Beating Emotion Engine

[Crazyace]

Though ports of Dreamcast games, downgraded graphically in many cases, fit among the PS2's catalog of titles, the DC's SH-4 CPU costed six times less silicon than the Emotion Engine, its CLX2 graphics chip plus memory controller costed multiple times less silicon than the Graphics Synthesizer, too, its memory was less expensive both in amount and type, it released over a year earlier, and it was discontinued before its game development had even half of a console cycle to mature.

I think you've been reading this page too much: http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/DCPScompare.htm

There was a large increase in capabilities with the EE over the SH4 on the Dreamcast, which justified the extra silicon.. and the memory was more expensive because it was better

But no point raising any more DC vs PS2 arguments , although Saturn vs PS1 is always fun

 

[Guden Oden]

Though ports of Dreamcast games, downgraded graphically in many cases, fit among the PS2's catalog of titles, the DC's SH-4 CPU costed six times less silicon than the Emotion Engine < blah blah>

There's something charming and nostalgic about looking back at an old dead console through rose-colored glasses. You however, look back through roughly 12 rose-colored glasses, and it is no longer cute. Time to accept that there's no way DC could ever have competed with the other next-gen consoles, it was simply TOO ANEMIC FOR THAT. Chrissakes, it only had 100mpix fillrate sum total for example. And yes, I know all about the god damn deferred rendering thankyouverymuch, I had a PCX1 card in my PC way back in the late 90s, and it can only bring you so far, and that is NOT enough. Even if we assume 3x opaque overdraw constantly - which is much exaggerated in most game genres, even in an FPS considering the portaled 3D engines such games use these days - even the GC has more than twice as much fillrate again as the assumed 'effective' DC figure.

Time to let go my friend. DC was nice, in a way. But it got OUTCLASSED, and it DIED. For good reason. This silly living in the past, and overglorifying its memory that you do years after its death is very unbecoming.

 

[Urian]

Dreamcast was ahead of PS1 and N64 in image quality, memory and geometry power. It was a very good HW for 1998, better than GCN HW in 2001 and both were launched for the same price.

And Emotion Engine isn´t more than the evolution of PSone R3000A with an extra "SIMD" unit (VU0), MPEG-2 decoder is the equivalent to the H.261 decoder in R3000A and VU1 is the equivalent to the GTE. Remember that EE architecture wasn´t revolutionary, it was an improvement to the PSone R3000A architectura and if we travel back in time the Intel 860 architectures comes to my mind.

Cell is the first "revolutionary" thing made by Sony since the PSone launch.

 

[MrWibble]

Dreamcast was ahead of PS1 and N64 in image quality, memory and geometry power. It was a very good HW for 1998, better than GCN HW in 2001 and both were launched for the same price.

And Emotion Engine isn´t more than the evolution of PSone R3000A with an extra "SIMD" unit (VU0), MPEG-2 decoder is the equivalent to the H.261 decoder in R3000A and VU1 is the equivalent to the GTE. Remember that EE architecture wasn´t revolutionary, it was an improvement to the PSone R3000A architectura and if we travel back in time the Intel 860 architectures comes to my mind.

Cell is the first "revolutionary" thing made by Sony since the PSone launch.

While I would never call the EE a "revolution" I also wouldn't accuse it of being a mild evolution over PS1's core.

The "extra SIMD" unit and "GTE" were in fact self-contained co-processors capable of relatively independant execution. This made it a multi-core design way ahead of the PS1 architecture.

The rest of the machine seems like an evolution of PS1 tech, but the EE itself can be seen as a kind of half-way house between the single core "game augmented" CPU of PS1 and the multi-core parallelism of Cell.

So I stand by what has been said elsewhere in this thread - the PS2 tech is actually a lot better than people give it credit for, only really being let down by a few unfortunate oversights that make it look a whole lot worse than it ought to.

 

[Fox5]

Dreamcast was ahead of PS1 and N64 in image quality, memory and geometry power. It was a very good HW for 1998, better than GCN HW in 2001 and both were launched for the same price.

And Emotion Engine isn´t more than the evolution of PSone R3000A with an extra "SIMD" unit (VU0), MPEG-2 decoder is the equivalent to the H.261 decoder in R3000A and VU1 is the equivalent to the GTE. Remember that EE architecture wasn´t revolutionary, it was an improvement to the PSone R3000A architectura and if we travel back in time the Intel 860 architectures comes to my mind.

Cell is the first "revolutionary" thing made by Sony since the PSone launch.

At least the EE and GS weren't ripped right from the PC and PDA markets...

And GC had roughly 4x (give or take an integer) the DC's actual performance, which keeps up with a Moore's law rate of increase and the console wasn't sold at a loss and then quickly discontinued like the DC. DC did have a modem though, and, imo, the best netplay and network of the last gen. (online play on Live seemed too crippled compared to the PC-lite online play of the DC, plus I feel DC had better online games and online feature integration into single player games)

 

[andypski]

Actually I'm not sure how cheap it would be - presumably they'd have to calculate the u and v derivates for quads of pixels (like everyone else does). Considering just how basic and streamlined the GS pixel pipes are, that might represent a significant extra amount of logic.

Actually, no. If you don't support indirect texturing (such as bump mapping) then there's no real reason to calculate the derivatives at each quad of pixels - they can be calculated during triangle setup.

It's only with indirect texturing that you suddenly have to calculate at a lower level because the derivatives of the indirected texture lookup can't be calculated at setup time - your derivatives for the bump map would be correct, but the derivatives for the environment map (or whatever it is you are looking up) would be wrong.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Cost

The current size and cost of the Xbox have nothing at all to do with design and everything to do with contract language.

Maybe not nothing my friend. You can look at slim and cool PS2 and very large, hot Xbox and you can guess which has much higher production cost no? Gamecube is like PS2 and very amazing design. I feel Gamecube has best original version design and new PS2 slim has much better design than old PS2 and has same quality design as gamecube. Very simple, very cool, very small, very cheap but very good performances.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

God of War 2

Being capable of accounting for a texture's incline automatically during MIP level selection would've addressed most of the complaints against the PS2's IQ, but other image qualities still wouldn't have been high because, as impressive as embedding 4-MB of memory onto a chip was, eDRAM wasn't adequate.

The PS2's chips and parts were already pushing the limits of cost and size, so any additions to them could've only been realized through fundamental changes to their architecture. Having sacrificed even basic functionality like reliable MIP level selection in later GS revisions shows that the potential for extra room simply wasn't there. eDRAM was too costly a solution to the bandwidth issue.

Image anti-aliasing at 480p with a convenional renderer during that era probably isn't a realistic possibility. The larger back buffer of supersampling certainly wouldn't fit in the limited amounts of eDRAM which could be afforded, and working across an external bus could use up too much of the resources.

Yes this I understand. This is why I feel God of War 2 developers have amazing talents because they can make game have amazing look with hardware mistakes. I wonder what amazing look they can make with next-gen systems.

 

[a688]

Maybe not nothing my friend. You can look at slim and cool PS2 and very large, hot Xbox and you can guess which has much higher production cost no? Gamecube is like PS2 and very amazing design. I feel Gamecube has best original version design and new PS2 slim has much better design than old PS2 and has same quality design as gamecube. Very simple, very cool, very small, very cheap but very good performances.

I like your creative use of adjectives describing the look of a product to the actual cost of the product. Maybe I should tell smartphone makers that since their products are "slim" and "cool" that their price should be less than the PS2 since they are smaller, slimmer, AND cooler than the PS2 .

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Temperature

I like your creative use of adjectives describing the look of a product to the actual cost of the product. Maybe I should tell smartphone makers that since their products are "slim" and "cool" that their price should be less than the PS2 since they are smaller, slimmer, AND cooler than the PS2 .

This is funny misunderstanding my friend. I do not mean cool style but cool temperature. Cool temperature has small, simple, light case and does not need big heavy case and complicated cooling so is cheap for manufacture.

Also, high price of slim cell-phone is not because of super production cost but because of super demand for new style. But production cost is also maybe not so cheap because of good screen and too many new features like many wireless technologies. I wonder what is more expensive for manufacture, PS2 or DS Lite. This will be a interesting study no?

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Maybe not nothing my friend. You can look at slim and cool PS2 and very large, hot Xbox and you can guess which has much higher production cost no? Gamecube is like PS2 and very amazing design. I feel Gamecube has best original version design and new PS2 slim has much better design than old PS2 and has same quality design as gamecube. Very simple, very cool, very small, very cheap but very good performances.

I think any further attempt at reasoning with you is futile.

 

[Squeak]

I think DCs great looking textures (because let's face it, it was the DCs only saving grace. Just look at SA2 and PSO v.2) can be attributed partly to the exelent compression and partly to the rendering to a fast internal buffer with presorted geometry (no paging like on GS) and maybe also the generally low polycount.

yes we could make it work, but it was about as 'easy' to use as performing mipmap inclination correction per triangle.

I know I talked about this before, but why not presort the trianglestrips in static geometry, based on their average normal?
Then you would be able to tell the approximately correct MIP level for a bunch of triangles in one go. I don't think the compromise would've been noticeable if it was done right. Of course you would've had to think a bit more about how you structured and stripped the geometry but maybe a price worth paying for a cleaner picture and better efficiency.

 

[MrWibble]

Actually, no. If you don't support indirect texturing (such as bump mapping) then there's no real reason to calculate the derivatives at each quad of pixels - they can be calculated during triangle setup.

It's only with indirect texturing that you suddenly have to calculate at a lower level because the derivatives of the indirected texture lookup can't be calculated at setup time - your derivatives for the bump map would be correct, but the derivatives for the environment map (or whatever it is you are looking up) would be wrong.

Yes, you're right of course - I've been luxuriating in fancy shaders for long enough now that I'm overcomplicating things.

It's still presumably something that was considered and deemed too expensive though - I really can't see it being entirely forgotten, especially as the feature to actually set up the level exists and is simply left as an excercise for the programmer.

 

[MrWibble]

I know I talked about this before, but why not presort the trianglestrips in static geometry, based on their average normal?
Then you would be able to tell the approximately correct MIP level for a bunch of triangles in one go. I don't think the compromise would've been noticeable if it was done right. Of course you would've had to think a bit more about how you structured and stripped the geometry but maybe a price worth paying for a cleaner picture and better efficiency.

It's possible, but the amount of geometry where you're still be left with reasonable strips, versus the times where you'd just end up with a lot more strips, might not be a useful ratio.

Essentially however you try to handle it, on PS2 it rapidly becomes more trouble than it's deemed worthy of, and is quietly forgotten about (until the punters see the writhing mess of pixels that your game becomes, and complain at you)

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Unneccesary

I think any further attempt at reasoning with you is futile.

There is not need for such words my friend. We can disagree and be pleasant no? Also you do not explain why (important component) you think contract is only reason why Xbox has expensive manufacture cost. It also has more transistor, more memory, hard-drive, more heat and more size and complication.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

There is not need for such words my friend. We can disagree and be pleasant no? Also you do not explain why (important component) you think contract is only reason why Xbox has expensive manufacture cost. It also has more transistor, more memory, hard-drive, more heat and more size and complication.

OK, I'll eat a bit of pie and qualify my previous statements. Of course the design has something to do with current size and price... that is true for every product, though the relationship is hardly linear. In fact, in some cases it is hard to find a correlative relationship between cost and price at all. But I digress.

My point is that contractual language is the reason the current Xbox costs more than the PS2. Microsoft has displayed an unambiguous willingness to take a loss, up to a point. Due to bad contracts, that point prevents the Xbox from closing the final price gap with the slimline PS2. Had MS been able to enjoy the same cost reductions due to process shrinks that Sony and Nintendo have, you would see the Xbox maintain the price parity that MS so strongly pursued for the first several years of its life.

Your argument that the Xbox is not an elegant design because it currently costs more and is larger is equivalent to saying the PS3 is likewise an inelegant or bad design because it is larger and more expensive than the 360. Are you willing to make that logical step?

The bottom line is that the Xbox remains a more capable device than the PS2. It includes a HDD, which severely impacts console size, and the older process chips demand both PCB space and cooling solutions that prevent size reduction.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily call the Xbox elegant either. I agree with the majority that it was a rushed product, using predominently off-the-shelf parts and technology with minimal design optimization and customization time, that did exactly what Microsoft intended - compete technically, get to market quick, and get mindshare established in preparation for a "real" round this generation. But basing an assertion like yours on the current price and size, ignoring the contractual influences that have led to this situation, seems more biased than I am willing to overlook.

 

[fearsomepirate]

My point is that contractual language is the reason the current Xbox costs more than the PS2.

And the fixed cost of the hard drive. I would also guess that the controllers are more expensive to manufacture as well.

I also don't see what the big deal is. The Xbox costs more to produce because its chips are bigger and hotter, and it has a hard drive. Yes, the chips are big and hot because of contractual obligations, but that doesn't change the basic facts.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Elegant

Your argument that the Xbox is not an elegant design because it currently costs more and is larger is equivalent to saying the PS3 is likewise an inelegant or bad design because it is larger and more expensive than the 360. Are you willing to make that logical step?

I already say old PS2 design is not so great and that Gamecube and new PS2 slim design is best for low cost manufacture. Elegant is different issue than manufacture cost but Xbox is not so elegant also.

It includes a HDD, which severely impacts console size, and the older process chips demand both PCB space and cooling solutions that prevent size reduction.

This is why it is expensive for manufacture.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily call the Xbox elegant either. I agree with the majority that it was a rushed product, using predominently off-the-shelf parts and technology with minimal design optimization and customization time, that did exactly what Microsoft intended - compete technically, get to market quick, and get mindshare established in preparation for a "real" round this generation. But basing an assertion like yours on the current price and size, ignoring the contractual influences that have led to this situation, seems more biased than I am willing to overlook.

Biased for what my friend? All I say is new PS2 slim and Gamecube is small, cool (temperature), simple, and so is cheap for manufacture. You have given all reasons why Xbox is expensive for manufacture. Also many reasons are same for old PS2 design.

But is interesting to wonder what if contract is different, will MS make process shrink for NV2A and Celeron? Maybe maybenot. I think maybe they will need help from Nvidia and Intel. What is cost for this? What about RAM? Hard drive cannot change but what about flip DVD drive door like Slim PS2 and Gamecube? It will still have more cost but how much?

 

[Fafalada]

the DC's SH-4 CPU costed six times less silicon than the Emotion Engine

It was also at least 6x less capable (probably a lot more if we count the little extras like MPEG2 decoding).

And Emotion Engine isn´t more than the evolution of PSone R3000A

Indeed - and SH4 was just a higher clocked Saturn SH2.

but why not presort the trianglestrips in static geometry, based on their average normal?

Possible yes - but messy and clumsy once you try to implement it(especially on VU side) - and as MrWibble notes, it would play havoc on your data efficiency, I've been down that path once with an attempt at gross BF culling (basically the same concept).

especially as the feature to actually set up the level exists and is simply left as an excercise for the programmer.

It might be more of an excercise for the bus then the programmer, but I disgress
It's not very complicated to set the mipfactor on perprimitive basis, the question is whether the overhead of larger output vertices weighing on the VU memory and bus are worth it. And far more importantly - you inevitably end up with yet another set of data-paths to handle in clipper because it would be incredibly daft to default that extra texture register into ALL types of primitives (especially the untextured ones).

Basically it once again comes back to what we discussed a while back about why hw-clip would have been so great to have, avoiding all the mess of having to handle all the different shader outputs you might code up.
See how far that stretches - if GIF had a clip circuit added, mipmapping would potentially become a nonissue too...

Or maybe clipping implementation is too much of an excercise for Sony hw engineers (looking at PSP, I'd be tempted to believe that's the case).

 

[Nick Laslett]

The bottom line is that the Xbox remains a more capable device than the PS2. It includes a HDD, which severely impacts console size, and the older process chips demand both PCB space and cooling solutions that prevent size reduction.

The PS2 also includes a space for a harddrive, so the size increase is due to more than just this feature.