Adding a multi-vector processor to X2 a good idea?

Yeah, in fact you quoted it. Since we're not dumb stop to mislead you too. This story has been beaten to death milion times, it has to stop somehow.

 

ahh but PC-Engine, there are two other polys/sec figures for PS2. one is well known, the other not well known. 75 million polys/sec draw rate for the GS graphics chip, and, a higher-than-66M number for the Emotion Engine. something like 105 or over 100 million (ask Pana he knows)

 

PC-Engine..you will like this one

 

What is the highest poly/sec number for a PS2 game in existence neglecting games like REZ?

 

Assuming the mass market consumer actually looks at tech specs when they purchase there console, which I doubt. There will be those that do but the majority of consumers wouldn't even glance at it.

Ask Joe Blow how video games are made?

 

The highest number I've ever seen in game on a performance analyser is on Baldurs Gate. The number is heavilly skewed because the water is procedural and doesn't require any CPU intevention or access to the main memory bus. Outside of the water drawing it was in line performance wise with most other PS2 titles.

There is some debate as to what the primitives kicked field is actually measuring on the PA, the numbers are certainly a lot lower than devs claim. I won't give actual numbers.

My guess is that all PS2 games that have large polygon throughput are doing it with procedurally generated geometry, whether that's some sort of subdivision or like the BG water.

 

Cool thanks ERP.

 

Perhaps MS also told the "truth" with 125 mpps for XBox......
Or perhaps M$ and $ony are both gigantic companies without regard for ethical considerations like telling the "truth". Nintendo and Sega are the only ones that seem to be somewhat honest with their hardware specs, and that hasn't gotten them very far.....
The moral of the story seems to be that for gigantic companies lies=money, and acquisition of money is the sole ambition of all big business.

 

Why is it a lie to say PS2 can push 66 million polys per sec AS A PEAK THEORITICAL number if it can, in fact, do it? Why quote innacurate, "realistic" numbers if they do not represent the strenght of what the machine can do? The number can be used as a PR tool, but it wasn´t meant for marketing.

And please, Ninty fans please wake up. The company is just as money hungry as Sony and MS, they most likely just used "realistic" figures because despite how nice and balanced the machine is, I´m willing to bet its peak polygon performance just isn´t as strong as PS2´s.

So, in conclusion, those numbers are mainly meant for developers rather than fanboys. If a person chooses to believe them, as they are, then all they are is ignorant.

 

If they're not meant for marketing then why release them to the press?

Oh wait it was leaked...

Or maybe the Flipper in GCN was designed like ELAN in NAOMI? Do you remember how many polygons ELAN can TnL? It wasn't 66 million.

 

Let me compare the pps numbers to horsepower for cars. Cars have two different horsepower raitings, one is measured at the crank which is directly attached to the engine and one is measured at the wheels and is the true amount of horsepower that you will have when moving your car. Granted telling somebody their car has 500 horsepower but not telling them that they will only get that at the crank isn't a lie but it is unethical and doesn't paint a true picture of the ability of the car when it only gets 350hp at the wheels.

 

Or how about claiming your MP3 player can last for 30 hours on a single charge and not release the fact the unit only puts out 5mW/ch max?

 

Let's not level full blame on just the companies. They can say whatever, and it is full perogative for the persons hearing it to evaluate w. common sense, and either say, "hmmm...", or "yeah, whatever..." Then it could stop there. However, I submit that a considerable part of the problem are those who repeat such specs as a platform to build an argument. I don't mean those building a pro-console xyz argument, either. It is equally as annoying to hear someone bring up at every opportunity, "they lied to me, they lied to me, they lied to me..." with some dumb spec that may not have ever been directly quoted, is severely taken out of context, or they truly misunderstand what the intended meaning was in uttering such a spec. One only needs to do a search here at these forums (as an example), polling for how many times someone has ever tried to actually build an argument that PS2 will be "better" because of a "60 mil poly" figure. I'm thinking you'll find this scenario will be fairly rare and ridiculously outnumbered by incidents of persons who are building a "they lied to me" argument against a console that cites that figure. If there were a lot of "pro-60 mil poly" assertions being made, then I could understand a need to rebut with a "they lied to me" counter. However, there aren't, so what exactly are they countering to? Therein lies the realization that the strategy is purely gratuitous against an imagined conspiracy to force said spec into the realm of fact. (the spec is what it is, and you just won't find many rational people here that actually believe it is anything more than that, rather than some clear indication of any sort of superiority) ...and to make it extra classy, they will turn right around and introduce an equally mistaken spec to boost their console of choice (we'll just refer to it as an "X-machine", for example) after making a dig on their nemesis console. Hence, it never ends with these "types" of people. Those are the people that should just take a "step back" every once in a while (as I had described earlier).

 

Well generally people who post here at B3D know what these numbers mean as opposed to the average Joe reading a game magazine that quotes 66 million polygons. The average Joes and Janes are the ones that make up the bulk of console purchases and ultimate gets the word out.

 

I think it was already agreed upon, not too many posts above, that the "average Joe/Jane" could care less about (let alone comprehend) said figures. They will gravitate toward the console that has the games they want to play.

The people you have cited are more like a small, yet vocal, minority that enjoys the mental masturbation of reading said magazines. They enjoy beating off to these numbers. Otherwise they wouldn't be reading these magazines in the first place. Does it really matter what they choose to believe? ...as long as they stick to their own xyz console websites, to collectively masturbate (unfortunately, they don't).

 

And who do you think (tries to) tells their friends what console to get. If I want to play EA sports games only why would I pick a xbox over a ps2 and vise versa if it was only about the games.

 

It's never been an issue with me. You'll have to wait for someone to post in who only plays EA sports games to get your answer, I suppose.

 

I think you missed the point. Also, since you can't comprehend a pov different from yours I don't think that you'll ever see that many of the "average jane/joes" out there do care about more than just which platform has the game(s) they want if it is on multiple platforms. Telling people, who don't know any better, your theoretical performance without explaining it to them is marketing. They want the "average" person to think there system is better if only because it can theoretically produce 60 million polygons per second.

 

It isn't, just like saying XBox can push 125 million polys per sec and 80 gigaflops is not a lie. It is, however, deceptive and ridiculous. And if Sony is to be defended for its deceptive promotion, then so is Microsoft. This leads us to the conclusion that it is right and proper for the mega-corporations of the world to mislead consumers, and when the consumers are misled it is their own fault for being so stupid, and they should really just pipe down and hand over their money politely.

This could be true. It's clear that Nintendo does not want to compete in the game of technological chest-thumping, and their "honesty" can be attributed more to a business strategy than to some ethical principle. I think the same was true for Dreamcast.

It's perfectly natural for any company to make grandiose claims about their products, even to the point of innacuracy. Some people will be suckered in by these claims, some will know better. I don't feel sorry for the suckers, but I certainly don't feel sorry for the gigantic corporations either. One is not better than the other. One is a sucker and the other a con artist, neither of which deserve respect.

 

I don't know if it is "just like saying", if this Xbox feat has actually ever been achieved in some internal lab test. Has it? I dunno...

Naturally, this is all beating a dead horse again. (meaning, dedicating 10-15 more pages in this topic to determine if it has, would hardly be appropriate)