How does the Emotion Engine compare to a PC chip?

It wasn\'t to long ago I was in the forum and was listening to all the DC FANBOYS ranting and raving at how much better the DC was than the PS2, and that the DC was going to remain the dominant console on the market. Well, times have changed, and for the better I might add. The DC is no more and Sega will soon be making games for all of the consoles.  

My point however is this. We won\'t know for sure what the better console will be until they are all released. We can throw up as many specs as we want to make our console look the best, but it all comes down to the finished product. So far PS2 is an outstanding machine with very impressive graphics. The X-box will undoubtedly have very impressive graphics as well, we can see that already from the games that Microsoft puts out on the PC. The PS2 is a new piece of hardware that forces us to look at things in a new light.

Someone commented earlier on the Saturn and how it was new tech. and hard to program for, that\'s why it failed. I\'m sure that had a lot to do with it, but at the time the Saturn was released, the Video game industry as a whole wasn\'t anywhere near what it is today, and I\'m sure the programers weren\'t as eager to take on the challenge when they could just go the easier more popular consoles. Today videogames are everywhere and everyone is playing them, boy\'s, girl\'s, kids and adults. I think that the PS2 will keep improving for years to come and be one of if not the dominant consoles on the market.

Bah.
It\'s all about the elves, dammit!

The games on the PS2 is superior any High end PC game in graphics

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[nO-One]

Originally posted by Bossieman
The games on the PS2 is superior any High end PC game in graphics

Currently no.
In the future,probly for a while but PC.s are upgradable you can put in a new vid card and get better game performance.
But the problem with PC\'s is they must maintain backward compatability.They can\'t design games that will only work on 1Ghz+ processors and need atleast a GF or a Radeon card.
They are also using an outdated x86 architeture,they can\'t just create a new architecture a whole new and better microcode,they have to maintian backward compatability with both the hardware and the software.
Apple managed to do that a few years back when they moved to the PPC (PowerPC) architecture but sadly their OS didn\'t follow until now (MacOS X),but that was a lot smaller market than the PC market.
With consoles you can put really advanced hardware in it,a whole new design and write games for that,but in time it will become obsolite.
That is my biggest thing with the X-Box,the PS.2 is a completly new design using dynamic hardware isnstead od static hardware,while the X-Box uses current PC hardware.But keep in mind that developers don\'t need to think about backwards compatability so they can optimise the hell out the little box.

I haven\'t read through all the replies so I don\'t know if someone else already brought up this point. Let\'s not forget that the cpu in the xbox is working alone. There\'s another chip in there based on the upcoming nvidia geforce3 chipset. From what I\'ve seen so far. This new graphics chipset looks amazing.

oops, what I meant to say was that the cpu in the xbox is NOT working alone...sorry for any confusion.

Why is the G4 over-rated yassam?..oh yeah..it\'s the lack of the intel logo;)

a 733Mhz G4 beats a 1500Mhz Pentium4 in photoshop and many other applications....why do you think the Mac is the 3d artist\'s weapon of choice? because it\'s faster more stable efficent and affordable than a Wintel system.(Carmack uses a Mac for their maya animations:))

The Toshiba silicon(3) is about as powerfull as any pentium3 class CPU(Ken kutaragi said so him self) be it 500mhz or 1000Mhz....it truly is a powerfull CPU.

The xbox is a dinosaur in my opinion...it\'s made of mostly 20 year old technology and design...Dos based OS...20 year old 86x design..etc..etc..It\'s GPU is nothing revolutionary...the 4 year old pyramid3d(bitboys made) had everything the GF3 has...but 4 years ago;)

You want innovative technology? go with anything other than microsoft and nvidia and you will have it.

Originally posted by Nplayer-2
why do you think the Mac is the 3d artist\'s weapon of choice? because it\'s faster more stable efficent and affordable than a Wintel system.

Faster? maybe.  More stable?  More stable than Windows, yes.  Affordable?  Nope!  The Mac is the most expensive kind of computer.  And they are also the ugliest. :D  I\'ll take a Linux based PC over a Mac any day.

Originally posted by Nplayer-2
Why is the G4 over-rated yassam?..oh yeah..it\'s the lack of the intel logo;)

At the same Mhz, the G3 beats a PIII and a G4 beats a P4 by about 15-20%. However, for the same cost, the G3/G4 offers less power than the P3/P4. More importantly, both the G3 and G4 are way behind in the MHz race. THIS has been Apple\'s main difficulty in catching up to the PC.

a 733Mhz G4 beats a 1500Mhz Pentium4 in photoshop and many other applications....why do you think the Mac is the 3d artist\'s weapon of choice?[/B]

Yes, WE ALL KNOW that Photoshop performs better on the G4 (thanks to Altivec optimisations), since EVERY TIME Apple claim the G3/G4 is superior, they ALWAYS mention the same benchmarks, i.e. Photoshop. As for many applications...well you can count other such applications on the fingers of one hand. For 99.999% of all other apps and games, the PC outperforms the Mac (and John Carmack AGREES, see comments below).

because it\'s faster more stable efficent and affordable than a Wintel system.(Carmack uses a Mac for their maya animations:))[/B]

Of which John Carmack (the world\'s greatest games programmer) says;

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0102/24.carmack.shtml

"The 733 G4 was not as fast as my 1GHz PIII in any of the trouble areas. Apple is doing a lot of good work, but the CPU\'s just aren\'t as fast as the x86 ones," said Carmack.

And to clarify his comments, he said;

http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/11934.html

"The position hasn\'t changed in years--PPC CPUs are as good as, or slightly better than, x86 on a clock for clock basis, but they can\'t overcome the large megahertz gap that exists," he said. "AltiVec has some wins, but it won\'t make any significant difference unless the performance is extremely focused in a small area, and the balance of computation and bandwidth is just right."

So, you were saying NP?

The xbox is a dinosaur in my opinion...it\'s made of mostly 20 year old technology...Blah Blah Blah...You want innovative technology? go with anything other than microsoft and nvidia and you will have it. [/B]

And yet you\'ve decided that such \'20 year old technology\' IS YOUR ULTIMATE GAMES MACHINE instead of consoles! Why are you now a PC gamer? And why don\'t you put your money where your mouth is and purchase a G4 Mac instead!

And no, the Pyramid3D DIDN\'T have all that the GF3 has today, not even close! If it appeared on the market, it could have been a great card at the time, but nothing more.

At the same Mhz, the G3 beats a PIII and a G4 beats a P4 by about 15-20%. However, for the same cost, the G3/G4 offers less power than the P3/P4. More importantly, both the G3 and G4 are way behind in the MHz race. THIS has been Apple\'s main difficulty in catching up to the PC.

So Mhz are the ONLY way to judge the power of a CPU?..the Toshiba silicon(3)which is a little less than 300Mhz is in the same league as ANY Pentium3 class CPU be it 500Mhz or a 1000Mhz...Mhz means NOTHINGS.

Yes, WE ALL KNOW that Photoshop performs better on the G4 (thanks to Altivec optimisations), since EVERY TIME Apple claim the G3/G4 is superior, they ALWAYS mention the same benchmarks, i.e. Photoshop. As for many applications...well you can count other such applications on the fingers of one hand. For 99.999% of all other apps and games, the PC outperforms the Mac (and John Carmack AGREES, see comments below).

This quote is funny because the ONLY thing you brought up that IS proven to be fact is: gaming on the PC is far superior on a wintel system....i am talking about which system is the 3D artist\'s weapon of choice...and that sir..is a MC...the editors at PC gamer use a mac for their graphics;)

Also, name all these 3D GRAPHICS applications artist\'s use and are proven to run better on a wintel system.

Of which John Carmack (the world\'s greatest games programmer)

agreed

"The 733 G4 was not as fast as my 1GHz PIII in any of the trouble areas. Apple is doing a lot of good work, but the CPU\'s just aren\'t as fast as the x86 ones," said Carmack.

he of course is talking about gaming...something i was not...when it comes to maya photoshop and all those 3d applications artist\'s use the Mac wins hands down.

"The position hasn\'t changed in years--PPC CPUs are as good as, or slightly better than, x86 on a clock for clock basis, but they can\'t overcome the large megahertz gap that exists," he said. "AltiVec has some wins, but it won\'t make any significant difference unless the performance is extremely focused in a small area, and the balance of computation and bandwidth is just right."

He is talking about gaming...and i NEVER said gaming on a Mac is better...but running photoshop maya or all those other 3d applications artist\'s use the Mac is better..far better.

So, you were saying NP?

3D applictions on the Mac is far better than on a wintel system..

And yet you\'ve decided that such \'20 year old technology\' IS YOUR ULTIMATE GAMES MACHINE instead of consoles! Why are you now a PC gamer? And why don\'t you put your money where your mouth is and purchase a G4 Mac instead!

The thing is...i do not see a single corporation trying to sell the PC based on the merit of it being "new" "revolutionary" "innovative" technology...which the xbox is doing....

If i was a 3d artist\'s i would run down to my local apple computer dealer ship and buy one..but i am not.

And no, the Pyramid3D DIDN\'T have all that the GF3 has today, not even close! If it appeared on the market, it could have been a great card at the time, but nothing more.

4 year old Pyramid3d technology:

Programmable per-pixel shaders/vertex shaders
Hardware T&L

Geforce3 most hyped features:

Programmable per-pixel shaders/vertex shaders
Hardware T&L

Geforce3 is nothing revolutionary...

also...the Kyro2 can do 8-texture\'s in a single PASS while the geforce3 can only do 4(same goes with xbox)(before you go and cry foul saying it can\'t do that with playable frame-rates...please show me if ANY of nvidias fill-rate numbers are possible in a game?)

Hey N-player what ever happened to your friends at BITBOYS, huh. Oh yeah that\'s right all they do is blow smoke up people ass, just like you do.

I will be very impressed if those losers ever release a ****ing card.

All I can say is that My friends Thunderbird 1200 MHz with a geforce 2 did not impress me at all. What a waste of money.

Originally posted by nO-One


Currently no.

Ok, Tell me ONE game on ANY High end PC that looks better than MGS2, GT3, DMC, AC4. ONE game.
The best looking PC game is IMO B&W.
But there must be something I have missed.

[nO-One]

Currently good looking games like Tribes.2 B&W and Giants.
But most of the games you mentioned are incomplete so I could just aswell mention Doom.3 and Unreal.2.
The point is,currently the PS.2 isn\'t being used the way it should be.The next gen games are using some of the PS.2\'s cababilities like FF.X GT.3 and MGS.2,but as of now the PS.2 isn\'t showing it\'s true capabilities.
The X-Box will be optimised far sooner than the PS.2 because the PS.2 has a very steep learning curve,while the X-Box uses DirectX.Which also means that once X-Box games have completly maximized the XB,the PS.2 still has a generation or two of games left.

And I\'m not bashing any console,I like them all.I know that each of them has their pros and cons