From PC to Next-Gen Consoles: Largest Performance Gap...
- Thread starter OryoN
- Start date
- Status
what we are talking about is in 1998 when the dc launched they had the naomi which was basicly a dreamcast with no gd rom and had a crap load of memory to store the game in instead of the disc and had slightly more ram than the dreamcast for arcade screens .
We are saying in 1999 they had the naomi 2 which actually exist and was not much more to create than the naomi 1 .
Which means they would have put out a naomi 2 based dc if they waited a year .
Which would have had a elan chipset which as you can see was very powerfull .
SO while in the year of the ps2 or the year after there was no machine with more ram. There was a faster dreamcast out there.
If you then factor in the ps2 cost sony 450$ (At least) to make. The dreamcast in 1998 cost 200$ to make. Sega could have done a double dreamcast (Basicly a naomi 2 ) for 400$. Which would have been cheaper than an actual ps2.
We're talking about NAOMI 2 being available at the time PS2 launched. If SEGA wanted to release something competitive with PS2 they would release a NAOMI 2 based console as a successor to DC since DC was based on NAOMI 1. Since the DC launched 18 months before PS2 it didn't have the same kind of processing power as PS2. The moral of the story...the technology (NAOMI 2) was there and competitive both in performance and cost to that of PS2.
Ty said:PC-Engine said:What was NAOMI then? How did DC get arcade perfect ports of NAOMI games?
If it got "arcade perfect" ports then what was the point of NAOMI? Why not just throw in a DC?
You're grasping at straws man...
I'm talking about equivalent performance. I'm not talking about JAMMA connectors and sh*t.
one said:jvd said:
Well a NAOMI 2 has 4 times of VRAM & main memory & sound memory that a DC has...
You seem to be missing out on a simple fact.
Dreamcast was 1998. Naomi 2 was 1999 .
Compare the dreamcast to the naomi.
See the small diffrences.
Then use those small diffrences to see what a dreamcast 2 or a dreamcast released in 1999 would look like.
It would look just like a naomi2 but with slightly less ram .
WHich would easily be on par with a ps2.
one said:
what are you talking about ?
a naomi 2 would have been capable of 10 million polygons with 4 lights (was it more ?) sustained. it would have also had a 200mega pixel fillrate .all the way up to 2000mega pixel fillrate.
It would have also been able to do fsaa , bump maping , volumetric effects and a host of other things.
PC-Engine said:
I'm not the one throwing around overly broad generalizations.
PC-Engine said:
Is that the ONLY difference in the cost? Just a few connectors? So EVERY port that made it over was "arcade perfect"?
Besides, didn't you originally say NAOMI2? Which I thought has 2 GPUs? Not exactly DC 1.5, more like DC2.
about 8 megs of extra ram and then the ram to store the game in as they didn't use a disc drive.
That was the main diffrence.
naomi 2 was basicly a second chip and elan with a bit more ram .
and yes every port i have ever played was identical to the naomi .
If they put out a naomi in 1998 as a dreamcast. Why couldn't they do it a year later with a naomi 2 in 1999. Esp if they spent what sony spent on each system.
No..but you're the one who's not getting the point.
Let's put it this way. Using some pixie dust they released DC using the NAOMI architecture. How they sold the DC for $200 is what some would call magic...
DC 1.5, DC2, DC-X, DC-X-Type, DC-RS, DC-GTR...whatever floats your boat.
PC-Engine said:No..but you're the one who's not getting the point.
Apparently not since you're comparing apples to oranges. Proof? Was NAOMI ever in the home? Nope. Therefore the original person who replied to you that said, "In the arcades" was spot on. From that point on you began to justify your statement. Who was the one grasping at straws? You.
NAOMI2 != DC. Next thing you'll be telling us that the GCN uses off the shelf parts contrary to devs that have worked on it. Ty said:PC-Engine said:No..but you're the one who's not getting the point.
Apparently not since you're comparing apples to oranges. Proof? Was NAOMI ever in the home? Nope. Therefore the original person who replied to you that said, "In the arcades" was spot on. From that point on you began to justify your statement. Who was the one grasping at straws? You.
Some people just don't know when to give up...
BTW the definition of off-the-shelf varies from one person to another so who's to say which is/isn't off-the shelf?
Regardless, I understand why you're dragging that topic into this thread...it's another straw grabbing attempt.
The more you reply the more foolish you look...
What has Dreamcast, Naomi and Naomi2 got to do with next gen consoles???
I know some people like to bring it into any discussion involving Sony, but it's getting really old that it is always the same thing repeated over and over. It's like they have that constant need to prove PS2 was a failed design.
PS2 and DC are basically same generation hardware, with PS2 being slightly newer. But the designs come from the same era, having the limitations of that time. They both have advantages and disadvantages, they are different in design.
One thing that I'd like to know, is how many Naomi arcade games ran on more than one Naomi board. Naomi had the possibility to run on parallel with up to 16 boards. What games ran on only one board, thus making them essentially DC games.
First I critisice those who brought DC into this discussion, and now I'm continuing it.... spank me.
I know some people like to bring it into any discussion involving Sony, but it's getting really old that it is always the same thing repeated over and over. It's like they have that constant need to prove PS2 was a failed design.
PS2 and DC are basically same generation hardware, with PS2 being slightly newer. But the designs come from the same era, having the limitations of that time. They both have advantages and disadvantages, they are different in design.
One thing that I'd like to know, is how many Naomi arcade games ran on more than one Naomi board. Naomi had the possibility to run on parallel with up to 16 boards. What games ran on only one board, thus making them essentially DC games.
First I critisice those who brought DC into this discussion, and now I'm continuing it.... spank me.The NOAMI multiboard games were the same games as the singleboard games. The extra boards were for driving multiple displays. An example would be F355. It used multiple boards for the 3 screens. The DC version just rendered the center screen of the 3 screen arcade setup.
Each of the GPUs in NAOMI 2 IIRC renders half the screen. If you had 4 PowerVR GPUs each would only render 1/4 the screen and so on. The PowerVR chips were designed to be very scalable. With todays dirt cheap memory prices you can gang up a bunch of PowerVR chips and create a monster.
akira888 said:
Each of the GPUs in NAOMI 2 IIRC renders half the screen. If you had 4 PowerVR GPUs each would only render 1/4 the screen and so on. The PowerVR chips were designed to be very scalable. With todays dirt cheap memory prices you can gang up a bunch of PowerVR chips and create a monster.
PC-Engine said:Some people just don't know when to give up...
Ah, speaking for yourself?
PC-Engine said:BTW the definition of off-the-shelf varies from one person to another so who's to say which is/isn't off-the shelf?
Apparently devs who know about it differ from you, who doesn't.
PC-Engine said:Regardless, I understand why you're dragging that topic into this thread...it's another straw grabbing attempt.
To illustrate that once again, you don't know what you're speaking about. Anyhow back on topic, NAOMI2 != DC. Furthermore, as I asked before, was NAOMI limited to the arcades? If you can't answer the question, then no biggie; there's no shame in it.
you guys are classic...
You are trying to convince us, Sega "could have" pulled of a double dreamcast, being more expensive than the Dreamcast, and NOT suffer the consequences? They couldn't even keep themselves alive with the cheaper Dreamcast and now you want any credibility on them being able to pull off a more expensive NAOMI2 Dreamcast a year later? (Not to mention that such an attempt by Sega wouldn't have been unnoticed by Sony and they in turn could have made a "double PS2"... which again changes the picture all together. )
Sega wasn't in any other position. GET OVER IT! Anything else is really grasping at straws.
Now can't we have one thread not derrail to the usual topics and inturn discuss the real topic of this thread?
jvd said:
You are trying to convince us, Sega "could have" pulled of a double dreamcast
, being more expensive than the Dreamcast, and NOT suffer the consequences? They couldn't even keep themselves alive with the cheaper Dreamcast and now you want any credibility on them being able to pull off a more expensive NAOMI2 Dreamcast a year later? (Not to mention that such an attempt by Sega wouldn't have been unnoticed by Sony and they in turn could have made a "double PS2"... which again changes the picture all together. )Sega wasn't in any other position. GET OVER IT! Anything else is really grasping at straws.
Now can't we have one thread not derrail to the usual topics and inturn discuss the real topic of this thread?
- Status
