It would seem the DC[98] is a more advanced unit than the PS2[2k]
http://member.telpacific.com.au/trat2422/d-ps.html
http://member.telpacific.com.au/trat2422/d-ps.html
Hmm...an interesting comparison.
- Thread starter SegaR&D
- Start date
Good Lord........
interesting indeed... as the specs are in many places plain wrong and tilted in favour of the Dreamcast 
...DC fillrate 3.2 Gigapixels without texture vs. PS2 fillrate 120 Megapixels
PS2 fill rate is 2.4Gpixel/sec for 32bit + Z + Alpha, and I'm a bit sceptical about that DC fill rate.
...DC fillrate 3.2 Gigapixels without texture vs. PS2 fillrate 120 Megapixels
PS2 fill rate is 2.4Gpixel/sec for 32bit + Z + Alpha, and I'm a bit sceptical about that DC fill rate.
rabidrabbit said:interesting indeed... as the specs are in many places plain wrong and tilted in favour of the Dreamcast
...DC fillrate 3.2 Gigapixels without texture vs. PS2 fillrate 120 Megapixels
PS2 fill rate is 2.4Gpixel/sec for 32bit + Z + Alpha, and I'm a bit sceptical about that DC fill rate.
Last time i heard it was 800Mpixels for DC. But hey, the remaining 2.4Gpixels might be the hidden Nostalgia Pixels.
london-boy said:
Try 100 Mpix...
3.2, good lord! I expect the writer of that "comparison" to have a mighty long nose right now.
Guden Oden said:london-boy said:
Try 100 Mpix...
3.2, good lord! I expect the writer of that "comparison" to have a mighty long nose right now.
Serious? Don't know where i got 800M from..."At 20 000 000 polygons per second, you'd get about 333 333 polygons on screen at 60 frames per second. Hmm, but if each polygon takes 40 bytes of VRAM that’ll take over 13 MB to store them all. & you can’t store 13 MB of polygons into 4MB of VRAM & still have room for textures now can you? "
LAMER
LAMER
london-boy said:
Yeah, of course I'm serious.
One pipe, clock speed 100MHz. Of course, as it's a deferred renderer it does have "infinite" fillrate for opaque pixel overdraw, though that doesn't help any with transparent pixels.Guden Oden said:london-boy said:
Try 100 Mpix...
3.2, good lord! I expect the writer of that "comparison" to have a mighty long nose right now.
IMHO the 3.2 GPixel are indeed correct.....somehow. They are for "Zixels" only. The PVR2DC had only one rendering pipeline but 32 Z-Buffer units working in parallel, so the "Zixel" fillrate was 3.2 GPixel.
From Author:
"Please note that I’ve gone to a heck of a lot of trouble to ensure these specifications are correct! If you think I may have made a slip up, let me know. (All speed related specs are provided for each console’s maximum performance, and hence may vary under a game environment.)"
"Please note that I’ve gone to a heck of a lot of trouble to ensure these specifications are correct! If you think I may have made a slip up, let me know. (All speed related specs are provided for each console’s maximum performance, and hence may vary under a game environment.)"
mboeller said:
Are you sure the PVR2DC actually FILLS 32 "zixels" every clock? Because from what I seem to remember, it was capable of resolving up to 32 polygon layers in DEPTH per clock. I'm not sure why it would need 32 Z-units when a tile is only 32*32 pixels. It would hence only take 32 pixels to fill all "zixels", but (at least) 1024 clocks to draw all pixels, assuming no transparencies; seems VERY unbalanced.
You'd have 32 Z-units idling for almost 1000 clock cycles per tile, that makes no sense!
