It had it in some explosions.Anyone got a link to a video showcasing these particle effects being raved about?
VU1 was more flexible then a vertex shader of the NV2A, but was it more powerfull aswell? I dont know Glops of both but that doesnt say much either
So had the NV2A just one vertex shader the PS2 would have had the edge with its EE/GS over the xbox, or had the NV2A more advantages besides vertex shaders?
So had the NV2A just one vertex shader the PS2 would have had the edge with its EE/GS over the xbox, or had the NV2A more advantages besides vertex shaders?
Imagine the best looking PS2 and Gamecube games, and I think you have a fair representation of what Xbox games would've looked like on a single vertex shader NV2A.
With that you mean the PS2 would be just as powerfull if the xbox had gone with just a GF3 (just one vertex shader)? Quit a feat for hardware finished '98/99.
And for giggles, the numbers for that BW for relative machines.The PS2's primary advantages were raw pixel fill and insane (48 GB/s total!) supporting bandwidth between the GS and eDRAM...It didn't have the per pixel bandwidth enjoyed by the PS2.
I think he's suggesting in terms of geometry only..?
Having a single vertex shader would've created some kinks, but the geometrical advantages of the average Xbox game still outweighed that of the average PS2 title, owing to developers often not using VU0 to any meaningful degree. Imagine some of the better looking PS2 and Gamecube games, and I think you have a fair representation of what average Xbox games would've looked like on a single vertex shader NV2A.
Reads like he means geometry being the only xbox advantage if only one vertex shader, and equal performance for high end games on both platforms. Thats what suprised me as the PS2s hardware is quit abit older, in a time where tech was moving fast. Meaning that VU1 must be hell lot of powerfull, as VU1+GS equal or better the NV2A which was a late 2001 product. VU0 + EE being the CPU for the most part.
Ok yeah must be reading it wrong, but still means the PS2 was quit nice for its time since it launched spring 2000 in japan. One can wonder if it was more expensive for Sony to develop the PS2 then it was for MS for its xbox, but that the PS2 in the long run was the better deal because it was mostly in-house? (not taking into account the PS2 was a better success)
Some sources say multi-billions went into the first xbox.
Then again, a modern GPU like found in PS4 Pro has multiple levels of on-chip storage/caches, with multiple read/write ports (1kbit-ish typically? maybe wider, I'm not a hardware engineer), so thoroughly vast quantities of bandwidth sum total. Many many TB/s all told no doubt. I've never seen anyone try to sum up a modern GPU's full, total internal bandwidth, it would be very interesting no doubt.PS2's bandwidth would be akin to PS4Pro having a terabyte/s BW. Of course, Sony considered that option in selecting a PS4 solution...
DOOM 3 ran poorly on GF3, as it couldn't do fancy per-pixel lighting in one pass. It also lacked bandwidth and fillrate for the heavy stencil shadows rendering system.I struggle to think of a game from that era that ran poorly on my PC at the time, which featured a 1GHz Athlon paired with a GF3, and later a Radeon 8500.