Rikimaru
Veteran
Which games?I had only a GCN & PS2 and I remember PS2 textures being awful ^^
On multiplatform Sphinx and the Cursed Mummy game GCN had worse textures (also no center camera button).
Which games?I had only a GCN & PS2 and I remember PS2 textures being awful ^^
Any comparison? I find that a bit odd considering that's a Eurocom game.Which games?
On multiplatform Sphinx and the Cursed Mummy game GCN had worse textures (also no center camera button).
Yeah i'm sure it's possible for the PS2 to have better textures when it's the main platform, and it relies on main memory. But that's if you don't utilize GC's eDRAM, which also has texture compression. If i'm not mistaken PS2's eDRAM had no texture compression. I'd be a bit surprised because it's Eurocom who have done a lot of good work on Nintendo consoles. I'm pretty sure Gamecube's Nightfire (also by Eurocom) is at least on par with the ps2 version with regards to visuals and it has more bots/enemies. And I know their batman game looks significantly better on the cube.If memory footprint minus textures was great enough, a multiplatform game might be able to have better textures on PS2 even with the GC's superior texture compression.
Dreamcast used a mixture of 2 bpp and 4 bpp VQ compressed textures, and also 4 bit and 8 bit CLUT on occasion.
PS2 had to use a mixture of 4 and 8 bpp CLUT to match Dreamcast texture compression. Something like 2~3 x as much memory was needed for similar quality.
Gamecube and Xbox used 4bpp texture compression, generally giving quality above 8 bpp CLUT on PS2.
The trouble for GC was that it only had 24 MB of main ram. If a game relied on having textures loaded into main ram, then it could potentially run into trouble.
Image a PS2 game that (for the sake of argument) had 12 MB of textures in main ram, and 20MB of "other data". The same game on GC might only have 4MB left for textures. Even with GCs superior texture compression, it might have to reduce texture resolution to get textures to fit. Xbox meanwhile could just slop anything it wanted into its 64 MB of memory, likely with a 2x2 increase in texture size.
Because the PS2 actually had the processing power on the CPU side to do it (~6 GFLops in it's dedicated vector units vs the gamecube's 1.9 I think).
More detail here.
http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showth...mcast-Graphics&p=645458&viewfull=1#post645458
http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showth...mcast-Graphics&p=645473&viewfull=1#post645473
It's well known the PS2 can produce far more polygons than GC, and if you question that then you are seriously ill informed. PS2 can produce many times more polygons on screen than GC because it has to because it's a multi-pass renderer. By and large the same polygons were drawn multiple times using the immense polygon and pixel drawing capabilities (in which the PS2 was by far the most powerful console of its generation and quite probably will always be relatively the most powerful console in those two areas because we use different techniques now). The end result was using several triangles to achieve the same look as one triangle on the other machines with single-pass multitexturing etc.
Yes, but on PS2 only 1 Mb in EDRAM was used for textures, but there were possible to rewrite that 1 MB up tu 16 times per frame.Yeah i'm sure it's possible for the PS2 to have better textures when it's the main platform, and it relies on main memory. But that's if you don't utilize GC's eDRAM, which also has texture compression. If i'm not mistaken PS2's eDRAM had no texture compression.
I'd be a bit surprised because it's Eurocom who have done a lot of good work on Nintendo consoles.
But yeah that audio ram in the cube hurt it a bit.
Yes, but on PS2 only 1 Mb in EDRAM was used for textures, but there were possible to rewrite that 1 MB up tu 16 times per frame.
Eurocom made 16 games for PS2 and only 9 for Gamecube, one of them was just port. So Sphinx and the Cursed Mummy was Eurocom's 5th PS2 game, and 4th Gamecube game.
AFAIK some studios used main RAM for sound instead.
Screenshots from emulators.Any comparison? I find that a bit odd considering that's a Eurocom game.
According to Wikipedia (which could be wrong) Eurocom had done the same amount of games on each platform by the time Sphinx came out. They did crash wrath of cortex for gamecube while another studio handled the other versions.
Basically you're saying some studios may not have used Gamecube's A-RAM, or at least not all of it?
Efficiency is key.I was just thinking that the Gamecube had 8 dedicated hardware lights way back in 2001. Nintendo's previous console the N64 had fully programmable hardware via microcode. Wheareas the Gamecube had fixed function hardware designed around the needs of Nintendo's in-house artists and developers. That then changed in the following generations because of the emphasis on flexible fully programmable hardware.
And then this new generation coming is seeing a return to dedicated hardware inside GPUs, namely new silicon dedicated to hardware ray tracing and also cores for AI processing. And all of this is because of the ending of Moore's Law and therefore the need to return to dedicated fix function hardware for improvements in graphics.
It never left. Texture samplers and ROPs are fixed-function, specialist blocks. Tensor cores aren't 'AI processors' but particular number crunchers, no different in principle to the vector units in a CPU. All these processors consist of a number of optimized processing cores and have done so for countless decades, ever since probably the first FPU extensions were developed. Raw processors, serially loading binary registers and combining bits in loops, aren't ideal for a lot of workloads, so different types of processor are combined.And then this new generation coming is seeing a return to dedicated hardware inside GPUs, namely new silicon dedicated to hardware ray tracing and also cores for AI processing.
It's not as simple as that. There are plenty of GC games with worse textures when compared to PS2. Disc space could have been an issue. Or maybe development limitations (time/money) prevented a studio from being able to properly resize textures to take advantage of the hardware. I'm sure plenty of games had their textures converted to a GC compatible compressed format with less regard to maintaining image quality compared to the competition and more regard toward getting the game running and fitting all the data on the disc and in system ram.The Ps2 has its advantages but I know textures aren't one of them, assuming the most is being done with both consoles.
It's not as simple as that. There are plenty of GC games with worse textures when compared to PS2. Disc space could have been an issue. Or maybe development limitations (time/money) prevented a studio from being able to properly resize textures to take advantage of the hardware. I'm sure plenty of games had their textures converted to a GC compatible compressed format with less regard to maintaining image quality compared to the competition and more regard toward getting the game running and fitting all the data on the disc and in system ram.
Xbox was much more capable then either in about all areas, gc coming in 2nd. PS2 could do zoe2 though, still lile its graphics, gotta play the steam or ps4 version too.