantly bumps the XBox\'s theoretical max poly count from the 31 million that Nvidia lists for the GeForce 3, all the way up to 125 million pps. According to most experts, the area that will actually see the most improvement from this will actually be in Bump Mapping. Microsoft has yet to explain how the second vertex shader yields an additional 94 million polygons per second." I don\'t know enough to go more in detail about this but this is definately an interesting point, and it seems that the XBox doesn\'t have the advantage here.

I can understand that this is all a bit confusing if you\'re not a real tech-freak. It comes down to this: when developers have learned how to use the power of the PS2 GS properly they\'ll get a lot more out of it than XBox developers will get out of the XBox GPU. The PS2 GS combined with the EE can do a lot more advanced visual effects than the XBox GPU combined with its CPU.

Take from it what u will. I personally couldn\'t give a S@#T about whats more powerful really. Its the games that interest me, and by the console/game sales.. most other people too.

ps2 games have not been using bump mapping.

Can the ps2 do bump mapping? Not to the extent of the xbox. But I belive  it could do it but developers ain\'t got a clue how to impelment it in games.

OMG souly you actually wants us to take some internet article for fact?:rolleyes:

I am ashamed you had the nerve to even post that. I have seen that artile it has so many wholes and gaps it in.

The guy is right on the cpu part but totally has no clue after that.

:o tisk...tisk

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

well, explain the gaps.  I get so many different explanations thrown at me its hard to know who to believe..  You see, this guy makes more sence to me then someone saying. "OMG, he is like, so not right"  etc

[Living-In-Clip]

I think the best thing we can all do is ignore UniCorn\'s post.

Who cares? Sony won this generation. End of story.  Why bother debating a couple year old specs?

I can\'t believe you would put your credibility on the line and post something so farts.

I am not even going to waste my time breaking down that trash. Everyone knows the xbox can render more polygons than ps2.

But if you take that guys opinion ps2 is far superior graphically:rolleyes:

Which graphics is not even the point of this topic. So I wont even take this thread there.

That right there reminds me of the good old days when some xbox fanboy would post some stupid xbox pic and brag about the graphics.

tisk...tisk.....

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I think the best thing we can all do is ignore UniCorn\'s post.

Who cares? Sony won this generation. End of story.  Why bother debating a couple year old specs?

I agree

thanks dad for settling things between us kids;)

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

You still haven\'t explain those gaps


btw. Opengl kicks ass over Direct3d.



Give me back full opengl support