Xbox in 2000, will its graphics still reign supreme.......!?

Since there are still DC gamers who felt PS2 tech was a disappointing compared to DC and are now gushing all above the Xbox, anyone wondered how the mighty Xbox(currently) would fare if it was released at the same time as PS2.

Using PC technology at that time(early 2000), which components will be inside the Xbox?

IMO, there could be 2 choices == Price or Perfomance

Price(should MS chose this, bang for the buck and RP US$249, possibly lower)
P3-500mhz
32mb SDRAM
GF2 GTS 16mb SDRAM
SBLive
DVD drive

Performance(should MS chose this, price will not be a concern RP US$399, US$299 could be possible if MS felt generous)
P3-550mhz
32mb SDRAM
GF2Ultra w/ improve register combiners 32mb DDRAM
SBLive 5.1
8GB HDD
BB Network Adaptor
DVD drive

No nForce mobo, no DD5.1, no UMA, no fancy DX8 pixel/vertex shaders.

Looking at the specs, Xbox(then) should still beat out the PS2 in texturing, but what about everything else....
What j0o sayz? :oops:

Feel free to correct my specs/price/whateever, am hazy today about older PC technology.

[zurich]

According to Opening the Xbox, Takahashi says that when MS was planning for an October 2000 launch, the specs were:

P2-400 (realistically would have been a P3-class Katamai for the SSE)
GeForce 2 derived video (reg combiners)
~64 megs of RAM (it was never specified to be DDR or SDR, assuming slowish DDR a la GF1 DDR [166mhz/333mhz])
UMA architecture
Hypertransport
2-4 gig HD

Remember, the GDC launch used one of the first hot-off-the-fabs NV15 samples.

The nForce existed back then, but without the fancy sound stuff. Takahashi writes that its been NVIDIAs baby for a while as it epitomised all their tech into one platform, but the PC launch was delayed as the 2001 Xbox took priority.

So when you look at it, the only major change with the 2001 Xbox was the GF3-derived video. This is supported in the book as the negotiations between MS and NVIDIA over prices took up more than a few chapters. The platform is generally the same, just a few tweaks and the obvious graphics upgrade.

The book goes on about how MS was hellbent on launching side by side with the PS2, but finally aborted in a gamble to beat Sony with upgraded hardware rather than launch mano-a-mano with ass software. ie: "the Xbox difference".

So that said, I expect that a 2000 Xbox would probably produce pretty decent visuals, probably on par or so with the GameCube. No PC devs ever used the register combiners due to their static nature, but I'm guessing they'd fit in fairly well in the console world. There's still a decent hunk of ram for textures, and the processor isnt uselessly slow.

The final result might have looked like GC image quality with sub-PS2 poly counts.

zurich

ps: its a damn good book, definitely worth a read.

Well, PS2 official launch was in March 2000. :P

From the specs you posted, seems like the Xbox then(Oct 2000) will be T&L and fillrate limited. :oops:

[duffer]

[Loved your title -- "Come to Life, Iron Chef!"]

One other big difference -- the Xbox OS software wasn't ready until August 2001. If they'd had to launch a year earlier, they would have had to go with a different, quicker-to-implement, OS strategy.

My guess is they would have gone with a GUI-less version of Windows 9x. That would make Xbox hacking more interesting, because presumably once the Xbox had been hacked it would have become a normal Win9x box, that could run normal Win9x software.

So does this mean that PS2 h/w is not as bad as certain people made it to be.. Sure, it is neither the messiah 3D rendering, but it is pretty good h/w for its time. :oops:

[marconelly!]

"but it is pretty good h/w for its time."

I've been saying that all along. With 400MHz P3 and a GF2 card (no vertex shaders) I don't think Xbox would really be able to compete at all.

[Ozymandis]

I've been saying that all along. With 400MHz P3 and a GF2 card (no vertex shaders) I don't think Xbox would really be able to compete at all.

Nope. It would have been like a Gamecube :lol:

[marconelly!]

Nope. It would have been like a Gamecube

I don't think polygon count would be anywhere near as good as that of GC or PS2. 400MHz Intel CPU would just be terrible, can you imagine how games like MGS2 or Halo would run or look on that? What would the fillrate be like?

[Swiss2]

what about Naomi2? I'm not positive of the time frame of N2 but they could of possibly used a similar setup back then. Naomi2 games still look mighty impressive even today...

[PC-Engine]

what about Naomi2? I'm not positive of the time frame of N2 but they could of possibly used a similar setup back then. Naomi2 games still look mighty impressive even today...

Indeed that's why I talked about how easily feasible it was at the time of the PS2 launch to release a NAOMI 2 based console. I'll try to find that thread 8)

Naomi2? Is that the SEGA arcade cabinet running VF4? If it is, you guys have to realize that it had buttloads of RAM. Something which is not too cost efficient for home consoles..... :oops:

[megadrive0088]

and now there is talk about when Xbox2 might hit. M$ said that Sony will not have a head start with PS3 as they did with PS2. PS3 is set for a 2005 release, at least in Japan. does this mean we might see XBox in late 2005? maybe. console life span is typically 4-5 years.

XBox2 might be:

Intel Prescott 3+ Ghz
Nvidia NV50/55 based video
512 MB - 1 GB DDR2 or QDR memory
100+ GB HDD

[Vince]

XBox2 might be:

Intel Prescott 3+ Ghz
Nvidia NV50/55 based video
512 MB - 1 GB DDR2 or QDR memory
100+ GB HDD

My guess is more:

AMD ClawHammer low-end derivative
nVidia NV4A based video
""
""

Does anyone expect NV40 anytime this side of 2004 (maybe Q4 2003)?CineFX is their first significant and truely new microarchitecture since Riva128. I don't expect it to go away anytime soon.

Also, anyform of Next Generation media? enhanced DVD or BlueRay like?

Bleh, we are talking about Xbox1 in 2000 here, not Xbox2. :wink: :oops:

[PC-Engine]

Naomi2? Is that the SEGA arcade cabinet running VF4? If it is, you guys have to realize that it had buttloads of RAM. Something which is not too cost efficient for home consoles..... :oops:

N2 uses cheap SDRAM. It got pretty cheap in 2000 8)

AFAIK, N2 had 32mb main RAM, 2 x 32MB VRAM, 32MB data memory and 8MB of sound memory. If Sony wanted to bleed some cash, they could have given PS2 64mb main RDRAM and 8mb of embedded RAM, that should have given PS2 some uber boost.

But as with home console, cost efficiency comes in. Thus, not even Xbox in late 2001 had that amount of ram, what more of PS2 in early 2000. 8) :oops:

[PC-Engine]

N2 didn't use DDR though it used regular old fashion SDR which was also a lot cheaper than RDRAM and DDR in 2000 making a N2 based console economically feasible in 2000.

[marconelly!]

N2 console would probably be as economically feasible in 2000, as PS2 with 64MB RAM and 16MB video memory. That is to say not much :\

[PC-Engine]

N2 console would probably be as economically feasible in 2000, as PS2 with 64MB RAM and 16MB video memory. That is to say not much :\

Actually in this thread http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=26960&highlight=#26960, I break the estimated cost of a N2 console and compared it to the cost of PS2 during that same time period. It's perfectly feasible according to my estimates.

[V3]

N2 motherboard is pretty big as well. And the cost reduction over time won't be as good. Plus PS2 is probably more flexible than N2, even though it doesn't have the image quality.

SDR is cheaper in 2000 compare to the likes of RDRAM or DDR, but N2 used quite a bit, wasn't it 32 MB for each segment ? And like I said before, cost reduction won't be as good over time.

Afterall look at Sega, they are third party now and not doing all that well either, but better though.

[PC-Engine]

Wasn't N1 also larger than the DC too? Mass production will bring costs down. Remember we're talking a condensed board not an arcade board with all the ancillaries. A console with the N2 chipset would probably have to be a little bigger than the regular DC though.

[bas1975]

"Nope. It would have been like a Gamecube "

A very underpowered Gamecube.

[V3]

A console with the N2 chipset would probably have to be a little bigger than the regular DC though.

A little ? several extra buses and two extra chip and extra memory, not too mentioned the cooling. Bigger casing and probably a need for bigger power supply.

N2 is also mass produce, I don't think there are consumer electronics, that isn't mass produce these days.

[BenSkywalker]

When the XBox launched the highest end PC part was a GeForce3 Ti500 on the vid chip front and a 1.56GHZ part for the non P7 core CPUs. It luanched with a CPU a bit under half the highest end consumer PC part for CPU and a better then the best available vid chip from nV. It was still about five months until the GeForce4 hit.

If it had launched in October 2K the fastest consumer CPU was the Athlon TBird 1.2GHZ and the fastest graphics offering was the GF2 Ultra. Using the same general guidelines the XBox launching in 2K would have likely been an Athlon 550 running a NV2x based graphics core, likely with a single vertex shader and quite a bit lower clock speed. If not NV2x it would have likely been an even faster version of the NV1x core then the GF2Ultra. Memory bandwith wouldn't be as high obviously, although DDR would almost certainly have been used as the XBox uses RAM still topping the top PC offerings while DDR was available for consumer PC mobos in the October 2K time range(AMD 760).

I would expect it to have been(swap to AMD chip as that was the plan according to MS during the timeframe we are talking about)-

550MHZ TBird core Athlon
NV 19.5 Graphics Chip
32/64MB DDR ~4.8GB/sec
4GB HD
10/100

Instead of whipping the PS2 on all fronts(in terms of end visuals) it would have been much like what we are actually seeing today, the XBox with vastly superior texturing and comparable poly complexity.

[PC-Engine]

N2 isn't mass produced to the extent of millions so it doesn't benefit in cost savings like a console would. PS2 sold for $300 and SONY was losing $150 per unit at launch which means about $450 to manufacture. By that time DC was already down to like $200 manufacturing cost. I'm pretty confident they could add in the two processors and memory with the $250 left over :wink:

SEGA wouldn't be able to swallow the $150 loss per unit like SONY though, they just didn't have the money however their technology could compete with SONY's dollar for dollar 8)

[marconelly!]

Ben, that is a nice speculation, but apparently they had the hardware already planned for that launch date and it was P2-400 and GF2. Even in your case, the difference between PS2 and Xbox would be so small that most people probably wouldn't bother considering that platform and went where the hype was.

I'm pretty confident they could add in the two processors and memory with the $250 left over
If only that was so easy :\

[V3]

N2 isn't mass produced to the extent of millions so it doesn't benefit in cost savings like a console would

But the components are, that's the where the majority of cost saving comes from.

And it also remained me most/all N2 based games is released around mid 2001. And N2 technology was showcase with some early demo, in mid/late 2000, when everyone was complaining about the jaggieness of PS2. PS2 hardware was showcase in 1999.

N2 probably can't be mass produce or release in early 2000. PS2 was already late, they were planning for 1999 released.

Furthermore, PVR is contracted with Sega, they already have their hand full (as you can see by the lateness of their Kyro card).

If it had launched in October 2K

Try March 2K

[PC-Engine]

Ben, that is a nice speculation, but apparently they had the hardware already planned for that launch date and it was P2-400 and GF2. Even in your case, the difference between PS2 and Xbox would be so small that most people probably wouldn't bother considering that platform and went where the hype was.

I'm pretty confident they could add in the two processors and memory with the $250 left over
If only that was so easy :\

Easy or not isn't really the issue. I was talking about economic feasibility and according to simple math it was doable. You also have to remember that DC and NAOMI was designed to be scaled easily unlike the PS2 which was a nightmare along the lines of Saturn. Even the early PowerVR chips were design to work in parallel is the designer wanted it that way. It's VERY easy to add more chips in a TBR so instead of rendering the whole screen, it would only render 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc of the screen depending on the number of chips. PowerVR was designed to be scaled, that was one of it's main advantages because it doesn't need ultrafast external memory or wide buses like say PS2.

And it also remained me most/all N2 based games is released around mid 2001. And N2 technology was showcase with some early demo, in mid/late 2000, when everyone was complaining about the jaggieness of PS2. PS2 hardware was showcase in 1999.

The thing is they didn't even have to utilise the power of N2. They could've just made DC quality games running on it at launch like the 1st gen PS2 games to stall for time. Then come 2001 they unload the big guns 8)

PS2 was released 18 months after DC btw. IMO the only reason why N2 came out in 2000 was because they wanted to show off the scalability of DC technology to save face, not because they couldn't design it sooner.

[crypto1300]

PS2 was released 18 months after DC btw.

In US the DC was released on 9.9.99 & PS2 was 10.26.00. Are you referring to the Japanese or European launch?

[PC-Engine]

PS2 was released 18 months after DC btw.

In US the DC was released on 9.9.99 & PS2 was 10.26.00. Are you referring to the Japanese or European launch?

DC was released fall of 98 in Japan and PS2 was released spring 00 in Japan. That's about 18 months. Both consoles initially debuted in Japan.

[zurich]

I always heard that the PS2 launched early to thwart the growing popularity of the DC.

I wonder what PS2 games would look like if it had a 300mhz bus from EE<->GS rather than 150mhz, for 2.4gigs/sec bandwidth.

zurich

[duffer]

Doubleing the EE to GS bus bandwidth probably wouldn't make games look that much better -- since PS2 games already have enough polygons to do whatever they want. Your theoretical PS2 would still have way too little RAM, especially frame buffer and texture RAM. And it would still have the extremely limited pixel shaders it currently has.

If they were able to improve the quality of their pixel pipelines, or double the ammount of embedded DRAM, or even double the amount of main RAM, that would have a more noticable effect on PS2 game quality.

[marconelly!]

according to simple math it was doable

Well, that's what I was thinking. Simple math is not really the way in things like this. I have a feeling N2 based console wold be too expensive not only for a budget limited company like Sega, but also for Sony for example. The actual board was really expensive. Much more, if I remember, than the PS2 based arcade board. What was the reason for that, I don't know.

Look at it this way, even DC could not match N1 amount of RAM. N2 had 2 CPU and 2 GPU and 136mb of RAM. So what if it used cheaper SDR? Xbox had only 64mb of DDR, even when DDR was as cheap in 2001.


N2 specs
CPU: Hitachi SH4 200MHz (360 MIPS / 1.4 GFLOPS)
GPU: 2 x PowerVR2 + Videologic "Elan" T&L chip
APU: ARM7 + Yamaha (64 2D Voices)
Main Memory: 32MB 100MHz 64-bit SDRAM with 0.8 GB/Sec
Video Memory: 2 x 32MB with 1.6 GB/Sec total (0.8 GB/Sec per PowerVR2)
Model Data Memory: 32MB with 0.8 GB/Sec
Sound Memory: 8MB
10 Million Polygons/Sec with 6 Hardware Lights
200 Megapixels/Sec (800 with 4x overdraw)
200 Megatexels/Sec (800 with 4x overdraw)

Looking at that, PS2 isnt that bad in some areas. It could be so much better if the amount of RAM was doubled. But the bang/buck is not too efficient for home systems.

[BenSkywalker]

Ben, that is a nice speculation, but apparently they had the hardware already planned for that launch date and it was P2-400 and GF2.

Everything we saw back then clearly indicated that MS was going with an Athlon, including all of the information from those working on the project. In late 2K early '01 there was a considerable amount of discussion when MS decided to go with Intel over AMD as a supplier(AMD made public comments about it, paraphrasing, Intel was 'giving the chips away, we can't match their price point').

I have a hard time believing the claims of what the XBox would have been as concrete based on any single claim particularly when we had dozens of comments, including from the companies directly, that refute the claim you are referring to.

Even in your case, the difference between PS2 and Xbox would be so small that most people probably wouldn't bother considering that platform and went where the hype was.

No, it would likely have had a compounded effect making the PS2 look quite a bit worse at the time then it ended up looking when the XBox first hit. Using DX and PC native hardware developers were utilizing GF1 level techniques for XBox launch titles and they still managed to easily outdo what the PS2's second/third generation titles looked like. Compare the XBox launch titles that don't use pixel shader effects to the PS2 launch titles on a visual basis. You think they can port Mafia from the PC to the PS2 without reducing the texture quality an enormous amount? GeForce1 hardware can run the game with full texture detail.

Given that ports, which most titles are today, use the PS2 as the baseline dev platform the XBox is lacking in its more advanced capabilities being taken advantage of with the exception of superior texturing. This would be no different if the XB had NV1X level hardware the only difference would be the PS2 wouldn't have the built in lead from launching earlier so the XBox would have had a legit chance at being lead dev platform.

As far as using the Naomi2 hardware, check what the non lit or single light poly throughput is for the hardware. Considering the typical amount of HW lights used, I don't think picking a platform that couldn't keep up with a GeForce1 would be a good idea. Not to mention, dealing with SH4 over x86 and the WindowsCE build over the more robust OS cores, it would have been a very bad choice. The effective fillrate is useless to discuss, this is a console not a PC. When you remove the need for bandwith to fill fillrate PVR's technology loses a lot. It is cheap, doesn't use many transistors and uses a lesser amount of bandwith for rasterization then an IMR. None of those are major factors to a console. Poly throughput most certainly is, and there the all important PR peak theoretical rate is a card that is used extensively in marketing numbers. Naomi2 comes up extremely short on that end, as does its weak texture filtering and the extremely poor texture filtering hack needed to avoid massive performance hits when utilizing trilinear filtering(particularly evident if you utilize Dot3 or other DX7 level effects).

[zurich]

duffer,

doubling the GS bus bandwidth would certainly allow more textures/higher res textures. And the PS2 doesnt have any per pixel effects ;) (if you discount uber-multi-pass as perpixel)

zurich

Ben,

Using DX and PC native hardware developers were utilizing GF1 level techniques for XBox launch titles and they still managed to easily outdo what the PS2's second/third generation titles looked like.
I might be misreading you, but are you trying to say GF1 can outdo PS2? Sorry, I dont buy that.
Texture wise, with enough texture ram maybe. But PS2 will rape it is terms of T&L and particle effects.


You think they can port Mafia from the PC to the PS2 without reducing the texture quality an enormous amount? GeForce1 hardware can run the game with full texture detail
Obviously, PS2 is texture RAM limited.
GF1 can run the game w/ full texture detail? At what framerate? How about your other graphics settings? :oops:

[zurich]

A GF1 outdoes a PS2 on the image quality, effects, and features front, but loses in a rather major way in fill rate and T&L (programmable at that).

And as we've seen, shadow volumes and multipass rendering really sucks up fill rate.

zurich

What effects and features front are we talking here?

Effects---i take it as motion blur and particle and such?
Well, i am certain PS2 can do that better.

Features front---i take it as bumpmapping, AA, texture filtering and such?
PS2 GS is undoubtly very basic, but one thing to remember though, GF1, as we know it, might have a cool list of features, is it worth it to do them during gameplay? :oops:

[Simon F]

Goodness me there is a lot of incorrect information re Naomi 2 etc in this forum.
If I get time I'll try to reply to some of the comments but I'm somewhat busy at the moment.

[Simon F]

Naomi2? Is that the SEGA arcade cabinet running VF4? If it is, you guys have to realize that it had buttloads of RAM. Something which is not too cost efficient for home consoles..... :oops:
The Naomi2 obviously included a reasonable amount of RAM because it was an arcade system. Arcade machines can usually pay for themselves in a month. They are meant to be better than home systems.

Compare the Naomi1 and DC. In terms of CPU and GC, they are identical, but the former has far more memory because they can afford to put more in. In terms of ports, however, what usually happened is that the DC version would use texture compression more agressively (eg 75+% of textures).
BTW, PC-Engine is correct in pointing out that N2 uses SDRAM.
AFAIK, N2 had 32mb main RAM, 2 x 32MB VRAM, 32MB data memory and 8MB of sound memory.
I think it only had 32Mb of VRAM, and I can't remember the other numbers.

PS2 sold for $300 and SONY was losing $150 per unit at launch which means about $450 to manufacture. By that time DC was already down I'd love to comment but that would not be appropriate....

And it also remained me most/all N2 based games is released around mid 2001. And N2 technology was showcase with some early demo, in mid/late 2000, when everyone was complaining about the jaggieness of PS2. PS2 hardware was showcase in 1999.

N2 probably can't be mass produce or release in early 2000. PS2 was already late, they were planning for 1999 released.
The N2/Elan system was finished a long time before its public launch.

Look at it this way, even DC could not match N1 amount of RAM. N2 had 2 CPU and 2 GPU and 136mb of RAM.
It had a single CPU and I don't think (but I could be wrong) that it had that amount of RAM. BTW just because a system can address a certain amount of memory doesn't mean that it has to be fully populated.
Looking at that, PS2 isnt that bad in some areas. It could be so much better if the amount of RAM was doubled. But the bang/buck is not too efficient for home systems.
Ignoring RAM for the moment, you haven't considered silicon area. You'd be surprised how small that figure is compared to the monster that is PS2.

As far as using the Naomi2 hardware, check what the non lit or single light poly throughput is for the hardware. Considering the typical amount of HW lights used, I don't think picking a platform that couldn't keep up with a GeForce1 would be a good idea.
Funnily enough, there was a requirement for something that wouldn't suddenly slow to a crawl when a reasonable number of lights, and this includes lights of reasonable complexity, were enabled. The GF1 soon ran out of steam - its T&L unit is best described as having a lowercase L.

the effective fillrate is useless to discuss, this is a console not a PC. When you remove the need for bandwith to fill fillrate PVR's technology loses a lot. It is cheap, doesn't use many transistors and uses a lesser amount of bandwith for rasterization then an IMR. None of those are major factors to a console. Poly throughput most certainly is,
Again, why? I don't recall any law saying "a console game must not have any overdraw".


Anyway, I've had enough of this and I've just run out of lunchtime.

The Naomi2 obviously included a reasonable amount of RAM because it was an arcade system. Arcade machines can usually pay for themselves in a month. They are meant to be better than home systems.

Compare the Naomi1 and DC. In terms of CPU and GC, they are identical, but the former has far more memory because they can afford to put more in. In terms of ports, however, what usually happened is that the DC version would use texture compression more agressively (eg 75+% of textures).

Yeah, that was what i am trying to tell PC here. :D



N2 specs(repost in case anyone missed it)
CPU: Hitachi SH4 200MHz (360 MIPS / 1.4 GFLOPS)
GPU: 2 x PowerVR2 + Videologic "Elan" T&L chip
APU: ARM7 + Yamaha (64 2D Voices)
Main Memory: 32MB 100MHz 64-bit SDRAM with 0.8 GB/Sec
Video Memory: 2 x 32MB with 1.6 GB/Sec total (0.8 GB/Sec per PowerVR2)
Model Data Memory: 32MB with 0.8 GB/Sec
Sound Memory: 8MB
10 Million Polygons/Sec with 6 Hardware Lights
200 Megapixels/Sec (800 with 4x overdraw)
200 Megatexels/Sec (800 with 4x overdraw)

[marconelly!]

Using DX and PC native hardware developers were utilizing GF1 level techniques for XBox launch titles and they still managed to easily outdo what the PS2's second/third generation titles looked like.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since when perpixel lighting (Halo, Wreckless), vertex shaders (Halo, Wreckless, DOA3) and dot3 bump mapping (Halo) are GF1 features? Do I have to remind again that even with the hardware it runs on, Halo was 30FPS with all the chugging along? What would it be like on a hardware that is almost 2x less powerful?

That is not to comment that Halo would *not* be ready for the launch on that date (they barely made it anyways!) - The only Xbox killer app from the launch would not be there along with probably other games that had to be rushed even for the real launch (DOA3) I think that would make console a complete failure considering how much more hyped PS2 was, and how insignificant difference in launch titles quality actually would be.

[BenSkywalker]

Chap-

Features front---i take it as bumpmapping, AA, texture filtering and such?
PS2 GS is undoubtly very basic, but one thing to remember though, GF1, as we know it, might have a cool list of features, is it worth it to do them during gameplay?


What do you mean is it worth it to do them in gameplay? Play Giants or Mafia @640x480, runs quite nicely on GF1 level hardware.

GF1 can run the game w/ full texture detail? At what framerate? How about your other graphics settings?

If you are having problems with the game running on a system with GF1 level hardware drop the resolution to 640x480 and make sure you have enough RAM. The highest quality shadows can be a bit nasty in portions although the texture quality need not be dropped.

Simon-

Funnily enough, there was a requirement for something that wouldn't suddenly slow to a crawl when a reasonable number of lights, and this includes lights of reasonable complexity, were enabled.

What are the last six console games you have played? I'd be very interested hearing about those that used four simultaneous lights, let alone six. Despite the couple of hundreds of dollars I spend a month on games I don't seem to have a single one in my library that uses six lights at once.

The GF1 soon ran out of steam - its T&L unit is best described as having a lowercase L.

Which games show this problem? It's like showing how weak current PVR hardware is against the three year old GeForce1 in MCAD applications, in a theoretical sense it is a valid point.

Again, why? I don't recall any law saying "a console game must not have any overdraw".

640x480x60(TV's limit)= 18.432Million pixels per second. We'll figure for four texture layers and we have 73.728MTexels. With 6X OD the GeForce1 would only have 37.632MTexel fill left over(while maintaing 60FPS). Fillrate is not terribly important on consoles, the GF or PVR based chips would both run into other bottlenecks before raw fill became relevant(binning/bandwith).

marconelly!-

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since when perpixel lighting (Halo, Wreckless), vertex shaders (Halo, Wreckless, DOA3) and dot3 bump mapping (Halo) are GF1 features?

Vertex shaders aren't a feature on the GF1, the rest of your list is included however. Are you thinking of the TNT perhaps?

That is not to comment that Halo would *not* be ready for the launch on that date (they barely made it anyways!) - The only Xbox killer app from the launch would not be there along with probably other games that had to be rushed even for the real launch (DOA3) I think that would make console a complete failure considering how much more hyped PS2 was, and how insignificant difference in launch titles quality actually would be.

I'm just talking about hardware. Look at PGR compared to GT3(and even then, GT3 wasn't a launch title).

[Simon F]

Simon-
What are the last six console games you have played? I'd be very interested hearing about those that used four simultaneous lights, let alone six. Despite the couple of hundreds of dollars I spend a month on games I don't seem to have a single one in my library that uses six lights at once.
If you can't do lots of lights cheaply you don't use lots of lights. N2 was for new games.

[marconelly!]

Vertex shaders aren't a feature on the GF1, the rest of your list is included however. Are you thinking of the TNT perhaps?

My memory doesn't go that far, but I found no mention of
per pixel lighting in this article or pixel shaders for that matter (and they are responsible for dot3, correct?)
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/99q4/991011/index.html

and this press release about GF2 card says:
"GeForce2 GTS fully leverages powerful new features like complex per-pixel lighting from NVIDIA's newest GeForce2 GTS™ graphic processing unit" http://www.leadtek.com/geforce2pr.htm

Also Toms Hardware mentions it only in their feature about GF2:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q2/000427/geforce2-07.html

I believe you are right, though, and that's beyond the point as the proposed 2000 xbox hardware would have a GF2 or better card anyways.

I'm just talking about hardware. Look at PGR compared to GT3(and even then, GT3 wasn't a launch title).

True, PGR undeniably pushes more stuff around, but most reviewers found it actually worse looking than GT3 (texture art, etc). On a strictly hardware level, you have to take into account that PGR actually runs on *present* xbox hardware, not on something almost 2x weaker. If in it's present state it takes a techhead to see advantages PGR has, I'm pretty sure the lower level hardware would make things only worse, perhaps not RRV worse, though :P

My point is, MS did a good job delaying xbox, upping it's specs and giving developers more time. That was their only chance to make some impact on market, IMO, as the xbox would went completely unnoticed if it wasn't for the technical specs they could boast about and it's good launch lineup.

Fillrate is not terribly important on consoles, the GF or PVR based chips would both run into other bottlenecks before raw fill became relevant(binning/bandwith).

However, it is really important on PS2, as the games that utlize it properly, often make good use of it. I remember reading an interview about porting MGS2 to Xbox, where they said that due to high fillrate on PS2 they were able to do things they wanted, but had to recode everything and change the logic because 'xbox doesn't work that way'

[PC-Engine]

The Naomi2 obviously included a reasonable amount of RAM because it was an arcade system. Arcade machines can usually pay for themselves in a month. They are meant to be better than home systems.

Compare the Naomi1 and DC. In terms of CPU and GC, they are identical, but the former has far more memory because they can afford to put more in. In terms of ports, however, what usually happened is that the DC version would use texture compression more agressively (eg 75+% of textures).

Yeah, that was what i am trying to tell PC here. :D



N2 specs(repost in case anyone missed it)
CPU: Hitachi SH4 200MHz (360 MIPS / 1.4 GFLOPS)
GPU: 2 x PowerVR2 + Videologic "Elan" T&L chip
APU: ARM7 + Yamaha (64 2D Voices)
Main Memory: 32MB 100MHz 64-bit SDRAM with 0.8 GB/Sec
Video Memory: 2 x 32MB with 1.6 GB/Sec total (0.8 GB/Sec per PowerVR2)
Model Data Memory: 32MB with 0.8 GB/Sec
Sound Memory: 8MB
10 Million Polygons/Sec with 6 Hardware Lights
200 Megapixels/Sec (800 with 4x overdraw)
200 Megatexels/Sec (800 with 4x overdraw)


If you're being sarcastic then please ignore this reply, otherwise read on.

N2 uses cheap SDRAM. Reiterating what Simon F. has said, N2 based console also doesn't have to have the same amount of RAM as the arcade variant just as the DC doesn't have the same amount of RAM as N1.

Even still, the ports were identical. How did DC run perfect ports of N1 games? Easy, the arcade version of the game uses 25% compression while the console variant used 75% compression. That cuts down the RAM requirements in half compared to N1. In addition, again reiterating what Simon F. said, the arcade variant can afford to be more expensive so little consideration is put into making it dirt cheap like a console requires. That's why the N2 was so expensive.

Now looking at the above information, it's not difficult to see how a N2 based console can be made at a cost that's comparable to PS2 as it would only need half as much memory, cheap SDRAM to be exact. I'm pretty sure $250 would cover the costs of the additional RAM, second PVRDC, and Elan chip. These chips were not huge on silicon area either.

Like I've said before N2 in console form didn't make it to market to battle PS2 because it would cannibalize DC sales. Also SEGA wouldn't be able to eat the $150 cost to make it a mass market item. It's analogous to releasing Xbox II next year...suicidal :wink:

However the prospect of a N2 based console being backward compatible with the N1 based DC was very enticing. It would only cannibalize a portion of DC sales instead of total 8)

It would definitely fragment the market though :oops:

[Crazyace]

Naomi 2 as a console is pretty silly - there are too many seperate components, and some horrible ( almost 3dfx like ) features ( 2 video chips will split the rasterising, but triangle lists and textures will be duplicated )

A much better alternative would be a 200MHz video chip combined with a 400MHz sh4 or sh5 - Although the T&L chip is nice, I actually like the basic vector matrix apply on the sh4 - It's much more flexible..


PS2 just follows the PSX design style - simple features with high performance transform, ( The best thing about the PSX GPU [Nvidea wasnt the first....] was the dithering of gourard shaded polys - that (alongside the transparencies) lifted it above the Saturn.. )

[Ozymandis]

This is a bit OT, but does anyone here know anything about the changes in the arcade board named "Hikaru"? It's an upgraded Naomi board, but I'm curious as to what changes were made. This is the board that runs Planet Harriers and Virtual On:Force I believe?

[marconelly!]

Ozy, this is the known information about Hikary board:

http://www.system16.com/sega/hrdw_hikaru.html

It's polygon count is estimated at 5 Million polys/sec (2.5 for Naomi) and rendering speed at 1000 M pixel/sec (500 for Naomi)

[PC-Engine]

A much better alternative would be a 200MHz video chip combined with a 400MHz sh4 or sh5 - Although the T&L chip is nice, I actually like the basic vector matrix apply on the sh4 - It's much more flexible..

If only the tech you mentioned existed at that time at a reasonable cost or existed at all :wink:

N2 tech used mostly off the shelf parts which was cheap. It would use existing system board designs further reducing costs. Using two PVRDC chips isn't really silly when process tech and high costs associated with higher clocks was the limited factor. Duplicated memory pools are pretty negligable when you're using cheap SDRAM and again only half of what N2 needed to be exact. The Elan chip and PVRDC only operated at 100MHz ie low heat low power low cost making it a good choice for a console. ATI was selling their MAXX series dual chip boards for awhile btw. Single higher clocked chip would be nice if it was available at a reasonable cost..

[Ozymandis]

Ozy, this is the known information about Hikary board:

http://www.system16.com/sega/hrdw_hikaru.html

It's polygon count is estimated at 5 Million polys/sec (2.5 for Naomi) and rendering speed at 1000 M pixel/sec (500 for Naomi)

Hmm. Yeah, I saw the specs there before. Maybe it's a dual PVR2 configuration, like Naomi2 but without the T&L unit?

[PiNkY]

My memory doesn't go that far, but I found no mention of
per pixel lighting in this article or pixel shaders for that matter (and they are responsible for dot3, correct?)


GeForce1 can do Dot3 so per pixel lightning(as in doom3) is possible (Geforce 2 did not add any more features over Geforce 1, but nvidia just started hyping their more flexible reg.comb. as NSR for GF2 launch. DX8 Pixel Shaders basically are more advanced register combiners, so yes dot3 ops are done in the pixel shader on dx8 hw.

[V3]

The N2/Elan system was finished a long time before its public launch.

You guys were stockpiling N2/Elan that early ?:) So I guess you guys are nearly finished with the Naomi3 that Sega recently announced, care to give us some hints ? Will it surpasses the 9700 and the seems elusive NV30.

Normally arcade ends, surpasses the consumer ends by quite a bit, not so anymore now days. Lets hope N3 impresses.

[Simon F]

So I guess you guys are nearly finished with the Naomi3 that Sega recently announced, care to give us some hints ?
I know absolutely 0 about Naomi3.

[bas1975]

"Will it surpasses the 9700 and the seems elusive NV30. "

Isn't it the Naomi3 that is supposed to be based off of XBOX hardware or am I completely out to lunch on that one? If it is based off of XBOX hardware, it won't have a chance of surpassing the 9700.

[PC-Engine]

"Will it surpasses the 9700 and the seems elusive NV30. "

Isn't it the Naomi3 that is supposed to be based off of XBOX hardware or am I completely out to lunch on that one? If it is based off of XBOX hardware, it won't have a chance of surpassing the 9700.

You're out to lunch :lol:

Chihiro is the Xbox based hardware. NOAMI 3 is still shrouded in secrecy 8)

My guess is PowerVR Series 4 with quad pipes with quad PS and embedded RAM. Quad GPU board confiuration. Elan 2 at 200 MHz with quad VS. 100 million polys with 16 lights. Supports anatomically correct physics based animation ie muscle movement under elastic skin etc.

[BenSkywalker]

Simon-

If you can't do lots of lights cheaply you don't use lots of lights. N2 was for new games.

Given the choice of ~20Million polys/sec with no or one lights or six million polys/sec with eight developers chose the former pretty much exclusively(I don't know of any exceptions). Most games today still rely on lightmaps for the majority of their 'lighting effects'. Given the current direction we are seeing from titles in the works the amount of lights, in terms of the direct lighting calculations, seems to be taking a back seat to shader effects.

Marconelly-

http://www.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/geforce256/cem3.jpg

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1056&p=6

In particular they are talking about CEM, but that also covers per pixel lighting. If you were around these boards back in that timeframe we had a considerable amount of discussion concerning the usefulness of some of the features on the GeForce in terms of ever seeing them show up in games. Then Giants hit and used about all of them and ran quite nicely on a GeForce1.

If in it's present state it takes a techhead to see advantages PGR has, I'm pretty sure the lower level hardware would make things only worse, perhaps not RRV worse, though :P

I can only assume people who can't see the edge in PGR are blind ;) It is in another class compared to GT3. Superior texturing, model complexity, environmental effects and the biggest difference is GT3's horrendous aliasing.

However, it is really important on PS2, as the games that utlize it properly, often make good use of it. I remember reading an interview about porting MGS2 to Xbox, where they said that due to high fillrate on PS2 they were able to do things they wanted, but had to recode everything and change the logic because 'xbox doesn't work that way'

With the XBox you simply throw textures at it. I'm a bit confused as to how they could be chewing through the XB's fillrate. Running in 480p on the Box, where MGS2 was running 480i, you could have ten texture layers with 5X OD @60FPS. No way MGS2 is pulling anything close to that.

[marconelly!]

I can only assume people who can't see the edge in PGR are blind It is in another class compared to GT3. Superior texturing, model complexity, environmental effects and the biggest difference is GT3's horrendous aliasing.

On a GT3 side you have much better texture art, smoother updated enviro mapping, better executed static light maps and more dramatic looking lighting/highlights. I think it's mainly texture art that makes GT3 simply look more true to life and believable. As I've said, most reviewers that don't concern themseves with the 'things behind the scene', tend to agree. Btw, I see almost nothing of that 'horrendous antialiasing' on my TV with component cables. I have a small TV though, that probably helps a lot.


With the XBox you simply throw textures at it. I'm a bit confused as to how they could be chewing through the XB's fillrate

I don't know. Perhaps someone with real life game coding experience on PS2 can comment (Archie or someone?) MGS2 really has quite a lot of layered effects in some scenes, and perhaps theoretical performance simply doesn not work in real life.

[Simon F]

Simon-

If you can't do lots of lights cheaply you don't use lots of lights. N2 was for new games.

Given the choice of ~20Million polys/sec with no or one lights or six million polys/sec with eight developers chose the former pretty much exclusively(I don't know of any exceptions).
On what piece of hardware? If it was something like a GF, then, IIRC, to get that performance those lights have to be very simple (eg parallel) which, I agree would be rather dull and boring. As I said, the GF had very good transform capability (at the time) but the lighting power was sorely lacking. Even today Elan's lighting unit would be competitive.
Most games today still rely on lightmaps for the majority of their 'lighting effects'.
Which are generally rather static. That approach is certainly ok for the non-moving lights and/or for low tessellation regions.
Given the current direction we are seeing from titles in the works the amount of lights, in terms of the direct lighting calculations, seems to be taking a back seat to shader effects.
Do you mean shader effects as in per-pixel lighting? You still have to do the set up for the per-pixel calculations at the vertices which is not insignificant.

[BenSkywalker]

On what piece of hardware? If it was something like a GF, then, IIRC, to get that performance those lights have to be very simple (eg parallel) which, I agree would be rather dull and boring. As I said, the GF had very good transform capability (at the time) but the lighting power was sorely lacking. Even today Elan's lighting unit would be competitive.

It was a generalization about having the option between the two in terms of hardware. You give developers the option to run 5x as many lights or 5x as many polys, the lights haven't stood a chance. This has remained a constant across all development platforms- PC, Console or Arcarde.

Which are generally rather static. That approach is certainly ok for the non-moving lights and/or for low tessellation regions.

Except it looks extremely poor compared to proper lighting for anything real time. Disjointed shadows work wonders to destroy realism. We are pretty much already at the point where developers are going to move straight from lightmaps to extensive shader effects for lighting.

Do you mean shader effects as in per-pixel lighting? You still have to do the set up for the per-pixel calculations at the vertices which is not insignificant.

Per pixel lighting was nice in 2K when it started showing up regularly in games, but the number of lights utilized has remained low despite the vastly improved performance characteristics of current hardware. What I'm talking about is utilizing various PS/VS effects in tandem with an increased amount of lights. I guess you could say that Dot3 or CubeMaps would fall under that general guideline, but I was thinking more extensive utilization of a combination of shader effects ala Doom3. It seems that all the games looming on the horizon utilizing a decent amount of lights are going to be far more limited by the shader performance then they are by setup calcs(which have a relatively speaking minor impact on VS performance).

Simply using multiple lights for the sake of multiple lights has never caught on with game developers, nor will it likely ever do so. Using additional poly simply for the sake of increased geometry has been constant since the start of 3D and will continue to be until it is no longer relevant in terms of count due to density. The same is not true of lighting. One light with true complete radiosity calculations will look a lot better then six, sixty of six hundred basic lights.

[V3]

I know absolutely 0 about Naomi3.

Aww, too bad I guess. :(

Also, is Elan T&L bandwidth limited ? or can you still double the clock rate and still used the SDRAM without going to DDR.

I wonder why PVR, hasn't release high end card like ATI and NVIDIA or even MATROX. Given the cost of cards are mostly due to expensive memory, PVR can get away with slightly more expensive chip.

Those high end card really leverage the low end card as well as improve company's image :)

The Naomi2 obviously included a reasonable amount of RAM because it was an arcade system. Arcade machines can usually pay for themselves in a month. They are meant to be better than home systems.

Compare the Naomi1 and DC. In terms of CPU and GC, they are identical, but the former has far more memory because they can afford to put more in. In terms of ports, however, what usually happened is that the DC version would use texture compression more agressively (eg 75+% of textures).

Yeah, that was what i am trying to tell PC here. :D



N2 specs(repost in case anyone missed it)
CPU: Hitachi SH4 200MHz (360 MIPS / 1.4 GFLOPS)
GPU: 2 x PowerVR2 + Videologic "Elan" T&L chip
APU: ARM7 + Yamaha (64 2D Voices)
Main Memory: 32MB 100MHz 64-bit SDRAM with 0.8 GB/Sec
Video Memory: 2 x 32MB with 1.6 GB/Sec total (0.8 GB/Sec per PowerVR2)
Model Data Memory: 32MB with 0.8 GB/Sec
Sound Memory: 8MB
10 Million Polygons/Sec with 6 Hardware Lights
200 Megapixels/Sec (800 with 4x overdraw)
200 Megatexels/Sec (800 with 4x overdraw)


If you're being sarcastic then please ignore this reply, otherwise read on.

N2 uses cheap SDRAM. Reiterating what Simon F. has said, N2 based console also doesn't have to have the same amount of RAM as the arcade variant just as the DC doesn't have the same amount of RAM as N1.

Even still, the ports were identical. How did DC run perfect ports of N1 games? Easy, the arcade version of the game uses 25% compression while the console variant used 75% compression. That cuts down the RAM requirements in half compared to N1. In addition, again reiterating what Simon F. said, the arcade variant can afford to be more expensive so little consideration is put into making it dirt cheap like a console requires. That's why the N2 was so expensive.

Now looking at the above information, it's not difficult to see how a N2 based console can be made at a cost that's comparable to PS2 as it would only need half as much memory, cheap SDRAM to be exact. I'm pretty sure $250 would cover the costs of the additional RAM, second PVRDC, and Elan chip. These chips were not huge on silicon area either.

Like I've said before N2 in console form didn't make it to market to battle PS2 because it would cannibalize DC sales. Also SEGA wouldn't be able to eat the $150 cost to make it a mass market item. It's analogous to releasing Xbox II next year...suicidal :wink:

However the prospect of a N2 based console being backward compatible with the N1 based DC was very enticing. It would only cannibalize a portion of DC sales instead of total 8)

It would definitely fragment the market though :oops:

Sarcastic?
No. Just pointing out that using arcade HW as home console is not too economically viable. :oops:

Chap-

Features front---i take it as bumpmapping, AA, texture filtering and such?
PS2 GS is undoubtly very basic, but one thing to remember though, GF1, as we know it, might have a cool list of features, is it worth it to do them during gameplay?


What do you mean is it worth it to do them in gameplay? Play Giants or Mafia @640x480, runs quite nicely on GF1 level hardware.

GF1 can run the game w/ full texture detail? At what framerate? How about your other graphics settings?

If you are having problems with the game running on a system with GF1 level hardware drop the resolution to 640x480 and make sure you have enough RAM. The highest quality shadows can be a bit nasty in portions although the texture quality need not be dropped.


I meant, can you keep a stable framerates(30/60) in game, with all the graphic effects turn on(which affects performance more than resolution)?

I do not think there is any GF1 game looking and/or running as good as TTT/Bouncer/TMB/GT3/BGDA/ZOE1...
AFAIK, PS2 T&L, SFX, mem bandwidth and fillrate are superior to GF1 cards.

[PC-Engine]

Sarcastic?
No. Just pointing out that using arcade HW as home console is not too economically viable

Nobody said a console would use the exact board as the arcade. The DC doesn't use the NAOMI 1 does it? A NAOMI 2 based console would be similar to the NAOMI 1 based DC...VERY easily doable.

[zurich]

AFAIK, PS2 T&L, SFX, mem bandwidth and fillrate are superior to GF1 cards.

T&L - Yes
SFX - No
mem bandwidth - system No, framebuffer Yes
fillrate - Yes

zurich[/quote]

[V3]

The DC doesn't use the NAOMI 1

It should've :) Looking at some of the NAOMI to DC port, they should give both the same amount of RAM at least.

zc

[PC-Engine]

The DC doesn't use the NAOMI 1

It should've :) Looking at some of the NAOMI to DC port, they should give both the same amount of RAM at least.

Specifically which ports are you talking about? AFAIK NAOMI 1 to DC ports were 99.9% identical.

AFAIK, PS2 T&L, SFX, mem bandwidth and fillrate are superior to GF1 cards.

T&L - Yes
SFX - No
mem bandwidth - system No, framebuffer Yes
fillrate - Yes

zurich


Hehe, my definition of SFX == cinematic and particle effects.
For example, GT3 have all teh cool motion blur, heat haze, dust, environmental reflection, unseen in any GF1 game.

Correct me if i am wrong, PS2 large fillrate more than made up for the lack of 3D features on the GS. Apart from bumpmapping, what other 3D features can a GF1 do better than PS2, practically speaking. :oops:

[zurich]

Texture filtering, blend modes, and anything on the perpixel level (lighting) :P

zurich

[V3]

Specifically which ports are you talking about?

Most of them. Crazy Taxi, DOA2, F355, etc, Like you said its 99.9%, but that extra 0.1% makes all the difference.

[PC-Engine]

Most of them. Crazy Taxi, DOA2, F355, etc, Like you said its 99.9%, but that extra 0.1% makes all the difference.

Sorry, but I just don't see it. BTW I've seem Virtua Tennis in the arcade and it looked different, but not necessarily better. Probably has to do with the monitor that are used in arcade cabinets.

[V3]

Sorry, but I just don't see it.

Yet you said its 99.9%. I guess its like how most of my friends don't see the jaggieness on the early PS2 games, until you point it out to them.

Then I guess, majority of people don't really see the difference between VF4 on N2 and VF4 on PS2. So what's the point of having a slight advantage if majority don't see that advantage ?

Than you should wonder why N1 spec is different compare to DC spec.

[PC-Engine]

Sorry, but I just don't see it.

Yet you said its 99.9%. I guess its like how most of my friends don't see the jaggieness on the early PS2 games, until you point it out to them.

Then I guess, majority of people don't really see the difference between VF4 on N2 and VF4 on PS2. So what's the point of having a slight advantage if majority don't see that advantage ?

Than you should wonder why N1 spec is different compare to DC spec.

The 99.9% figure is based off of the fact that compression is used more on the DC version of the game. It's not based on what I have seen. What I've seen says 100% perfect port :wink:

VF4 on N2 and VF4 on PS2 is a BIG difference not 0.1%. The fact that PS2 isn't using N2 technology accounts for that difference.

N1 wasn't designed to show the difference between DC graphics and N1 graphics. It was created as a platform for quick porting to DC with little if any graphics downgrading :wink:

The difference between N1 and DC is the arcade experience not graphics.

[V3]

VF4 on N2 and VF4 on PS2 is a BIG difference not 0.1%. The fact that PS2 isn't using N2 technology accounts for that difference.

A big difference if you don't know it, is the same as no different at all, that's the point I am getting at.

N1 wasn't designed to show the difference between DC graphics and N1 graphics. It was created as a platform for quick porting to DC with little if any graphics downgrading

If it were the same spec, wouldn't it be even easier ?

The difference between N1 and DC is the arcade experience not graphics.

Well there are graphics different. Last time I listed them down, in game such as CT by putting the DC and the Arcade version side by side. That was ages ago. I can't be bothered doing it anymore.

[PC-Engine]

A big difference if you don't know it, is the same as no different at all, that's the point I am getting at.

But that analogy is flawed because VF4 on PS2 looks obviously downgraded from the N2 version. OTOH DC ports of N1 games don't look downgraded at all.

If it were the same spec, wouldn't it be even easier ?

If DC had twice the memory it would've been easier obviously, but it would've cost more to manufacture which wasn't an option. Again N1 was arcade tech so it could afford to be more expensive.

Well there are graphics different. Last time I listed them down, in game such as CT by putting the DC and the Arcade version side by side. That was ages ago. I can't be bothered doing it anymore.

Assuming there is a visible difference, that's only one game. That's far from most or majority. DOA2 wasn't a N1 game btw. Bottom line is, the majority of N1 -> DC ports were 99.9% the same graphically...period.

[V3]

But that analogy is flawed because VF4 on PS2 looks obviously downgraded from the N2 version. OTOH DC ports of N1 games don't look downgraded at all.

Some of my friends can't tell a difference between PS2 and Arcade version of VF4. The analogy is only flawed to you because you can't see the different.


Assuming there is a visible difference, that's only one game. That's far from most or majority. DOA2 wasn't a N1 game btw. Bottom line is, the majority of N1 -> DC ports were 99.9% the same graphically...period.

No, not just one game, most of the game that get the conversion, showed the typical downgrading.

DOA2 wasn't N1 ? what was it ? Model 3 ? Hikaru ?, System 246 ?, N2 ?
You don't play in the arcade alot from the looks of things.

[marconelly!]

DOA2 wasn't a N1 game btw

Actually, it was.

http://www.system16.com/sega/hrdw_naomi.html#doa2

[PC-Engine]

DOA2 wasn't a N1 game btw

Actually, it was.

http://www.system16.com/sega/hrdw_naomi.html#doa2

Still doesn't change the fact that it didn't look any different from the DC port :wink:

But thanks for clearing that up.

Some of my friends can't tell a difference between PS2 and Arcade version of VF4. The analogy is only flawed to you because you can't see the different.

Huh?? Read what I posted. I said it's obviously downgraded ESPECIALLY since it's not using the same hardware as N2. N1->DC ports are NOT obviously downgraded IF AT ALL!

BTW bringing your friends into the equation isn't going to support your argument instead it's showing that you don't have a valid one to begin with.

No, not just one game, most of the game that get the conversion, showed the typical downgrading

If that's what you believe then I'll just leave it at that. I think is OBVIOUS that a DC port of a NAOMI 1 game will be a lot closer than a PS2 port of a NAOMI 2 game since DC and N1 is basically the same system and ESPECIALLY when N1 is using 25% texture compression and DC using 75%. VF4 on PS2, however, was blurry and jagged among other things.

[Reznor007]

Most of them. Crazy Taxi, DOA2, F355, etc, Like you said its 99.9%, but that extra 0.1% makes all the difference.

Sorry, but I just don't see it. BTW I've seem Virtua Tennis in the arcade and it looked different, but not necessarily better. Probably has to do with the monitor that are used in arcade cabinets.

An arcade monitor is basically the same thing as a normal TV except they use RGBHV instead of NTSC.

[Simon F]

An arcade monitor is basically the same thing as a normal TV except they use RGBHV instead of NTSC.
Which effectively means that they are entirely different quality-wise ;)

[V3]

Huh?? Read what I posted. I said it's obviously downgraded ESPECIALLY since it's not using the same hardware as N2. N1->DC ports are NOT obviously downgraded IF AT ALL!

Yes that's my whole point, its obvious to you that it was downgraded, while its not obvious to some of my friends. Its the same with me that some N1 to DC port is obviously downgraded while its not to you.

I mean if you look at the PS2 CT, it'll probably quite obvious to you if it was butchered down from the Arcade. Some of my friends won't notice a different.

[PC-Engine]

Why do you keep using PS2 as an example? Is it so that you can make it seem like the downgrade from N2->PS2 is the same as N1->DC? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to use equal examples try using System 246->PS2 and N1->DC :P

Let's see if your argument holds water now :wink:

Sys 246 == PS2 :oops:

[PC-Engine]

Sys 246 == PS2 :oops:

...and?