You let your half decent post go right down the drain by making this stupid comment. Let me think, what can Playstation 2 (apparently) do with one light source and textured polygons...that\'s right 33 Million PPS and what\'s the harsh reality in an actual game...about a tenth of that at 3 Million. Microsoft is no different, they give off Numbers like 125 Million PPS with a light source and textured polygons and guess what a tenth of that is...about 12 and a half Million PPS. It is also no coincidence those figures are right around what Michael Abrash gave in his article a couple of months ago.
Microsoft ballooned numbers are just ****ed up as Sony\'s and the poly drop from theorectical to practical will be very similar, only a raving Microsoft supporting madman could even suggest otherwise.
Microsoft did not make up the numbers, Nvidia is working on the chip and thus could not risk overheating at a higher Micron level. Nvidia has a lot more experience in 3D than Sony and Toshiba. Come on lets not kid ourselves here. Nvidia could not meet that high of a standard because the micron process that they need complete the chip at 300 Mhz is not there. Its not about masking false numbers its about overheating and the chance it can happen if not underclocked. 100 Million can be made possible but it requires static lighting and it requires optimisation of the software. We are talking about sustained performance, not the silly little 66 million that can\'t even be drawn on the screen for the PS2.
Sony PS2 = 66 Million polygons with nothing on them, no texture, no lighting, no shading, no nothing. All processors working at the same time with no physics, no AI no nothing.... Not sustained
Xbox = 250 million with the same as sony\'s PS2. Not sustained.
Xbox = 100 Million polygons per second at 640x480x32 bit using static lighting, no curved surfaces, sustained with two textures, anti-aliasing, static shading full Physics and AI. This is possible, now of course its going to be harder and you can go higher but you are going to have to drop features like go to single texture and no anti-aliasing but yes it can be done and Abrash says so and his article was asuming 250 Mhz.
I said its possible but I didn\'t say it would be pretty, because things like lighting and shading is static, but still it can be done. Please go ahead and try this on a PS2.
Now, even Epic Games admited the xbox can do super high geometry of 90 million non static. Of course even Inhabitants said that they can do much higher geometry than the PS2.
Y\'all just don\'t know very much or don\'t want to know, now its really about the games and thats where xbox will have a choice to either do or die.
Nvidia has more experience in 3D than most of the companies out there and they have SGI patents and technologies and now of course 3DFX and S3 patents.
Sony should have chose either ArtX or Nvidia to do the 3D technology because they are the real 3D leaders.
I mean Nvidia has to make the XGPU use 125 million polygons instead of 150 Million (or to use the PS2 terms, they now have to use 250 million polygons instead of 300 million).
Microsoft didn\'t lie, they just had a change of plans because Nvidia\'s chip manufacture could not make the change to a lower Micron process. In Sony\'s case they just outright lied and there was no change of plans...
Why is it that most Sony PS2 fans arn\'t very bright when it comes to technology? These are simple concepts but yet no sony fanboy can understand this.
