Late: Situations where PS2 outperforms Xbox

[wehaveseen]

Am I correct to assume that the PS2 outperforms the Xbox in games that are heavy in particle effects and lots maths calculations like Burnout Revenge?

Am i also correct to assume that the Gamecube will outperform it in games which make more efficient use of the flexible chache architecture. Because Xbox needs everything to be batched up in large chunks, where the gamecube can outperform it using smaller chunks of cache memory.

 

[Phil]

Yeah, it simply depends what the developer wants to achieve with it. Different architectures yield different advantages (and disadvantages) and different approaches.

 

[Shogmaster]

PS2 (and GC) has eDRAM and can get transparency effects for a lot less cost than XBox (hense the huge slowdown during the rain scenes in MGS 2 Substance on XBox).

 

[c0_re]

Uhhhh minus MGS:2 which was a crap port I don't kow of any multiplatform game that "looked" better on GameCube much less PS2.

This is to be expected it came out more than a year later has 2X as much Ram and was clocked quite a bit higher.

 

[Phil]

Thank you c0_re for probably ruining a perfect thread that started off quite pleasant and informative.

1.) We really can't judge how well that port was (unless you have performance statistics proving otherwise, which I doubt anyone has)

2.) The scene in MGS2 is a very fillrate demanding scene - which is a strength of the PS2 hardware - so it isn't far fetched to believe that the Xbox would have trouble replicating it.

3.) MGS2 is a game that was developed around the strengths of the PS2 (low texturing, lot of effects like wind, rain etc) - something that on Xbox would not be very good because you can really use great textures, bump-mapping etc.

So even if it was a crappy port, it's still a game that used the PS2 rather well and to it's strength so I'd argue a Xbox version would still have trouble replicating it.

There are examples of other games on Xbox that are developed to that platforms strength (SplinterCell?) which would simply not be replicable on PS2 into the each detail - so this post is really not biased in anyway. It's a logical result of having a different architecture which yields different advantages and requires developers to use different approaches to get the most efficient use out of it.

 

[Lazy8s]

The Xbox should even have the advantage in fillrate for most game situations since having a few texture layers has become a standard practice.

 

[Sis]

Uhhhh minus MGS:2 which was a crap port I don't kow of any multiplatform game that "looked" better on GameCube much less PS2.

Every thing I've heard says that Burnout 3 looked better on the PS2, due to the particle effects.

.Sis

 

[Phil]

The Xbox should even have the advantage in fillrate for most game situations since having a few texture layers has become a standard practice.

^^ only if the developing team requires multiple layers of textures though. Fillrate can be used for far more than simply multi-layer texturing - it's really up to the developer to decide what they want and what they need. One isn't necessarely better than the other, it's subjective in the end. A game doesn't need x amount of texture layers to look good - art-direction can go a long way.

Note I didn't say the Xbox never has a fillrate advantage - I named specific examples in which fillrate can be used to an advantage on PS2. There is no definite approach in how you achieve your result - or how your game needs to look like. It's subjective, an opinion that changes accoarding to the individual (the developer / or developing team) and neither approach is right or wrong.



EDIT: Sis.: please don't respond further to c0_re as it will certainly get the topic closed as a result.

 

[Nightz]

Uhhhh minus MGS:2 which was a crap port I don't kow of any multiplatform game that "looked" better on GameCube much less PS2.

This is to be expected it came out more than a year later has 2X as much Ram and was clocked quite a bit higher.

The latest Burnout game looks better on the PS2.

 

[Phil]

Okay people, can I ask again that we stop with the pointing examples that look better on x or y platform and rather stick on topic about what approaches are better suited for which console and then bring up examples where that approach is evident?

Multi-platform games are rarely a good indication anyway and I'd acually argue that Burnout 3 is not a good example simply because its lead platform is on PS2 and Xbox would already be at a disadvantage simply through the porting process (which has little to do with different approaches and the hardwares strengths/weaknesses over each other)

 

[Lazy8s]

PS2 Burnout 3 and Burnout Revenge: better looking cinematic effects like motion trails and sparks from more intensive post processing

Xbox Burnout 3 and Burnout Revenge: clearer and more solid display from better mipmapping and texture filtering

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Fillrate, multiple texture layers

The Xbox should even have the advantage in fillrate for most game situations since having a few texture layers has become a standard practice.

I think its fair to say most of the polygons in most of the scenes of most games are single-textured. Far Cry is an extreme example. Nearly all polygons in outdoor forest scenes are single-textured no?

This is why PS2 can draw more polygons than the xbox in most types of games since in most games single-textured polygons dominate the balance. PS2 can do multiple pass as needed on select polygons so no fill-rate is wasted. See Transformers by Atari.

Most PS2 games are CPU limited, not fill-rate or vector units. Some, like Splinter Cell were very memory limited. 32MB not enough according to developer. Very poor CPU efficiency and VU utilization so performance was a really bad 16,000 polygons/frame at 30fps.

According to Mythic entertainment ...

Xbox=10M polygon/sec
PS2=20M polygons/sec

Also, someone from EA said 10.2M polygons/sec on xbox with just environment polygons.

Sony claims 20M polygons/sec achieved in-game using performance analyzer.

Gamecube developer Factor Five claims 15M polygons/sec for Star Wars game.

 

[aaaaa00]

Why are we still having this discussion? ERP's worked on both platforms, and he's been pretty damn clear.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=540030&postcount=29

OK now I have to hear your definition of weaker..........
And please don't start pointing out the raw flop advantage, because it's only relevant if you can actually practically use it.

In EVERY piece of significant game code I have ever seen the "mobile celeron" in xbox completly destroys the EE in performance. It's not even close.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=504702&postcount=61

Oh Dear god please save me from 5 years of PS2 was better at pushing polys than XBox threads. Were only now starting to see less Saturn was better than PS threads.

This is pretty simple, on every single application I have ever tested Xbox is faster than PS2 (sometimes by enormous margins) with one notable excepion, when the games become transparent fill limited (loadsa particles) then Xbox is slower.

But then you'd expect that it shipped 18 months later. But PS2 has the EDRAM which explains the aberation.

I have never heard of anyone building a cross platform game worrying too much about the Xbox version, the same devs often have to invest a huge amount of time to get the PS2 version up to speed.

 

[reptile]

1.) We really can't judge how well that port was (unless you have performance statistics proving otherwise, which I doubt anyone has)

I always thought it was a pretty good port - they didnt add anything, but the game translated very well (minus the rain scene, obviously).

PS2 definitely had the fillrate advantage, that's to be expected with an eDRAM design. The other thing the PS2 excelled at was the VU units, which are miles more flexible than the vertex shader units. It took some effort to replicate the consistency of the fixed-pipe clipping (i hated the swimming in ratchet&clank), but once you got it right, you could just do so much more with it. Similar functionality is present in both nextgen consoles (on top of the fixed-fetch vertex units).

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Erp

Why are we still having this discussion? ERP's worked on both platforms, and he's been pretty damn clear.

Who's ERP? And what did he work on? What was he clear about?

 

[SubD]

I don't personally work on XBox stuff, PS2, Dolphin, and other custom platforms is my area. The games I've worked on that had both a PS2 and XBox version were almost identical in realworld performance with the following exceptions from the games:

1) Fillrate/GS framebuffer effects possible on the PS2 version only
2) Same overall scene geometry but the XBox version had some form of multitexturing
3) Runtime geometry tesselation on the XBox version had to be significantly degraded from the PS2 version

 

[swaaye]

Who's ERP? And what did he work on? What was he clear about?

Search button time.

 

[Sis]

Okay people, can I ask again that we stop with the pointing examples that look better on x or y platform and rather stick on topic about what approaches are better suited for which console and then bring up examples where that approach is evident?

Should I invert my statement? I mean, what the hell was my post but exactly what you just asked for, but then chastised me about?

Particle effects are better suited on the PS2--from what I've heard.

For an example, please see Burnout 3.

What's your problem?

.Sis

 

[ecliptic]

It's funny when people try to declare that someone is trying to taake the topic off track only because he put up a view the person doesn't want to hear.

 

[Phil]

aaaaa00 (and I suppose ERP if he's reading)

I'm not at all disrespecting ERPs opinion, but you have to factor in that each developer has his own opinion and things he likes to achieve. It's a fact these two sets of hardware are very different and both require different approaches to get the most out of it. It's not a matter of saying "this platform is better than the other", but more "this platform has strengths that the other doesn't, but it also has other disadvantages as well". If you've ever programmed anything (much more taken role in a large project) and tried different programming languages, you will see that there's a parallel there too: sometimes programming languages require a fundemental shift in approach to the problem, giving distinct advantages but also disadvantage. There's no definite approach and there's no definite programming language - it's all relative to the result you want to achieve.

I'm sure ERP's comment is very accurate to the specific context he was using it in. It doesn't mean though that just because in his example where the Xbox CPU destroys the EE, you can't make use of the EE's strength without finding ways to destroy the CPU. I agree that in many realworld cases (especially multiplatform games that aren't developed to a platforms strength), the EE will be at a disadvantage. This wasn't necessarely the topic though (or at least I'm trying it not to degrade to that level).

I also posted this recently in another thread (that unfortunately got locked):

There's no such thing as the definite opinion outthere. No matter if Carmack, H. Kojima, Jason Rubin or whoever your greatest most admired game-developer makes the claim - it's still just an opinion as is everyone entitled to one. Just because one developer implies/claims that hardware x is more powerful than y doesn't mean others agree - it's just another perspective from that developers point-of-view of the things he would like to do and which platform in his eyes is better suited. These consoles offer so many different approaches - there really isn't a definite answer as to wihch is "most powerful". In the end, it all comes down to personal preference of the developer on what they want to achieve with it. Unfortunately, there isn't a thing as the "perfect hardware". They all have flaws developers have to work around to get the maximum out of them.

Maybe we can stop picking out sentences of developers claiming x and y because it all comes down to that perspective and in the end, it's just one individuals point-of-view among thousand others.

So even if ERP is among the likes of Carmack in status, he's still just an individual with the right to voice his opinion.

I think it's important that we factor in, in which context one platform is better suited than the other - and the context really depends on what you're trying to achieve with it.