View Full Version : SCEI & Toshiba unveil 65nm process with eDRAM
65nm CMOS Technology (CMOS5) with High Density Embedded Memories for Broadband Microprocessor Applications
http://www.sony.co.jp/SonyInfo/News/Press/200212/02-1203/
TOKYO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 3, 2002--Toshiba Corporation and Sony Corporation today announced the world's first 65-nanometer (nm) CMOS process technology for embedded DRAM system LSIs -- a major breakthrough in process technology for highly advanced, compact, single-chip system LSIs that will be only one-fourth the size of current devices while offering higher levels of performance and functionality...
The move to ubiquitous computing -- total connectivity at all times -- relies on high-performance equipment. These in turn require advanced SoC (system on chip) LSIs integrating ultra-high performance transistors and embedded high- density DRAM. In such devices, size and performance levels are directly related to process technology: finer lithography results in smaller devices that offer higher levels of performance. The new process technology announced by Toshiba and Sony and integration to a new level that allows bandwidths to be scaled up and the maximization of system performance.
The new SoC technologies for 65nm process generation include: 1) a high- performance transistor with the world's fastest switching speed; 2) the world's smallest cell for embedded DRAM; and 3) the world's smallest cell for embedded SRAM.
The new process technology is the result of joint development of Toshiba Corporation and Sony Corporation of 90nm and 65nm CMOS process technology that was initiated in May 2001. Full details will be presented at the December 9-11 International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM) in San Francisco.
Outline of new technolog
1) High-performance transistor with 30nm gate length:
Transistors in this technology have high nitrogen concentration plasma nitrided oxide-gate dielectrics to suppress gate leakage current. This optimization reduces leakage current approximately 50 times more efficiently than conventional SiO2 film and allows formation of an oxide with an effective thickness of only 1nm. Furthermore, Ni silicide is applied in the gate electrodes and source/drain regions to attain low resistance and to reduce junction leakage current. Shallow extension formation optimizing ultra-low energy ion implantation, spike RTA and offset spacer process successfully suppresses the short channel effect of MOSFET and achieves superior roll-off characteristics. An excellent switching speed of 0.72psec for NMOSFET and 1.41psec for PMOSFET at 0.85V (Ioff=100nA/um), were obtained. Currently available Hi-NA193-nm lithography with alternating phase shift mask and slimming process provides 30nm gate lengths.
2) Embedded DRAM cell:
High-speed data processing requires a single-chip solution integrating a microprocessor and embedded large volume memory. Toshiba is the only semiconductor vendor able to offer commercial trench-capacitor DRAM technology for 90nm-generation DRAM-embedded System LSI. Toshiba and Sony have utilized 65nm process to technology to fabricate an embedded DRAM with a cell size of 0.11um2, the world's smallest, which will allow DRAM with a capacity of more than 256Mbit to be integrated on a single chip.
3) Embedded SRAM cell:
SRAM is sometimes used as cache memory in SoC systems. The Hi-NA193-nm lithography with alternating phase shift mask and the slimming process combined with the non-slimming trim mask process will achieve the world's smallest embedded SRAM cell in the 65nm generation an areas of only 0.6um2.
4) 180nm Multi layer wiring:
In order to reduce the chip size, it is important reduce the pitch of the first metal of the lowest layer. The new technology has a 180nm pitch, a 75% shrink from the 90nm generation. To reduce wiring propagation delay and power dissipation, a low-k dielectric material is adopted. The target effective dielectric constant of the interlayer dielectric is around 2.7.
http://www.nyse.com
Wow, I've heard that before.... :roll: This is going to be so much fun watching people finally STFU.
PS. Hey Ben, ever hear that comment in bold about preformance being directly proportional to lithograph before? I could have sworn I did, but then someone said it was wrong... I dunno...
So maybe there is some ground being made in the "every appliance will be a computer" project that Sony is working on.
Vince, do you work for Sony?
Honest question.
This isn't some kind of breakthrough, it's an expected development.
Sony will most likely be on 0.09micron chip/0.06 micron DRAM by 2005, and so will Intel. :roll:
The way you're trumpeting this around like a major breakthrough or that Sony's going to own everyone is laughable at best...
KnightBreed
03-Dec-2002, 22:09
Wow, I've heard that before.... :roll: This is going to be so much fun watching people finally STFU.
PS. Hey Ben, ever hear that comment in bold about preformance being directly proportional to lithograph before? I could have sworn I did, but then someone said it was wrong... I dunno...
I'm not sure what you and Ben argued about, but it seems to me the article is worded poorly. The performance increase does not directly come from the lithography process - it comes from the higher clocks and greater gate concentration the smaller process allows.
Toshiba only recently began offering (http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20020808S0049) their .13um process to third parties. I wonder if they plan on ramping up R&D spending to stay competitive with the other titans (IBM, TSMC, UMC, Chartered).
As a side note, Intel will be at .09um when the Prescott core bows late next year, and should be at .065um in 2005. Truth be told, if anybody beats Intel to market with either of the 2 processes I'll be incredibly surprised.
As a side note, Intel will be at .09um when the Prescott core bows late next year, and should be at .065um in 2005. Truth be told, if anybody beats Intel to market with either of the 2 processes I'll be incredibly surprised.
I agree, Intel has been incredibly aggressive in process technology the past couple years.
0.09 micron will be in mass production by the 2nd half of 2003, and Toshiba probably won't do that until 2004 sometime...
PC-Engine
03-Dec-2002, 22:44
What's the link to NYSE for? :-?
This isn't some kind of breakthrough, it's an expected development.
I realise, but after arguing over and over the exact same points listed here, only 6 months ago - I'm entitled to be a bitch. No, I don't work for Sony, but these things are pretty cut and dry, yet people argue them to death and it pisses me off. That is all.
The performance increase does not directly come from the lithography process - it comes from the higher clocks and greater gate concentration the smaller process allows.
True, but as stated, the increase in preformance will come from the increased concurrency/parrallelisation (is that a word?) of the architecture thats possible with a smaller lithography process. Look historically at specilized hardware (3D works well) and even counting the NV30, the clockspeed increase has been perhaps 5-7X since the Riva128, yet the preformance is several orders of magnitude greater.
Sony will most likely be on 0.09micron chip/0.06 micron DRAM by 2005, and so will Intel.
They will be farther IMHO. Target for MS's specs and SCE seems to point to necessitate sub-90nm.
I agree, Intel has been incredibly aggressive in process technology the past couple years
Nobody will argue this with you.
The NYSE link is for the mainbody quote, taken from a PR release on NYSE.com
PS. Hey Ben, ever hear that comment in bold about preformance being directly proportional to lithograph before?
Didn't Gordon Moore say that? I'm no engineer, but I was under the distinct impression that that is the basis of Moore's Law. Increases in transistor density depends in large part upon advancements in lithography. No? Or is it the "directly proportional" part that you're questioning?
BenSkywalker
04-Dec-2002, 01:54
Are you still not understanding what I have been trying to tell you for quite some time now? Increasing transistor density in a general purpose processor in no way whatsoever indicates that it will be able to compete with dedicated hardware at the same tasks. A P4 still can't compete with a TNT1 in rendering real time 3D graphics. Transistor density allows you to do more things, a point I have never argued. The issue has always been dedicated hardware versus software.
If Sony relies on software rendering they will not be able to compete with dedicated hardware. For that matter, I think they are still iffy trying to push out 6.6TFLOPS based on .065u in a general purpose CPU.
The best I can figure you either work for Sony or have an investment in them. You are honestly quoting a press release as 'evidence' in a discussion here?
randycat99
04-Dec-2002, 02:05
If Sony relies on software rendering they will not be able to compete with dedicated hardware.
It's not like they are trying to do "software rendering" on some x86 CPU (had they been, you would certainly be indisputibly correct). If it is an array of rapid execution vector units (albeit, governed by software), that pretty much blurs the line with "dedicated hardware". It just happens to not be what nVidia is up to, IMO.
The issue has always been dedicated hardware versus software.
I wouldn't call PS2 VUs and GS a software route. They are pretty dedicated hardware.
. A P4 still can't compete with a TNT1 in rendering real time 3D graphics
Hmm, don't know about that. Those P4 is getting pretty fast.
Are you still not understanding what I have been trying to tell you for quite some time now? Increasing transistor density in a general purpose processor in no way whatsoever indicates that it will be able to compete with dedicated hardware at the same tasks.
But, see this is what pisses me off, your argument is fundimentally flawed, yet you keep arguing it.
Whats the diffrence between a VU and a VS? Explain to me how a VU is 'general computing'. Whats the fundimental diffrence between a VU and the NV3x's new TCL front-end?
Explain to me why a 'general processor' like the EE or SH-4 can outpace the <quote> Hardwired <quote> solutions that you speak of that nVidia produced at the same time. Why does the EE utterly destroy the NV1x's TCL front-end?
ANSWER: Because it's throwing more tranistors at the problem. You [programmable] can maintain parity with a hardwired solution if you devote more resources [read logic] to the problem. This is simple. This is my point. Yet you fight it, over and over.
I wouldn't call PS2 VUs and GS a software route. They are pretty dedicated hardware.
Thank you Lord!! Look at OGL and DX10+. The merger of the PS and VS is comming, architectures like the P10/9 are going to be the future.
Didn't Gordon Moore say that? I'm no engineer, but I was under the distinct impression that that is the basis of Moore's Law.
Yep, what I'm advocating is that threw advanced lithography, you can increase the programmability of an architecture by a large amount while still maintining preformance parity with a comparable hardwired design. But, in order to do this, you must 'beat' Moore's Law - and thus to equal a hardwired design while maintaing flexibility - you must increase the usable transistor counts. This can be done threw: (a) More Advanced Lithography, (b) Multichip, (c) GRID/Cluster/Pervasive/or otherwise Computing, (d) Architectural Advance.
The best I can figure you either work for Sony or have an investment in them. You are honestly quoting a press release as 'evidence' in a discussion here?
Heh, neither... just know that I'm not wrong. Honestly... no. I was posting it anyways and it had the part that supported my position. This is all. Hey, had nothing better to do on here other than act out my ambitions to be a contemporary Patrick Henry and start an argument. Hey, and your always ready to argue back ;)
If Sony relies on software rendering they will not be able to compete with dedicated hardware. For that matter, I think they are still iffy trying to push out 6.6TFLOPS based on .065u in a general purpose CPU
There is no way they will yeild a true 6.6TFLOPS in one console... period. I'll be impressed if they can output a true TFLOP and sustain it, but I'm not so sure.
I too, wonder if SCE will use a full software rendering approach with PS3, with the idea that the hardware will be more of a 'VU' like, scientific computing approach [not like the traditional CPU].
The upsides if they can pull off a true TFLOP of sustained computer power thats fully programmable would be huge. Some very interesting things can be done by the developer who takes iniative and designs a custom pipeline for their work... atleast IMHO. SCE would definatly need some nVidia caliber Dev Rel.
I doubt it would be near an nVidia powered solution, but does it have to be? Interesting questions emerge, such as with 1TFLOP [Which is well over the GSCube IIRC which rendered FF:TSW and Antz at 60fps] isn't that suficient? How much of a visual diffrence would be seen?
The biggest question I have, is if a developer had full control, and could tailor the entire 3D pipeline for his title - how much is gained in effeciency? I mean, they could literally do anything... hell, banish trinagles. All the petty arguments about the nV2A's PS and the TEV's features would disapear.
But, I bet there will be some sort of rasterizer/GSx
Geeforcer
04-Dec-2002, 07:18
BTW, a company I used to work for now offers of 80 nm (yes, 80) lithographic equipment.
As long as it is not economically viable it is irrelevant.
PC-Engine
04-Dec-2002, 09:38
As long as it is not economically viable it is irrelevant.
I've got a prototype quantum computer in my backyard that works, the only problem is it doesn't work at any temperature above absolute zero. :lol:
If Sony goes for the all software approach in PS 3, they will lose. While it's true that the pixel/vertex (and soon to be unified) shader are just small SIMD processors, alot of operations are sunk into other tasks, such as early Z rejection, Z comparisons for MSAA, for texture filtering etc. These are all operations that can be solved with great efficiency in hardware.
Just imagine the amount of work a general purpose processor would have to do to take 6 Z-samples (like the R300) for MSAA, shade each fragment based on numerous anisotropically filtered textures, with say 2-8 bilinear samples per texture.
Can you say *ouch* ?
Cheers
Gubbi
PS3 will rule with CELL!
You forgot the :oops:
PS3 will rule with CELL!
Xbox2 or GC2 will not stand up to PS3 if they are released within the same time frame. :oops:
JF_Aidan_Pryde
04-Dec-2002, 12:16
Speaking of which Ben, I'm still waiting for your reply regarding trouble free pC and fundemental architecture change.
http://216.180.225.194/~beyond3d/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2957&start=140
Last post on that page. ;)
zidane1strife
04-Dec-2002, 12:20
If Sony goes for the all software approach in PS 3, they will lose.
I don't think they'll take an all software approach, anything that's not appropiate perf. wise for the cpu will be done in h/w... the next GS is likely to be more feature rich.
PS: isn't intel using 3gate design or something like that to stop leakage... if so this sony/toshiba approach certainly takes up less space.... seems better, not as brute force as what i've heard intel's doing.
PPS: EE/CELL,etc... 500M+ trans GS3(more than 256Mbit embedded ram) Clearly the system will have at the very 1B trans. combined....
The triple gated transistors are for even smaller feature sizes, an alternative to double gated transistors such as IBM's (and by extension in the future Sony/Toshiba's) FinFET.
zidane1strife
04-Dec-2002, 13:01
The triple gated transistors are for even smaller feature sizes
Are u sure? i thought i heard they'd start that at 65nm(not sure was a long time ago).... this press release makes me think the new material is sufficient to stop leakage without the need of multiple gates...
EDIT: found something... yeah it says "MAY" but so what...
http://img.cmpnet.com/eet/news/02/september/1237_PG_1.gif
BenSkywalker
04-Dec-2002, 13:17
Vince-
Whats the diffrence between a VU and a VS? Explain to me how a VU is 'general computing'. Whats the fundimental diffrence between a VU and the NV3x's new TCL front-end?
Explain to me why a 'general processor' like the EE or SH-4 can outpace the <quote> Hardwired <quote> solutions that you speak of that nVidia produced at the same time. Why does the EE utterly destroy the NV1x's TCL front-end?
ANSWER: Because it's throwing more tranistors at the problem. You [programmable] can maintain parity with a hardwired solution if you devote more resources [read logic] to the problem. This is simple. This is my point. Yet you fight it, over and over.
I guess to sum up my end of countering what you are saying, I see the GeForce1 as a better product in terms of graphics then the PS2(obviously the PS2 has the enormous benefit of being a fixed hardware platform which gives it a huge edge in real world situations). You keep wanting to look at narrowly defined areas and say that a CPU can compete in those particular areas. Let's throw eight million polys per second with trilinear, anistoropic, Dot3 and CubeMaps at the PS2 and see how it holds up. Carmack has stated that Doom3 was built around what was made possible with the GeForce1. Giants when it was ported over to the PS2 had to have downgraded graphics versus the DX7 build which ran very nicely on a GeForce1 at console resolutions. Obviously the game wasn't designed from the ground up around the PS2, else it would have eliminated many of the image enhancing features that the dedicated hardware offered and instead relied on increased poly counts.
The GeForce1 has advantages in certain areas despite the, according to you, 3x increase in complexity. Given fabrication advancements three times the transistor count and it still has shortcomings. Now why would I ever think that dedicated hardware would be better? ;)
Thank you Lord!! Look at OGL and DX10+. The merger of the PS and VS is comming, architectures like the P10/9 are going to be the future.
And this means what to you? Let's see how a CPU enjoys trying to compute out the logic on early Z to reduce the amount of OD, loops back instructions that exceed the processors ability to handle in a single 'pass' and then deals with a BPU miscalc. SGI has viz machines with hundreds of MIPS processors already pushing out TFLOPS, and yet they rely on cutting edge dedicated hardware for their rasterization. Of course, they don't know nearly as much about 3D as Sony right? ;)
Yep, what I'm advocating is that threw advanced lithography, you can increase the programmability of an architecture by a large amount while still maintining preformance parity with a comparable hardwired design. But, in order to do this, you must 'beat' Moore's Law - and thus to equal a hardwired design while maintaing flexibility - you must increase the usable transistor counts.
In rasterization terms the EE was not competitive. First they must significantly exceed Moore's law to catch rasterizers, they have a very long way to go to think about beating them.
This can be done threw: (a) More Advanced Lithography, (b) Multichip, (c) GRID/Cluster/Pervasive/or otherwise Computing, (d) Architectural Advance.
All of these have been used for a long time in off line rendering. They still can't compete with dedicated hardware. The Alpha chips were packing as much L2 cache per core as CELL is supposed to several years ago(although it was off die, the typical 300mm limit for consumer products doesn't apply to the higher end parts which has the same impact as more advanced build techniques). Placed up against an Athlon with a GeForce Alpha's got throttled. Render farms have been around for years, the latency of them(and this is LAN based, not WAN) make them useless for anything nearing real time.
Hey, and your always ready to argue back ;)
Well of course ;) :D
There is no way they will yeild a true 6.6TFLOPS in one console... period. I'll be impressed if they can output a true TFLOP and sustain it, but I'm not so sure.
Are you saying that Sony will not hit their initial claim?
I too, wonder if SCE will use a full software rendering approach with PS3, with the idea that the hardware will be more of a 'VU' like, scientific computing approach [not like the traditional CPU].
I don't think they will. The next GS has to have a decent amount of feature support or they will be killed by the XBox2 in the early going. Dealing with an entirely new architecture that is significantly different then anything else with, as of now, no compiler support? Their first gen games would be lucky to look much better then late life cycle XB or GC titles. Yes, five years down the road they might be able to pull of some very impressive things considering its software, but it would only compound the problems a lot of developers brought up when the PS2 dev kits first started circulating.
I doubt it would be near an nVidia powered solution, but does it have to be? Interesting questions emerge, such as with 1TFLOP [Which is well over the GSCube IIRC which rendered FF:TSW and Antz at 60fps] isn't that suficient? How much of a visual diffrence would be seen?
1TFLOP isn't that much for real time rendering. If you focus an extreme amount on your raw FP power you are going to sacrifice your interger performance. Current rasterizers are already pushing a trillion ops per second, you dedicate your die space to vector based ops it comes out of somewhere else. As far as FF:TSW being rendered in real time on a TFLOP machine, no, it wasn't perfect. The render farm for FF:TSW was pushing over a TFLOP(not sure exactly how much) and IIRC its total render time was in the several months range(for a two hour movie). Antz was rendered on a multi TFLOPs farm and also took months.
The biggest question I have, is if a developer had full control, and could tailor the entire 3D pipeline for his title - how much is gained in effeciency? I mean, they could literally do anything... hell, banish trinagles. All the petty arguments about the nV2A's PS and the TEV's features would disapear.
But current rasterizers are already headed in the fully prgrammable direction. The big difference is that the hardware is custom built around the pitfalls that general purpose CPUs will fall in to.
But, I bet there will be some sort of rasterizer/GSx
I expect so also, which you do realize makes most of our argument pointless(though I'm sure we will continue it for some time to come :) ).
V3-
Hmm, don't know about that. Those P4 is getting pretty fast.
It's not speculation. A TNT2 is roughly fifty times faster then a GHZ P3 rendering real time graphics(trilinear filtering etc, etc, not software compromised code). Given the P6 core's IPC edge it's going to take the P4 some time to catch up.
Randycat-
It's not like they are trying to do "software rendering" on some x86 CPU (had they been, you would certainly be indisputibly correct).
I'm also comparing a TNT2, nothing comparable to a R9700 :)
If it is an array of rapid execution vector units (albeit, governed by software), that pretty much blurs the line with "dedicated hardware". It just happens to not be what nVidia is up to, IMO.
Let's say Sony squeezes a billion transistors on to their CELL chips for the PS3. You take 100Million for the 8MB(32Mb) eDRAM which leaves you with 900Million. Figuring for 32 cores you are looking at 28,125,000 transistors per core. That means on a per core basis you are dealing with about as many transistors as a P4(minus the L2 cache) with less memory per core. If Sony does manage to get 1Billion transistors on .065u build process I'm sure the clock speed will be well short of that offered by desktop x86 parts of the time frame. What do you expect them to do per core with a budget comparable to the P4?
As far as it not being what nVidia is up to, you could every other company involved in 3D to go along with nV ;)
zidane1strife
04-Dec-2002, 13:34
As far as it not being what nVidia is up to, you could every other company involved in 3D to go along with nV
Well some sony dev.s teams are working with nv tech, and i'm sure the R&D teams are in contact with them. So i really don't see them deviating to a path that won't yield equally good results gphx wise...
If they take the vertex dedicated functions out of the gpu and throw them in a cpu, they can increase the speed and amount of proccessing units... this would give the gpu alot more free space for the pixel dedicated area, and allow for more b/w and perf.... at least that's what i think they want with GS3 and EE3/Cell/etc...
Fafalada
04-Dec-2002, 13:48
In rasterization terms the EE was not competitive.
When pray tell was EE ever built for rasterizing? It's largest part are custom built Vertex processors. This is akin to saying Flipper's Geometry Processor is slow at rasterizing, yet, behold, it's a completely hardwired dedicated part - nothing general purpose about it at all.
Although for a 99 part, EE would still make somewhat competent rasterizer - 150mpix/sec fillrate of JPeg decoded data is nothing to scoff at. :p
BenSkywalker
04-Dec-2002, 13:54
When pray tell was EE ever built for rasterizing?
That is pretty much my argument Faf :) Using something particularly built for one thing in mind will beat a general purpose design easily. The fact that EE wasn't built for rasterizing is actually precisely why I bring it up.
Dont pay attention to analysts, Intel has said it is technology for the second half of the decade and that they dont absolutely need it till <30 nm.
zidane1strife
04-Dec-2002, 15:26
I doubt it would be near an nVidia powered solution, but does it have to be? Interesting questions emerge, such as with 1TFLOP
I know it's a bit unrealistic.... but i believe 10+TFLOPS will be achieved...
marconelly!
04-Dec-2002, 16:52
Let's throw eight million polys per second with trilinear, anistoropic, Dot3 and CubeMaps at the PS2 and see how it holds up.
I really don't know how GF1 would handle 8 million single textured polygons per second, much less anything of what you've mentioned, considering just how much GF2 I have chokes on much less geometry intensive scenes.
I haven't really followed your discussion with Vince, but from what I've heard from people in the know, VS and VU really have a lot in common, VU basically has expanded feature set that makes it more multi purpose, but VS is so simillar to it instruction wise that some people used to joke how nvidia reverse engineered VUs and implemented that into their chips :)
I would love to see GF1 run a game like LOTR:TT. :oops:
randycat99
04-Dec-2002, 18:42
It is becoming apparent to me now that Ben was presupposing software rasterization when he typed software rendering and that implies that Sony would not use a GS-n in their next machine, where I (and possibly the rest of us) where assuming he was referring to T&L/vertex shading as part of the "software rendering" process vs. the hardware implementation done on an nVidia GPU. If that is the case, all I can say is "Duh", I wouldn't anticipate Sony to go with software rasterization, either (but it's not completely improbable at the same time, of course). It seems pretty obvious there would be a GS variant to do the actual rasterization in hardware, possibly based around a programmable pixel shader implementation this time around.
That is pretty much my argument Faf :) Using something particularly built for one thing in mind will beat a general purpose design easily. The fact that EE wasn't built for rasterizing is actually precisely why I bring it up.
True, but I was comparing the EE (VU's specifically) to the TCL front-end of the NV3x in particular. It would appear that at a fundimental level, they're quite similar.
My whole point is based on the idea that Cell will not be a 'general processor' like a P4 or Athlon. Just as you've done the tranistsor math, I have aswell: see your question first.
What do you expect them to do per core with a budget comparable to the P4?
Actually, I've been having problem getting the tranistor budget to fit with the expected preformance. I've been thinking of Cell in the 500-600M tranistsor (liberal IMHO) range and having problems getting the eDRAM to fit - which is obviously a necessary part of the cellular computing ideal.
<Speculation, but it's grounded>
If they can yeild 700M transistors on a 65micron or smaller process and clock it 1Ghz, they can do a TFlop as Kutaragi stated.
Devote 200M tranistsors for 16MB of eDRAM, thus we're down to around 500M for logic. SCE has historically used MIPS and has already liecenced the MIPS64 core. If they follow in the true ideal of cellular computing and reduce the core to only the minimum instruction set and features as well as the L2 cache, they could reduce the MIPS64 core to ~2M tranistors (Look up the core, the actual core is small), while it yeilds roughtly 4GFlops @ 1 Ghz.
Do the math and they can yeild 1TFlop at 1Ghz with 16Mb of eDRAM.
If they do away with 9 of every 10 MIPS cores and replace it with a FPU/VU type array (similar to Nv30's front end), they can yeild even more and are down to 25 cores. There are many such combinations possible, but these are some FPU heavy ones. Perhaps, someone better aquanted with the size of a TU or ALU could comment.
zidane1strife
04-Dec-2002, 19:11
Even if it's unrealistic(due to da ram) i believe 3Ghz will be achieved....
(ps1 30approxx... Mhz... ps2 300 approxx Mhz... ps3 3 approxxx Ghz)
PC-Engine
04-Dec-2002, 19:24
Even if it's unrealistic(due to da ram) i believe 3Ghz will be achieved....
(ps1 30approxx... Mhz... ps2 300 approxx Mhz... ps3 3 approxxx Ghz)
It's MHz/GHz not Mhz/Ghz. Also it's "the" not "da" :oops:
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 01:09
Randy-
It is becoming apparent to me now that Ben was presupposing software rasterization when he typed software rendering
No, I was stating exactly what I meant, software rendering. You were supposing that software rendering does not include rasterization which it does and always has. I was working with 3D viz for years, software rendering is software rendering- rasterization is included in the rendering.
Vince-
True, but I was comparing the EE (VU's specifically) to the TCL front-end of the NV3x in particular. It would appear that at a fundimental level, they're quite similar.
My whole point is based on the idea that Cell will not be a 'general processor' like a P4 or Athlon. Just as you've done the tranistsor math, I have aswell: see your question first.
If you look at it from strictly a T&L perspective then a decent enough CPU can compare in performance(well, no single CPU can currently match the T&L performance of a NV3X but in a hypothetical situation), but that ignores a lot of the other aspects that current GPUs handle.
Actually, I've been having problem getting the tranistor budget to fit with the expected preformance. I've been thinking of Cell in the 500-600M tranistsor (liberal IMHO) range and having problems getting the eDRAM to fit - which is obviously a necessary part of the cellular computing ideal.
I find your numbers far more likely then mine, I was trying to give Sony every benefit though :)
Devote 200M tranistsors for 16MB of eDRAM, thus we're down to around 500M for logic. SCE has historically used MIPS and has already liecenced the MIPS64 core. If they follow in the true ideal of cellular computing and reduce the core to only the minimum instruction set and features as well as the L2 cache, they could reduce the MIPS64 core to ~2M tranistors (Look up the core, the actual core is small), while it yeilds roughtly 4GFlops @ 1 Ghz.
Do the math and they can yeild 1TFlop at 1Ghz with 16Mb of eDRAM.
In that situation you only leave each core with 65K RAM, just over half what a Celery is packing. That would make things a bit sticky to try and deal with IMO.
If they do away with 9 of every 10 MIPS cores and replace it with a FPU/VU type array (similar to Nv30's front end), they can yeild even more and are down to 25 cores. There are many such combinations possible, but these are some FPU heavy ones. Perhaps, someone better aquanted with the size of a TU or ALU could comment.
Even if they are capable of getting a FPU/VU type array crammed in to a very dense space would they really want to? Cut the pipeline down too short and their clock speed is going to take a big hit. As it stands now, MIPS aren't exactly known for their blistering clock rates :)
Marconelly-
I really don't know how GF1 would handle 8 million single textured polygons per second, much less anything of what you've mentioned, considering just how much GF2 I have chokes on much less geometry intensive scenes.
I'm speaking on a chip level, not system. Have a developer custom code a game from the ground up for what the GeForce1 is capable of and you end up with something like Doom3(Carmack stated the game was built around what was possible with the GeForce1). Obviously the poly counts are extremely low in that particular title, and performance on a GF1 will stink(although a ~100% boost in performance would occur if it was custom coded, that is according to Carmack), but the capabilities of the GF1 are not limited to what you see exploited in a typical PC game.
I haven't really followed your discussion with Vince, but from what I've heard from people in the know, VS and VU really have a lot in common, VU basically has expanded feature set that makes it more multi purpose, but VS is so simillar to it instruction wise that some people used to joke how nvidia reverse engineered VUs and implemented that into their chips :)
There are external factors when comparing the two, for instance you have to move the data from the VUs to the GS, using up the VUs for T&L means they aren't available for other uses etc.
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 01:28
No, I was stating exactly what I meant, software rendering. You were supposing that software rendering does not include rasterization which it does and always has. I was working with 3D viz for years, software rendering is software rendering- rasterization is included in the rendering.
Take it easy there, chief. I wasn't trying to bash you, just understand where you are coming from to say what you did. It seems to me that most people here assume that you are referring to operation of the vector units as T&L modules in a "software-related" manner when you mentioned "software rendering". It kind of goes w/o saying that the basic rasterization will be done by dedicated hardware, as that has shown to be the best way to go about it at this time. So if you want to get technical about it, I suppose you could say Sony's current graphics approach includes software and hardware aspects.
The idea it seems you were presenting to us seems to be, indeed, a full software rendering implementation all the way from T&L to rasterization. Whether or not Sony is really planning such an approach remains to be seen, IMO. I don't think you will find much argument that it would be tough to make a general CPU to do rasterization faster than dedicated hardware (so you are somewhat preaching to the choir). It just makes the most sense that if someone was to adapt a "software rendering" approach, they are likely talking about the front-end stuff with basic rasterization still done in hardware. Maybe that is a bit too informal for your tastes, but no need for you to presume that I was implying the polar opposite of your idea to show how wrong I was. That's my take on it.
On the flipside, I guess it wouldn't be completely out of the question to do the rasterization using an army of general purpose vector units. In that respect, I guess Sony could actually do a fully "software renderer" implementation, but you have to admit that the distinction of what is "traditional hardware" or "traditional software" becomes more blurred. Does it really matter if virtually the same mechanism is doing the task if it is on a chip marked as "CPU" vs. a chip marked as "GPU"?
marconelly!
05-Dec-2002, 01:29
I'm speaking on a chip level, not system. Have a developer custom code a game from the ground up for what the GeForce1 is capable of and you end up with something like Doom3(Carmack stated the game was built around what was possible with the GeForce1). Obviously the poly counts are extremely low in that particular title, and performance on a GF1 will stink(although a ~100% boost in performance would occur if it was custom coded, that is according to Carmack), but the capabilities of the GF1 are not limited to what you see exploited in a typical PC game. I understand all that, but considering that on my GF2 Doom 3 Alpha ran at approx 1-5FPS whenever there was anything moving on the screen, and if GF1 would be able to reach that same framerate if it was optimized for it, I still don't see much point.
I just don't see any imaginable GeForce 1 configuration being capable to run game like MGS2 or Silent Hill 3 at 60 or 30 FPS respectively, where PS2 is obviously capable of it.
Fafalada
05-Dec-2002, 02:18
I'm speaking on a chip level, not system.
Well GF1 needs a CPU to perform a great many things, so your comparing of chip alone to a system(you compared it to the whole PS2) is pointless.
While on the subject, what magic copy of Giants did you run "well" on GF1 that even looked good if I may ask? The one I played runs like complete crap on anything below GF3 & 1+ghz cpu.
Btw Marc, considering D3 demo likes to be on the sluggish side even on a R9700 with P4 2400 I dread to think how it must be like with a GF2 :p Of course, that's what you get for trying non-public alphas...
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 02:23
Randy-
Does it really matter if virtually the same mechanism is doing the task if it is on a chip marked as "CPU" vs. a chip marked as "GPU"?
From a performance perspective- Does eDRAM offer any benefits? Why? That is a single reason why having certain functions on the GPU is an advatnage over a CPU. That ignores things such as customizations to eliminate certain possible major performance shortcomings(BPU miscalc on a lengthy shader op with branches would be a major hit on a CPU).
Marconelly-
I understand all that, but considering that on my GF2 Doom 3 Alpha ran at approx 1-5FPS whenever there was anything moving on the screen, and if GF1 would be able to reach that same framerate if it was optimized for it, I still don't see much point.
An alpha demo build isn't a good way to gauge performance. A GeForce1 is currently still the base line for playing the game last I was aware.
I just don't see any imaginable GeForce 1 configuration being capable to run game like MGS2 or Silent Hill 3 at 60 or 30 FPS respectively, where PS2 is obviously capable of it.
And the PS2 can't run Giants without compromises, nor could it run JKII or Mafia(both without compromises of course) as a few examples. Obviously when coding you are going to take certain things into consideration on a fixed platform. The big difference is I can pull up examples that were not built from the ground up for the GF1 that won't run on the PS2.
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 02:39
Faf-
Well GF1 needs a CPU to perform a great many things, so your comparing of chip alone to a system(you compared it to the whole PS2) is pointless.
Not when we are looking at rasterization between a CPU and a GPU. You can say that that comparison is pointless, but that is what we are discussing.
While on the subject, what magic copy of Giants did you run "well" on GF1 that even looked good if I may ask? The one I played runs like complete crap on anything below GF3 & 1+ghz cpu.
Run it under Win9X. Giants framerate drops ~50% and up under any NT based OS(the difference is roughly 100% under certain settings). No magic involved, rather common knowledge the game engine has never run well under 2K or XP ;)
Even then, under Win2K@1024x768 with all details cranked 32bit(on the retail build patched version) I'm pushing just under 30FPS(just under 50FPS under Win98) with a GF2- both CPU limited on a GHZ Athlon. True if you drop the CPU down to ~700MHZ the framerate falls to around 35FPS under Win9x and 21FPS under Win2K. Given how the downgraded port runs on the PS2 I'd say it's closer to Win2K level performance when Win9X(choppy as hell on the PS2).
Tagrineth
05-Dec-2002, 02:44
And the PS2 can't run Giants without compromises, nor could it run JKII or Mafia(both without compromises of course) as a few examples. Obviously when coding you are going to take certain things into consideration on a fixed platform. The big difference is I can pull up examples that were not built from the ground up for the GF1 that won't run on the PS2.
To be fair, almost no PC ports are ever very optimised, with VERY few exceptions.
I bet if someone took up the cross and severely optimised JK2 or Mafia, they'd run brilliantly on PS2. Of course there would be the occasional trade-off, but barely any in the end.
marconelly!
05-Dec-2002, 02:45
And the PS2 can't run Giants without compromises, nor could it run JKII or Mafia(both without compromises of course) as a few examples.You can't really consider quick & dirty PC ports made by people completely inexperienced with PS2 hardware and proclaim hardware incapable of running it. Does Mafia look much better than Getaway or Primal (both more or less free roaming games with no load times and lots of stuff going on the screen)?
How is Mafia and Giants working with GF1 in the first place? I know I'm not getting much more than 30ish FPS average in Giants on 1GHz + GF2 machine, all settings max.
My point is - I've never seen a PC game (running at more than 30FPS) on GF1 that is remotely as impressive as the best looking titles on PS2. Not when the GF1 launched, not now (that is several year later)
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 03:04
Tag-
I bet if someone took up the cross and severely optimised JK2 or Mafia, they'd run brilliantly on PS2. Of course there would be the occasional trade-off, but barely any in the end.
No, they wouldn't. You would have to seriously reduce the texture quality to get the games to the PS2 on either title(Mafia I don't see working at all). And remember, without compromise means trilinear and anisotropic filtering on ;)
Marco-
. Does Mafia look much better than Getaway or Primal (both more or less free roaming games with no load times and lots of stuff going on the screen)?
Getaway and Primal compared to Mafia, different leagues(by a long shot). Mafia won't run on the XBox without downgraded graphics(not close to enough RAM for the textures used).
How is Mafia and Giants working with GF1 in the first place? I know I'm not getting much more than 30ish FPS average in Giants on 1GHz + GF2 machine, all settings max.
Run it under Win9X. Pair the GF1 with a 3GHZ P4 and you would likely be pushing close to tripple digits in Giants under Win9X running console resolutions.
My point is - I've never seen a PC game (running at more than 30FPS) on GF1 that is remotely as impressive as the best looking titles on PS2. Not when the GF1 launched, not now (that is several year later)
And as I stated, the PS2 has the enormous real world advantage of being a fixed platform.
On the flip side, isn't Square speccing a ~2ghz P4 w/a GF3 for the PC FF XI?
Same with GTA3, the game was unplayable on my 1Ghz Tualatin P3 & GF2. I know the PS2 version was sub 30fps, but the PC was sub 10fps. Doom 3 Alpha ran better.
Fafalada
05-Dec-2002, 03:07
Even then, under Win2K@1024x768 with all details cranked 32bit(on the retail build patched version) I'm pushing just under 30FPS(just under 50FPS under Win98) with a GF2- both CPU limited on a GHZ Athlon.
Actually that's about what I got on 2k, and similar setup. The problem is "just under 30fps" only holds as long as there's almost nothing going on the screen. Bring a few enemies, a bit of shooting, and fps started howering between 10-20, often lower. In the later levels really heavy with action I've seen sub 10fps quite often. But this was still on gf2...
(A dual CPU with a Quadro ran worse, so I won't even go there).
Anyway, the other problem is, that your assumption Giants is a rasterizer benchmark is probably quite far off the mark, at least when it comes to the PS2 port.
PC -> console ports are pretty much always CPU limited, even when target is XBox, which makes it practically by default with other two platforms.
This is all the more likely when you consider that majority of all PS2 games to date have been limited by r59k memory accesses, not by any of the specialized components (rasterizer/vu's etc.).
In other words, chances are rather good that Giants port on PS2 is mostly leaving the rasterizer you're trying to benchmark - idle.
Pair the GF1 with a 3GHZ P4 and you would likely be pushing close to tripple digits in Giants under Win9X running console resolutions.
Oh cool. I'll just compare it to 1ghz EE then.
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 03:21
Zurich-
Same with GTA3, the game was unplayable on my 1Ghz Tualatin P3 & GF2. I know the PS2 version was sub 30fps, but the PC was sub 10fps. Doom 3 Alpha ran better.
I'm getting ~50FPS running GTA3 with a GHZ Athlon and GF2(actually measured, not a guess) under Win2K, and that's at roughly quadruple the resolution of the PS2 version(have to try and crank it up to see if I can get it close to as slow as the PS2 version, haven't tried applying AA at high res yet).
I can't find anything on the specs for FFXI, do you have any links?
Faf-
Actually that's about what I got on 2k, and similar setup. The problem is "just under 30fps" only holds as long as there's almost nothing going on the screen. Bring a few enemies, a bit of shooting, and fps started howering between 10-20, often lower. In the later levels really heavy with action I've seen sub 10fps quite often. But this was still on gf2...
Giants has a benchmark built in to the latest patch. I am using benchmark averages, not standing still without enemy numbers :)
Anyway, the other problem is, that your assumption Giants is a rasterizer benchmark is probably quite far off the mark, at least when it comes to the PS2 port.
Dot3 removed, texture quality significantly reduced and bilinear filtering(it should be using trilinear and anisotropic)- that is what I mean by downgraded graphics(Dot3 I can see the CPU relevance, and that is a big downgrade in Giants, but not proper texture filtering techniques which based on this discussion should be handled in software if the GS can't cover it ;) ).
PC -> console ports are pretty much always CPU limited
Yes, which backs up exactly what I've been saying. Relying on software for increasing amounts of rasterization you will be CPU limited even moreso then currently(although I know that your comment relates directly to PC ports).
In other words, chances are rather good that Giants port on PS2 is mostly leaving the rasterizer you're trying to benchmark - idle.
This discussion isn't about the GS. Any feature the GS is lacking has to be covered by the EE to back Vince's general line of thought. I'm saying that this is not viable, not now and almost certainly not with the PS3. Sony has to have a strong rasterizer to be able to compete.
Ben,
I read about it on a post on Tech-Report.com. Square released a benchmark, and only systems sporting 2000+ points are deemed fast enough for the game.
ftp://212.43.238.130/nvchips/pub/benchs/FFXiBench.zip
My rig got 1500 :( What is interesting, is that enabling 2xFSAA and even 4xFSAA did virtually nothing to the score, meaning that it's highly CPU limited...
marconelly!
05-Dec-2002, 03:35
Getaway and Primal compared to Mafia, different leagues(by a long shot).
How is Getaway in different league? Conceptually, it's almost exactly the same game, as Mafia as far as I can see.
Btw, I was running Giants under Win 98, that's what I had back then.
And as I stated, the PS2 has the enormous real world advantage of being a fixed platform.
Well, this has always been saving grace of PC users in dicussions like this. Perhaps we'll never see how much would GF1 be able to accomplish in reality, but even it's theoretical limits are not all that impressive.
This discussion isn't about the GS. Any feature the GS is lacking has to be covered by the EE to back Vince's general line of thought. I'm saying that this is not viable, not now and almost certainly not with the PS3. Sony has to have a strong rasterizer to be able to compete.
Ben, how many times now did I state I was comparing a 'general processor' like the EE - VU's specifically - to the TCL front-end on the nVxx's?
My point based on programmability > fixed function in preformance if it has one of those advantages was not based around the notion of a totally software defined scheme. P10 is an excellent example of the type of 'general computing' I speak of.
Common buddy, We even agreed that there will be some form of conventional hardware raster functionality. This full software talk was just to talk about the feasibility.
Fafalada
05-Dec-2002, 04:18
Giants has a benchmark built in to the latest patch. I am using benchmark averages, not standing still without enemy numbers
Imo average fps numbers don't really tell much about the game running at playable framerate or not, especially if benchmark is ran with v-sync disabled.
Yes, which backs up exactly what I've been saying. Relying on software for increasing amounts of rasterization you will be CPU limited even moreso then currently(although I know that your comment relates directly to PC ports).
I know what you're trying to say, but you're taking contexts all over the place. "software" does not equal "general purpose cpu" for one. :\
If I am to use DOT3 on GS, I will emulate it through GS - in software - yes, but not on the CPU.
If I need a complex pixel shader on NV3x to simulate surface of say, human skin, I will again, write Software - shader to extend the rasterizer function. It won't use CPU to rasterize either.
The other problem is you're trying to establish lacking features of a port(which won't be looking for ways to create new stuff) as a benchmark of what is possible on target hw. While stuff like anisotropic filtering in software is rather feasible at low performance overhead on the PS2, it takes TIME to implement.
Morevoer, whether the visual result of something like that is worth the implementation cost/headache alone is already arguable, before we even mention performance considerations.
That said, you're likely to see stuff like Dot3 eventually in PS2 games, but I have doubts anisotropic would be high on anyone's list to implement(Imo, at least).
Anyway, as you've said yourself "The next GS has to have a decent amount of feature support", is pretty much true. However, Imo it is irellevant if those features will be hardwired or in software - as long as they are available to developers to use from the get go.
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 04:38
If I am to use DOT3 on GS, I will emulate it through GS - in software - yes, but not on the CPU.
If I need a complex pixel shader on NV3x to simulate surface of say, human skin, I will again, write Software - shader to extend the rasterizer function. It won't use CPU to rasterize either.
Is this part really true for the GS, or were you just speaking figuratively? It seems to be pounded into our heads (PS2 fans, collectively) that there exists absolutely no programmable function support in the GS, but are you saying that there is? This is certainly good news and bodes well for the future in PS2 development, but I just want to make sure I heard you right.
It's not speculation. A TNT2 is roughly fifty times faster then a GHZ P3 rendering real time graphics(trilinear filtering etc, etc, not software compromised code). Given the P6 core's IPC edge it's going to take the P4 some time to catch up.
TNT1 ? The new P4 has a bandwidth advantage over TNT1. TNT2 was pretty slow at doing trilinear, I am not even sure TNT1 able to do it.
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 04:55
Marco-
How is Getaway in different league? Conceptually, it's almost exactly the same game, as Mafia as far as I can see.
Visually. The Getaway may be the game that actually gets me to purchase a PS2, but its visuals aren't even close to Mafia's.
Btw, I was running Giants under Win 98, that's what I had back then.
And it was that slow? It was much faster then that for me(via running a bench).
Well, this has always been saving grace of PC users in dicussions like this. Perhaps we'll never see how much would GF1 be able to accomplish in reality, but even it's theoretical limits are not all that impressive.
No, the theoretical limits of the GF1 aren't all that impressive. Neither are the PS2's.
Vince-
Common buddy, We even agreed that there will be some form of conventional hardware raster functionality. This full software talk was just to talk about the feasibility.
I thought that was the discussion we were having right now? I haven't argued that TnL functions can be handled by a CPU with proper considerations.
Faf-
I know what you're trying to say, but you're taking contexts all over the place. "software" does not equal "general purpose cpu" for one. :\
If I am to use DOT3 on GS, I will emulate it through GS - in software - yes, but not on the CPU.
If I need a complex pixel shader on NV3x to simulate surface of say, human skin, I will again, write Software - shader to extend the rasterizer function. It won't use CPU to rasterize either.
When you say not on the CPU, do you mean use the VUs? I'm assuming you do.
That said, you're likely to see stuff like Dot3 eventually in PS2 games, but I have doubts anisotropic would be high on anyone's list to implement(Imo, at least).
So anisotropic may not be a viable desire(given the overall weak texturing seen in PS2 games it wouldn't pay the dividends it does on the PC anyway), how about trilinear? Why isn't that pervasive in PS2 games?
Imo average fps numbers don't really tell much about the game running at playable framerate or not, especially if benchmark is ran with v-sync disabled.
I'm very confused by this statement, do you enable VSync when you play games on your PC.....?
marconelly!
05-Dec-2002, 05:10
Visually. The Getaway may be the game that actually gets me to purchase a PS2, but its visuals aren't even close to Mafia's.
Not even *close*? Well, compare these:
Mafia Inside the building:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/pc/act/mafia/mafia_screen022.jpg
Getaway inside the building (I'm using supersampled shots because I can't find Mafia in appropriate, comparable resolution of 640x):
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/vgnews/100702/getaway/getaway_screen005.jpg
Mafia outside:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/pc/act/mafia/mafia_screen020.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/pc/featurepreviews/mafia/mafia_screen003.jpg
Getaway outside:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/e32002/playstation2/getaway/getaway_screen003.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/vgnews/081402/getaway_screen002.jpg
I guess your definition of 'not even close' is very different than mine, then.
Also, consider that Primal has much better graphics (textures, effects) than what I've seen of Getaway. It's a linear game, but has a seamles world loading like the Getaway, GTA3, etc.
Fafalada
05-Dec-2002, 05:24
randy, it's math capabilities aren't the greatest, but duh yeah. Every rasterizer has programmable capacity to some extent.
I'm very confused by this statement, do you enable VSync when you play games on your PC.....?
V-Sync off can artifically inflate average FPS in any game that can run faster then V-Sync limit, even though those cases may be only when you stare at a wall. Not to mention in console title you don't have the option to do so, and most games never disable it, even when framerate drops, so comparing the two is not really possible.
Personally I can't be bothered to fiddle with settings much nowadays. When I want to play a game, there's nothing more annoying then having to push sliders around to get playable fps (just one of the reasons why my preferred genre on PC are strategy games).
When you say not on the CPU, do you mean use the VUs? I'm assuming you do.
Depending on the case. DOT3 is useless without T&L assist, regardless if you have the feature in hardware or not. The VU work involved with the GS emulation of DOT3 is pretty much nonexistant though - it boils down to doing what a VS already does for DOT3 normally, and then kicking slightly modified display list several times (it's a multipass process). The actual 'work' is being done by GS, which will also determine the speed limit.
So anisotropic may not be a viable desire(given the overall weak texturing seen in PS2 games it wouldn't pay the dividends it does on the PC anyway), how about trilinear? Why isn't that pervasive in PS2 games?
Well you need to use mipmapping first, if you want trilinear, something lots of PS2 titles avoided at first. Second reason is GS the texel cache scheme which can break performance with trilinear enabled if you're not carefull. On that thought, anistropic might actually work better in some cases, although I'd need to test that stuff out.
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 05:27
Daaayamn, I'd have to say the much vaunted textures of PC Mafia are highly overrated. I don't think I'll be missing much if that is what uber PC textures are like...
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 05:56
Marco-
Despite the details being turned down in the GameSpot Mafia shots(very obvious in the inaccurate shadows in some screens and completely missing ones in others not to mention the significantly reduced texture quality in many of their shots), they still have some better shots then what you posted-
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/pc/act/mafia/mafia_screen024.jpg
That is about what I would expect to see the XBox version look like. Downgraded from the PC version of course, but still not in the same realm as The Getaway.
Randy-
Daaayamn, I'd have to say the much vaunted textures of PC Mafia are highly overrated. I don't think I'll be missing much if that is what uber PC textures are like...
It's not, they have details turned down. Some of the shots that GameSpot has up all settings are set to their lowest possible(compressed, low detail, 16bit, low geometry settings, shadows off).
Faf-
V-Sync off can artifically inflate average FPS in any game that can run faster then V-Sync limit, even though those cases may be only when you stare at a wall.
If you have VSync on then you are pretty much always landing framerates quite a bit lower then you should, particularly running nV hardware(in game with heavy action too).
Not to mention in console title you don't have the option to do so, and most games never disable it, even when framerate drops, so comparing the two is not really possible.
If you are running a GF board you can force it off for all games, it pretty much always has a decent impact on noticeable framerate(not just in benches).
Personally I can't be bothered to fiddle with settings much nowadays. When I want to play a game, there's nothing more annoying then having to push sliders around to get playable fps (just one of the reasons why my preferred genre on PC are strategy games).
The curse and blessing of PC games ;) You really should disable VSync though, you do it through the control panel twice(once for each API) or use RivaTuner if your driver rev doesn't have the option. Do it once and forget it.
Depending on the case. DOT3 is useless without T&L assist, regardless if you have the feature in hardware or not. The VU work involved with the GS emulation of DOT3 is pretty much nonexistant though - it boils down to doing what a VS already does for DOT3 normally, and then kicking slightly modified display list several times (it's a multipass process). The actual 'work' is being done by GS, which will also determine the speed limit.
So if you are clever coding and have the VUs handle the dot product calcs then the GS is capable of handling Dot3, OK.
Well you need to use mipmapping first, if you want trilinear, something lots of PS2 titles avoided at first. Second reason is GS the texel cache scheme which can break performance with trilinear enabled if you're not carefull. On that thought, anistropic might actually work better in some cases, although I'd need to test that stuff out.
I'm not quite getting the part I bolded. Are you saying that using ani in conjunction with trilinear would work better then tri alone, or are you saying that ani w/bi would work better then tri alone?
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 06:17
Those textures do look better, but they still betray the premise of "uber PC textures". Still, they are blurry, and the polycounts aren't that hot, either. If it is just the choice between blurry textures and less blurry textures, then it's hardly a "world apart". If that is what you get with another $1300 in hardware, I got to wonder...
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 06:28
Those textures do look better, but they still betray the premise of "uber PC textures". Still, they are blurry, and the polycounts aren't that hot, either. If it is just the choice between blurry textures and less blurry textures, then it's hardly a "world apart". If that is what you get with another $1300 in hardware, I got to wonder...
The details are turned down, I could have sworn I mentioned that(there are numerous options for Mafia, by default the game will detect what you are running and choose an 'optimal' setup). Besides lowering texture details, it also reduces poly count, draw distance and shadows. Check out Quake3 with everything turned down to everything cranked to get a general idea of what kind of impact adjusting details has on a game.
As far as spending an additional $1300.. my rig would cost about a quarter of that to build(although I almost never do a complete rebuild, upgrade the parts I need when I need to), where do you shop?
marconelly!
05-Dec-2002, 06:29
Despite the details being turned down in the GameSpot Mafia shots(very obvious in the inaccurate shadows in some screens and completely missing ones in others not to mention the significantly reduced texture quality in many of their shots), they still have some better shots then what you posted
I have noticed you often say that abot GS shots, yet from my experience they almost always match what I get in PC games with all the settings on the maximum.
I'd like to see some Mafia shots made by you on whatever machine you have, if it's in any way possible, because that shot you posted, although nicer looking, is still not something *significantly* better than those Getaway shots like your initial statement implied. Also, I mentioned Primal as an example of much better (technically) looking game than Getaway is.
Mind you, I'm going through all this just because I find your first statement of GF1 performance being equal or better to PS2, just a little too far fetched. Reality, and the games that I've seen so far, just scream otherwise :\
Downgraded from the PC version of course, but still not in the same realm as The Getaway.
Ben, that looks better, but it's still not that big of a jump over The Getaway. Gonna have to agree with Randy.
If your going to get so picky, then look at Mafia's street - looks kinda bare. Marco can probobl;y answer this better, but from what I've heard the streets in the Getaway have over 10 cars on them at most times with a bunch of civilians on the street in the final, shipping, version. Buildings are very boxy, not polygonal intensive at all from those pictures of Mafia.
Primal is one nice looking game. I have a demo of it and it's quite nice.
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 06:40
OK, fine then, Ben.
Oh, your rig can be built for cheaper? What a surprise! Let's all go and buy at the House of Ben's Computers then! This "I built my own" thing must be the modern version of chest beating, I swear! :roll: :wink:
...and thank God we are onto a fresh page w/o those damn bandwidth hog pix!!! Can we go easy on the big a$$ pix already, or am I the last known guy to be using dial-up these days? :lol:
This "I built my own" thing must be the modern version of chest beating, I swear! :roll: :wink:
Yeah, ever since those lesbians in NOW threatened to lorena bobbit us if we continied to measure cock size... we needed something new. (I feel their just pist that God didn't give them a penis.. anyways :wink: )
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 07:12
Marconelly-
I have noticed you often say that abot GS shots, yet from my experience they almost always match what I get in PC games with all the settings on the maximum.
Some of it is very obvious. Look at the draw distance in some of the images they have compared to others. They lowered the detail settings, anyone who has played the game should be able to point it out quite easily. For some of the images, it appears to be some serious JPEG artifacts(compressed way too much) and someone hosed the gamma.
I'd like to see some Mafia shots made by you on whatever machine you have, if it's in any way possible, because that shot you posted, although nicer looking, is still not something *significantly* better than those Getaway shots like your initial statement implied.
Perhaps is I suffer some serious eye damage I won't see it either, though I suspect I'd have to be near blind. If you can't see the huge difference between them, you are in luck. You should be able to skip the next generation of consoles. The Getaway looks like ass, although it sounds like it should play quite nicely. I had shots up before the Basement went down, now I don't have anywhere to upload them to.
Also, I mentioned Primal as an example of much better (technically) looking game than Getaway is.
Post screen shots.
Randy-
Oh, your rig can be built for cheaper? What a surprise! Let's all go and buy at the House of Ben's Computers then! This "I built my own" thing must be the modern version of chest beating, I swear!
A retarded monkey could build a computer. It isn't chest beating, it's saying if you buy pre built... well.... don't apply to MENSA ;) Go to www.newegg.com and look at prices for components. After you get them, it is simply a matter of plugging a few wires together and tightening some screws. I honestly naturally assumed anyone on these boards would build their own, that is a given even over at Anand's. Finding a good deal on parts when building your own simply means you are not retarded, certainly nothing to boast about(unless you find some insanely good deal ;) ).
...and thank God we are onto a fresh page w/o those damn bandwidth hog pix!!! Can we go easy on the big a$$ pix already, or am I the last known guy to be using dial-up these days?
No, I'm with you(no bb available :evil: ). After they load once though they are in my cache so it's no big problem for me.
Vince-
Ben, that looks better, but it's still not that big of a jump over The Getaway.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/pc/act/mafia/mafia_screen023.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/vgnews/100702/getaway/getaway_screen005.jpg
Mental note to self- Vince is blind, it isn't his fault ;)
If your going to get so picky, then look at Mafia's street - looks kinda bare. Marco can probobl;y answer this better, but from what I've heard the streets in the Getaway have over 10 cars on them at most times with a bunch of civilians on the street in the final, shipping, version. Buildings are very boxy, not polygonal intensive at all from those pictures of Mafia.
Cars on the street, none of the shots posted for Mafia were downtown, there isn't that much traffic on the outer portions of the city, same with pedestrians. As far as buildings and polygon complexity, it seems that the Getaway shots posted are more complex then those posted from Mafia. I don't know if the Getaway buildings are the norm, the ones for Mafia aren't.
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 07:34
First off- damn you and your big a$$ pix invading page 3!!! :)
A retarded monkey could build a computer.
Evidently, yes. :P
It isn't chest beating, it's saying if you buy pre built... well.... don't apply to MENSA
It sure comes up a lot to not be deemed chest beating, IMO. I'm not sure if your statement above can be read at all w/o coming off a bit arrogant. I think you will find that practically all products can be built cheaper DIY- cars, speakers, furniture, extensions to the house, farming, raising livestock, the list goes on forever. Should everybody be faulted for buying any of these things, when they could hypothetically build it given enough time and thought? That's a little ridiculous if you ask me. If it is your hobby to do so, fine. If it isn't, guess what- you are just like anyone else, not a retard as you infer. I feel comfortable installing a new HD or extra memory, but that is about as far as I go. So what? I'd rather do something else than build a computer from scratch. I'm just not impressed at all if someone says they can build an "ultimate" computer for $500 or whatever, if they are just doing one-off's. If they are in production, selling in volume, include a proper warranty program, and tech support at those prices, that I would be impressed with.
After all the talk, it seems that Ben main points are no DOT3 support in GS and the lower texturing capabilities of PS2.
Well DUH! We all know about that since like 2 years ago? :oops:
Sure it is a big boo boo for Sony to miss out on DOT3 but PS2 tech predates GF1 IIRC.
I dont even remember any DOT3 enabled games on DC even though the PVR inside it supported the function.
Hitman 2 looked surprisingly good on the PS2, in case anyone wants to talk about PC -> PS2 ports. 8)
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 07:42
Interesting- you caught Ben's points but completely missed Faf's on the very same topic. :oops:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/pc/act/mafia/mafia_screen023.jpg
This shows a great jump over Getaway?
Wow color me unimpressed...
Hey, i gladly admit that PS2 has NOTHING, NOTHING, NIL, NOUGHT in texturing over current PC games, but at least find a better example.
marconelly!
05-Dec-2002, 07:44
I am not saying that Mafia does not look better - it would be impossible for a machine with 32MB of RAM to compete in textures with a Machine with 128, 256, etc MB of RAM. Besides, I guess it all depends on what you consider 'significantly' better.
My point, that you started and now seem to be avoiding, is that besides the sheer amount of displayable textures (which basically only depends on the amount of memory) I don't see anything of real-world interest where GF1 would be able to compete with PS2, and sustain a decent framerate. Even games with lots of texturing run very problematic on that level of GF hardware, from what I've seen (Giants) and I can only imagine how it would run a game like Mafia, even with the settings reduced.
There are several existing examples that I can think of where PS2 performance just kills that of my GF2 PC. The last that I clearly remember was when I compared Baldur's gate on PS2 with Dungeon Siege on PC. Not only BG:DA was clearly better looking game (yet DS scored 10 for graphics on Gamespot) it was also running at constant 60FPS where DS crawled like a dog, never going over 30.
Primal screenshots:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/vgnews/100402/primal/primal_screen012.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/vgnews/052901/primal/primal_screen004.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/e32002/playstation2/primal/primal_screen002.jpg
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/primal_0829_19.jpg
A little OT, but...
I used to be a HUGE DIYer, was doing it from the age of 13 and up. Then I went to University, and experienced the horrors of lugging a full tower, 17 inch monitor, speakers, and a zillion other wires to and from every 4 months (UW is trimestered as was the residence).
That experience alone made me sign my life away to Dell for an Inspiron 8100 notebook. I love it so much, I honestly dont think I could ever go back. It has virtually everything I could want: Verily high res LCD (1400x1050), firewire, SPDif out, DVD/CD RW, GF2, TwinView, ethernet, blah blah blah. The only games I want that really tax the system are also available on Xbox, and the ones that aren't are RTS/strat games that zoom happily at 1400x1050 (ie: WC3). Only downside is storage, but thats what a headless P2 jammed full of IDE drives is for ;)
GF1 has better features than GS but GS has better performance.
Can we live with that?
One more thing, isnt Carmack targetting GF3 as the base platform for D3?
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 07:48
I feel comfortable installing a new HD or extra memory, but that is about as far as I go. So what? I'd rather do something else than build a computer from scratch.
It takes less then an hour to do, and if you already know how to install RAM and a HD, I'm sure you would have no problem whatsoever doing it. The most time consuming and difficult part(which isn't even difficult) of assembling a PC is getting Windows up and running. I honestly didn't think anyone here did not build their own PCs, would explain why some of you have problems with computers I guess(buying a POS OEM rig).
It sure comes up a lot to not be deemed chest beating, IMO. I'm not sure if your statement above can be read at all w/o coming off a bit arrogant. I think you will find that practically all products can be built cheaper DIY- cars, speakers, furniture, extensions to the house, farming, raising livestock, the list goes on forever.
For most of those you need to spend thousands of dollars in tools used to handle to task before you can do them yourself. I've been using an $8 Staples special PC tool kit for years without ever feeling there is something I'm missing ;) Besides that though, if I could build myself say, a Corvette that was faster and better then a Vette or Viper for half the cost, yes I'd do it myself. Essentially with an OEM PC you are buying a Yugo for $50K when you buy pre built(unless you buy specialty, then you are just paying three times too much to get quality ;) ).
It is no hobby of mine, not anymore then taking out the trash is. It is simply a function of what I have to do to get something done right without having to pay an insane amount of money.
I'm just not impressed at all if someone says they can build an "ultimate" computer for $500 or whatever, if they are just doing one-off's.
Neither am I. I am telling you that YOU can save yourself a shitload of money and headaches if you build it yourself. You build your first rig and get up and running right and after a year without a single problem you may change your mind on how your time is better spent. This isn't anything to be impressed with, its akin to telling you that you can buy a PS2 for half the money but you have to buy three different parts and screw them together- while getting a better warranty then what Sony will give you. Tell me, would you do that? If you could drop $100 for a few parts that you had to screw together and got a warranty longer then you would from a store? I sure as hell would without hesitation. It's the same thing with PCs. I get a three year or lifetime warranty on my parts instead of ninety days or a year in case of hardware failure, and there isn't a need for tech support as when you build it yourself you won't fvck anything up like OEMs do.
Baseline features its GF1, performance its GF3.
Ben,
only computer I'd ever consider DIYing again would be a Shuttle SFF for a media/data server. Large CRTs and beige cases need to die horrible deaths.
If I had the money, I think I'd buy an iBook for my mom (gives me an excuse to tinker with OSX too).
There are some things, like notebooks, where its worth it to pay for the extra engineering involved over a beige OEM system. That's not to say that I didn't buy my Dell 8100 with 1x64 meg SODIMM and then replace it with 1x256 meg SODIMM from Crucial... ;)
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 08:01
D@mn people reply fast to this thread ;)
Chap-
I dont even remember any DOT3 enabled games on DC even though the PVR inside it supported the function.
Huh? IIRC Dot3 debuted for PVR products in Kyro, although I suppose I could be mistaken.
This shows a great jump over Getaway?
If you don't see it, then you should be very happy with a PS2's graphics capabilities.
Marco-
Primal screenshots:
LOL, that's a good one :lol:
Seriously though, do you have any screenshots that actually show a current build of Primal, ones that look better then TombRaider1 for the PSX? I understand that early development shots of the game look extraordinarily poor, that is a given for any system though.
I am not saying that Mafia does not look better - it would be impossible for a machine with 32MB of RAM to compete in textures with a Machine with 128, 256, etc MB of RAM.
Errr, 512MB system RAM and 64MB VRAM. Mafia runs like crap if you only have 256MB of RAM.
My point, that you started and now seem to be avoiding, is that besides the sheer amount of displayable textures (which basically only depends on the amount of memory) I don't see anything of real-world interest where GF1 would be able to compete with PS2, and sustain a decent framerate. Even games with lots of texturing run very problematic on that level of GF hardware, from what I've seen (Giants) and I can only imagine how it would run a game like Mafia, even with the settings reduced.
You don't happen to run a POS OEM rig too do you? I don't understand why Giants seems to run so incredibly poorly on other people's machines when they are running Win9x.
The last that I clearly remember was when I compared Baldur's gate on PS2 with Dungeon Siege on PC. Not only BG:DA was clearly better looking game (yet DS scored 10 for graphics on Gamespot) it was also running at constant 60FPS where DS crawled like a dog, never going over 30.
CPU limited. You won't find me arguing the virtue of aged desktop PC processors against the EE ;)
Zurich-
That experience alone made me sign my life away to Dell for an Inspiron 8100 notebook. I love it so much, I honestly dont think I could ever go back.
What if you could build you own laptop and save $800 bucks? I'd bet that could influence your choice ;) It is true that unfortunately there isn't any decent selection of open standard notebook parts to build your own, if there were I'd certainly jump on.
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 08:04
[oh but it is so easy to build your own...]
Man, it's like trying to tell a Jehovah's Witness you aren't interested...and then they say you are going to Hell if you don't listen...
Ben,
i meant that even though the PVR in DC supported DOT3, there are no DC games that has bumpmapping.
As for the mafia image you posted, i do see blurry and repeating textures. i am sure there are better textured PC games out there, but Mafia do not look like one of them.
Ben:
You already sort of can, ATI/NV use standard video boards that can be swapped/upgradded in a Dell system, same with the CPU, HD, etc..
But what I mean, is that a notebook is more of a console-esque consumer appliance than a typical computer. That is, there are so many engineering factors, like size/weight/heat/form factor/etc, that it could almost never be entirely DIYed like a beige OEM box. Upgrades, sure, but ground up? Doubt it.
The premium I paid was for the engineering and integrated nature of a notebook, something that is much deserved over a pos Compaq desktop that a retarded monkey could do :P
Only thing I'm waiting for is for someone to make a PCMCIA video-in/tv tuner card :) (the $400 USD Dazzle 1394 video bridge is out of my league :( )
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 08:31
Randy-
Hey if you don't want to, could you at least stop talking about PC problems and instead refer to who built your PC? Instead of talking about Windows issues, or PC problems, state Dell or Compaq or whatever POS it is you have. I could find someone to make a strong point about how all cars are absolutely horrible because of the 'car' they own(not mentioning it was a Yugo ;) ).
Zurich-
You already sort of can, ATI/NV use standard video boards that can be swapped/upgradded in a Dell system, same with the CPU, HD, etc..
Uppgrading isn't close to building. Let me pick out which case, battery setup, screen, everything. Then I can choose what weight/power/heat ratio I want. Right now you can't do that AFAIK, and you have to pay an obscene amount for the prebuilt options that the companies offer you. I'd rather have a low clocked Duron with the latest nV chip and a huge amount of RAM with a small HD, unfortunately I can't buy that.
Chap-
i meant that even though the PVR in DC supported DOT3, there are no DC games that has bumpmapping.
The DC doesn't use a Kyro. AFAIK, the DC does not support Dot3.
As for the mafia image you posted, i do see blurry and repeating textures. i am sure there are better textured PC games out there, but Mafia do not look like one of them.
They were from the image selection that was posted on the last page(copy the URL and change the number around). I haven't seen a game on any system that matches the texturing quality of Mafia, I'd be very interested if anyone can post something comparable(so far, all the PS2 screenies in this thread look like Voodoo1 level texturing).
marconelly!
05-Dec-2002, 08:35
LOL, that's a good one
Seriously though, do you have any screenshots that actually show a current build of Primal, ones that look better then TombRaider1 for the PSX? I understand that early development shots of the game look extraordinarily poor, that is a given for any system though.
Well, demo of that 'extraordinarily poor' looking game looks (from a technical point of view, art is rather sucky and generic) and runs much better than anything of that kind I have on my PC right now, so I don't know what to say :\ There are very respectable amounts of geometry and lighting being thrown around and texturing is not half bad. Mind you, there are games that look way better than that (like mentioned BG:DA) but they are of entirely different kind and not so 'free roaming'.
Btw, as you said, Mafia need 512MB to work well, and that has little to do with the actual graphics card. I already mentioned that as something where PC will show an unavoidable advantage.
No, my PC is not OEM, but I guess I don't have that magic touch for building killer configs :)
The DC doesn't use a Kyro. AFAIK, the DC does not support Dot3.
I remember an engineer who worked on that chip was posting here and explained how it could do DOT3 in two passes.
Dreamcast's bumpmapping was done with a dot product, but it wasn't DOT3. They called it perturbed normals bump mapping.
http://www.newtechnix.com/Webmasters/mickurt/Images/SilentHill3_ps2_12.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/playstation2/soulcalibur2/soul_screen006.jpg
^bad GS captures
We all know PS2 sucks at textures 2 years ago, so why are we still talking about it today?
Fafalada
05-Dec-2002, 08:55
Ben,
If you have VSync on then you are pretty much always landing framerates quite a bit lower then you should, particularly running nV hardware(in game with heavy action too).
I am well aware of how VSync affects framerate, but the it's mostly irellevant if the game doesn't have framerate all over the place to begin with.
A game skipping between 20-30fps is considerably more playable imo then something that runs arbitrarily between 60 and 5 - Vsync disabled or not. Even though they might have the same average fps.
I did use to force VSync off when I still played shooters online, but that was a long time ago.
I'm not quite getting the part I bolded. Are you saying that using ani in conjunction with trilinear would work better then tri alone, or are you saying that ani w/bi would work better then tri alone?
I was just thinking that performance wise, ani w/bi could be more consistent then trilinear, and potentially faster. But this is just rampant speculation right now, I haven't seriously looked into it in a while.
Either way, GF1 aniso is limited to 2x, which certainly wouldn't be much of a big deal to use, but then it's not much of a visual improvement either.
Btw, DC supported "perturbed normal bump mapping" which is something of an alternative equivalent to DOT3 - it still calculates a dotproduct 'perpixel'.
Why do you always compare supersampled highres (prob. using non downsampled textures) output from console developement kits to pc screen shots. Nobody challenges that consoles beat pcs significantlyin app. specific perfomance/cost. But especially with mafia (and other pc games) WYSWYG applies, while the getaway demo looks nowhere like that on my ps2. This is the major gripe i have with that console, output from the pal version looks plain bad on big screens (using a panasonic 36 inch widescreen tv). On my brothers old 4:3 sony difference between ps2 and xbox is much smaller, and most ps2 games tend to look better than on my tv (contrary to everthing else: dreamcast, gamecube, xbox, dvd, ...). Also PS2 <-> PC ports tend to have technical problems in either direction, which should not surprise anyone given the different architectural approach and the limited amount of money spend on ports (just remember the FF Pc ports, ... :x ). I will only be with sony when they adress their analog signal quality issues with pal ps3.
BenSkywalker
05-Dec-2002, 11:01
Faf-
I am well aware of how VSync affects framerate, but the it's mostly irellevant if the game doesn't have framerate all over the place to begin with.
What I'm saying is that it does effect framerate rather seriously(well, 15%-30% is common) on nV hardware no matter if there is serious fluctuations in framerate(it has a negative impact on all hardware, but it always has seemed to screw up the nV parts more). Cap Counterstrike @100FPS(I believe it is by default anyway) and compare framerates with a smoke grenade going off(not average, instant) with a NV1X part(as a general example).
Marco-
Look at the screenies that Chap posted, do people still want to say Gamespot doesn't seriously screw up their screenies? ;) It may look incredible, but the screenshots that were linked to look like complete crap.
No, my PC is not OEM, but I guess I don't have that magic touch for building killer configs :)
What are you running for hardware?(CPU, vid card, mobo, RAM) If you are in the GHZ range with a NV15 or better there should be numerous games that you can play that will run and look very nice.
Chap-
The top screenshot you posted is a pre render, not real time(it looks like 6x-8x AA is applied though hard to tell with compression artifacts), although it does display how badly Gamespot hoses their screenies quite nicely :)
Btw, as you said, Mafia need 512MB to work well, and that has little to do with the actual graphics card. I already mentioned that as something where PC will show an unavoidable advantage.
And as I stated, there is no way in hell the PS2 could handle Mafia without compromises ;) I also mentioned the XBox wouldn't either, but people didn't seem to get offended at that for some odd reason :)
pinky,
ps2 output sucks on composite but it is pretty good on component.
VF4 EVO is running progressive. More 480-Progressive games are coming for ps2, IF we are to believe faf & archie "simply flipping a switch to turn on progressive for ps2" story.
ben,
That SH3 is a realtime cutscene if i am not wrong. there is a video somewhere at konami site.
Guys,
try to play Hitman 2 on PS2, i heard the PC <-> Console graphics is quite good.
I was playing Hitman 2 for a few weeks on my PC before I rented the Xbox version which looked pretty crappy compared to the PC version.
Well I know I have some interesting sleeping issues, but apparently all of you do too!
I'll be so bored when I finally beat Golden Sun :-? (which I dislike the more I play it)
edit: incase you're wondering why, its cause the script was written and targeted for retarded monkeys (phrase of the night!).
"What do you think Isaac, should we fight the bad guy?!?!?!?"
Yes - "Alright, Isaac, lets go fight the bad guy!!!!!!"
No - "Forget you Isaac, lets go fight the bad guy!!!!!!!"
And those stupid Yes/No icons make me want to throw my GBA against the wall. Its a pretty hard FF bite-off written for retarded monkeys, but its giving me my fix until Squenix validates my purchase with FF IVht (I have faith).
So.. out of curiosity.. wtf were you guys doing up from 1am - 6am EST?! :P
zidane1strife
05-Dec-2002, 14:36
No, the theoretical limits of the GF1 aren't all that impressive. Neither are the PS2's.
PS2's theoretical b/w limit for the gpu is significantly higher than that Geforcefx is say'd to have....
PS2's theoretical fillrate limit is about half that of the Geforcefx... even though the Fx is coming nearly 3 YRS later...
PS2's theoretical geometry limit is about a fifth that of the Fx... even though it's 3 YRS later and at doubling per every 6months of pc gpus(according to nvidia) it should already be at least an order of magnitude above the ps2.... (we can't say that about Gf1 now can we?)
Well then i guess GeforceFX is not impressive for it's theoretical perf limits... only the DX9 features are impressive....
Sure it lacks the h/w features... and time does take it's tall on h/w... but if i came here a few yrs ago saying PS2 will exceed the b/w of PC gpus coming 3yrs later, and it's peak fillrate won't be that much lower than sayd gpus... heck it's geometry won't be surpassed even by an order of magnitude in 3+yrs... i would probably been banned for apparent stupidity....
Let's see Gf1 handle 500000polys at 60fps....
PS:(if the ps2 had been 1000x instead of 100x psone... it would still eclipse even GFX in most theoretical limit areas...)
marconelly!
05-Dec-2002, 17:13
The top screenshot you posted is a pre render, not real time(it looks like 6x-8x AA is applied though hard to tell with compression artifacts), although it does display how badly Gamespot hoses their screenies quite nicely
That screen is actually realtime rendered (but obviously supersampled, the actual game will not be antialiased like that)
Look at the screenies that Chap posted, do people still want to say Gamespot doesn't seriously screw up their screenies? It may look incredible,
Well, it doesn't look *incredible* but very solid for such a game (I've read it's a kind of free roaming, demo was too short to really experience that, though)
I have no idea how this thread turned into a "texture-debate", but as Marconelly! already pointed out, it should be clear that a PC has a great advantage when it comes to texturing. No surprise, Mafia does feature some very nice textures, but with all due respect, from what I can judge, that game doesn't look as good as those screens lead to believe. I'm not quite sure on what graphics settings I've seen the game, but it's probably neither highest or lowest but realisticly something in between. The outside levels range from impressive to fugly looking IMO. The Getaway, while perhaps not as impressive if we're just looking at the texturing, but certainly is quite impressive when taking everything into consideration. For instance, I was quite surpised with the amount of cars you'll find on the street in the demo, also, cars seem to reflect quite a lot too, while being quite realistic in terms of handling etc. In Mafia, (correct me if I'm wrong) it was evident that the cars don't even reflect anything, but a fake image. This *may* be different on a higher setting though, so if this is the case, please correct me.
About the arguement what a Geforce can handle in comparasment to PS2 - why are we comparing Mafia screens? I kinda missed that and considering this game doesn't even run on the highest graphics setting on a GF2 with decent CPU (my friends PC runs at 800 MHz), I really don't see a GF1 handling this. Why are we comparing this game then?
zidane1strife
05-Dec-2002, 18:19
About the arguement what a Geforce can handle in comparasment to PS2 - why are we comparing Mafia screens? I kinda missed that and considering this game doesn't even run on the highest graphics setting on a GF2 with decent CPU (my friends PC runs at 800 MHz), I really don't see a GF1 handling this. Why are we comparing this game then?
I too question the comparison between the ps2 and GF1... how can the GF1 possibly be better? The ps2 is competing against what many call a watered down GF4(which should at least be 8XGF1 according to nvidia), and although it is indeed outdone outside of pixel/texture effects the ps2 doesn't lag too much behind.... and this is so even though this xbox is a FIXED PLATFORM.... IOW has the same benefits as the ps2....
If gf1 miraculously surpassed the ps2? Wouldn't a FIXED platform with at least 8X it's capability make the ps2 look significantly inferior...
I saw(glanced at) what many call one of the best looking xbox games the other day at EB... the game called splinter cell, and it didn't appear to look significantly better to the top ps2 titles in either IQ or geometry... it did have better lighting though, and appeared to have good textures(didn't appear mindblowing or anything, but good...)... Now am I supposed to believe that 1/8th the perf/lighting/geom/textures of this game paired with no pixel effects would surpass the ps2?
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 20:02
Randy-
Hey if you don't want to, could you at least stop talking about PC problems and instead refer to who built your PC? Instead of talking about Windows issues, or PC problems, state Dell or Compaq or whatever POS it is you have.
I think you know very well that my personal setup isn't a Wintel, at all, but I take it you wanted to "out" me here at B3D? Real classy. Should that make my comments any less valid for PC's? I've had extensive experience and exposure to PC's in the workplace (most from 1st tier vendors, but I guess they all suck the same if not built by you, right?), and I've seen how various PC's end up in the hands of people I know casually. I've experienced my fair share in Win95/NT/2k. Seriously, I don't feel I am a PC newbie who doesn't know a dll from a hole in the ground. I, personally, can get a PC singing like a diva and be running virus-free (as I am sure all others here can, as well). Out of all of this, I can certainly say reaching that level doesn't happen by accident, and by not deliberately avoiding pitfalls and neglecting general maintenance, you can easily end up with a belly-up PC. Are you really implying that all of this doesn't exist??? C'mon, now! Are you really satisfied with the explanation that if someone ever has a problem with a PC, then that PC must invariably be a POS, and if it isn't, it is invariably the fault of the nimrod user? Certainly, those situations are sometimes the source of difficulty, but invariably???
I think this sidetrack has gone far enough, but I felt the need to defend my position here this time. So please excuse my digression, and I hope we can continue on-topic.
randycat99
05-Dec-2002, 20:16
I too question the comparison between the ps2 and GF1... how can the GF1 possibly be better? The ps2 is competing against what many call a watered down GF4(which should at least be 8XGF1 according to nvidia), and although it is indeed outdone outside of pixel/texture effects the ps2 doesn't lag too much behind.... and this is so even though this xbox is a FIXED PLATFORM.... IOW has the same benefits as the ps2....
I think it comes down to people simply looking at the hardware-enabled feature set of the GF1 and utterly ignoring the other strengths that the PS2 GS has to offer. By citing that the GS does not have the buzzword features bullet point by bullet point as the GF1, they reason that the GS is therefore less than GF1. However, they ignore the bandwidth, fillrate, and functionality assets and their implications on how certain graphics effects can be implemented (evidently, if there isn't a buzzword to mark it, then it doesn't exist as a feature :roll: ). Despite that, we can see the GS actually holding its own (albeit not necessarily ahead of the game outright) against current hardware that is several generations ahead. This is about on-par with people who buy a computer simply by the Mhz number of the processor.
megadrive0088
05-Dec-2002, 23:10
"If Sony relies on software rendering they will not be able to compete with dedicated hardware. For that matter, I think they are still iffy trying to push out 6.6TFLOPS based on .065u in a general purpose CPU."
I agree Ben.
If PS3 relies on software rendering, that would... suck. like VMLabs ProjectX/Nuon.
I'm convinced there'll be a GS3, a dedicated rasterizer, though.
megadrive0088
05-Dec-2002, 23:15
"PPS: EE/CELL,etc... 500M+ trans GS3(more than 256Mbit embedded ram) Clearly the system will have at the very 1B trans. combined...."
If EE3/PS3's ver of CELL is over 500M transistors, then the GS3 could very well be over 1 billion itself. assuming a similar transistor difference between EE3 and GS3 as there was with EE and GS (about 3-4x)
Before Ben sees my reply about Mafia, just thought I'd take a few things back. ;) I just got back from my friends place and had another good look at the game. While the game boosts some VERY impressive character models and textures throughout the inside levels (on the highest settings of course), it's the outside graphics that I find/found quite underwhelming. No doubt, inside it looks much better than the Getaway, but outside, well, I'm not too impressed. Not saying of course that the Getaway looks better (as Mafia has the better textures evidently), but as I already said, given that you look at the game as a whole, I think both are very impressive indeed.
Now, while I do admit it's a very fine looking game [Mafia], at least inside the buildings, my friends PC ran the game with a GeForce 2 Ultra along with a PIII 800 MHz. Now, on highest settings this game run smoothly most of the time with occasional hickups on the inside levels. Outside, the framerate is worse. Given that he's running a GF2 Ultra, I really can't see this run smoothly on GF1 hardware.
Given that this game doesn't run smooth on a GF1 at the quality of those screens you posted, it doesn't really support your arguement of GF1 being as good as PS2 hardware.
Also, the Getaway is hardly the game that's maxing out the PS2 - I think there are games that do the hardware better justice. Another thing is textures: as pointed out, it really is clear that the PS2 has trouble competing with PC in textures - that's a given. What PS2 does pretty nicely though are so many other things and that's where it really shines. Restating an example, I really don't see a game like MGS2 running fluid on GF1 hardware, even if the devs tried to max out GF1's feature set. Have you seen Zone of the Enders 2? Seeing that in motion absolutely blew me away...
megadrive0088
05-Dec-2002, 23:43
In an ideal world, PS3 would have one CELL/EE3 as the CPU (or if it's going to be a group of CELLs, i don't know) that is balenced between FP and integer performance. this CELL or CELLs does not have to feed the GS3 with T&L caculations at all.
The graphics hardware is comprised of a dedicated rasterizer (GS3) that is over 1B transistors by itself. plus a second CELL optimized for FP calculations that has at least multi TFLOP peak performance, with more than 1TFLOPs sustained. the second CELL is bolted onto the GS3 or is very near by. -- giving Sony PS3 a true "GPU" and avoiding any of the severe shortcoming of software-only rendering/rasterizing.
provided the GS3 has lots of up to date features, and is highly programmable, Sony would be able to compete with whatever Nvidia comes up with for XBox2, since Nvidia will basicly be the heart & soul of any XBox.
BenSkywalker
06-Dec-2002, 00:59
Zidane-
PS2's theoretical b/w limit for the gpu is significantly higher than that Geforcefx is say'd to have....
It has eDRAM with a 2560 bit bus, I don't think many people would have argued with you that it would retain its b/w edge for a very lengthy time.
PS2's theoretical fillrate limit is about half that of the Geforcefx... even though the Fx is coming nearly 3 YRS later...PS2's theoretical geometry limit is about a fifth that of the Fx... even though it's 3 YRS later and at doubling per every 6months of pc gpus(according to nvidia) it should already be at least an order of magnitude above the ps2....
Can it run Doom3? ;)
The ps2 is competing against what many call a watered down GF4(which should at least be 8XGF1 according to nvidia), and although it is indeed outdone outside of pixel/texture effects the ps2 doesn't lag too much behind.... and this is so even though this xbox is a FIXED PLATFORM.... IOW has the same benefits as the ps2....
You really think the PS2 is competitive with the XBox in terms of visuals? I expect casual gamers not to be able to spot the rather large differences, but not people here.
Marco-
That screen is actually realtime rendered (but obviously supersampled, the actual game will not be antialiased like that)
Realtime on what, a GSCube(isn't that its name?)? :)
Randy-
I think you know very well that my personal setup isn't a Wintel, at all, but I take it you wanted to "out" me here at B3D? Real classy.
I know that we have had discussions before but I couldn't remember where, was it at AI? If so, no need to extrapolate on your comments ;)
most from 1st tier vendors, but I guess they all suck the same if not built by you, right?
If by 1st tier you mean junk like Dells and Compaqs, yes, they suck. If you are talking about Alienware and the like, then those don't suck(they are actually very well made).
C'mon, now! Are you really satisfied with the explanation that if someone ever has a problem with a PC, then that PC must invariably be a POS, and if it isn't, it is invariably the fault of the nimrod user? Certainly, those situations are sometimes the source of difficulty, but invariably???
Pretty much, as long as you don't catch a virus(the digitial or user kind ;) ) or have hardware failure, then a well built PC running a non Win9X OS shouldn't have much in the way of problems. Look around these boards and see how many people have issues with their rigs(on the PC forums), and see how many of them they built and have never really had any problems. You will certainly run in to buggy software every now and then, but that is certainly no fault of the PC.
By citing that the GS does not have the buzzword features bullet point by bullet point as the GF1, they reason that the GS is therefore less than GF1.
Trilinear filtering isn't exactly a current running buzzword feature. That was something that should have been a given basic feature in 1998, and yet most PS2 games use bilinear filtering(if they use proper texture filtering at all). If it was 'free' or close to it on the GS, it would be utilized and eliminate an ugly visual artifact. Anisotropic filtering is also nothing new, and aids in reduction of texture aliasing which is something the PS2 needs desperately, again, far from a current bullet point. Dot3 and EMCMs could be utilized quite a bit by a lot of PS2 titles to enhance their visuals yet they aren't that practical to implement either. I'm not touching on PixelShaders and the like, which themselves have been around for closing in on two years nor anything comparable. I am looking at features from the PS2's launch timeframe which would have aided a good deal in enhancing the PS2's visuals. If the GS had the raster feature set of the GF1 there would be virtually no difference between it and the currently best looking XBox titles available.
Despite that, we can see the GS actually holding its own (albeit not necessarily ahead of the game outright) against current hardware that is several generations ahead. This is about on-par with people who buy a computer simply by the Mhz number of the processor.
It really doesn't though. The PS2 can't compete looking at its best titles vs the XBox's best. I'm using the GF1 as it has a like vintage.
Phil-
Now, while I do admit it's a very fine looking game [Mafia], at least inside the buildings, my friends PC ran the game with a GeForce 2 Ultra along with a PIII 800 MHz. Now, on highest settings this game run smoothly most of the time with occasional hickups on the inside levels. Outside, the framerate is worse. Given that he's running a GF2 Ultra, I really can't see this run smoothly on GF1 hardware.
The feature the GF2U has over the GF1 is speed, it helps you crank up the reslution. Run the game at 640x480(which I have mentioned numerous times, using console res ;) ) and see how it plays on a GF1. Also- how much RAM is your friends rig packing? The game needs 512MB to run smoothly(I upgraded to 512 because of Mafia, mad a huge difference).
Given that this game doesn't run smooth on a GF1 at the quality of those screens you posted, it doesn't really support your arguement of GF1 being as good as PS2 hardware.
GTA3 doesn't run smooth on a PS2 either ;)
What PS2 does pretty nicely though are so many other things and that's where it really shines. Restating an example, I really don't see a game like MGS2 running fluid on GF1 hardware, even if the devs tried to max out GF1's feature set.
Throw Doom3 at the PS2 ;)
Megadrive-
In an ideal world, PS3 would have one CELL/EE3 as the CPU (or if it's going to be a group of CELLs, i don't know) that is balenced between FP and integer performance. this CELL or CELLs does not have to feed the GS3 with T&L caculations at all.
That would be an interesting setup, although they would have to pull a MS and eat a sizeable loss to get it off the ground. Certainly a CELL dedicated to graphics paired with a GS3 would make for some nasty visuals.
What I'm saying is that it does effect framerate rather seriously(well, 15%-30% is common) on nV hardware no matter if there is serious fluctuations in framerate(it has a negative impact on all hardware, but it always has seemed to screw up the nV parts more). Cap Counterstrike @100FPS(I believe it is by default anyway) and compare framerates with a smoke grenade going off(not average, instant) with a NV1X part(as a general example).
When benchmarking, I think its better to cap the fps, to some synch level/or playable frame rate (30 to 120fps), that way, the average won't be misleading. If the hardware is good enough for the game, than the average should be that cap level. If it is below, than there is fluctuation. This is just from games playing perspective IMO.
But for performance level perspective, you don't want to cap it, I guess, cause it will look bad. So when talking my hardware or 3D engine is better than yours, its stupid to put a cap on it :)
megadrive0088
06-Dec-2002, 01:07
Certainly a CELL dedicated to graphics paired with a GS3 would make for some nasty visuals.
Exactly. the main CPU/CELL(s)/EE3 would not have to bother about the graphics. thus NO comprimise between graphics (poly count) and physics/ gameplay, like there is with PS2, where EE has to do both.
(even where 1 VU does geometry/lighting while anther VU+MIPs core+FPU
does gameplay)
randycat99
06-Dec-2002, 02:04
I expect casual gamers not to be able to spot the rather large differences, but not people here.
If they are unable to spot them, then they aren't large differences, indeed- just noticeable to those who are trained to look for a certain thing.
If by 1st tier you mean junk like Dells and Compaqs, yes, they suck. If you are talking about Alienware and the like, then those don't suck(they are actually very well made).
Yes, try convincing your IT manager to equip an entire department from Alienware... :roll: (Not that it would be a bad idea, but just try convincing) ...Or should each individual be called upon to build their own computer for the department? A warm, flowery vision, indeed.
Pretty much, as long as you don't catch a virus(the digitial or user kind ;) ) or have hardware failure, then a well built PC running a non Win9X OS shouldn't have much in the way of problems.
...and don't install anything that could remotely make your computer useful for something. Usually, all goes well, but certainly all bets are off.
Look around these boards and see how many people have issues with their rigs(on the PC forums), and see how many of them they built and have never really had any problems.
That would seem to reinforce that you really need to be a somewhat smart dude to keep your PC in the air. I don't think the people you find here or on a dedicated PC topic site are dummies (even then, there is usually a fairly high traffic PC Help forum on such a website, so what does that say?). ...but they certainly don't represent the average joe on their home PC, either.
Trilinear filtering isn't exactly a current running buzzword feature...
They're all buzzwords. I'm not saying they aren't truly useful for something (especially where presentation on a computer monitor is concerned), but certainly they are trotted out more often than necessary- thus they become buzzwords. It's a big difference between nVidia listing off bulletpoint features explicitly and said bulletpoints not having an easy analogy on a certain Sony-designed part. You could either conclude that said features cannot be done at all or it simply isn't documented what effects are/are not possible. Most people choose the former because mentally it is an easier path. The latter recognizes that there is a certain ambiguity in what Sony's hardware can and cannot do due to its programmable/configurable nature- it only requires that someone does it. The wise stance is simply not to make such a simple comparison between a PS2 GS and a GF1 on bulletpoints alone, unless your actual goal is to purposely introduce FUD.
If the GS had the raster feature set of the GF1 there would be virtually no difference between it and the currently best looking XBox titles available.
Theoretically, NFSHP2 PS2 should never have looked better than NFSHP2 Xbox...
It really doesn't though. The PS2 can't compete looking at its best titles vs the XBox's best.
It's all subjective, ultimately, if you are evaluating said titles on overall presentation, not just noting if you can see xyz feature being used or not.
Throw Doom3 at the PS2 ;)
Unfortunately, that in of itself is becoming a popular buzzword (or mantra, if you prefer). It's more of a question of "is someone willing to rewrite the code completely around a PS2", not "does JC think his game can be done on PS2". You should know that, but it is easier to believe the latter, of course. If it weren't for this one little game, you would just be searching for another game to conveniently make such a claim.
marconelly!
06-Dec-2002, 02:35
You really think the PS2 is competitive with the XBox in terms of visuals? I expect casual gamers not to be able to spot the rather large differences, but not people here.
Art, style and polish are more important and effective looking than extra effects to many people.
Realtime on what, a GSCube(isn't that its name?)
I guess you'll be eating your words come spring 2003. SH3 developers have confirmed that all of the visuals from the released trailer (which includes scenes from those captures) are realtime rendered on PS2. People have already played the demo on the TGS, and also confirmed it.
Sure the game is not antialiased like these caps, but the practice of releasing supersampled shots is nothing new.[/quote]
Fafalada
06-Dec-2002, 03:17
Run the game at 640x480(which I have mentioned numerous times, using console res ) and see how it plays on a GF1
There's 2x T&L speed increment there too.
Not to mention that GF2 will benefit a lot from lower resolutions too - both cards are just pathetic in terms of effective fillrate.
Throw Doom3 at the PS2
It should still run a lot better then on a GF1. Especially if GF1 was running it on a 300mhz P3, to even the playing field.
Btw, care to elaborate what doesn't look realtime on that SH3 shot? :) I mean you must have an argument to support the assertion if you're so sure about it (other then high resolution which has been used countless times for promotional purposes on all consoles, still using realtime imagery).
PS2 does beard shading! :o
SH3 = ownage!
zidane1strife
06-Dec-2002, 11:59
You really think the PS2 is competitive with the XBox in terms of visuals? I expect casual gamers not to be able to spot the rather large differences, but not people here.
hmmm....
it didn't appear to look significantly better to the top ps2 titles in either IQ or geometry
Dude i didn't say ps2 was on par with xbox's best... I said splinter cell doesn't look THAT FAR AHEAD of the current top ps2 titles... I mean if the polycounts were REALLY HIGH and the IQ metroid clean... I wouldn't be arguing... but from what i glanced it did not appear to be so.
Now i've heard of ps2 ingame models up to about 20000 at 60fps, and i've seen some really clean IQ out of it... To truly be SIGNIFICANTLY ahead in this area i'd expect at least several fold increase in geometry(heck if we see Soul Calibur... and games with a 10X geometry increase are say'd to only look marginally better....), and some nasty good IQ....
Realtime on what, a GSCube(isn't that its name?)?
U say ps2 is not competitive and then u go and say something like this!!! Go figure...(This is konami i doubt the IQ will be worse than say MGS2 in cutscenes... i mean it's been a yr...) Now af many have say'd true the REZ and the AA will not be up to par with this image... but if we're running at 640xrez in GF1 to get perf... i guess it's only fair this be the case for ps2 too....
BTW i think that by the end of the ps2's lifespan similar models might be sported ingame.
Ben-
Since most of your answers have already been replied to, I'll just comment on this part:
GTA3 doesn't run smooth on a PS2 either
Well, we weren't exactly comparing GTA3 as this game certainly does not do the hardware any justice. If anything, we were comparing the Getaway to Mafia and I still think that comparing the outside locations, these games are equal impressive taking everything into account (from what I have seen and played IMO).
Also as I already said, we don't know how much the Getaway is pulling out of the PS2 hardware. IMO there are better looking games. Perhaps if we waited until the end of PS2 lifespan would we truly see what is possible on the machine and what not. :-?
Could someone explain to me, why to compare GS Vs GF1?
Did Sony tried to clone a GF1/2? No.
From what I read here, Sony created something different.
Sony's design is flexible, even scalable (featurewise).
Does it deliver? Definitely:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/28441.html
The PlayStation 2 continues to dominate hardware sales in the UK, with over 90,000 units of the console sold in the last week of November - three times the sales of Xbox and GameCube combined, and well on track to hit Sony's ambitious installed base projections for the end of the year.
I like the way the PS2 shows some character. Not having every feature hardwired is maybe even a good thing ... how much innovation do you expect from a developer, that relies his work on given features/libs (IQ/SFXwise)? IMHO not much. Some time ago I assumed ZOE2/SH3 impossible. Could you remember the last time the X-Box or the GC surprised you this way?
BenSkywalker
06-Dec-2002, 14:10
V3-
When benchmarking, I think its better to cap the fps, to some synch level/or playable frame rate (30 to 120fps), that way, the average won't be misleading. If the hardware is good enough for the game, than the average should be that cap level. If it is below, than there is fluctuation. This is just from games playing perspective IMO.
Say you cap the framerate at 60FPS synched and the system you are testing is capable of drawing every single frame at 1/59th of a second, your framerate ends up 30. There really is a good reason that VSync is disabled when testing(and for most people here at least, when playing).
Randy-
If they are unable to spot them, then they aren't large differences, indeed- just noticeable to those who are trained to look for a certain thing.
Casuals chew up crap games and rave about them all the time(was talking to some guys at work who were blown away by how 'great' MOH Frontline was). Casuals notice a minor difference between running games at 640x480 and 1600x1200. They definitely miss a lot of big differences.
Yes, try convincing your IT manager to equip an entire department from Alienware...
Most of our machines start off life as Compaqs(ProLiants), and are then overhauled prior to being placed on the network(RAM is ususally upgraded, HD formatted and a proper/custom OS install done). We have about one IT guy for every three hundred computers at the company I work for, and most of their time is spent dealing with the POS OS2(old junk that needs to be replaced) and Linux(new custom IBM on their own sub WAN, constant server issues, last time they go with Big Blue ;) ) machines. The Windows PCs don't have any real problems.
...and don't install anything that could remotely make your computer useful for something. Usually, all goes well, but certainly all bets are off.
Our machines at work have all the software installed that they need. Our newest addition is actually over a year old, a Win2K Compaq server(Compaq actually makes some nice servers)- it hasn't gone down or had any issues yet. Doesn't even have a KB/Mouse or monitor hooked up, although that is the norm for most of our servers(except the OS2 boxes, they crash all the time, once a month at least).
That would seem to reinforce that you really need to be a somewhat smart dude to keep your PC in the air. I don't think the people you find here or on a dedicated PC topic site are dummies (even then, there is usually a fairly high traffic PC Help forum on such a website, so what does that say?). ...but they certainly don't represent the average joe on their home PC, either.
Buy an Alienware and it is all taken care of for you.
They're all buzzwords. I'm not saying they aren't truly useful for something (especially where presentation on a computer monitor is concerned), but certainly they are trotted out more often than necessary- thus they become buzzwords.
Trilinear? We are talking about a 1998 feature that eliminates the very noticeable and annoying mip banding artifacts. Every current piece of hardware supports it one way or another. The problem is that some hardware doesn't support it in a 'friendly' fashion.
It's a big difference between nVidia listing off bulletpoint features explicitly and said bulletpoints not having an easy analogy on a certain Sony-designed part. You could either conclude that said features cannot be done at all or it simply isn't documented what effects are/are not possible.
The GS can do tri, and for conversations on what exactly the PS2 can and can't do, Faf is here to set us straight whenever we have something confused on that end :)
The wise stance is simply not to make such a simple comparison between a PS2 GS and a GF1 on bulletpoints alone, unless your actual goal is to purposely introduce FUD.
FUD here? The average IQ of these boards is likely in the 150 range, and pretty much everyone here has a decent amount more then a basic understanding of what is what in the 3D market(actually, far more then basic for the overwhelming majority). You say anything out of line here, and you will be called on it. Simply look at this thread ;)
It's all subjective, ultimately, if you are evaluating said titles on overall presentation, not just noting if you can see xyz feature being used or not.
Given this is a discussion on the tech end, I am discussing things on the tech end :)
It's more of a question of "is someone willing to rewrite the code completely around a PS2", not "does JC think his game can be done on PS2". You should know that, but it is easier to believe the latter, of course. If it weren't for this one little game, you would just be searching for another game to conveniently make such a claim.
I don't think so. I use Doom3 because it is pretty much the worst case scenario for what the PS2 was designed for, and it happens to be the best looking title on the horizon(not to mention Carmack has explicitly stated that the game was built around what was possible with a GF1).
Marco-
Art, style and polish are more important and effective looking than extra effects to many people.
I agree, given they are both the same level the XB will come out ahead though.
Sure the game is not antialiased like these caps, but the practice of releasing supersampled shots is nothing new.
And when those screenshots show up, they are dismissed as not being real time. This was the case for Rogue Leader and it was the case for PanzerDragoon, it has nothing to do with it being a PS2 game.
Faf-
There's 2x T&L speed increment there too.
Not to mention that GF2 will benefit a lot from lower resolutions too - both cards are just pathetic in terms of effective fillrate.
Core clock has no noticeable impact at low res on Mafia. I've run my GF2(Gainward Pro450) up to 230 and down to 150 with no noticeable difference.
It should still run a lot better then on a GF1. Especially if GF1 was running it on a 300mhz P3, to even the playing field.
Well if you paired it with a Pentium 2 300(they never made a P3 300) then obviously that would change things. How would you go about getting all of the shader effects in D3 to run on the PS2? Very interested to hear that.
I mean you must have an argument to support the assertion if you're so sure about it (other then high resolution which has been used countless times for promotional purposes on all consoles, still using realtime imagery).
AA. As I already mentioned, neither RL nor PD got off when F5 or Sega pulled the same stunt.
Zidane-
Now i've heard of ps2 ingame models up to about 20000 at 60fps, and i've seen some really clean IQ out of it... To truly be SIGNIFICANTLY ahead in this area i'd expect at least several fold increase in geometry(heck if we see Soul Calibur... and games with a 10X geometry increase are say'd to only look marginally better....), and some nasty good IQ....
The entire package, not just the poly counts. You can go ahead and check, I've never argued that the PS2 isn't very strong in geometry throughput ;)
Now af many have say'd true the REZ and the AA will not be up to par with this image... but if we're running at 640xrez in GF1 to get perf... i guess it's only fair this be the case for ps2 too....
640x480 with no AA is natural for the PS2, that is why I said to use it for the GF1. Show me the PS2 running 640x480 using 6x-8x AA running the title in real time and I'll admit I was wrong, hell I'll go buy a PS2 and the game too ;)
Phil-
Well, we weren't exactly comparing GTA3 as this game certainly does not do the hardware any justice.
It was a PS2 native game ported to the PC, where it runs better on GF1 hardware.
If anything, we were comparing the Getaway to Mafia and I still think that comparing the outside locations, these games are equal impressive taking everything into account (from what I have seen and played IMO).
I don't see it. The poly counts are comparable, that's all I see that is on equal ground.
ChryZ-
Could someone explain to me, why to compare GS Vs GF1?
Design philosophy. BTW- The Register ranks with the Enquirer in terms of credibility- next to none.
Magnum PI
06-Dec-2002, 14:26
even if i'm not ever impressed w/ their articles about the graphics technology, i find the inquirer an interesting site.
at the contrary of most news site, they often come with original and interesting content.
and i like their style.
the register became worse and worse since mike magee left.
i value it a lot more than what tomshardware became.
zidane1strife
06-Dec-2002, 16:24
The entire package, not just the poly counts. You can go ahead and check, I've never argued that the PS2 isn't very strong in geometry throughput
Well i said polycounts and IQ, and i did it to showcase that the Xbox is ahead primarily in textures and pixel effects, and that the ps2 does not lag behind too much in many areas... and so a gpu that is 1/8th the xbox CANNOT POSSIBLY COMPETE...
Ooh... If ur talking about pixel shader effects, and per pixel lighting i didn't know the GF1 could do those...
Again if the xbox held a so called blow ur mind a way difference to the other consoles, I would not argue... but in many areas it's not that far ahead.
640x480 with no AA is natural for the PS2, that is why I said to use it for the GF1. Show me the PS2 running 640x480 using 6x-8x AA running the title in real time and I'll admit I was wrong, hell I'll go buy a PS2 and the game too
The TV does give some free AA, not to mention there is likely to be some form of AA also coming from the system... and anyway I'm not focusing on AA...
What I'm trying to say is that the Old guy cutscene is likely to look quite clean on a TV, and that Aliasing is not likely to be a mayor problem, furthermore since the Gf1 should be allowed to run at 640rez that is neither a prob...
Thus the only difference between the pic and the final ps2 product(the AA, rez enhancement.) are not that relevant... which makes me question why'd u'd say ps2 couldn't render it and a GScube would be needed...
Fafalada
06-Dec-2002, 16:29
Core clock has no noticeable impact at low res on Mafia. I've run my GF2(Gainward Pro450) up to 230 and down to 150 with no noticeable difference.
Must be very CPU limited title thenl. Most stuff I run on my GF2 varies in fps greatly just by changing window size.
Well if you paired it with a Pentium 2 300(they never made a P3 300) then obviously that would change things.
You can always downclock ;) Actually I doubt the CPU would make a whole lot difference, since the card would be the choking point. (ok, with 300mhz cpu maybe not, but that was just to illustrate a point).
How would you go about getting all of the shader effects in D3 to run on the PS2? Very interested to hear that.
Bah, we're targetting like ~5fps to beat GF1, so it's hardly realtime rendering anymore :D
Ok, on a bit more serious note, DOT3 emulation may not be particularly fast/efficient, but we're talking about competing with a chip with 2.5 less theoretical fill.
This before counting the heavy use of shadow volumes, where PS2 is several leagues beyond what GF1 can do, and then some.
AA. As I already mentioned, neither RL nor PD got off when F5 or Sega pulled the same stunt.
Well it's still realtime rendered, even if it was taken at 4x resolution and downsampled in photoshop. Take one of the hi-res shots of our game and see the AA you get after bicubic downsample. Same thing.
640x480 with no AA is natural for the PS2, that is why I said to use it for the GF1. Show me the PS2 running 640x480 using 6x-8x AA running the title in real time and I'll admit I was wrong, hell I'll go buy a PS2 and the game too
The cleanest PS2 games that I know of are Tekken Tag Tournament (obviously American NTSC or PAL version) and Baldurs Gate: Dark Alliance. Burnout 2 has a very clean output aswell which doesn't seem to have any aliasing at all either. Same goes for Tekken 4, although you'd have to set the settings to 480p out.
Don't ask me though how many times AA is applied to those titles though. What I can say though is that the first 2 mentioned titles have absolutely no aliasing (at least not on 3 different TVs that I have played them on).
marconelly!
06-Dec-2002, 17:43
There really is a good reason that VSync is disabled when testing(and for most people here at least, when playing).
Maybe for testing, but the games on PC become tearing hell with VSYNC disabled :\
I agree, given they are both the same level the XB will come out ahead though.
True. However, there are effects, like those used in MGS2 which seem to be so PS2 frinedly that Xbox chokes on them quite a bit (then again, it can be just a bad port)
Casuals chew up crap games and rave about them all the time(was talking to some guys at work who were blown away by how 'great' MOH Frontline was).
Frontline has very atmospheric and cinematic beginning. The stuff that is going on around you is quite impressive indeed. Heck *I* was impressed how well they pulled off that kind of atmosphere, and I've seen way more games than that guy. Not everyone looks the games through texture resolutions and anisotropic filtering used ;)
It was a PS2 native game ported to the PC, where it runs better on GF1 hardware.
It's in no way 'native' to PS2. It was made using renderware which is as generic as middleware can be. Besides, the game runs worse on my PC than it does on PS2, and I can't imagine it being any faster on machines with GF1.
megadrive0088
06-Dec-2002, 18:28
I hope PS3 does true 8x8 (not just 8x) AA natively, standard in all games.
You say anything out of line here, and you will be called on it. Simply look at this thread!
Or Ben's post history!!
*Ducks* :lol:
archie4oz
06-Dec-2002, 18:44
It's in no way 'native' to PS2. It was made using renderware which is as generic as middleware can be.
I wouldn't be too harsh on Renderware, Criterion's done a pretty good job of improving it over the years. I also wouldn't refer to it as "generic as middle ware can be" as a middleware API platform's performance is largely dictated by it's backend...
Argh! PS2 might be old crapware, but why the need to compare it with GF1?
I have a GF2MX, which is around GF1 performance and Rallisport Challenge looks like crap(at lowest settings), much worse than GT3, and i still cannot get a stable 30fps.
CPU is at 1Ghz and i have 512mb of DDR.
GF1 might have DOT3 and better texture filtering than PS2, but its performance sucks. Not to mention all those cool cinematic effects PS2 is capable of.
Whats with the mafia love? Its a frickin PC game where the developers have tons of VRAM to play around with. PC textures will always own PS2 textures.
Anyway, SH2 PC will be out soon. You can try that with your beloved GF1. And dont forget MGS2 PC next year. :wink:
:oops:
marconelly!
06-Dec-2002, 18:54
wouldn't be too harsh on Renderware, Criterion's done a pretty good job of improving it over the years.
Well, true, Burnout 2 looks ace, but for that game they made custom graphics engine and didn't really used renderware for it in the sense it was used for GTA3/VC, as far as I know.
randycat99
06-Dec-2002, 22:23
I hope PS3 does true 8x8 (not just 8x) AA natively, standard in all games.
Hey, why stop at 8x8? Wouldn't 64x be even better? :roll: :wink: Seriously, how much is enough (and how much is pointless overkill) when talking about regular TV presentation or even HDTV presentation. My hunch is that plain jane 2x supersampling would work just fine on a TV or HDTV. 8x may sound impressive, but does it really make a worthwhile difference considering the output format? This 8x8 or 8x or whatever strikes me a bit like gratuitous spec chasing.
megadrive0088
06-Dec-2002, 22:51
old SGI's do 4x4 or 8x8 , so i'd expect at least that much from PS3, XBox2 and GC2.
btw, 8x8 = "64x", 4x4 = "16x"
currently GeForce4Ti 4600 and XBox do 4x
Radeon 9700 does 6x (better than 8500s 6x)
GeForce FX has 6x and 8x modes
specs or no specs, realtime consumer 3D (GFFX not fully seen yet) is woefully lacking in fixing the jaggies, the stair-stepping effect. perhaps HDTV res of 1280x1980 (or whatever the actual res is) combined with
4x4 or 8x8 AA will be enough to rid next gen console games of these artifacts.
randycat99
06-Dec-2002, 23:00
I can somewhat see the need for those higher AA modes on a computer monitor, but I still think it quite really a waste of fillrate and processing to do that on something that will end up on a TV or HDTV screen. Just a 1st level pass of AA ought to do the trick, IMO. The AA in Baldurs Gate is quite adequate to make the image look quite seamless on my 35" TV, IMO. I don't see this as a need to keep parity with whatever the PC graphics folks are doing, just a need to do what is necessary given the console audience context.
This is scheduled for 2005 or later.
If they have an integrated VGA adapter I think it would be a good thing to include better AA modes.
Also, the lifespan of the product will be at least 3 years 2008, by that time some of these viewing devices may be cheap enough and somewhat widespread among hardcore gamers.
Speng.
megadrive0088
07-Dec-2002, 00:33
on some professional and high-end graphics rendering systems (i.e. Real3D and SGI Infinite Reality) isnt anti-aliasing virtually free in terms of fillrate? i thought dedicated ASICs took care of AA somehow (can't explain how) I wish there was a way for consumer hardware to anti-alias without eating into fillrate & bandwidth. or am I completely mistaken?
randycat99
07-Dec-2002, 01:01
"Professional/high-end" kind of implies a somewhat cost-no-object implementation, no? I'm sure one can come up with extra hardware to do any sort of AA you wish, but AA implementation on something cost-sensitive such as a consumer console is a somewhat different situation. Adding something of that nature would simply take away from other parts of the hardware that could be augmented in more effective ways which matter to the overall console experience. More importantly, it still comes down to this- looking at 2x AA and 8x AA on a TV set, is the typical user really going to discern the difference? On an HDTV? I'm not so sure. If not, what's the point, then? I know HDTV's are pretty sharp, but computer monitor "sharp"?
BenSkywalker
07-Dec-2002, 02:03
Magnum-
even if i'm not ever impressed w/ their articles about the graphics technology, i find the inquirer an interesting site.
Enquirer(super market tabloid), not Inquirer is what I was talking about :)
Zidane-
Thus the only difference between the pic and the final ps2 product(the AA, rez enhancement.) are not that relevant...
By that token the GF4 Ti4600 has no real advantage over the GF3 Ti200 which is very clearly not the case. High res and AA are a major advantage in real time graphics.
Faf-
Must be very CPU limited title thenl. Most stuff I run on my GF2 varies in fps greatly just by changing window size.[/qoute]
Running 640x480, I can't think of a single title I have that isn't CPU limited. Quake2 even is(pushing over 200FPS, still CPU limited though).
[quote]Ok, on a bit more serious note, DOT3 emulation may not be particularly fast/efficient, but we're talking about competing with a chip with 2.5 less theoretical fill.
This before counting the heavy use of shadow volumes, where PS2 is several leagues beyond what GF1 can do, and then some.
So you think shadow volumes would slow the GF down enough for the Dot3 shortcoming to be overcome?
Well it's still realtime rendered, even if it was taken at 4x resolution and downsampled in photoshop.
I don't understand what you are saying here. The game is running at a resolution that the PS2 can't handle in real time, and was then filtered in Photoshop, and it is realtime?
Phil-
Don't ask me though how many times AA is applied to those titles though. What I can say though is that the first 2 mentioned titles have absolutely no aliasing (at least not on 3 different TVs that I have played them on).
I haven't played BD on the PS2, TTT certainly has considerable aliasing. That isn't a slam on the PS2, I haven't seen a title this gen that doesn't suffer from aliasing.
Marco-
Maybe for testing, but the games on PC become tearing hell with VSYNC disabled :\
Never really had that problem. What refresh rate are you running? I try to keep mine around 100Hz when gaming.
Frontline has very atmospheric and cinematic beginning. The stuff that is going on around you is quite impressive indeed. Heck *I* was impressed how well they pulled off that kind of atmosphere, and I've seen way more games than that guy. Not everyone looks the games through texture resolutions and anisotropic filtering used
The game is way too linear, too easy, has 'cheating' AI(the only thing that offers even a slight challenge) and overall is simply mediocre. I wasn't talking about graphics(which also are horribly bad- played it on the XBox and it looked as bad as a PS2 game which is the norm for an EA port), the whole game is sub par compared to the best shooters out today.
Vincce-
Wise ass ;) :)
Chap-
Argh! PS2 might be old crapware, but why the need to compare it with GF1?[/quoute]
They both came out in 1999.
[quote]Whats with the mafia love? Its a frickin PC game where the developers have tons of VRAM to play around with. PC textures will always own PS2 textures.
I agree, obviously some people don't though :)
Randy-
Seriously, how much is enough (and how much is pointless overkill) when talking about regular TV presentation or even HDTV presentation. My hunch is that plain jane 2x supersampling would work just fine on a TV or HDTV.
2x SS isn't nearly enough even on a TV. Look at the edges in FF:TSW, Toy Story or Bug's Life as a few examples. The GC uses a three line flicker filter when outputting and isn't close to eliminating aliasing. And that's if we only look at standard NTSC, not HDTV. At 'normal' TV resolution 8x AA would be probably be decent, 4x AA when running at the highest end HDTV resolutions(and even then, if you are talking about large TV screens those settings wouldn't be enough).
More importantly, it still comes down to this- looking at 2x AA and 8x AA on a TV set, is the typical user really going to discern the difference? On an HDTV? I'm not so sure. If not, what's the point, then? I know HDTV's are pretty sharp, but computer monitor "sharp"?
Fire up any relatively recent CGI movie or one with a lot of CGI effects and then compare it to any game in terms of aliasing. There is a long way to go on that front.
megadrive0088
07-Dec-2002, 02:16
Fire up any relatively recent CGI movie or one with a lot of CGI effects and then compare it to any game in terms of aliasing. There is a long way to go on that front.
agree. that statement and the others.
whatever types and amount of anti aliasing those movies use (32x32, 64x64 ???) it shows that realtime games are not even close to being decent. I guess GeForce FX, with it's 8x (not 8x8, totally diff) is a small, small step in the right direction, but still nowhere near good enough.
8x8 samples of the best possible method of AA is my hope for the next generation of consoles @ HDTV resolutions.
randycat99
07-Dec-2002, 02:20
This comes as no surprise coming from someone [speaking of Ben, that is] who seems to be utterly anal over the smallest imperfection. For the rest of the world, they would not have a clue what you are on about from one thing to the next. We are talking videogames here, remember? It's all fine and good to wish for videogames that look like CG movie productions to the nth degree, but geez, is the world going to end if it doesn't? BTW, I'm sure that fancy-pants AA was quite appropriate when it comes to presenting at some-odd 3500x2000 on a giant movie screen (just guessing on the resolution, but you get the point). When it gets scaled down and blended to lossy compressed digital video from a DVD player, it gets a bit dubious again. Personally, I'd be more impressed with a simple baseline AA and eye-gouging artwork in a videogame than AA 6-ways from Sunday with uber-tropic texture blending but mediocre artwork.
archie4oz
07-Dec-2002, 02:29
2x SS isn't nearly enough even on a TV. Look at the edges in FF:TSW, Toy Story or Bug's Life as a few examples.
Don't really need it for those on a TV since they're usually rendered at least at a 4K resolution, along with various sampling and motion blurring methods per shot. Bicubically sampling that down to a D1 source for DVD mastering or broadcast alone pretty much is good enough.
BenSkywalker
07-Dec-2002, 02:37
Don't really need it for those on a TV since they're usually rendered at least at a 4K resolution
I guess it depends on how you look at it. Running at 4K(and there was AA applied at that res also, ignoring that however) and downsampling you are looking at ~50x AA anyway :)
archie4oz
07-Dec-2002, 03:25
I guess it depends on how you look at it. Running at 4K(and there was AA applied at that res also, ignoring that however) and downsampling you are looking at ~50x AA anyway
True. However your display characteristics and signal drive quality can have a huge influence.
With current TV, your colour palette alone can play a huge factor is scene aliasing (NTSC is notorious for colour bleeding. PAL is somewhat better). The quality of your TV can have a factor even when using a standard composite connector (higher grade TVs can extract more information from a cruddy signal and filter it for better presentation, e.g. my set upconverts signals to 480p and 960i), my home theatre receiver even performs scan conversion from composite to s-video so that plays a role as well. People with fairly high-grade television sets who use higher performance connectors (e.g. s-video, YCbCr component, SCART, VGA, DVI, etc...), still represent a relative minority amongst consumers and targetting your art assets with that sort of display can lead to rather blah, muddy looking imagery on an "ordinary" TV set.
HDTV adds more complexity to the problem. For one the higher resolution negates the necessity for AA to some degree, at the same time, signal quality tolerances and colour fidelity knock that right back up. Then I also doubt that everybody will have HDTV sets by 2005-2006 (well maybe in Japan) although they should be more common, and the discrepency in image quality between a typical consumer grade NTSC set and a decent HDTV set is even wider...
Then again I doubt the average consumer will care... Just the tech enthusiasts...
randycat99
07-Dec-2002, 03:31
To wonder if consoles of the next generation will actually be capable of rendering to movie theater type of resolutions in realtime is simply mind boggling. Is this truly what we are proposing here? Is it actually feasible given the timeline?
zidane1strife
07-Dec-2002, 03:36
By that token the GF4 Ti4600 has no real advantage over the GF3 Ti200 which is very clearly not the case. High res and AA are a major advantage in real time graphics.
Look dude that's nice and all but according to my book Quick Access, ur arguments have one flaw(logical fallacy), ur deviating from the main subject of this discussion, ur picking at trivial info...
The fact is the most impressive thing about the old guy image is not how clean the image is(although that too is impressive), but the fact it looks so good, and devs. must've put alot of work into it...
So u think it needed a GScube(16ps2s!!!) for the rez and AA....rrrrrrrriiiiiiggghhhhttttt......
(sorry for being repetitive)Again do u think a system with 1/8th the xbox's T&L, with no pixel shaders, or the flexibility of vertex shaders could actually compete with the PS2.... dude there's a reason MS didn't go with a supped up GF2...
PS (again)I mean why do u think the old guy was posted here? THE ARGUMENT is not about ps2 IQ v.s. gf1 IQ... it's about what the ps2 can do, and what the gf1 can do.
marconelly!
07-Dec-2002, 06:12
Never really had that problem. What refresh rate are you running? I try to keep mine around 100Hz when gaming.
You never have tearing with VSYNC off???? How is that even possible? Everytime the game framerate output desynchronizes with your monitor refresh output (and that's pretty much all the time) you get image tears. I see them all the time.
The game is way too linear, too easy, has 'cheating' AI(the only thing that offers even a slight challenge) and overall is simply mediocre. I wasn't talking about graphics(which also are horribly bad- played it on the XBox and it looked as bad as a PS2 game which is the norm for an EA port), the whole game is sub par compared to the best shooters out today.
Well, if you completely ignore points that I've made, and list only the negatives, sure it sound like the game is the worst thing that happened to FPS genre :\ I just think it has what it takes to be impressive, at least on it's starting level.
I agree, obviously some people don't though
Just out of curiosity, who doesn't agree? I was just answering to your statement that the Mafia looks *significantly* better than Getaway, which according to those screenshots is not really the case. I would say it's *somewhat* better looking. As some people said already, why include Mafia in this discussion, to begin with? It's not like it's the game you will be running on a GF1 config and be satisfied with it.
Fafalada
07-Dec-2002, 06:21
Btw, regarding VSync, I see flickering of image at 60-70hz refresh(gives me headaches rather quickly too). And tearing is a heck of a lot more obvious then that. It's a matter of personal preference no doubt, but it's very bothersome to some.
So you think shadow volumes would slow the GF down enough for the Dot3 shortcoming to be overcome?
Yes. In theory, you're looking at 5:1 difference in fillrate alone for volumes - which are fill limited pretty much always.
Going by practical tests with volumes on a GF2 in our own app, I'd give it even more definite nod, since there was even considerably larger then that theoretical difference.
I don't understand what you are saying here. The game is running at a resolution that the PS2 can't handle in real time, and was then filtered in Photoshop, and it is realtime?
Ok, if you want to get technical, the bicubic filtered shots aren't realtime. The highres one, Are. It's rendered by the same app, using same content. And PS2 "can" display up to 1080I, so I don't really see the problem (performance would suck, but you'd still see it in realtime :P ).
On the same note, the bicubic sampled shots are used in 1 out of every 2 XBox games, and people have been claiming them to be realtime from day one (and still are).
IMO, this GF1 vs GS arguement is retarded.
I mean how the heck can you compare them when they both work in totally different environments?
Say you cap the framerate at 60FPS synched and the system you are testing is capable of drawing every single frame at 1/59th of a second, your framerate ends up 30. There really is a good reason that VSync is disabled when testing(and for most people here at least, when playing).
I didn't say to enable VSync, I just said to cap fps to some level like Vsync. But do monitor, actually display 59 fps ? or its 59 is just internal thing ? or do you get 30Hz on your monitor anyway in this case ?
Anyway, by capping the fps, your average would be more inline with the gaming quality you get.
BenSkywalker
07-Dec-2002, 13:18
Archie-
Then again I doubt the average consumer will care... Just the tech enthusiasts...
We are pretty much the only people that care now, and I don't expect that to change. Coming into the next gen those with 1080i sets would have to be pretty much blind to not notice the difference I would assume(providing they realize they need to ~$20 connector for their setup).
Randy-
Is this truly what we are proposing here? Is it actually feasible given the timeline?
It's pretty much a given. The XBox already supports 1080i and AA methods that stacked could already come close if they had the fill, and more importantly, the bandwith to handle it. For the timeframe that the next consoles hit, I think everyone would be surprised if they all didn't support 1920x1080i natively, likely with AA.
Zidane-
So u think it needed a GScube(16ps2s!!!) for the rez and AA....rrrrrrrriiiiiiggghhhhttttt......
For actual usability? Yes, absolutely.
Marco-
You never have tearing with VSYNC off???? How is that even possible? Everytime the game framerate output desynchronizes with your monitor refresh output (and that's pretty much all the time) you get image tears. I see them all the time.
Keep the refresh @100Hz and the noticeable tearing isn't going to be that bad the overwhelming majority of the time(spinning around in a FPS is about the worse case scenario).
I just think it has what it takes to be impressive, at least on it's starting level.
Perhaps I didn't explain exactly how highly they thought of the game. The guys I was talking to made it sound like it was one the greatest ever made. I brought up the negatives more then anything due to their reaction of the game, which I found to be decidedly mediocre. Comparing it to Halo, JKII, Metroid and the like MOH is a very poor title IMO.
I would say it's *somewhat* better looking. As some people said already, why include Mafia in this discussion, to begin with? It's not like it's the game you will be running on a GF1 config and be satisfied with it.
Mafia runs quite nicely on a GF1, in fact Mafia runs quite nicely on an integrated nForce 220(the single channel one, slower then a GF1) at 640x480.
Faf-
Btw, regarding VSync, I see flickering of image at 60-70hz refresh(gives me headaches rather quickly too). And tearing is a heck of a lot more obvious then that. It's a matter of personal preference no doubt, but it's very bothersome to some.
Once in a while I notice it. Most people game with the refresh @60Hz where it is a rather serious issue(pervasive). Up the refresh rate high enough and it is significantly reduced.
Yes. In theory, you're looking at 5:1 difference in fillrate alone for volumes - which are fill limited pretty much always.
Going by practical tests with volumes on a GF2 in our own app, I'd give it even more definite nod, since there was even considerably larger then that theoretical difference.
How much fill would you need? Running 640x480 with 4x OD you have enough fill for six passes on a GF1 at 60FPS, twelve @30. The GF1 is nowhere near as imbalanced as the GF2 is. The GF1 has 91% of the bandwith and 30% of the MTexel fill compared to the GTS. The GF1 actually had a very good balance to it.
V3-
I didn't say to enable VSync, I just said to cap fps to some level like Vsync. But do monitor, actually display 59 fps ? or its 59 is just internal thing ? or do you get 30Hz on your monitor anyway in this case ?
If your gfx card was drawing a frame every 1/59th of a second and you had VSynch on you would output 30FPS(that is what your monitor would display). If you had VSync off you would output 59FPS(that is what your monitor would display, although some frames would be offset a varrying amount depending on how much movement had occured, that is the tearing we are discussing).
Anyway, by capping the fps, your average would be more inline with the gaming quality you get.
Thing is, it depends on how the app is capped. Most rely on VSynch, which has the problem I mentioned above. If you cap it per second, you run in to problems if you can push 1000FPS, all your frames would be drawn in the first tenth of a second and then no more updates for the last tenth. The only good way to do it is to limit how fast a given frame can be drawn. Problem with this is, the singular time when you need the highest framerate in a PC game, while spinning around in a FPS, is going to be directly and negatively impacted in a sizeable fashion no matter how you implement the cap.
Anyway, by capping the fps, your average would be more inline with the gaming quality you get.
Depends. 'Crusher' was an excellent test to show you actual framerates that you would see under real world gaming, enabling VSync there gave you numbers that were simply too low to be viable. Other benches that have a lot of 'slow time' in them aren't very good at giving you a reasonable score. Check out UT2K3's 'Flyby' scores vs 'Botmatch', one is completely unrealistic and would be more in line enabling VSync(flyby) while the other(botmatch) is perfectly reasonable without VSync at giving you a good indicator of what to expect in game.
Please stop this pointless GF1 vs GS comparison.
If there is Mafia PC, than there is also BGDA on PS2.
Mafia runs quite nicely on a GF1, in fact Mafia runs quite nicely on an integrated nForce 220(the single channel one, slower then a GF1) at 640x480.
Sorry, but i just don't believe this.
Again, i have a GF2MX( = GF1) and even at 640x480 + low details, current games either do not run at stable framerates and or they certainly do not look better than many PS2 games.
I have tried running games/demos of NWN, RSC, Fifa, RtCW, AmericaArmy, Battlefield1942, AvP2, NOFL2, RF on my setup.
Of course older or less graphics intensive games run great on my PC.
Sims, Warcraft and Battle Realms cometh to mind.
JF_Aidan_Pryde
07-Dec-2002, 21:03
If that Silent Hill 3 shot is real time, I am speechless.
Fafalada
07-Dec-2002, 22:28
Once in a while I notice it. Most people game with the refresh @60Hz where it is a rather serious issue(pervasive). Up the refresh rate high enough and it is significantly reduced.
Well, as I mentioned, 60hz is bothersome to me even with static image - the refresh itself is too low. As for tearing, I don't doubt it wouldn't bother me in multiplayer FPS games, but then the visuals are secondary in those - I actually preferred playing Q2 in software mode, no matter how bad it looked, simply because the blander lighting made everything easier to see :)
How much fill would you need? Running 640x480 with 4x OD you have enough fill for six passes on a GF1 at 60FPS, twelve @30.
Actually overdraw with volumes can get a whole lot higher then that, but that's besides the point.
Things just don't work as simple as calculating OD and available fill like that. But that has been debated before on this forum, so let's not go over it again.
Just a note though - with the ratio of average volume triangle size vs its vertex calculation overhead, increasing fillrate would result in faster rendering speed going well over 3gpix (at 640x480 that is).
At any rate, GF1's better balance might mean it would be closer to stock GF2 performance, but the baseline performance we're looking at is still rather low, relatively speaking.
BenSkywalker
08-Dec-2002, 14:18
Faf-
Well, as I mentioned, 60hz is bothersome to me even with static image - the refresh itself is too low.
Static images(particularly white bg) are worse case scenario for refresh rates though. TV is @60Hz(NTSC anyway). I don't like using refresh rates under 100Hz on a normal basis(even 85 gives me eye fatigue after a few hours), but fast moving games it isn't nearly as bad as a static image.
I actually preferred playing Q2 in software mode, no matter how bad it looked, simply because the blander lighting made everything easier to see :)
You know, you could just kill the lightmaps and still run in hardware mode, game runs a hell of a lot faster that way :)
Things just don't work as simple as calculating OD and available fill like that. But that has been debated before on this forum, so let's not go over it again.
IIRC from that conversation noone came up with a fill limited title @ console res though.
Just a note though - with the ratio of average volume triangle size vs its vertex calculation overhead, increasing fillrate would result in faster rendering speed going well over 3gpix (at 640x480 that is).
Over 3Gpix for what type of rasterizer? One along the lines of GS perhaps, but how would you possibly use that much fill @640 on say a DX9 part? Sure, if your texel rate is half your pixel rate, and you are forced to multipass even for simple effects like Dot3, then I could see where you could chew up fill pretty fast, but how would you go about it running more advanced hardware?
At any rate, GF1's better balance might mean it would be closer to stock GF2 performance, but the baseline performance we're looking at is still rather low, relatively speaking.
How many passes would it take to pull off cube maps on the GS? You've stated that you could pull off Dot3 in two passes on the GS, factoring that and the fact that you must apply textures, aren't you cutting your MPixel fill down to less then 100MPixel edge over the GeForce1(ignoring cube maps)?
Chap-
Sorry, but i just don't believe this.
Again, i have a GF2MX( = GF1) and even at 640x480 + low details, current games either do not run at stable framerates and or they certainly do not look better than many PS2 games.
I have tried running games/demos of NWN, RSC, Fifa, RtCW, AmericaArmy, Battlefield1942, AvP2, NOFL2, RF on my setup.
OK, you don't believe it-
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/chipsets/nvidia/nforce/image038.gif
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/MX400/MDK2_640.gif
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/MX400/q3_640.gif
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/MX400/ut_min_640.gif
I tried finding benches of games that were also available on consoles for comparisons sake. Also some benches running UT2K3 high quality settings on a GF2MX @35.7 FPS/71FPS(76FPS/168.2FPS at medium settings)
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=6
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=11
For point of reference, an earlier build of the UT2K3 engine had the GF2MX boards running at best even with the GF1 DDR(@640x480 the MX440 was as fast, slower in all higher resolutions).
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1580&p=5
You should be able to run a slew of games at console res and console framerates on a GF2MX.
Sorry ben, benchmarks are cool but going by my experience with the latest games, things are different.
Lets take NWN, i can run it at good framerates, but i have to drop the details to low or i can crank up the details and the framerates go to hell, all at 640x480.
Now comparing to BGDA, with great details and runs at great 60fps and stay that way when the screen is covered with enemies.
Then there is also RSC. 640x480 low details give me >30fps but when the CPU cars are onscreen, the fps flutters. 640x480 high details give me a stuttering <30fps. And i assure you GT3 slaughters RSC at 640x480 low details.
Which brings me to why this GF1 > PS2 using certain PC/Console games is nonsense.
Since they are different hardware working in different environments. There are just too many factors to consider for a fair comparison.
Fafalada
08-Dec-2002, 15:01
Sounds like we have similar tastes in refresh rates Ben. :) I also prefer 100hz.
You know, you could just kill the lightmaps and still run in hardware mode, game runs a hell of a lot faster that way
Probably, but I guess it was sort of a 'used to' thing. I had most of my play time with Q2 early on when still using RagePro that couldn't handle hw accelerated version at all.
After I upgraded the graphics, I sort of couldn't get used to accelerated look too well (it actually hurt my play - online).
IIRC from that conversation noone came up with a fill limited title @ console res though.
Might be, but as you said yourself, PC titles aren't using graphics hardware very effectively.
Over 3Gpix for what type of rasterizer?
I was referring only to pixel volume fill, no other operation. The untextured, single color value triangles that only update stencil count - the same for any current rasterizer - higher texel rate won't do you any good here.
GS can actually draw these at max 2.4gpix, but as I said, faster fill would still make a difference.
How many passes would it take to pull off cube maps on the GS? You've stated that you could pull off Dot3 in two passes on the GS, factoring that and the fact that you must apply textures, aren't you cutting your MPixel fill down to less then 100MPixel edge over the GeForce1(ignoring cube maps)?
Yes, and I also stated that I believe GF1 would probably have a performance edge on DOT3 and stuff, but that would be greatly offset by other factors.
As for cubemaps, pre GF3 hw didn't have dependant texture lookups yet, so the pixel shader math where cubemaps lookups are used for renormalization and other nifty things doesn't apply (which is just as well, since GS doesn't have dependant lookups either).
You're pretty much left with basic reflection uses and stuff, which I'd say are a rather small part of total rendering.
In OpenGL there are 3 passes used for applying a cubemap, I think it could be done in 2 for our case.
marconelly!
08-Dec-2002, 20:37
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/MX400/MDK2_640.gif
:-? What the hell?? When I had GF2MX (the original one, purchased before they made 200 and 400) with 633MHz Celeron, I could barely get MDK2 running at stable 40-50FPS in that resolution with everything at maximum. Everything above that was just painful. Not to mention how simplistic MDK2 looks tech-wise compared to best looking games on PS2.
I was referring only to pixel volume fill, no other operation. The untextured, single color value triangles that only update stencil count - the same for any current rasterizer - higher texel rate won't do you any good here.
GS can actually draw these at max 2.4gpix, but as I said, faster fill would still make a difference.
FWIW if your drawing Z or stencil only NV2A can draw at 3.7Gpixels, the trick involves swapping to a multisampled target. You have to fiddle the matrices and stuff but it does work, we use the trick when rendering shadow buffers, but it would work on the main frame buffer to render stencil shadows aswell. Obviously bandwidth is the limiting factor here, and I have no idea what the actual rate would be, but you won't be fetching textures and color writes are disabled so it does a lot better than it's single texture rate of around 700MPixels.
Fafalada
08-Dec-2002, 21:52
:D
Yep, that should definately be a nice step up from normal pixel fill, no matter the bandwith limit. Kinda reminds me of the GS trick to clear screen at 4.8GPix/s...
Curious, do you know the shape of pixel footprint in MS mode, is it still a square?
Curious, do you know the shape of pixel footprint in MS mode, is it still a square?
Obviously you could use either multisamplimg mode (I can't see why you'd choose the 2x pattern though), so either you get the quincunx patern replicated on a 2x2 grid written to the buffer as a 4x2 grid, or you get the 2x2 square replcated on a 2x2 grid (effectively a 4x4 square).
And of course if Z compression is enabled, you can do a Z/Stencil Clear on NV2A at even higher rates :P
OK, you don't believe it-
Those benchmarks are good at comparing rigs, but sadly, it doesn't reflect the performance when you are playing the actual game.
BenSkywalker
09-Dec-2002, 01:48
Faf-
Probably, but I guess it was sort of a 'used to' thing. I had most of my play time with Q2 early on when still using RagePro that couldn't handle hw accelerated version at all.
After I upgraded the graphics, I sort of couldn't get used to accelerated look too well (it actually hurt my play - online).
RagePro... ouch. I had one of those too, got rid of it because of its 'wonderful' OpenGL support ;)
You're pretty much left with basic reflection uses and stuff, which I'd say are a rather small part of total rendering.
In OpenGL there are 3 passes used for applying a cubemap, I think it could be done in 2 for our case.
So the GS would be faster then the GF1 using CubeMaps?
Marco-
What the hell?? When I had GF2MX (the original one, purchased before they made 200 and 400) with 633MHz Celeron, I could barely get MDK2 running at stable 40-50FPS in that resolution with everything at maximum.
Your bottleneck certainly wasn't the graphics card;) MDK2 isn't a very stressful game at all, although it is available on the PS2(why I posted the scores).
Not to mention how simplistic MGS2 looks tech-wise compared to best looking games on PS2.
MaxPayne also plays faster on the GF2MX then the PS2, as does UnrealTournament. I tried finding scores for all the games that were on both platforms, hell the GF2MX even posts higher scores then the XBox does in the games that are on both platforms. The NV1X chips have quite a bit more power then what most people seem to give them credit for, the XBox's power really hasn't been pushed yet.
Chap-
Which brings me to why this GF1 > PS2 using certain PC/Console games is nonsense.
Since they are different hardware working in different environments. There are just too many factors to consider for a fair comparison.
I don't own NWN or RSC(I'll dl the demos next time I bring the kids up to see their grandparents and try it on their nForce based system and see how RSC runs- they have bb I'm on dial-up and it's a 220MB dl, is there a demo for NWN?) so I can't tell you anything about their performance, but there were titles that you have listed that run very nicely on GF1 level hardware. Look at Marco's comment about his performance experience versus what the chip is capable of, 40-50FPS versus 135FPS, well over twice as fast. All the different factors don't change what the chip is capable of. BTW- Which GF2MX do you have?
V3-
Those benchmarks are good at comparing rigs, but sadly, it doesn't reflect the performance when you are playing the actual game.
You can turn the framerate counter on in some of those games, and as long as you have VSync disabled they are fairly accurate. One of the benches I posted was minimum framerate, not average.
RSC is absolutely brutal on lowend systems. On my GF2 & 1Ghz P3-M its unplayable, like ~15 FPS at max, with serious stutters. My buddy's Athlon XP 1700 + GF3 doesn't do it justice either. Many reviewers have said that even on highend equipment the game chugs.
NWN on the other hand was fine for me (retail). I tend to run everything at 640x480 anyways (free AA from LCD scale-down :P), and with everything on the framerate was fine. Not silk, but the game doesnt demand that anyways.
It'll be interesting to see how KOTOR turns out, since I'm pretty sure its using the Aurora engine as well. Hopefully it won't suffer the same CPU-bound fate as UC.
MaxPayne also plays faster on the GF2MX then the PS2, as does UnrealTournament. I tried finding scores for all the games that were on both platforms, hell the GF2MX even posts higher scores then the XBox does in the games that are on both platforms. The NV1X chips have quite a bit more power then what most people seem to give them credit for, the XBox's power really hasn't been pushed yet.
I doubt Max Payne and all the other games you keep comparing are even optimized for PS2. If you'd run those games throught the performance analyzer II, you'd probably see that those games don't even tap what PS2 is capable of, sadly. With all respect, this arguement about GF1 vs PS2 is pretty moot, as there aren't any games (to my knowledge) that really make use of the hardware as it would be capable of. In about 2 years from now, we'll all know better of how much PS2 is capable of. As for now, I can only repeat what others have already said: both hardware seem to have distinct advantages, on a GF card mainly textures etc. I do find it funny though when we look at Xbox (which, by your arguement) should be a considerably better seeing that it is also a fixed platform - yet the real-world differences reflect by now way what you are argueing here.
BTW: Since you haven't played Baldurs Gate, I can only recommend it, as it really is one of the best PS2 games out graphically. :)
PC-Engine
09-Dec-2002, 02:43
NWN on the other hand was fine for me (retail). I tend to run everything at 640x480 anyways (free AA from LCD scale-down )
Wouldn't the downscaling by the LCD make everything somewhat blurry and not just the edges? I could see how it would help a PSX's point sampling, but a GF2?
Heheh it was more of a joke than a practical point, but depending on the LCD model, scale-down can be a blurry mess or look like its had a slight "soften" filter applied. (for me its the later, Hitachi SVGA+ 1400x1050)
It also depends on what resolution you're running and how evenly it divides into the native res. IMO its a nice trade off from the harsh jaggies that a PC screen is capable of displaying.
zidane1strife
09-Dec-2002, 02:49
The NV1X chips have quite a bit more power then what most people seem to give them credit for, the XBox's power really hasn't been pushed yet.
Well i dunno about that the ps2's EE been taped up to 70%+, and the xbox GPU resources being more easy to tap and all should be at least on par... heck xgpu's resources might even be in use more effectively than the EEs considering the difference in dev. difficulty...
You can turn the framerate counter on in some of those games, and as long as you have VSync disabled they are fairly accurate. One of the benches I posted was minimum framerate, not average.
Q3 ? The performance you get, largely depend on the map you played, also Q3 fluctuates quite abit, depending the number of bots or players on screen.
So what about the minimum ? The minimum, is the minimum framerate you encounter in that benchmark run, not when you are playing the game. The same for averages.
Those benchmark are good, for rig comparisons nothing more.
zidane1strife
09-Dec-2002, 03:07
Well all this GF1 talk aroused my interest so i searched for specs... i assume the Gf256 is the geforce 1.... so here are the specs....
120MHz/150MHz(300Mhz) core/memory clock :lol:
Integrated geometry transform engine
Integrated dynamic lighting engine
Four-pixel rendering pipeline :lol:
480 million pixels per second fill rate :lol:
15 million triangles per second throughput :lol:
Cube-environment mapping
Single-pass emboss and dot-product bump mapping
DX6 Texture Compression
350MHz RAMDAC
2D resolution of 2048x1536 at 75Hz
AGP4X with Fast Writes
Up to 128MB SDRAM/SGRAM w/ DDR support
OpenGL ICD for Windows98, NT4, 2000
DX7 Support Powerful HDTV motion compensation.
Full frame rate DVD to 1080i resolution.
Well if that's the Geforce 1 it simply can't compete... 15M polys PEAK... hope that's not the real Geforce 1....
I mean 500000 polys x 60fps ingame is TWICE that, meaning the Geforce 1 can't even deliver the geometry the PS2 can do... if we go for peak numbers is not even worth talking about....
And since this is nvidia we all know that peak number is like their fabled 125M+ peaks... IOW No way that's gonna be happening on a real game...
EDIT:
According to 3dfx CTO Scott Sellers, "It appears as if the raster engine in the GeForce 256 is really just 2 TNT2 raster engines put in parallel (with some feature additions added)."
PS Don't know if this is real(didn't read the article...)but....
"Give a GeForce 256 a million triangles to draw and watch it die. " :o
http://www.gamespot.com/features/cave_quake2/p7_01.html
zidane1strife
09-Dec-2002, 03:18
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/MX400/q3_640.gif
Id Software's John Carmack stated in his 9/2 .plan update that Quake 3 targets about 10,000 triangles per frame.
Nice... so even the Gf2PRO can't even push more than 2M polys per second... just what i expected... let's not talk about Gf1...
EDITED
marconelly!
09-Dec-2002, 06:48
hell the GF2MX even posts higher scores then the XBox does in the games that are on both platforms
Real life perfomace that I've experienced, aside, that makes me even more suspicious about those benchmarks :\
All the different factors don't change what the chip is capable of. BTW- Which GF2MX do you have?
That is my point ben. How do one know how capable both chips are based on just benchmarking of ports? It is hardly accurate imo.
For a start, a GF1 with 2Ghz and 512mb would perform a tad faster than one with 1Ghz and 256mb. But then PC elitists would cry foul over the winOS overhead costs and all.
Then we have the choice of ported games. I wouldnt be surprise if MGS2 PC causes the GF1 to choke with all the particle and motion blurring effects, even at 640x480.
We could use games of similar genre, but i have yet to see a GF1 game that looks as good and run as fast as BGDA or GT3, then again PC seems to always have an advantage with FPS games, even over the Xbox.
Of course we can compare tech sheets of both chips, but then we can see PS2 being better in some areas and vice versa.
IMHO, the only "fair" comparsion, is those who have first hand experience on both hardware. But the developers have some NDAs to observe and they are better off keeping mum, seeing as how scary the internet boards are. :evil:
My GF2MX is a Tornado, the original one with 32mb vram and no overclocking or modification.
GS Core Parallel Rendering Processor with embedded DRAM
Clock Frequency 150 MHz
No. of Pixel Engines 16 (in Parallel)
Embedded DRAM 4 MB of multi-port DRAM (Synced at 150MHz)
Total Memory Bandwidth 48 Giga Bytes per Second
Combined Internal
Data Bus bandwidth 2560 bit
Read 1024 bit
Write 1024 bit
Texture 512 bit
Display Color Depth 32 bit (RGBA: 8 bits each)
Z Buffering 32 bit
Rendering Functions Texture Mapping, Bump Mapping
Fogging, Alpha Blending
Bi- and Tri-Linear Filtering
MIPMAP, Anti-aliasing
Multi-pass Rendering
Rendering Performance
Pixel Fill Rate 2.4 Giga Pixel per Second
(with Z buffer and Alphablend enabled)
1.2 Giga Pixel per Second
(with Z buffer, Alpha and Texture)
Particle Drawing Rate 150 Million /sec
Polygon Drawing Rate 75 Million /sec (small polygon)
50 Million /sec (48 Pixel quad with Z and A)
30 Million /sec (50 Pixel triangle with Z and A)
25 Million /sec (48 Pixel quad with Z, A and T)
Sprite Drawing Rate 18.75 Million (8 x 8 Pixels)
Fafalada
09-Dec-2002, 08:40
Erp,
And of course if Z compression is enabled, you can do a Z/Stencil Clear on NV2A at even higher rates
Tehe... sorta like clearing 16bit buffer as a 32bit target hmpf? ;) I think we should be working in PR, inflating the numbers is fun :)
Ben,
RagePro... ouch. I had one of those too, got rid of it because of its 'wonderful' OpenGL support
Yeah, that was my beef with it too. Actually the hw was real weird, there were D3D apps where it ran comparable to a V2, and then there were others where a V1 would run circles around it. It overclocked like a dream though, I pushed mine from 50 to 90 without a hitch. Too bad it did squat for performance though :(
So the GS would be faster then the GF1 using CubeMaps?
Well, there are other things that come into play aside for fillrate, but strictly in terms of rasterizers, yeah, it should be a tad faster.
BenSkywalker
09-Dec-2002, 13:03
Zurich-
It'll be interesting to see how KOTOR turns out, since I'm pretty sure its using the Aurora engine as well. Hopefully it won't suffer the same CPU-bound fate as UC.
KoTOR has been my most anticipated XB title for some time, I really hope it runs smooth.
Phil-
With all respect, this arguement about GF1 vs PS2 is pretty moot, as there aren't any games (to my knowledge) that really make use of the hardware as it would be capable of. In about 2 years from now, we'll all know better of how much PS2 is capable of.
While the PS2 has a couple of hundred titles built around what it is capable of already, I have to date seen one developer state that they built a game around what is possible with the GeForce architecture. You think the PS2 ports aren't optimized for it properly which is fair, although the same can be said about pretty much any PC game. UT was Glide native, one of the games that runs significantly faster on the GF2MX then it does on the PS2.
I do find it funny though when we look at Xbox (which, by your arguement) should be a considerably better seeing that it is also a fixed platform - yet the real-world differences reflect by now way what you are argueing here.
DOA3 still easily kills anything on the PS2 in terms of graphics.
BTW: Since you haven't played Baldurs Gate, I can only recommend it, as it really is one of the best PS2 games out graphically.
And merely above average when perfectly ported to the XBox ;) If I decide to pick the game, it will certainly be on the XBox. I've seen the game running, guess I must have missed seeing the impressive parts(not being sarcastic here, every game has average looking areas).
Zidane-
Well i dunno about that the ps2's EE been taped up to 70%+, and the xbox GPU resources being more easy to tap and all should be at least on par... heck xgpu's resources might even be in use more effectively than the EEs considering the difference in dev. difficulty...
Thirty months, twelve months. Compare DOA3 or SC to the best PS2 offerings. I didn't say the PS2 was competitive with the XBox, but the GameCube is currently which won't be the case when devs start actually utilizing some of the shader effects possible with the hardware.
Nice... so even the Gf2PRO can't even push more than 2M polys per second... just what i expected... let's not talk about Gf1...
You do realize that there are things that limit games performance besides ply throughput, don't you? UnrealTournament on the PS2 has about half the polys of Quake3 and runs 30FPS, so does that mean the PS2 can handle less then 300K polys per second? Most games aren't transform limited, particularly not on the PC(at least, not with T&L equipped boards).
V3-
Q3 ? The performance you get, largely depend on the map you played, also Q3 fluctuates quite abit, depending the number of bots or players on screen.
At 640x480????? What are you running, a P2 400 with a Voodoo2? The only way I can get a reasonable FPS drop running 640x480 under Quake3 is doing the stare at the wall and emptying a machine gun trick. I normally run the game @1600x1200 all settings maxed, TC off.
Marco-
Real life perfomace that I've experienced, aside, that makes me even more suspicious about those benchmarks :\
It shouldn't. Faf has brought up a couple of times a factor that most others seem to be ignoring, the GF2MX has the advantage of a significantly faster processor then the consoles(at least, for the numbers I'm talking about). My point in using a stacked example is quite simple, I'm talking about what the chip is capable of, ideally we could see numbers with a THZ processor to see where the chips limits lie. Running 640x480 for resolution almost every game is CPU limited on PCs using a GF2MX. Right now people are using 1600x1200 w/32 tap anisotropic and 4x AA with current level hardware, the GF2MX would be a joke at those settings, but consoles don't run those setting either :)
Chap-
For a start, a GF1 with 2Ghz and 512mb would perform a tad faster than one with 1Ghz and 256mb. But then PC elitists would cry foul over the winOS overhead costs and all.
I'm talking about the chips capabilities, not the overall PC platform. If the rest of the system is too weak to handle a game, how is that the fault of the GF?
Then we have the choice of ported games. I wouldnt be surprise if MGS2 PC causes the GF1 to choke with all the particle and motion blurring effects, even at 640x480.
Tell me a game with a bench included besides those I listed. GTA3 doesn't have an included bench AFAIK unfortunately. It runs a lot better on the PC then it does on the PS2.
Then we have the choice of ported games. I wouldnt be surprise if MGS2 PC causes the GF1 to choke with all the particle and motion blurring effects, even at 640x480.
When is it supposed to be out?
We could use games of similar genre, but i have yet to see a GF1 game that looks as good and run as fast as BGDA or GT3, then again PC seems to always have an advantage with FPS games, even over the Xbox.
For GT3- NFS:HP2, BGDA I haven't seen in motion enough to offer a comparable title on the PC.
IMHO, the only "fair" comparsion, is those who have first hand experience on both hardware.
Not that easy. nV hides most of the inner workings of their chips, and PC developers don't code 'to the metal'. I'm trying to compare every game that I'm aware of that is on both platforms, in the end that is what really matters isn't it? Not which particular ports there are, but how well the games run on their respective hardware.
Faf-
Yeah, that was my beef with it too. Actually the hw was real weird, there were D3D apps where it ran comparable to a V2, and then there were others where a V1 would run circles around it.
The wonderful ATi driver tuning(only for a select few apps which were used in comparison test unfortunately). Really like the 'Turbo' drivers with their single buffering :roll: :evil:
It overclocked like a dream though, I pushed mine from 50 to 90 without a hitch. Too bad it did squat for performance though :(
Did it actually overclock? I never thought it actually worked.
cybamerc
09-Dec-2002, 13:09
BenSkywalker:
> DOA3 still easily kills anything on the PS2 in terms of graphics.
What's so impressive about DOA3?
Poly count, lighting, per pixel effects, - and the quality of the animations.
Cheers
Gubbi
cybamerc
09-Dec-2002, 13:42
Poly counts don't strike me as anything special. lighting is good but mostly done per-vertex. Bump-mapping is used very sparringly. Animations are certainly good but not better than anything found on PS2.
The game looks good in screenshots but in person it is kinda underwhelming.
Johnny Awesome
09-Dec-2002, 13:48
No. It's still one of the best looking next generation games, along with Metroid Prime, Splinter Cell, and Halo.
cybamerc
09-Dec-2002, 13:51
Perhaps... but not because of any technical accomplishments.
PC-Engine
09-Dec-2002, 13:51
I keep hearing these shader effects repeated so many times and whats possible etc., but when are we going to see these effects making any graphical impact in Xbox games compared to GCN games?
. If the rest of the system is too weak to handle a game, how is that the fault of the GF?
What if it is too powerful? Is that the fault of PS2?
It runs a lot better on the PC then it does on the PS2
On a GF1, even at 640x480? Sadly, i do not have GTA3 PC. :(
When is it supposed to be out?
IIRC, sometime mid 2003.
I'm trying to compare every game that I'm aware of that is on both platforms, in the end that is what really matters isn't it?
Well, we have to see what games are suitable and how fair of a comparison they give.
Not which particular ports there are, but how well the games run on their respective hardware.
IMHO ports are hardly a good gauge of system capabilities. There are plenty of good PS2 games that looks good and run very well, surprisingly most of them are not ports. Same thing goes with the PC.
:oops:
zidane1strife
09-Dec-2002, 14:12
You do realize that there are things that limit games performance besides ply throughput, don't you? UnrealTournament on the PS2 has about half the polys of Quake3 and runs 30FPS, so does that mean the PS2 can handle less then 300K polys per second? Most games aren't transform limited, particularly not on the PC(at least, not with T&L equipped boards).
Yeah but what about the dude who said the Geforce would choke on just 1M poly....
EDIT:
DOA3 still easily kills anything on the PS2 in terms of graphics.
Well, the gphx difference considering it's above GF3 isn't as shocking as it'd be if a Gf1 kicked the ps2's @ss....
Hmmm, I'd say the DC is above the Gf1 also....
PS: As for the shader effects, the fact that the GeforceFX runs just one pixie with no background speaks volumes... heck i think even the previous Geforces demos used few characters, objects, etc... IOW if the could run multiple models with detailed backgrounds heavily using the shaders I'm sure they would...
and isn't Halo 2 already using the shaders... they lowered the main char.s poly count and all....
zidane1strife
09-Dec-2002, 14:34
I'm talking about what the chip is capable of, ideally we could see numbers with a THZ processor to see where the chips limits lie.
Well the Gf1 runs at about 120Mhz, that's a fact. The only thing we need is info on the inner workings of the thing, how many tris' could it do per cycle, etc...
According to one site it only has 4pipes with 1 texture unit each(I Think), the GS i think has 8 pipes with 8 texture units, and 8 more without... plus it runs faster... the Vector units(T&L part) are far more flexible than the Gf1s and run at more than 2X the speed of the GF1s T&L units....
Oh, yeah and what if said Thz machine has a multipetaflop processor running win20XX... it could very well forego the Gf1, and use only the cpu since it'd be better... so it wouldn't be fair...
You do realize that there are things that limit games performance besides ply throughput, don't you? UnrealTournament on the PS2 has about half the polys of Quake3 and runs 30FPS, so does that mean the PS2 can handle less then 300K polys per second? Most games aren't transform limited, particularly not on the PC(at least, not with T&L equipped boards).
If I'm not mistaken the dev.s upped the polys in the char. models, and maybe even the b/ws.... again I'm not sure, but I think that's what I read.... besides a PC port isn't fair I mean even most games dev. from the ground up for the ps2 aren't utilizing it's resources properly... and anyway aren't the intel cpus and geforce gpus the most popular out there, I'm sure some of the dev. time would go for optimization for those...
marconelly!
09-Dec-2002, 15:23
I do find it funny though when we look at Xbox (which, by your arguement) should be a considerably better seeing that it is also a fixed platform - yet the real-world differences reflect by now way what you are argueing here.
DOA3 still easily kills anything on the PS2 in terms of graphics.
Uh, I think his point was that Xbox, being fixed platform would have games *considerably* better loking than a PC (non-fixed) while it's often not the case with the latest games ported on both.
And merely above average when perfectly ported to the XBox If I decide to pick the game, it will certainly be on the XBox. I've seen the game running, guess I must have missed seeing the impressive parts(not being sarcastic here, every game has average looking areas).
It has perfect framerate, insane amounts of polygons, and texturing that for what I've seen, doesn't have any blurring or artifacting - anywhere. It also has tons of multitexture effects, and IMO looks better that Hunter, that is other Xbox's offering of that kind. Also, the game, from what I've seen has better antialiasing on PS2 than it has on Xbox.
Besides, will you decide if you are going to compare PS2 with GF1 or with Xbox? Or with both, whenever it suits your point of view better?
You should be comparing Baldur's Gate with Dungeon Siege, for example, running on GF1, of course :)
When is it supposed to be out?
MGS2 PC is coming out next year, but you can already see that the game has a lot of performance issues running on sub-GF4 in Xbox. Slowdowns aplenty and reduced effect complexity are just some of the problems the port has.
Johnny Awesome
09-Dec-2002, 17:24
On Baldur's Gate for PS2 - the far camera does wonders for this game. With that being said, Hunter has a lot more going on (30+ enemies simultaneously) than BG does and it looks just as good.
marconelly!
09-Dec-2002, 18:43
On Baldur's Gate for PS2 - the far camera does wonders for this game. With that being said, Hunter has a lot more going on (30+ enemies simultaneously) than BG does and it looks just as good.
So how do you explain that the game looks just as good when the camera pans over to the FPS view during the cut scene in the very same room without any extra loading or pausing?
Btw, there are many places in BGDA where you are swarmed by 20 or so enemies so I wouldn't say there's *a lot* more going on in Hunter. Even if there is, it has little to do with his original GF1 vs PS2 assessment.
randycat99
10-Dec-2002, 00:09
...nothin' more annoying than getting swarmed by a bunch of damn monkeys shooting arrows at you! :D ...and the damn spiders- spiders are a-holes! :wink:
PC-Engine
10-Dec-2002, 02:24
...nothin' more annoying than getting swarmed by a bunch of damn monkeys shooting arrows at you! :D ...and the damn spiders- spiders are a-holes! :wink:
Speaking of monkeys, has anyone tried to fight those monkeys in RE0? Now thems some ferocious Orangutangs :D
At 640x480????? What are you running, a P2 400 with a Voodoo2? The only way I can get a reasonable FPS drop running 640x480 under Quake3 is doing the stare at the wall and emptying a machine gun trick. I normally run the game @1600x1200 all settings maxed, TC off.
Nope around the early Geforce, my gaming rig was P3 733 with 256 MB. Q3, max out the number bots and go to where every bots gather, play it on 640x480 max setting, and watch it chug as things get gibbed. I remember frame rate of around 8.
I don't think I can run 1600x1200 on a Geforce. Are you sure your were running at 1600x1200 on a Geforce ?
DOA3 still easily kills anything on the PS2 in terms of graphics.
I took a friend of mine to the arcade once, and she saw DOA2, she only had played DOA3 previously, and she thought it was DOA4, she said the graphics are better than DOA3. I just agreed :)
BenSkywalker
10-Dec-2002, 04:52
Cybermac-
Poly counts don't strike me as anything special. lighting is good but mostly done per-vertex. Bump-mapping is used very sparringly. Animations are certainly good but not better than anything found on PS2.
The game looks good in screenshots but in person it is kinda underwhelming.
Add to the things Johnny already mentioned, non muddy textures, proper texture filtering and the hair effects.
Chap-
What if it is too powerful? Is that the fault of PS2?
We are talking about the limitations of the GF1 vs the PS2, without bottlenecking the GF it is akin to using PSX games to show the power of the PS2.
On a GF1, even at 640x480? Sadly, i do not have GTA3 PC.
It runs a lot smoother on the PC. There is a bug that requires you to drop your AGP aperture down to its lowest setting in the BIOS else you get framerates almost as bad as the PS2, but the game certainly runs much smoother on the PC.
IMHO ports are hardly a good gauge of system capabilities. There are plenty of good PS2 games that looks good and run very well, surprisingly most of them are not ports.
GTA3 was PS2 native and still runs better on the PC. The game was built for the PS2, its the platforms biggest title of this generation to date.
Zidane-
Well the Gf1 runs at about 120Mhz, that's a fact. The only thing we need is info on the inner workings of the thing, how many tris' could it do per cycle, etc...
According to one site it only has 4pipes with 1 texture unit each(I Think), the GS i think has 8 pipes with 8 texture units, and 8 more without... plus it runs faster... the Vector units(T&L part) are far more flexible than the Gf1s and run at more than 2X the speed of the GF1s T&L units....
Enable trilinear, anisotropic and use say 20MBs worth of textures and see how much good the theoretical numbers do for the PS2.
If I'm not mistaken the dev.s upped the polys in the char. models, and maybe even the b/ws.... again I'm not sure, but I think that's what I read
Do you have the game? It is very low poly, even by circa 1999 PC game standards.
besides a PC port isn't fair I mean even most games dev. from the ground up for the ps2 aren't utilizing it's resources properly... and anyway aren't the intel cpus and geforce gpus the most popular out there, I'm sure some of the dev. time would go for optimization for those...
You bring up the fact that developers aren't utilizing the PS2 properly, but expect PC developers to utiilize the GF properly because nVidia graphics cards are the most popular....?
Marco-
Uh, I think his point was that Xbox, being fixed platform would have games *considerably* better loking than a PC (non-fixed) while it's often not the case with the latest games ported on both.
Any game the PC can run that is on the XBox it will look better doing. It can run at higher resolution. The gap will lie on games that the PC can't run.
It has perfect framerate, insane amounts of polygons, and texturing that for what I've seen, doesn't have any blurring or artifacting - anywhere. It also has tons of multitexture effects, and IMO looks better that Hunter, that is other Xbox's offering of that kind. Also, the game, from what I've seen has better antialiasing on PS2 than it has on Xbox.
You mean less aliasing on the PS2 port? I brought up the XB comparison as people seem to think BG is the best looking PS2 title while it simply above average on the XBox.
MGS2 PC is coming out next year, but you can already see that the game has a lot of performance issues running on sub-GF4 in Xbox. Slowdowns aplenty and reduced effect complexity are just some of the problems the port has.
I've heard it was a sloppy port to the XBox, doesn't mean that it will be to the PC.
V3-
Nope around the early Geforce, my gaming rig was P3 733 with 256 MB. Q3, max out the number bots and go to where every bots gather, play it on 640x480 max setting, and watch it chug as things get gibbed. I remember frame rate of around 8.
Your processor was the problem.
I don't think I can run 1600x1200 on a Geforce. Are you sure your were running at 1600x1200 on a Geforce ?
I run it now with my NV15, I ran 1024x768 on my GF1.
I took a friend of mine to the arcade once, and she saw DOA2, she only had played DOA3 previously, and she thought it was DOA4, she said the graphics are better than DOA3.
Arcade monitors always help the visuals :)
According to the developers, the Baldur's Gate port on Xbox has improved special effects as well as twice the resolution over time (progressive scan) versus its field-rendered incarnation on PS2. I'd guess it supports 5.1 sound in gameplay on Xbox as well.
GTA3 was PS2 native and still runs better on the PC. The game was built for the PS2, its the platforms biggest title of this generation to date.
Ben, you know perfectly well it's built on Renderware. Quit the BS rhetoric.
You bring up the fact that developers aren't utilizing the PS2 properly, but expect PC developers to utiilize the GF properly because nVidia graphics cards are the most popular....?
So, your saying that developing to D3D, which is a unilaterlly accepted standard - the same standard that all the IHV's point their hardware and HAL towards, is somehow as hard to develop to as using VU microcode or managing DMA, or playing a virtual hot-potato game with your data in the subsystems?
Give me a break.
Your processor was the problem.
And that benchmark is not ? Which was the main point. Even with current processor, if the same thing occur, framerate would still drop. The point still, those benchmark is good for comparing cards/rigs, but not so good for concluding gaming quality for certain rig.
I run it now with my NV15, I ran 1024x768 on my GF1.
NV15 ? that's what ? Geforce 2 GTS ? I get motion sickness from frame rate fluctuation running at that res. Not even Geforce 3. Only with the recent Geforce 4 4600, I can run it decent at 1600x1200. You are not just running timedemo are you ?
Arcade monitors always help the visuals
If you compare to older boxes, I agree, but not her setup though, she got a nice setup to play DOA3.
marconelly!
10-Dec-2002, 05:37
According to the developers, the Baldur's Gate port on Xbox has improved special effects as well as twice the resolution over time (progressive scan) versus its field-rendered incarnation on PS2. I'd guess it supports 5.1 sound in gameplay on Xbox as well.
It's developers said they will try to add bump mapping on the water surfaces. As far as I could see, they ended up not doing it and the game looks prety much the same. It does support progressive, though, but it looks like it has antialiasing not as good as the PS2 version.
That aside, I will just repeat - Xbox and it's games have nothing to do with Ben's initial comparision of GF1 and PS2.
I've heard it was a sloppy port to the XBox, doesn't mean that it will be to the PC.
Maybe it was sloppy, I can't speculate about that, but if you think they will rework their x86 / DX code specially for a PC, I think you are fooling yoursef. Just look at Silent Hill 2 PC version which has completely destroyed shadows compared to Xbox and PS2 versions.
marconelly!:
It's developers said they will try to add bump mapping on the water surfaces. As far as I could see, they ended up not doing it and the game looks prety much the same.
I don't know the specifics about the "improved special effects", but I got it from a remark from one of the developers posting on their message board after the port was already finished. So, I'm assuming whatever upgrades they were talking about in that case made the final cut.
It does support progressive, though, but it looks like it has antialiasing not as good as the PS2 version.
Really? The anti-alaising in the Xbox version actually looked better to me, but then again, that might have come from the superior image integrity progressive scan output affords.
randycat99
10-Dec-2002, 05:57
Just curious, but why would they add bump mapping to the water surface anyway? The water already ripples in the PS2 version. What more is there to add for effect? Save'it for the damn monkeys, I say! :)
Just curious, but why would they add bump mapping to the water surface anyway? The water already ripples in the PS2 version. What more is there to add for effect? Save'it for the damn monkeys, I say! :)
The ps2 version may have been done in software and would take to much "power" away from the xbox and so they would either have to take out that effect or change it to be done with bump maps. Then again the water may look completely diffrent.
randycat99
10-Dec-2002, 06:08
OK, that makes sense. I was originally imagining them putting some sort of bumps on the water, for no reason I could discern. However, if they are using bumpmapping to actually simulate the ripples, that makes sense. ...er wouldn't they do that via vector shader, though? I guess many ways to skin a cat...
The impact to be had from improving any of the game's already-nice effects for the Xbox port would be pretty minimal, in my opinion. The only real visual improvement Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance was begging for was the addition of progressive scan; having that added into the Xbox port really makes the image quality shine - especially now that it can be used in conjunction with a true VGA connector on Xbox.
OK, that makes sense. I was originally imagining them putting some sort of bumps on the water, for no reason I could discern. However, if they are using bumpmapping to actually simulate the ripples, that makes sense. ...er wouldn't they do that via vector shader, though? I guess many ways to skin a cat...
It was just an example . look at these old screens from expendable on a g400 max to see what they can do with bump maps to the water and tell me (i've never played the psx version of the game) If thats an improvement over its water http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/19990628/g400-03.html
marconelly!
10-Dec-2002, 07:07
Really? The anti-alaising in the Xbox version actually looked better to me, but then again, that might have come from the superior image integrity progressive scan output affords.
Hehe, maybe. Or as I like to say: Xbox - my TV is better than yours :)
I think the aliasing in Xbox version is much more obvious in the cut scene model closeups.
I also remember you saying that about the effects long time ago, but the speciffic comment was found later and it was talking about the water surface bumpmapping. I really couldn't see any difference in the effects whatsoever, btw.
jvd, water in BGDA is already rippling, using the geometry.
yes i understand what you mean but if you look at the screen shots it looks alot more than rippling it has depth and foam in the actually water. dreamcast games had rippling
BenSkywalker
10-Dec-2002, 08:06
Vince-
Ben, you know perfectly well it's built on Renderware. Quit the BS rhetoric.
So you are going on record stating that they did absolutely no platform specific optimizations and are, as a point of fact, one of the poorest console developers in the business? Funny that you speak so highly of their work. :)
So, your saying that developing to D3D, which is a unilaterlly accepted standard - the same standard that all the IHV's point their hardware and HAL towards, is somehow as hard to develop to as using VU microcode or managing DMA, or playing a virtual hot-potato game with your data in the subsystems?
I must have missed it, can you please point me to the GeForce1 specific DirectX build that is floating around. I can't believe I missed that :oops:
V3-
And that benchmark is not ? Which was the main point. Even with current processor, if the same thing occur, framerate would still drop.
From 250FPS down to 175FPS, catastrophic fluctuation to be sure ;)
The point still, those benchmark is good for comparing cards/rigs, but not so good for concluding gaming quality for certain rig.
Games are the best indicator as always. Benchmarks eliminate the delusions and bias that people hold.
NV15 ? that's what ? Geforce 2 GTS ? I get motion sickness from frame rate fluctuation running at that res. Not even Geforce 3. Only with the recent Geforce 4 4600, I can run it decent at 1600x1200. You are not just running timedemo are you ?
First off 61FPS is by default better then any console period. If you or I like 200FPS is irrelevant, if a PC pushes a game @61FPS it is faster then any console. NV15 includes the GF2Pro boards including the Gainward GF Pro450 which is clocked at 220/450(significantly faster then a GTS). A normal GF2 Pro pushes just under 60FPS average @16x12-
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/drivers/detonator4/image008.gif
Now, if you are saying that you need 100FPS to be able to play Quake3 or any other game, the PS2 looses to the GF1 by default. You mention framerate fluctuation, if it doesn't drop below 30FPS at any point, how is it any different then any console title?
If you compare to older boxes, I agree, but not her setup though, she got a nice setup to play DOA3.
Really? She found a TV with a dot pitch under 0.30??? I have yet to see one under .60, where did she pick it up? I've been wanting one for years.
Marco-
Maybe it was sloppy, I can't speculate about that, but if you think they will rework their x86 / DX code specially for a PC, I think you are fooling yoursef. Just look at Silent Hill 2 PC version which has completely destroyed shadows compared to Xbox and PS2 versions.
So because one team screwed up one port, all teams must screw up all ports, is that the general idea of what you are saying?
With that being said, Hunter has a lot more going on (30+ enemies simultaneously) than BG does and it looks just as good.
And Hunter is also an Xbox game.
We are talking about the limitations of the GF1 vs the PS2, without bottlenecking the GF it is akin to using PSX games to show the power of the PS2.
So what PC specs should we pair up with a GF1 to make it a fair comparison with a PS2?
It runs a lot smoother on the PC.
I just have to wait for the demo, if there is to be one. :(
In the meantime, please try out NWN or Dungeon Siege on your GF1 and compare that with BGDA.
According to the developers, the Baldur's Gate port on Xbox has improved special effects as well as twice the resolution over time (progressive scan) versus its field-rendered incarnation on PS2. I'd guess it supports 5.1 sound in gameplay on Xbox as well.
IGN do not see any drastically improved special effects and BGDA is rendered at high res internally on the PS2.
Why are we comparing PS2 with Xbox now?
So because one team screwed up one port, all teams must screw up all ports, is that the general idea of what you are saying?
I think he meant PC<->Console ports are not too accurate for comparison.
I'm going to put on my flame suit for this one . I bet my athlon xp 2000+ with a radeon 9700 pro and 512megs of ddr can run any console game at 640x480 with out any problems as long as the developer tried a little to optimize it for the pc (xbox game most likely nothing needs to be done).
Why do current console games look better than current pc games. Well if your deveoloping for a xbox , you have the x amount of ram , the 700 mhz cpu and whatever the gpu speed is. That will never change. You can optimize the hell outta it .
On the pc side you people still running rage 128s and tnts . Look at doom 3 . Thats a game made around a geforce 1. Imagine a game made around my setup . It will be much much more amazing than anything the xbox will ever come up with. The problem is it will take a few years by then a new console will be out.
One last thing to note. Take any 3d pc game and run it at 640x480 res and then run it at 1600x1200 (or highest res you can run it at , for me 1600x1200 6fsaa and 16x aniso ) See how much better it looks. Now ask yourself if you can take an xbox game and move it up to a higher res with out the frame rates tanking big time.
marconelly!
10-Dec-2002, 09:10
So because one team screwed up one port, all teams must screw up all ports, is that the general idea of what you are saying?
Let's just wait and see, but I think you are up for an unpleasant MGS2 ride on a PC.
yes i understand what you mean but if you look at the screen shots it looks alot more than rippling it has depth and foam in the actually water. dreamcast games had rippling
Yes, but BGDA also has rippling with specular highlights and transparency, plus the rippling is realtime generated when anything touches/walks through the water. Bumpmapping could add it some microdetails though (or so I assume).
Basically, It looks like this, except this is a very muddy water on the dungeon:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2001/ps2/baldursgate/081701/baldursgatedarkalliance_screen021.jpg
cybamerc
10-Dec-2002, 10:30
BenSkywalker:
> Add to the things Johnny already mentioned,
What were those?
> non muddy textures
Please... as if every PS2 has crappy texturing.
> proper texture filtering
DOA3 is a shimmery mess. Of the launch games Halo looks far cleaner.
> and the hair effects.
I knew you'd mention that but DOA3's hair effects are no better than what you see in SH3 or Clock Tower 3.
> The game was built for the PS2, its the platforms biggest title of this
> generation to date.
I'm not chap but I'd like to point out that GTA3 is running on a poorly optimized Renderware engine. DMA was never any good at making 3d engines to begin with so the game is hardly suitable as a benchmark of any kind.
> as a point of fact, one of the poorest console developers in the
> business?
From a technical point of view they're certainly not among the best.
Ben,
You're still on crack if you think GTA3 is better on the PC. It ran like absolute GARBAGE on my system (GF2, 1ghz P3, 640x480), and the "streaks" effect were so bad they almost gave me epilepsy.
Unless they released some magic patch to fix the rendering process, GTA3PC gets two thumbs down from me.
Anyway, i dont care if GF1 is really better than a PS2, but until we have some really reliable sources or benchmarks(faf?! archiez!? erp?! crazyace!?), i would not be so quick to make any confirmation based off certain games or personal experiences.
BenSkywalker
10-Dec-2002, 11:08
Zurich-
You're still on crack if you think GTA3 is better on the PC. It ran like absolute GARBAGE on my system (GF2, 1ghz P3, 640x480)
What is your aperture setting at? It is a known issue with the game, they explicitly tell you how to fix it. As far as thinking it runs better on the PC, FRAPS says it runs around 45-55FPS although it is at 1024x768, not 640x480 :)
and the "streaks" effect were so bad they almost gave me epilepsy.
Somehow after reading that I find it extraordinarily unlikely you bothered to adjust your aperture settings. If you don't like the streaks, shut them off, problem solved.
Marco-
Let's just wait and see, but I think you are up for an unpleasant MGS2 ride on a PC.
There is no way I'm gonig to pay a cent for MGS2, I can't stand it. I'm simply interested in how it will perform.
Cybermac-
What were those?
Animation, poly complexity and lighting which when combined with quality texturing, proper filtering and the shader effects easily surpasses anything I've seen to date on the PS2.
Please... as if every PS2 has crappy texturing.
'Ico has good textures', 'BG has good filtering', 'VF4 has good animation', 'SH3 has good lighting' etc. What matches everything DOA3 offers on a visual basis on the PS2?
DOA3 is a shimmery mess. Of the launch games Halo looks far cleaner.
No mip banding.
I knew you'd mention that but DOA3's hair effects are no better than what you see in SH3 or Clock Tower 3.
Haven't seen anything on the hair effects, have any links to real time vid feeds?
I'm not chap but I'd like to point out that GTA3 is running on a poorly optimized Renderware engine. DMA was never any good at making 3d engines to begin with so the game is hardly suitable as a benchmark of any kind.
Of course, every single game that is on both the PC and PS2 runs better on GF1 level hardware because of xxxx excuse ;)
Chap-
Anyway, i dont care if GF1 is really better than a PS2, but until we have some really reliable sources or benchmarks(faf?! archiez!? erp?! crazyace!?), i would not be so quick to make any confirmation based off certain games or personal experiences.
Actual benchmarks don't count as benchmarks....? There are things the PS2 does better, some of which I've never argued(transformations as an example). There are also things that the PS2 comes up short on.
There are things the PS2 does better, some of which I've never argued(transformations as an example). There are also things that the PS2 comes up short on.
Ok.
Since both are 1999 tech and both have advantages and disadvantages, then i dont see what this argument is all about....???
If you are thinking whether PS2 will do better with a GF1 instead of a GS, i dont think that is valid either.
BenSkywalker
10-Dec-2002, 11:42
Since both are 1999 tech and both have advantages and disadvantages, then i dont see what this argument is all about....???
It's actually quite simple..... we're bored ;)
Going in to the holiday season, we're not seeing the type of sales numbers that we like yet and we are at the point where all the major titles have pretty much been reviewed and their relative strengths and merits have been discussed quite thoroughly. So, what else is there to talk about...? ;)
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 12:48
Enable trilinear, anisotropic and use say 20MBs worth of textures and see how much good the theoretical numbers do for the PS2.
Considering the mgs2doc.(not sure, havent seen in a while.) says some models are up to 10MB and clearly there are many other textured objects besides that one, The textures are no prob.... The anisotropic is also not a prob. since there are games with excellent IQ and thus it would be only trivial to enable it.
Again the deal is are the Gf1's 20,000 polys at 60fps with a few texture, and effects enough to offset the ps2 advantage in rendering speed, fillrate, T&L(both speed and flexibility), b/w... I don't think so heck if u limited the ps2 to just that few polys it could probably hack all those effects, and then some...
Do you have the game? It is very low poly, even by circa 1999 PC game standards.
Well if the upgrade was small, say to 1000 or 2000 polys per char. it'd still look blocky.... but with a dozen or more of those and the backgrounds... u'd be outdoing quake 3... EDIT: anyway doesn't the Unreal engine use the cpu alot or something like that... hmmm...
"The first basic requirement for a game to take advantage of Hardware T&L is that it must use either the DirectX 7 or OpenGL API. This means that unless a game uses DirectX 7's Hardware T&L engine or the implementation in OpenGL it will not receive any benefit from the GeForce 256's hardware T&L. ...the game must not use its own transforming or lighting engine. This immediately takes Unreal Tournament out the running because it uses its own T&L engine."
Now, if you are saying that you need 100FPS to be able to play Quake3 or any other game, the PS2 looses to the GF1 by default. You mention framerate fluctuation, if it doesn't drop below 30FPS at any point, how is it any different then any console title?
Cut the texture rez, and I guess it should go to 1000+fps with even 1920x something HDtv rez on ps2... not sure if it could output that but it could do it internally at least...
Anyways I just don't see the Gf1 so called advantage, either bottleneck or whatever..., the fact is the GF2pro doesn't appear to be going above 2M polys... that means a game like J&D is already running at 5X the geometry... and some of the games with even higher geometry could be running with an order of magnitude more geometry....
EDIT
We already had the fillrate 480M... now i went to another site and found the bandwith... "Basic math will tell us that this results in around 2.6GB/s of local memory bandwidth on a regularly clocked GeForce 256 card."
Slowly a picture is beginning to emerge...
the Geforces small bandwidth, low fillrate, low polycount, etc... pretty much are serious bottlenecks....
The GS needs 48GB/s to operate more than an ORDER of magnitude the Geforce's bandwidth...
HOW is this suppah b/w limited Gf1 supposed to handle the stuff the stuff the GS does.... nobody knows....
BenSkywalker
10-Dec-2002, 13:07
Considering the mgs2doc.(not sure, havent seen in a while.) says some models are up to 10MB and clearly there are many other textured objects besides that one, The textures are no prob....
You think the PS2 can handle 20MB of textures at once at a decent speed w/trilinear and anisotropic filtering..?
The anisotropic is also not a prob. since there are games with excellent IQ and thus it would be only trivial to enable it.
Well the GameCube has four controller ports, so the memory cards are too small :roll: That makes about as much sense as what you just said.
Again the deal is are the Gf1's 20,000 polys at 60fps with a few texture, and effects enough to offset the ps2 advantage in rendering speed, fillrate, T&L(both speed and flexibility), b/w... I don't think so heck if u limited the ps2 to just that few polys it could probably hack all those effects, and then some...
You take a singular example? Look at the PS2 and how fast it runs UnrealTournament, half the speed of the GF1 so it must mean the PS2 can't handle more polys.... right? And do you know why it is that they used such incredibly poor textures in the PS2 build? Didn't even bother to add support for the high quality large textures the game runs with on the PC.
Well if the upgrade was small, say to 1000 or 2000 polys per char. it'd still look blocky.... but with a dozen or more of those and the backgrounds... u'd be outdoing quake 3...
1K to 2K poly increase per model.... not a chance. A doubling to trippling of poly counts in UT would be more then slightly noticeable.
Cut the texture rez, and I guess it should go to 1000+fps with even 1920x something HDtv rez on ps2... not sure if it could output that but it could do it internally at least...
Where do you get this from? If the PS2 ran every single one of its games at an absolute locked 60FPS you migh be able to make an assumption along those lines(though nowhere near as obscene of course), but it's not close to doing that.
Anyways I just don't see the Gf1 so called advantage, either bottleneck or whatever..., the fact is the GF2pro doesn't appear to be going above 2M polys..
And none of the PS2 games appear to use textures over 256x256 while the GF boards run games with 1024x1024. And where are the loads of game using tri and ani?
that means a game like J&D is already running at 5X the geometry... and some of the games with even higher geometry could be running with an order of magnitude more geometry....
And UT runs 4x the texture load on the GF. The difference, UT is on both the PS2 and PC.
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 13:22
You take a singular example? Look at the PS2 and how fast it runs UnrealTournament, half the speed of the GF1 so it must mean the PS2 can't handle more polys.... right? And do you know why it is that they used such incredibly poor textures in the PS2 build? Didn't even bother to add support for the high quality large textures the game runs with on the PC.
Well i added some stuff to my reply when i edited u might wanna take a look.
If you don't like the streaks, shut them off, problem solved
There's a good example of PS2-tech that couldn't translate effectively to the PC... ;) Guess 48gb/sec of eDRAM is good for something afterall!
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 13:25
Where do you get this from? If the PS2 ran every single one of its games at an absolute locked 60FPS you migh be able to make an assumption along those lines(though nowhere near as obscene of course), but it's not close to doing that.
Well considering dev.s have gotten textured 500000polys at 60fps... going to 10000 polys should aid a lot, just cut the texture rez.... and the free space that would cause would allow for HDTV since games like sledstorm 2(i think) are said to go HD, and feature far more than 10000polys per frame...
EDIT
Well the GameCube has four controller ports, so the memory cards are too small That makes about as much sense as what you just said.
Not the same, trilinear and anisotropic are used to improve IQ, I think, so if the IQ has no prob. there's no real need for those...
BenSkywalker
10-Dec-2002, 13:46
Zidane-
"Basic math will tell us that this results in around 2.6GB/s of local memory bandwidth on a regularly clocked GeForce 256 card."
150,000,000*2*128/8/1024/1024/1024= 4.47GB/second
You are looking at the SDR bandwith figures. Also, you are talking about 32MB or 64MB of 4.47GB dedicated to rasterizer functions, vs 4MB for the GS.
HOW is this suppah b/w limited Gf1 supposed to handle the stuff the stuff the GS does.... nobody knows....
Much like asking how can the miniscule amount of RAM available to the GS possibly compete with the GF.
Well considering dev.s have gotten textured 500000polys at 60fps... going to 10000 polys should aid a lot, just cut the texture rez.... and the free space that would cause would allow for HDTV since games like sledstorm 2(i think) are said to go HD, and feature far more than 10000polys per frame...
1920*1080*16/8/1024/1024= 3.99MBs for your front buffer, but you need a back buffer which means you have to double that, so 7.98MBs without any textures or any RAM allocated for ZBuffer. Remember that miniscule amount, 4MB, of RAM I mentioned? This is where the PS2 would get really throttled ;)
Not the same, trilinear and anisotropic are used to improve IQ, I think, so if the IQ has no prob. there's no real need for those...
Mip banding and texture aliasing are IQ problems, both of which the PS2 suffers from rather severely in most of its games(although, some don't use mip maps at all eliminating mip banding and creating horrendous texture aliasing).
Zurich-
There's a good example of PS2-tech that couldn't translate effectively to the PC...
It works just fine, it's just ugly as hell(at least IMO). I've never been a fan of blurring, motion or otherwise. Didn't notice any framerate fluctuation at all, although I didn't play for very long with streaking enabled(have to check it with FRAPS and see what the hit is).
cybamerc
10-Dec-2002, 13:48
BenSkywalker:
> Animation, poly complexity and lighting which when combined with
> quality texturing, proper filtering and the shader effects easily
> surpasses anything I've seen to date on the PS2.
I just don't see how you make such a general statement. Yeah, DOA3 may look better than any fighter on PS2 (and to what extent is certainly debatable) but comparing a fighter to other types of games doesn't make much sense. Fighters and racers in particular tend to be graphical show-offs and interestingly the PS2 still has the prettiest racer on any platform.
> What matches everything DOA3 offers on a visual basis on the PS2?
What matches everything GT3 offers on a visual basis on Xbox? We can all cherry-pick and come up with a game or two on a specific platform that is superior to similar types of game on the other platforms.
You say animation in DOA3 is unequaled? Better than VF4 or SH3 (facial animation)? Poly complexity? Maybe in the big panorama press pics but certainly not in-game where the field of vision is severely limited. Not to mention that there are visible poly edges everywhere. The lighting model is solid but certainly not better than what many PS2 games have to offer. The texturing is good, I'll give you that, but the horrible filtering takes care of that. Shader effects? A little bump-mapping on the water, a gloss map on some clothes... yes, how can the PS2 ever hope to compete with that.
> No mip banding.
Not every PS2 game is bilinear filtered and even if that was the case it still wouldn't make DOA3 any less of a shimmery mess.
> Haven't seen anything on the hair effects, have any links to real time
> vid feeds?
http://www.capcom.co.jp/ct3/dl/image/ct3_230.mpg
Don't have any links to SH3 vids. Maybe someone else can help out.
> Of course, every single game that is on both the PC and PS2 runs
> better on GF1 level hardware because of xxxx excuse
Please... it's a valid one. The old GTAs on the PS1 ran like crap and Body Harvest on the N64 was definitely not one of the prettiest games on the system either. And you're just about the only person I've ever heard say that GTA3 runs acceptably on sub-GF2 hardware.
Fafalada
10-Dec-2002, 13:50
And none of the PS2 games appear to use textures over 256x256.
No.
Oh while we're benchmarking software, you can also tackle the issue of several DC->PC ports runing (and sometimes looking) better on DC(and consequently on PS2, those that were ported there as well) then GF2&1ghz class hw.
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 13:57
150,000,000*2*128/8/1024/1024/1024= 4.47GB/second
You are looking at the SDR bandwith figures. Also, you are talking about 32MB or 64MB of 4.47GB dedicated to rasterizer functions, vs 4MB for the GS.
Well the Gf1 review(from a site that's been labeled nvwh@res basically by everybody...) says the initial Gf1s ram allowed for the 2.6GB bandwith... so I'm not talking about later revisions with faster clocks, or memories...
1920*1080*16/8/1024/1024= 3.99MBs for your front buffer, but you need a back buffer which means you have to double that, so 7.98MBs without any textures or any RAM allocated for ZBuffer. Remember that miniscule amount, 4MB, of RAM I mentioned? This is where the PS2 would get really throttled
IIRC sledstorm 2 is expected to run at 1080i HDTV... again i could be mistaken but i thought i read that...EDIT 2( It's possible with a decent poly title, it's possible with a 10k poly title)EDIT2 end
EDIT
here are some of the conclusions of said review...
"If you currently have a TNT2 or a TNT2 Ultra, then by all means stick with your card. The improvement the GeForce 256 offers over the TNT2 is not large enough to justify ditching a card you bought a few months ago for around $150 - $200 and spending an additional $220+. As a matter of fact, if you have any current generation graphics card (i.e. Voodoo3, G400, etc…) an upgrade to a GeForce now would not be worth the money for you. While the performance improvement is definitely noticeable at higher resolutions, you can still survive with your current setup and shouldn't be too concerned with upgrading just yet. "
Hmmm. I guess since the Gf1 can outdo the ps2 and it's not significantly ahead of the TnT2... according to u one could say the ps2 is on par with TnT2..... rrrrrrriiiiiigggghhhhttttt......
BenSkywalker
10-Dec-2002, 14:03
Cybermac-
What matches everything GT3 offers on a visual basis on Xbox?
Matches, that's a tough one. SegaGT2K2 maybe? It's the poorest looking racer I've played on the XBox, although it can't match the amount of edge aliasing or blurry b/g textures of GT3.
You say animation in DOA3 is unequaled?
When did I say that(hint- I didn't). I implied that VF4 had comparable animation actually.
Shader effects? A little bump-mapping on the water, a gloss map on some clothes... yes, how can the PS2 ever hope to compete with that.
Actually, I found the hair to be by far the most impressive shader effect. I'm still interested in hearing what PS2 title can stand up to DoA3 in all areas. I was saying earlier, perhaps not clearly enough, that there are games that can compete with DoA3 in individual aspects, I want to know which one competes in all aspects.
Don't have any links to SH3 vids. Maybe someone else can help out.
Have to dl the clip(it will take a couple of hours- #)$*#$& dial up :evil: :cry: ).
Please... it's a valid one. The old GTAs on the PS1 ran like crap and Body Harvest on the N64 was definitely not one of the prettiest games on the system either.
It simply seems that every game has a reason why it runs faster on PCs.
And you're just about the only person I've ever heard say that GTA3 runs acceptably on sub-GF2 hardware.
The min specs are a 16MB(TNT level) w/450MHZ processor, reccomended are 32MB(TNT2) class vid card with 700MHZ processor. Hard T&L board doesn't even make it on to the reccomended level. There is a bug in the game that significantly impacts performance, why won't anyone who has mentioned all the performance issues they had with the game tell me what their aperture settings are at? I didn't come up with this btw, it was on the official website.
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 14:12
Have to dl the clip(it will take a couple of hours- #)$*#$& dial up ).
zidane-dah-broadband-user-strife's secret...
Hmmm.... U know I'm getting 30+KBs, and I only pay for dial-up.... I just asked the telephone company for dsl, they brought the dsl box connected it, etc... and just cause it's not configured I don't pay a cent.... Bwahahahahahah!!!!
U should Try it, it might help...
BenSkywalker
10-Dec-2002, 14:16
Faf-
No.
Honest question, which games use larger textures?
Oh while we're benchmarking software, you can also tackle the issue of several DC->PC ports runing (and sometimes looking) better on DC(and consequently on PS2, those that were ported there as well) then GF2&1ghz class hw.
Could you name some? The only title that springs to mind that was on both DC and PC is Quake3, which was ported the other way. Which titles were they? If we are looking at ports of older titles, Half-Life actually looked better on the PS2 when it came out then it did on the PC(although it was years later), but they did offer the improved graphics pack for PC users also(and the game still runs in tripple digits).
Zidane-
Well the Gf1 review(from a site that's been labeled nvwh@res basically by everybody...) says the initial Gf1s ram allowed for the 2.6GB bandwith... so I'm not talking about later revisions with faster clocks, or memories...
There were two different GeForce1 boards, the SDR and DDR versions. The one you are talking about is the SDR version that ran over $200 while the DDR board, which was nearly twice as fast and is the same chip used in the SDR board offerings, could be had for under $300. The memory actually operated at a lower frequency on the DDR then on the SDR(DDR was @150 despite having 6ns rating v 166 for the SDR boards).
IIRC sledstorm 2 is expected to run at 1080i HDTV... again i could be mistaken but i thought i read that...
Even if you half the res and run 1080x540 you would still chew up all of the VRAM simply for your frame buffers. AFAIK the PS2 can't flip to system RAM for output(Faf?).
Hmmm. I guess since the Gf1 can outdo the ps2 and it's not significantly ahead of the TnT2... according to u one could say the ps2 is on par with TnT2..... rrrrrrriiiiiigggghhhhttttt......
The GeForce1 was and is significantly faster then the TNT2 Ultra. Your looking at reviews for a particular type of board that was built around the NV10 core.
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 14:20
The GeForce1 was and is significantly faster then the TNT2 Ultra. Your looking at reviews for a particular type of board that was built around the NV10 core.
Well the reviews are for the Geforce 256... is that not the Gf1?
BenSkywalker
10-Dec-2002, 14:29
Well the reviews are for the Geforce 256... is that not the Gf1?
The GeForce 256 was kind of a generic name for the GeForce1. Both the SDR and DDR versions had the exact same chip, the only difference between them was that one had DDR RAM nearly doubling the bandwith.
http://www.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/geforce256_ddr/image004.gif
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1107&p=6
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 14:49
Hey the review said the fillrate difference gave the Gf1 more perf. as the rez increased... but when not fillrate limited the tnt2 ultra was not that far behind the Gf1...
Fafalada
10-Dec-2002, 14:49
Honest question, which games use larger textures?
It'd be hard to be specific considering I'm not privy to inside data about every game out there. But I'd say probably every game that has a skybox :P
I do know that some games also don't shy from oldschool style "stuff everything on a huge map", BGDA comes to mind.
Telling the "texture resolution" by observation alone is also about as reliable as counting polygons from a screenshot. Though I guess that doesn't stop people from trying... ;)
IMO I don't think size of individiual maps is particularly relevant anymore though - high surface detail is mainly obtained through multiple texture passes nowadays(tends to be more memory efficient as well as better looking), and texture context switching is extremely fast as well (at least on some hardware).
Could you name some?
Sega games come to mind. VT framerate was downright sad, and HOTD visuals were extremely glitchy, to name two of bigger names.
Obviously the cause is the software itself, but that's the point people are trying to make about other games you keep bringing up.
BenSkywalker
10-Dec-2002, 15:08
Zidane-
Hey the review said the fillrate difference gave the Gf1 more perf. as the rez increased... but when not fillrate limited the tnt2 ultra was not that far behind the Gf1..
Because they were CPU limited. Throw a title like Giants at the TNT2 Ultra and it gets blown away by the GF(running the same res in both IQ and performance).
Faf-
It'd be hard to be specific considering I'm not privy to inside data about every game out there. But I'd say probably every game that has a skybox
Really? The amount of banding(not that is is excessive, Q3 uses 2 256x256 textures for the sky IIRC) lead me to believe that most of them were running 256x256 or lower.
I do know that some games also don't shy from oldschool style "stuff everything on a huge map", BGDA comes to mind.
Haven't seen enough of BGDA.
Telling the "texture resolution" by observation alone is also about as reliable as counting polygons from a screenshot. Though I guess that doesn't stop people from trying...
Until you start getting rather high, a lot of people can get fairly close numbers. That rules out sloppy useage of course, you can make a sphere with 500 and 1,000,000 polys and if using decent lighting they will be almost indistinguishable from each other.
IMO I don't think size of individiual maps is particularly relevant anymore though - high surface detail is mainly obtained through multiple texture passes nowadays(tends to be more memory efficient as well as better looking), and texture context switching is extremely fast as well (at least on some hardware).
If a game is using a basic base/lightmap texturing scheme I think its still relevant. I agree with you on where we are headed, but we are still getting a lot of games that are relying on base textures with a pre calculated lightmap for their visuals.
Sega games come to mind. VT framerate was downright sad, and HOTD visuals were extremely glitchy, to name two of bigger names.
What's VT? I've never seen HOTD for the PC(running).
Obviously the cause is the software itself, but that's the point people are trying to make about other games you keep bringing up.
I'm trying to bring up every game I can find that's on both platforms. I honestly see the GF1 having an edge in areas over the PS2, and pointing to PC exclusive games doesn't seem to work because people don't like the advantages that PCs have, so I try to use cross platform apps.
Cybermac-
The clip dled faster then I thought it would. Is the PS2 now handling radiosity in real time? ;) The pre rendered sections look sweet with the flowing hair, the in game it flops around in giant clumps from what I can see on this clip(although it is very low res, not the best showcase). You have any idea what all the Japanese text says in the trailer?
cybamerc
10-Dec-2002, 15:23
BenSkywalker:
> Actually, I found the hair to be by far the most impressive shader effect.
Just a bunch of polygons with alpha textures on them.
> I want to know which one competes in all aspects.
Fair enough... I want to know about an Xbox title that competes with SH3 in all aspects.
> the in game it flops around in giant clumps from what I can see on this
> clip
Not more so than in DOA3. There's a shot where the girl picks herself up off the floor and the hair moves quite a bit. Not really saying it's super impressive but I fail to see how DOA3 does it better.
Fafalada
10-Dec-2002, 15:41
Obviously not every game does sky the same way, but enough people like to use that sky generating util making it sort of 'standard'.
That said, 'standard' skybox will run you 5(or 6 if you want bottom too)512x512 maps. This should look highres enough for resolutions below 1024. You could break it up into 20 256x256 maps, but that's a lot of fuss for just sky(imo).
256 for entire side of the cube is rather on the low res side, so you'd have to resort to some kind of tiling or overlaying to cover it up. (but if you're not carefull with that you might end up with something like the "3 suns on one screen" effect, seen in F355 DC :P )
True enough, if you devoted some time to just coding up something for sky rendering, you could probably get away with far less texture data use and still make it look nice, but it's always a question is whether that would be time well spent. Especially since end visual result is unknown.
As for banding, skymaps are typically gradient heavy, which is the worst case scenario for VQ compression schemes.
Until you start getting rather high, a lot of people can get fairly close numbers.
You can get relatively close on some individual objects, yes. But overall is completely random guessing, especially accounting for particle stuff, not to even mention "invisible" geometry that goes into offscreen buffers.
What's VT? I've never seen HOTD for the PC(running).
Virtua Tennis. HOTD you didn't miss much, it's a straight port with nothing added, except the said graphical glitches :\
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 16:32
Because they were CPU limited. Throw a title like Giants at the TNT2 Ultra and it gets blown away by the GF(running the same res in both IQ and performance
What's the deal with the cpu limitation anyways... So I'm supposed to believe the Gf1 will continue to go up in perf. with newer and newer cpus... maybe that's because the games are doing part of the T&L on the cpu or something....
The Gf1 clearly has it's limits... and according to the 3dfx guy i quoted it's basically 2 tnt2s put together with some features...
I just don't get it even Nvidia in their Gf3 demos shows few or even one object/face at a time... clearly if the Gf line could've EDIT In the pastEDIT
rendered tons upon tons of high geometry like the consoles do now they'd have done it....Anyways from what the Cage guy in the gspot quote say'd it seems he couldn't get more than 1Mpolys in game out of the Gf1...
"When GeForce256 was released in October 1999 it came with SDR memory at 166 MHz clock. The release of the famous 'GeForceDDR' cards, which were nothing else than the same chip, but with faster memory, showed how much a fast 3D chip can be stalled by slow memory. " hmmm... it seems the DDR ones came later...
Anyways IMHO a few more features here and there aren't enough to outshine the ps2's performance lead in most areas...
found other info outhere...
"In the case of NVIDIA's GeForce, the "GPU" is doing these mathematics. The GPU has special pipelines, which are optimized to execute the T&L mathematics. Basically, the GPU has a piece of hardware on-board specialized and optimized to do this work. Naturally, this hardware has limitations- since it is hardware and is running at a certain clockspeed, it has a certain maximum throughput....
...and later on...
High Polygon Count (1 Light)
4444 KTriangles/s Hardware T&L
6752 KTriangles/s Intel Pentium III 742Mhz
3969 KTriangles/s AMD Athlon 700MHz (*)
High Polygon Count (4 Lights)
3164 KTriangles/s Hardware T&L
5453 KTriangles/s Intel Pentium III 742Mhz
3317 KTriangles/s AMD Athlon 700MHz (*)
High Polygon Count (8 Lights)
1711 KTriangles/s Hardware T&L
4300 KTriangles/s Intel Pentium III 742Mhz
2653 KTriangles/s AMD Athlon 700MHz (*)
....Yes NVIDIA says that they don't agree, and there is a good reason for not agreeing. Want to know what the reason is? Well as the numbers at the start indicate, both Pentium III's and AMD Athlon's software T&L is faster than NVIDIAs special hardware T&L. If software is beating your hardware you are in big trouble, and you'll do anything to convince the public that something is not right. It's called damage control people!....
...The reason why NVIDIA wants us to use the Microsoft implementation is because this is the least optimized one available. Top games, like Quake3: Arena, use their own custom optimized engines (light is done in software), and Messiah uses software T&L for most major parts of the geometry (characters). There are many more that also fall under this category.
....GeForce is slow because it hits its hardware limit. Hardware always has a limit, a limit introduced by the implementation (the actual hardware pipeline) and its clock frequency. There is only so much that hardware can do.
...The thing that amazes me most is that, to the public, NVIDIA says that developers should use as many lights as possible, while their optimization FAQ says this:
Q. How many lights should I use?
A. In general, as few as possible…
Anyone who doubts that marketing crap exists today, here is some solid proof!
...NVIDIA's defensive arguments are pushing it a bit - call it fanatical. We found out that by using more lights, especially non-directional lights, is very expensive (performance drops more than a whopping 50%!). Also, using a lot of point lights and spotlights is probably a big no-no on the GeForce, unless you would like to see a slideshow using Hardware T&L."
hmm.m.m.
chap:
IGN do not see any drastically improved special effects
I'm just stating what the developers of the game said on their forum. If you go over to the Black Isles message board, you could probably have them address any inquiries directly.
Also, I never once said the effects were supposed to be "drastically" improved.
and BGDA is rendered at high res internally on the PS2.
Um, ok. So? It downsamples from that for AA purposes which is nice, but it sounds like you're using that to put it on equal footing with the Xbox port which also has the addition of progressive scan output. Rendering internally at a high res on the PS2 doesn't stop it from being field rendered, or give it the benefits of non-interlaced output, or help it in any way with regards to that. Like anything else, output is the final limitation.
Since both are 1999 tech
Not sure about the GeForce (I think that was holiday 1999), but the PS2 didn't reach the market until March of 2000. All technology is of course finalized at least a few months before it ships, but basing it off the standard of when its finalized means you'd have to make the same readjustment for all hardware.
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 17:17
Not sure about the GeForce (I think that was holiday 1999), but the PS2 didn't reach the market until March of 2000. All technology is of course finalized at least a few months before it ships, but basing it off the standard of when its finalized means you'd have to make the same readjustment for all hardware.
Well that's just a few months difference(not unlike what nvidia has done in the past a few very rare times...releasing a few months later than competitors...)... and i think it's still the same fiscal yr... not sure.
marconelly!
10-Dec-2002, 17:55
Um, ok. So? It downsamples from that for AA purposes which is nice, but it sounds like you're using that to put it on equal footing with the Xbox port which also has the addition of progressive scan output
PS2 version doesn't have progressive support, but rendering at higher resolution internally has resulted in excelent AA. You can see on many of the framebuffer shots that Xbox version seemingly doesn't AA everything, like on this pic:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/xbox/baldursgate/baldurs_screen003.jpg
I can double check, but I'm pretty sure, in the same scene, PS2 version has none of the aliasing you can see here.
I can actually confirm that, as I have the game running right this second and I can't see any aliasing what so ever. I wish I could grab a screen... :(
BTW; nice info Zidane. :) I actually wrote you a PM but I don't think you saw that one yet, so I'll just ask again in here: what's that MGS2 doc you guys are talking about? Any link to where I can get a hold of it, anyone?
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 19:13
MGS2 doc is a special MGs2 documentary that was released a while ago...
It is available in most gamestores i guess... It's valued at 20$, i think...
At least for gamestop u can check local availability of their products through their site.
It contains all Mgs2 cutscenes with no sound... but u can rotate the camera..
There are also stage, and char. models for u'r viewing...
5 vr missions...
Some notes on dev.(Not many though...)
Some vid.s, promo material photos...
and a few other stuff..
marconelly!
10-Dec-2002, 19:22
Also the original artwork all the trailers ever released and many other things like that. You can order it from EBworld site
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/products/product.asp?pf_id=228917
randycat99
11-Dec-2002, 02:45
I can actually confirm that, as I have the game running right this second and I can't see any aliasing what so ever. I wish I could grab a screen... :(
How about the subtle jiggly breasts? I wonder if that "feature" made it through on the port? ;)
randycat99
11-Dec-2002, 02:52
You can see on many of the framebuffer shots that Xbox version seemingly doesn't AA everything, like on this pic:
Is it AA'ing anything in that shot? It looks like the multisampling is boned and the anisotropic filtering (the textures?) is the only smoothing going on. Did I get the terminology correct?
BenSkywalker
11-Dec-2002, 14:17
Cybermac-
Just a bunch of polygons with alpha textures on them.
It appears to be using vertex shaders based on the movement of the hair(not nearly as clumpy as they usual alpha texture trick). If that's all they are doing, they are devoting a hell of a lot more polys to it then the other titles using the technique.
Fair enough... I want to know about an Xbox title that competes with SH3 in all aspects.
Splinter Cell.
Not more so than in DOA3. There's a shot where the girl picks herself up off the floor and the hair moves quite a bit. Not really saying it's super impressive but I fail to see how DOA3 does it better.
Rewatching it and looking for it, it appears to move in a couple of large clumps, very similar to Links hair in Celda. DoA3 looks like there is more then three thick strands of hair.
Faf-
You can get relatively close on some individual objects, yes. But overall is completely random guessing, especially accounting for particle stuff, not to even mention "invisible" geometry that goes into offscreen buffers.
On the PC side of things, people regularly nail down within 10% the amount of polys in use(some applications include counters, and developers will regularly state poly complexity if pressed). As far as texture sizes, on the PC we can look at the individual textures in PS or the like making it pretty easy.
Virtua Tennis. HOTD you didn't miss much, it's a straight port with nothing added, except the said graphical glitches :\
Didn't even know VirtuaTennis came out for the PC, not that I would even consider picking it up anyway(only tennis game that ever kept my interest for more then ten minutes was Mario tennis for the VB) ;)
Zidane-
What's the deal with the cpu limitation anyways... So I'm supposed to believe the Gf1 will continue to go up in perf. with newer and newer cpus... maybe that's because the games are doing part of the T&L on the cpu or something....
The Gf1 clearly has it's limits... and according to the 3dfx guy i quoted it's basically 2 tnt2s put together with some features...
And you could say the GS is a pretty much a Voodoo1 with some features too ;)
Anyways from what the Cage guy in the gspot quote say'd it seems he couldn't get more than 1Mpolys in game out of the Gf1...
Which game was it?
hmmm... it seems the DDR ones came later...
In terms of actual availability I think there was about five weeks between them.
High Polygon Count (1 Light)
4444 KTriangles/s Hardware T&L
6752 KTriangles/s Intel Pentium III 742Mhz
3969 KTriangles/s AMD Athlon 700MHz (*)
Looks like numbers from Kyle(under five million with one light is a give a way). Besides his numbers being lower then what anyone else could manage with their GF1(had a lengthy discussion about this when the article was first posted- people even tried to underclock the boards to hit his numbers), he also used a benchmark that was using two different types of lighting engines. He had another one you might be able to dig up. He used TestDrive6 which has a built in bench, a game with extreme levels of overdraw, and then fill limited the board and showed soft T&L being faster then hard. Those of us following his crusade against T&L ran the benches at the lowest resolution allowed and saw framerates four times faster and it was still CPU limited(while using hard T&L there was a noticeable bandwith hit with early drivers, one that was rectified with the Det2s IIRC although simply lowering the resolution was enough to disprove his assertions).
Well that's just a few months difference(not unlike what nvidia has done in the past a few very rare times...releasing a few months later than competitors...)... and i think it's still the same fiscal yr... not sure.
Don't know why, but I have been thinking this whole time that the PS2 launched in 1999. March of 2K? That was a month prior to the GF2, not that it changes my stance.
Marco-
I can double check, but I'm pretty sure, in the same scene, PS2 version has none of the aliasing you can see here.
I have numerous duplicate screenshots one with extreme aliasing and one with almost none for each. All you have to do is adjust the contrast on your capture device.
Randy-
Is it AA'ing anything in that shot? It looks like the multisampling is boned and the anisotropic filtering (the textures?) is the only smoothing going on. Did I get the terminology correct?
I don't recall any XBox games that use MSAA off the top of my head. Can't tell what texture filtering is being utilized, without more angular textures or knowing what type of LOD bias they are using it won't show up in a screen capture.
zidane1strife
11-Dec-2002, 14:42
Splinter Cell.
Characters there are kinda blocky... probably because of the use of the unreal engine...
(I know a bit repetitive but...)Anyways as for Gf1, Gf2 both lack the pixel shader effects that xbox titles have, and as we've seen geometry and vertex lighting the ps2 is not too behind the xbox a system that's basically Gf4.... so u'r only argument is in favor of texture rez, and aniso, tri, is not too good...
Either u'r implying that nvidia has done minor improvements in the vertex, fillrate area since the ps2 is not to behind an xbox in such areas and u claim gf1 can compete, or u'r implying the xbox is capable of several fold what's been shown...
BenSkywalker
11-Dec-2002, 14:44
or u'r implying the xbox is capable of several fold what's been shown...
Without a doubt. Have you seen Halo2 yet?
cybamerc
11-Dec-2002, 14:45
BenSkywalker:
> It appears to be using vertex shaders based on the movement of the
> hair
I think the word shader is being used just a tad too liberally these days (damned be Nvidia PR).
That's not to say it isn't done with VS but it might as well be done on a CPU. Either way, in the classical meaning the word shader hardly applies to some basic animation and physics routines (again, damn Nvidia).
> Splinter Cell.
Splinter Cell doesn't have full scene shadowing. I can't tell if SH3 does either but the use of dynamic shadowing is certainly far more extensive. Also, while Splinter Cell employs a mish-mash of various techniques SH3 seems to stick with volumes and vertex lighting (or per-pixel... hard to tell).
Also, the dynamic shadows in Splinter Cell are hard edged and unlike the volumes in SH3 the shadow map method comes with visible aliasing.
zidane1strife
11-Dec-2002, 14:48
Without a doubt. Have you seen Halo2 yet?
Well yeah, but that's basically due to use of pixel shaders effects... i meant a several fold increase in the vertex perf...
BenSkywalker
11-Dec-2002, 14:54
Cybermac-
That's not to say it isn't done with VS but it might as well be done on a CPU.
You can do all vertex and pixel shader effects on a CPU, vertex shader ops in particular are actually quite well suited to decent CPUs.
Either way, in the classical meaning the word shader hardly applies to some basic animation and physics routines
Classical meaning of vertex shaders? I have to say I've never seen vertex shaders discussed in any meaningful way prior to the GF3. Spent a few years working with 3D viz and everything was done per pixel when talking about shaders.
Splinter Cell doesn't have full scene shadowing.
It doesn't? Playing through the demo it appeared to.
Also, while Splinter Cell employs a mish-mash of various techniques SH3 seems to stick with volumes and vertex lighting (or per-pixel... hard to tell).
A mish mash is better then vertex for everything(if it is vertex).
Also, the dynamic shadows in Splinter Cell are hard edged and unlike the volumes in SH3 the shadow map method comes with visible aliasing.
Didn't notice any aliasing in particular while playing through the demo. Not saying it wasn't there, but in the half hour or so I played the game it didn't stick out. True it didn't have soft shadows, that was easily noticeable.
Zidane-
Well yeah, but that's basically due to use of pixel shaders effects... i meant a several fold increase in the vertex perf...
Why would I argue vertex performance? I have never argued against the PS2 in that aspect, certainly no reason to start now. Even if the XBox was capable of tripple the geometric complexity of the PS2 at the level we are already at it isn't going to make a huge difference. We are at the point now where hard edges are increasingly rare. Telling the difference between a 100poly sphere and a 500poly is easier then comparing a 500 with a 1,000,000. There is certainly still room for improvement, but it will take a generational gap to make it much of a factor.
A bit OT, but i hear the only PS2 game to feature bumpmapping is called Stretch Panic from Treasure.
Does it look good?
Does it kills PS2 peformance? :oops:
cybamerc
11-Dec-2002, 15:14
BenSkywalker:
> Classical meaning of vertex shaders?
Classical meaning of shader. Vertex Shader is merely a buzz word invented by Nvidia PR.
When ppl talk about shaders I think of something that describes the properties of an object... not geometry transformation and whatnot.
> It doesn't? Playing through the demo it appeared to.
I haven't played it but there are plenty of screens on the net proving that is not the case.
> A mish mash is better then vertex for everything(if it is vertex).
Well... you seem to like DOA3's lighting and that is done per-vertex save for a very few effects. I think a valid criticism of SH3 would be its simple background but you can't fault the lighting and shadowing in the game.
> Didn't notice any aliasing in particular while playing through the demo.
Like RL you won't notice it most of the time but there are times when the maps are stretched across the screen that it becomes very apparent.
Apparently SH3 uses soft edged stencil volumes (I still would like to know how that is done without using several jittered volumes) so aliasing never becomes a problem.
Fafalada
11-Dec-2002, 15:22
On the PC side of things, people regularly nail down within 10% the amount of polys in use(some applications include counters, and developers will regularly state poly complexity if pressed). As far as texture sizes, on the PC we can look at the individual textures in PS or the like making it pretty easy.
Eh... would those people be referring to PC users - same PC users perhaps of which 90% thinks Doom3 is high poly?
Anyway, from what I've seen of people's estimates on console games, I don't recall anyone coming within 50% of actual numbers(except maybe by pure luck), though granted usually they were mislead by developer PR releases. (this in reference to the few games where I was privy to actual info - I don't think myself capable of telling what pp/s a game is running off hand)
As for textures, there's no way to know when a single large map is used in multiple parts just by observation. This before we mention the obvious stuff with multipass for surface detail. Although granted, it's somewhat more quantifiable with textures.
Didn't even know VirtuaTennis came out for the PC
I'm something of an avid tennis player so video games in the genre are also of interest to me. :) VT isn't my favourite tennis game, but it's still one of the better ones.
Hey Faf! Any insider info about Fafracer2k? ? :oops:
Fafalada
11-Dec-2002, 15:31
Apparently SH3 uses soft edged stencil volumes (I still would like to know how that is done without using several jittered volumes) so aliasing never becomes a problem.
Well it wouldn't matter, even hard stencil shadows have far less aliasing then shadow bufers.
But, considering what method SH3 appears to use, I wouldn't say it can "never" become a problem.
Chap, sure.
The guy programming the engine (me) has been having health problems lately. How's that for gossip :P
Fafracer2k3 it iS! :o
Hope you get well soon. :oops:
archie4oz
11-Dec-2002, 18:40
Throw a little .hack into the equation and you could possibly see release dates being pushed back... :wink:
BenSkywalker
12-Dec-2002, 02:06
Cybermac-
Classical meaning of shader. Vertex Shader is merely a buzz word invented by Nvidia PR.
Microsoft is now nVidia's PR firm? Didn't know that one.
When ppl talk about shaders I think of something that describes the properties of an object... not geometry transformation and whatnot.
Deforming an object doesn't relate to its properties?
I haven't played it but there are plenty of screens on the net proving that is not the case.
You haven't played it?
Well... you seem to like DOA3's lighting and that is done per-vertex save for a very few effects.
Vertex will be fine for a great deal of things, using a suitable substitute for those areas is a mish mash.
Like RL you won't notice it most of the time but there are times when the maps are stretched across the screen that it becomes very apparent.
After you play it, tell me where. In RL is screamed out in certain areas(the underside of Corvettes, AT-ATs etc).
Faf-
Eh... would those people be referring to PC users - same PC users perhaps of which 90% thinks Doom3 is high poly?
I'm not saying that most people get it right. Doom3 is obviously very low poly(hard to believe some people can't see that).
Anyway, from what I've seen of people's estimates on console games, I don't recall anyone coming within 50% of actual numbers(except maybe by pure luck), though granted usually they were mislead by developer PR releases.
Sega's 63Million polys per second for VF4 springs to mind :lol:
The guy programming the engine (me) has been having health problems lately.
I hope it isn't anything serious. Get well soon.
zidane1strife
12-Dec-2002, 06:01
Why would I argue vertex performance? I have never argued against the PS2 in that aspect, certainly no reason to start now. Even if the XBox was capable of tripple the geometric complexity of the PS2 at the level we are already at it isn't going to make a huge difference. We are at the point now where hard edges are increasingly rare. Telling the difference between a 100poly sphere and a 500poly is easier then comparing a 500 with a 1,000,000. There is certainly still room for improvement, but it will take a generational gap to make it much of a factor.
The argument here is Geforce 1 v.s. Ps2 given the gf1 has no pixel shaders, we should discuss the other non pixel shader areas... I brought the xbox because it seems that in many of those other areas the ps2 is not far behind what is basically a Gf4... thus if it's not too far behind a Gf4 in non-feature-pixel shader related areas... and thus compared to gf1... u get the idea.
Anyways the cpu side of this argument is kind of funny so since the gf1 will always be cpu limited we can use cpus from yrs, decades, or centuries later.... we can take benchmarks out of games that do part of their T&L on the cpu and will massively benefit from such upgrades, and attribute the perf. to the gf1....
PS: hope u get well soon faf.
BenSkywalker
12-Dec-2002, 07:53
Zidane-
The argument here is Geforce 1 v.s. Ps2 given the gf1 has no pixel shaders, we should discuss the other non pixel shader areas... I brought the xbox because it seems that in many of those other areas the ps2 is not far behind what is basically a Gf4... thus if it's not too far behind a Gf4 in non-feature-pixel shader related areas... and thus compared to gf1... u get the idea.[/qoute]
What are the major differences between the GF4 and the GF3? Another vertex shader and LMAII. What are the major differences between a GF2 and a GF1? Build process and another TMU per pixel pipe. What is the fill difference between the NV2A and the NV15(GF2)? Comparing to the particular NV15 that I run, 1.86GTexels v 1.76GTexels. You take away vertex shaders and pixel shaders and the GF3/GF4 aren't all that different from the GF1/GF2(there are some differences particularly pertaining to efficiency of the architecture, and supported filtering modes, but overall....). If you say outside the pixel shaders the PS2 isn't that far behind the XBox, you are saying that it is comparable to a GF2 with a strong vertex unit which in itself is marginal over the GF1.
[quote]Anyways the cpu side of this argument is kind of funny so since the gf1 will always be cpu limited we can use cpus from yrs, decades, or centuries later....
No, it won't. Once the framerate ceases to rise running 640x480 with faster CPUs then the limit is the GeForce chip. Load it up with enough T&L work, or stressful enough conditions in terms of fillrate and it will happen even with current CPUs. I haven't seen it yet though.
we can take benchmarks out of games that do part of their T&L on the cpu and will massively benefit from such upgrades, and attribute the perf. to the gf1....
I haven't seen a game that has an edge running soft T&L over hard T&L @640x480 yet, no matter which CPU it is.
cybamerc
12-Dec-2002, 12:52
BenSkywalker:
> Microsoft is now nVidia's PR firm? Didn't know that one.
Didn't Nvidia develop that part of DX8?
> Deforming an object doesn't relate to its properties?
Let me be more specific then. When I think of shader I think of materials. Displacement mapping certainly relates to that but physics and animation don't.
> You haven't played it?
That would be what I meant when I said "I haven't played it..." :)
> Vertex will be fine for a great deal of things
Just not when it's on PS2? :P
> After you play it, tell me where.
I don't need to.
http://xboxmedia.ign.com/xbox/image/splinter_100202_12.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/news/09/23/splintercell_screen002.jpg
> In RL is screamed out in certain areas(the underside of Corvettes, AT-ATs etc).
Yeah, that's one of the problem's you face when using shadow buffers and not confining dynamic shadows only to small rooms ;)
marconelly!
12-Dec-2002, 20:15
Ben, Splinter Cell doesn't have full scene dynamic shadowing. It's rather obvious. Many of the shadows are static and pre-calculated.
I have numerous duplicate screenshots one with extreme aliasing and one with almost none for each. All you have to do is adjust the contrast on your capture device.
The shot I posted is a framebuffer grab, most likely provided by the developers. It's obviously not a video grab made by capturing device.
zidane1strife
12-Dec-2002, 20:30
with a strong vertex unit which in itself is marginal over the GF1.
Dude if u'r talking about ps2... it's two vertex units running at more than 2X the speed of the gf1... and yes they're more flexible too.
I haven't seen a game that has an edge running soft T&L over hard T&L @640x480 yet, no matter which CPU it is.
Well according to my quotes(dunno if they're right) quake III does part of it's T&L on cpu, it's not h/w versus s/w T&L, it's part software part h/w. Thus it truly does benefit from 3Ghz PIV cpus and the like.... clearly the s/w T&L perf. of what's being done on such a cpu is FAR FAR beyond what a measly gf1 could ever do.
EDIT: Not to mention that if u mean that at 640x480 the cpu is not limiting the gf1... it's perf. is pathetic.... and with it being easy to dev. for and well suported, i doubt optimization of the kind that takes place in fixed platforms will get u more than 30-40% improvement...
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.