Brief inquiry on PS2 GS capabilities.

[Simon F]

Actually, they use the remaining space of GS, to embedd the memory. Embedded memory will save cost in the long run. As well as providing large bandwidth for effects.

In the end, its a more balance solutions than what the Dreamcast offered.

I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison. The PS2 had N times (~3x?) as much silicon as DC! If Sega had a allowed a hectare of silicon as well I'm sure DC would have been truly frightening. Just look at what Naomi2 supplies for about double the DC silicon budget.

 

[London Geezer]

Re: Hey Chap,

Console's are always based on compromises...

Look at PS1 - 66Mpixel fill rate for flat shaded poly's compared well with graphics cards at it's launch - and geometry throughput was pretty reasonable for it's time....

that 66Mpixel is for PS1 or PS2???

Fillrate on PS1 was 66Mpixels for untextured polygons.
On Ps2 it's around 2.4Gpixels for untextured polygons. Half if textured.

U're confusing it with the 66MPOLYGONS figure...

Polygons are a way of "faking" 3d too. Everything in computer graphics is just a fake approximation of reality.

Polygons aren't "real" any more than bump-mapping is, both are just different methods of "faking" 3d.

Of course, i should have been clearer. We had discussions on the philosophy of "the fake" in 3D graphics in the past.

I just think that if you want to fake something 3D-like, the best way of faking it at the moment on reasonable hardware is Displacement Mapping, which is polygons. Can't wait till it becomes standard. Bump mapping is still flat, if you know what i mean, although there are better way to do it coming out every so often (everyone can see on the 3D technologies forum, there's some neat stuff in there).

 

[London Geezer]

Actually, they use the remaining space of GS, to embedd the memory. Embedded memory will save cost in the long run. As well as providing large bandwidth for effects.

In the end, its a more balance solutions than what the Dreamcast offered.

I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison. The PS2 had N times (~3x?) as much silicon as DC! If Sega had a allowed a hectare of silicon as well I'm sure DC would have been truly frightening. Just look at what Naomi2 supplies for about double the DC silicon budget.

And Naomi2 has N times (~3x?) as much memory as PS2 and almost double as much as the Xbox... We can play this game over and over again....

I think a PS2 with some little tweaks and more main memory would very much be on par with the best out there. (The italics some was sarcastic).

Ps2 with decend blending modes and 64MB Ram (or even a bit more) would rock even now, without being overly expensive, if at all.

 

[PC-Engine]

Dude I don't think you understand what Simon is really getting at do you?

If PS2 had more RAM it would've cost MORE making any comparisons irrelevent since N2 could have even more for the same cost. Nice living in a dream world where you can add infinite amounts of RAM huh? N2 had more RAM but a lot of it was duplicated anyway not to mention it didn't need very fast exotic expensive RDRAM. It's advantage is not due to the amount of RAM, rather it was due to its texture compression so its effective RAM capacity was even greater.

 

[London Geezer]

Dude I don't think you understand what Simon is really getting at do you?

If PS2 had more RAM it would've cost MORE making any comparisons irrelevent. Nice living in a dream world where you can add infinite amounts of RAM huh?

I was just saying... Jesus some people need to chill around here...

 

[chapban.]

I wonder be Sega release DC in 2000, with the Elan of N2, 1 PVR clock at 150mhz, total system RAM 24mb, 16mb graphiX RAM and 4mb audio RAM, it be rock!

N2 has more RAM, but doesnt it cant do without them. 32mb of them are already just for audio... probably with good texture compression and good streaming, really ain need those many RAM on a home console.

 

[London Geezer]

Question to the geniouses out there:

Would it be feasible to make a game without any kind of textures? I was thinking that if one were to focus on style, it could look very pretty. That would give PS2 enough polygons to play with to really shine, of course using some crazy effects and lighting on top of it.

REZ was close to representing a pretty much texture-less mindblowing environment. I wonder why no one has tried it again... Rez really looked good considering it ran on DC, if a PS2 (or newer consoles) version were to be made, i'm sure there would be some crazy things going on screen at once.

Think ZOE2 (or REZ) but faster, without textures but more of everything else...

 

[Crazyace]

That would be interesting - It would have compared better with PS2 ( Probally 16MB/16MB/16MB would make more sense ) - but would probally have cost the same amount of money.. There again, what was the major bottleneck in most DC games, if it was rasterisation, then adding an elan chip wouldn't help much!!

Maybe PS2 would have stretched to more VRAM, or upped the GS/EE clocks - who knows 8)

However I reckon it's more likely they would have gone for a KyroII or more advanced chip, rather than ELAN+CLX

In the end the games and the cost reduction are more important..

 

[Squeak]

I'm a big fan of the GS, personally. IMO it's allowed games and effects to be created that wouldn't otherwise be realistically possible..

Like what? I honestly don't remember seeing any effects on PS2 that made me go "WOW!! I haven't seen that before!".

 

[notAFanB]

Would it be feasible to make a game without any kind of textures? I was thinking that if one were to focus on style, it could look very pretty. That would give PS2 enough polygons to play with to really shine, of course using some crazy effects and lighting on top of it.

wait for Killer7

Like what? I honestly don't remember seeing any effects on PS2 that made me go "WOW!! I haven't seen that before!".

I'm gonna get flamed for this but, for me the rain in MGS2 and some of the particle effects in ZOE2 are pretty stunning (especially seeing hte former for hte first time).

but yes that's pretty much it.

 

[chapban.]

Thing be, the parts on DC are more economically viable to upped. DC is afterall 1998. If Sega werent in the pits, they could finance a monster of DC.

Thought DC was limited by the SH2? ANYWAY, seeing how cool VF4 was, a single faster ram-filled PVR could still do okay, yeay? 100mhz PVR had 100mp/s yeay? How be calculated if speed were to up to 150mhz? MayB, by then, Sega/PVR can improve the deferred rendering process even more?

Ps2 will be questionable how Sony can increase GS any larger then and RDRAM were also EX. Sony was losing a lot at initial phrase. They showed a graph(graph was meant to show how they investment plans were to work) which indicates how much in the red they were at start. OF cos, things got much better over time.

 

[London Geezer]

Motion blur done almost properly was done first by PS2. Also all the particles effects that seem to be doable only on PS2 at a reasonable framerate with decent physics. Of course i don't wanna get into the "shoddy MGS2 port" issue which we have already discussed...

I'm still curious to hear from knowledgeable people around here to give their opinion on whether it would be too much for Xbox's fillrate to handle the crazy particles/polygons flying aroung in ZOE2.

But i don't really want to turn this into a flame war (which it will even though the intentions are very innocent) even more than it already is, so let's just leave it at that.

 

[notAFanB]

Thing be, the parts on DC are more economically viable to upped. DC is afterall 1998. If Sega werent in the pits, they could finance a monster of DC.

I know this is a board for speculation, but do you have any experience/figurs to back that up even a tad?

seeing how cool VF4 was, a single faster ram-filled PVR could still do okay, yeay? 100mhz PVR had 100mp/s yeay? How be calculated if speed were to up to 150mhz? MayB, by then, Sega/PVR can improve the deferred rendering process even more?

there were rumours (now proved false) that an labotismes versionof VF4 was floating around prior to release. would've looked rather nice I think.

Ps2 will be questionable how Sony can increase GS any larger then and RDRAM were also EX. Sony was losing a lot at initial phrase. They showed a graph(graph was meant to show how they investment plans were to work) which indicates how much in the red they were at start. OF cos, things got much better over time.

congradulations on making sht up to skew your bias. true or not that just didn;tmake a whole lotta sense.

 

[London Geezer]

Congradulations on making sht up to skew your bias. True or not that just didn't make a whole lotta sense.

Does it ever? :|

 

[chapban.]

I know this is a board for speculation, but do you have any experience/figurs to back that up even a tad?

Well just be speculation. DC launch in Nov 1998 for 30,000Y and Sept 1999 for 199USD. That be quite cheap for all its 3D then. If Sega had held back and do more work, probably be able to add more bells and whistle for 2000, POSSIBLE be of equivalent pricing, or simply up to the sweet spot of 299 if need. In comparison PS2 went for Mar 2000 39,800Y and Oct 2000 for 299.

congradulations on making sht up to skew your bias. true or not that just didn;tmake a whole lotta sense.

Please mind your language. Not the first time with the insults. Wonder what be the mods doing...

The GS was already very large then, making it larger will cost them more, upped the heat and die space. Not to forget the initial production problems of PS2. I ain the one saying that. Think PCengine and Simon would think so too.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Even less so recently, as if it was regressing

 

[V3]

I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison. The PS2 had N times (~3x?) as much silicon as DC! If Sega had a allowed a hectare of silicon as well I'm sure DC would have been truly frightening. Just look at what Naomi2 supplies for about double the DC silicon budget.

Maybe Sony is able to get higher silicon real estate because it can get it for cheaper price than what Sega can ?

Anyway I am sure PS2 GS does have more silicon estate, but most of them are for eDRAM and those wide buses. They basically trade off external bus and memory, for that.

You know everyone were saying its a cheap console but I never understand, why Sega was losing money on Dreamcast. That led me to belive that Dreamcast as a whole, wasn't the cheapest console to produce.

I mean looking back at it, its pretty state of the art machine, segmented memory, three 64 bit external buses, GD-ROM drive, Yamaha sound chip, the latest Super H processor and of course the latest PVR chip.

I am sure back when it was released in 1998 these things are not cheap. Even Xbox or GC wasn't that high spec given the time frame when they launched. Sega was selling its Dreamcast too cheaply at launch IMO.

Sony was able to undercut Saturn because PSX was just a cheaper machine to Saturn. Sega however did try to undercut PS2 but they managed to lost alot of money in the process, upto the point where they went third party. That just tells me that Dreamcast is not a cheap console like Gamecube, its more like Xbox, an expensive console.

Well enough off topics

 

[chapban.]

DC is probably between the GC and Xbox in pricing. It be most prob be like what Xbox2 is aiming. Hard 3d + lotsa involvement custom tech + profit over time.

WHAT hurts Sega most was the fact, DC units werent moving fast enough. Not fast hardware sales = not much software sales = less $$$ inflow. NOT only that, but Sega had to do the drastic price cuts and rebates and bonus and what not. IF only they werent in the shiite position(rep + finance) then, they could have muchie done better.

 

[Vince]

Well just be speculation. DC launch in Nov 1998 for 30,000Y and Sept 1999 for 199USD. That be quite cheap for all its 3D then. If Sega had held back and do more work, probably be able to add more bells and whistle for 2000, POSSIBLE be of equivalent pricing, or simply up to the sweet spot of 299 if need. In comparison PS2 went for Mar 2000 39,800Y and Oct 2000 for 299.

MSRP isn't a good indication as it's just as influenced by the marketplace and the equilibrium region which yeilds the greastest profit. Just as you alluded to, Sony knew what their inhouse manufacturing capabilities were and utilized them to bring a superior product to market and turn a profit on it with the future yeilding ever greater benefits from their manufacturing abailities. Sega was out of their league.

Wonder what be the mods doing...

Trying to decrypt your first responce.

 

[Simon F]

And Naomi2 has N times (~3x?) as much memory as PS2 and almost double as much as the Xbox... We can play this game over and over again....

I wasn't counting the commodity devices such as RAM because, compared to custom silicon, they are as cheap as... errr.. chips.

Seriously though, DC and Naoimi used bog-standard 100Mhz SDRAM whereas, IIRC, PS2 uses RDRAM. The latter is generally regarded to be a "tad" more expensive than the former so we probably can ignore the difference in the amount of external RAM.