From PC to Next-Gen Consoles: Largest Performance Gap...

[Crazyace]

dual powervr dc with a elan tnl chp and a sh4 would have done wonders.

They would have been able to claim a higher max fillrate than the ps2 and they would have been able to claim 10 million polygons with 6 lights sustained which is a feat the ps2 can't do (irc)

Oh I dunno.. 10 million with 6 lights sustained should be well within the capabilities of the PS2

Normally we stop at 4 as it's just easier to.... (10million gives 60 cycles per vert VU0+VU1, which is enough.. )

 

[Ty]

I don't need to.

Then basically you've proven my point because when you do, you'll see that Sony played a MUCH greater part in the TECHNOLOGY (design) of the console than Sega ever did with NAOMI/DC.

Why suddenly do the rules change ? When you found out you were wrong ?

Rules haven't changed one bit. In fact my posts have clarified the confusion. Some are talking about Sega's technological prowess whereas others are talking Sega's ability to put NAOMI1/2 into the home console (which requires lots of finances as well). The funny thing is, no one is really arguing about the technology itself (though some discussion can be made about the ability to process shrink at the time) but in fact we need to be clear that Sega LICENSED much of their technology so frankly those arguing FOR Sega's technological ability are sorely confused as most of that was done by the SH4 peeps and ImgTech. Put it this way, who architected the GPU and Elan? Sega? Is that not the heart and soul of NAOMI?

Sega designed the dreamcast. They may have not designed the chips inside it. But they designed the dreamcast.

What does that mean? The look? Ok, maybe. Do you mean more philosophically the "soul" of the console? Ok, maybe. Why not list out EXACTLY component for component just what Sega designed?

Sony designed the ps2. They may have not designed all the chips inside. But they designed the ps2.

To equate the two is farcical in terms of design work. Sony did much more of the work in creating the PS2. If you can't see the difference then there is little point in continuing.

 

[Farid]

Yes you can... It's called a 6X CD-ROM drive...

err wrong. You'd have to modify a cd-rom drive in order to play a disc. That isn't off the shelf .

If you're ruling out the "off the shelves attribute", when any "little" modification (software in this case) is made to a part, then there's no such thing as an "off the shelves mechanical part" in any consoles (Xbox include)... If we follow your... err... personal logic.

 

[jvd]

wow ty just like a brick wall.


First you go and talk about how sega didn't design the dc by stating other companys parts are in it. Well guess what by that logic the ps2 isn't designed by sony as other companys parts are in it.

Its that simple.

You can go on believeing that sony is the best or whatever else you want to belive.

I personaly don't are .

But if your going to say one thing and then change what you said so you can seem right and i'm not going to bother ever responding to anything you ever say

 

[Lazy8s]

Ty:

Then basically you've proven my point because when you do, you'll see that Sony played a MUCH greater part in the TECHNOLOGY (design) of the console than Sega ever did with NAOMI/DC.

SEGA is the one who holds the IP rights for the system-level design of the DC. That has nothing to do with them not being a designer of IP or a manufacturer for microprocessors.

 

[Ty]

wow ty just like a brick wall.

Now who is being childish?

First you go and talk about how sega didn't design the dc by stating other companys parts are in it. Well guess what by that logic the ps2 isn't designed by sony as other companys parts are in it.

No kidding? Here's the facts. Some are trumpeting Sega's technological prowess because of NAOMI & DC. Sorry to say but that is misplaced. Those accolades belong with the people that designed the SH4, Elan, & the GPU.

Why don't you answer my questions from my previous reply?

Its that simple.

You can go on believeing that sony is the best or whatever else you want to belive.

I've NEVER said ONE thing about Sony being the best. I don't even own a PS2 for crying out loud! The DC was my FIRST console of this generation. I then got a GCN and finally and X-Box. Heck, I'm buying a Panasonic Plasma! Sony bias? Me? Don't think so. ANTI-Sony bias, you and others? Heck ya! Why? I dunno but I feel sorry that you don't have more going on in your life.

I personaly don't are .

But if your going to say one thing and then change what you said so you can seem right and i'm not going to bother ever responding to anything you ever say

Uh change things? In the end look at it this way. We have devs who have worked on both systems and they disagree with your line of argument vs. guys who are fans. Yeah, I know who I'm going to believe.

SEGA is the one who holds the IP rights for the system-level design of the DC. That has nothing to do with them not being a designer of IP or a manufacturer for microprocessors.

Sure. They paid for it so naturally they should control it. But that doesn't mean they are technologically gifted. They just signed the contract and paid the funds necessary to secure the technology.

 

[jvd]

No kidding? Here's the facts. Some are trumpeting Sega's technological prowess because of NAOMI & DC. Sorry to say but that is misplaced. Those accolades belong with the people that designed the SH4, Elan, & the GPU.

I really don't have the time to listen to you.


Right here shows how bias you are.


The sh-4 is a great chip , nec should be congratlated. The elan and the powervr chip are great , they should be praised.

Sega should be praised for putting together such a great machine .

They designed the dreamcast. They chose what was to be put in there.

If you say anything else your just being difficult

 

[Devourer]

actually dude the naomi 2 was cable of it. I was using would as in discribing if it ws made into a dreamcast 2.

If sega launched the dc in 1999 they could have put in a 128mbs or ram. How much do u think pc100 ram was back then.

Well, OK then, you win. Sony were just lucky that Sega didn't rape their asses by waiting another year to release DC. Hope that settles it

 

[PC-Engine]

Then basically you've proven my point because when you do, you'll see that Sony played a MUCH greater part in the TECHNOLOGY (design) of the console than Sega ever did with NAOMI/DC.

Ty, you've been thoroughly schooled, there's no shame in jumping ship now...

Nobody was arguing about who had a greater role in designing a game system. The point is, system architects design systems ...PERIOD, they don't need to design the individual parts. That's why you see companies licensing IP. You think any company can just license IP and build a complete high performance systems without any engineering knowhow? N1/N2 are SYSTEMS not cpus, not gpus. Got it?

Did Nintendo design any of the parts in the GCN? No. Did they design the GCN system? Yes. Got it?

Sometimes it's better to just license IP from 3D graphics specialists instead of trying to design a GPU on your own and resulting in sub Voodoo 1 level features.

This isn't the PC world where you just slap a bunch of standard parts together and presto it works and you've got a running PC system.

Oh I dunno.. 10 million with 6 lights sustained should be well within the capabilities of the PS2

Riight on paper perhaps or with simple lights.

Go ahead and list the parts of a GCN...

You're hopeless...

Why? Did Sega "design" that too?

No, however, according to your logic Nintendo didn't design the GCN either. As a matter of fact they're just a bunch of idiots that cobbled a multitude of chips from the spare parts bin

BTW I've noticed that you're constantly shifting your argument away from the original to make it seem like you've been right all along.

 

[Lazy8s]

Ty:

Sure. They paid for it so naturally they should control it. But that doesn't mean they are technologically gifted. They just signed the contract and paid the funds necessary to secure the technology.

That's not how it works. There is a distinct design for the system level of a game machine that takes the expertise of engineers to develop and is its own IP. SEGA does, in fact, employ such personnel for the planning and implementation of a console, and they work together with the engineers of their technology partners (Img Tech, Hitachi, etc.) to create a system-level design.

Two SEGA-affiliated engineers on the project, Shiro Hagiwara and Ian Oliver, are listed at http://www.computer.org/micro/articles/dreamcast.htm

 

[Ty]

Ty, you've been thoroughly schooled, there's no shame in jumping ship now...

Lol. Sure thing.

Nobody was arguing about who had a greater role in designing a game system. The point is, system architects design systems ...PERIOD, they don't need to design the individual parts.

Wow, how enlightening!

That's why you see companies licensing IP.

No, that's not WHY you see companies license IP but keep guessing.

You think any company can just license IP and build a complete high performance systems without any engineering knowhow? N1/N2 are SYSTEMS not cpus, not gpus. Got it?

Of course not. One can't just slap together off-the-shelf-parts (no matter what your twisted definition of them may be) and hope it will work. There is always some integration work that needs to be done. Hell, I'm sure some massaging goes on DURING the actual chip phase so that all of the components can work well together (this includes licensees).

Did Nintendo design any of the parts in the GCN? No. Did they design the GCN system? Yes. Got it? Sometimes it's better to just license IP from 3D graphics specialists instead of trying to design a GPU on your own and resulting in sub Voodoo 1 level features.

Absolutely!

This isn't the PC world where you just slap a bunch of standard parts together and presto it works and you've got a running PC system.

You seem to think it was done with the PPC in the GCN.

No, however, according to your logic Nintendo didn't design the GCN either. As a matter of fact they're just a bunch of idiots that cobbled a multitude of chips from the spare parts bin

BTW I've noticed that you're constantly shifting your argument away from the original to make it seem like you've been right all along.

Lol. You're the one who went from NAOMI2 to NAOMI1 in the span of a heartbeat. Lowering our goals there?

Tell you what. Simply end this argument by laying out in specific, explicit detail what Sega "designed".

 

[PC-Engine]

Ty, you've been thoroughly schooled, there's no shame in jumping ship now...

Lol. Sure thing.

Nobody was arguing about who had a greater role in designing a game system. The point is, system architects design systems ...PERIOD, they don't need to design the individual parts.

Wow, how enlightening!

That's why you see companies licensing IP.

No, that's not WHY you see companies license IP but keep guessing.

You think any company can just license IP and build a complete high performance systems without any engineering knowhow? N1/N2 are SYSTEMS not cpus, not gpus. Got it?

Of course not. One can't just slap together off-the-shelf-parts (no matter what your twisted definition of them may be) and hope it will work. There is always some integration work that needs to be done. Hell, I'm sure some massaging goes on DURING the actual chip phase so that all of the components can work well together (this includes licensees).

Did Nintendo design any of the parts in the GCN? No. Did they design the GCN system? Yes. Got it? Sometimes it's better to just license IP from 3D graphics specialists instead of trying to design a GPU on your own and resulting in sub Voodoo 1 level features.

Absolutely!

This isn't the PC world where you just slap a bunch of standard parts together and presto it works and you've got a running PC system.

You seem to think it was done with the PPC in the GCN.

No, however, according to your logic Nintendo didn't design the GCN either. As a matter of fact they're just a bunch of idiots that cobbled a multitude of chips from the spare parts bin

BTW I've noticed that you're constantly shifting your argument away from the original to make it seem like you've been right all along.

Lol. You're the one who went from NAOMI2 to NAOMI1 in the span of a heartbeat. Lowering our goals there?

Tell you what. Simply end this argument by laying out in specific, explicit detail what Sega "designed".

It's over dude, let it go...your rambling is incoherent now not that it wasn't to begin with

I dunno but I feel sorry that you don't have more going on in your life.

Oooh the irony...

 

[archie4oz]

I'd have to go dig up some old articles in the dreamcast mag or at segatech pages (or whatever its called these days )

But the sh-4 was modified for sega .

In order for the SH-4 to be modified for Sega there'd have to be an existing one on available and there wasn't. The DC was the debut product for it. What Sega did provide was design input (the addition of a few approximation instructions) that got implemented in every sequential SH-4.

Much like how the bluegene is being modified into the cell chip for sony .

Umm.. No.. BlueGene is a project/machine... Not a CPU...

err wrong. You'd have to modify a cd-rom drive in order to play a disc. That isn't off the shelf .

Aside from firmware, (BTW, my iPod and the DVD burner on my powerbook are not running the same firmware they came with, are they suddenly not off the shelf devices?) no you wouldn't... In fact that was the rather clever thing that Sega did do...

what does a faster sh-4 have to do with a home based naomi 2 ?

Nothing really, but you just mentioned a later DC would've featured higher clocked components...

Though at the same price point as the normal dc a year later they would have been able to add in a faster sh-4 (even if it was only 25-50mhz) more ram and a faster powervr dc chip. After all the pc version was a 125 mhz instead of a 100mhz .

Would that minor improvement been worth the additional year? I certainly don't think so...

Just becasue they didn't push the sh-4 faster doesn't mean they coulnd't have.

Sure... And Sony could've pushed the EE and GS to faster clock speeds and launched with a faster machine... And if Intel would've tried just a little harder they could've eeked a higher clock off of the P3... But none of that happend (and didn't happen for a reason) thus it's pretty much academic at this point...

hell my uncle has a dishwasher that has a sh-4 in it. Why in gods name would they need a faster cpu in a dishwasher ?

What the hell is it doing with an SH-4? More likely an SH-2 or maybe an SH-3...

The component of the design on which SEGA was keen to see expanded that used an internal FPU for SIMD capabilities?

There wasn't any... They added fast trig approximation instructions...

Right, so the state of their technology was more advanced at the later date.

Yes, but not on the timeline that some seem to be implying...

The design was customized largely to SEGA's specification.

I think you need to do a little more analysis and comparison of the SH-7091 and the SH-7750... You might be surprised how little "customization" was needed...

The talent of PowerVR's engineers is not contingent upon the commitment of their licensees.

Nor did I say they were... I simply implied a NAOMI 2 style design for the DC would've been considerably more expensive for SEGA to manufacture (especially at a time when DRAM prices were rather volatile), and would've more critically affected SEGA's financial health...

The sh-4 is a great chip , nec should be congratlated. The elan and the powervr chip are great , they should be praised.

Well I think NEC should receive more praise for the PC Engine than the DC.. Really SEGA, Hitachi, and (I guess at the time VideoLogic?) are the ones who deserve the pats on the back...

As for the SH-4, while I'm a pretty big fan of SuperH in general, there's quite a few gripes one could levy at it (many of them being the same gripes thrown at the EE core)...

 

[PC-Engine]

Well I think NEC should receive more praise for the PC Engine than the DC..

What about HE?

 

[Lazy8s]

archie4oz:

Sure... And Sony could've pushed the EE and GS to faster clock speeds and launched with a faster machine...

That wouldn't change the point that the DC's manufacturing expense and release date were not comparable to the PS2, and this whole tangent was speculation on the kind of technology the DC hardware partners could've supplied for a system with the budget and release date of the PS2.

There wasn't any...

SEGA's requests were one of the significant considerations for the SIMD capabilities from that SH-4's internal floating-point unit.

Yes, but not on the timeline that some seem to be implying...

The quote to which you took exception did not imply an amount of improvement; it only stated that development of Hitachi's technology was not limited to clock speed concerns.

You might be surprised how little "customization" was needed...

The degree of customization wasn't in dispute. It was only pointed out that SEGA's requests were one of the major considerations for the FPU.

would've more critically affected SEGA's financial health...

SEGA's capability - or lack thereof - for commitment was not being disputed.

 

[Sonic]

What does any of this matter? This thread has derailed way off topic. Locked.