OG XBox was planned to launch with an AMD CPU until last minute.

[mr magoo]

If we take MGS2 as an example the game looked almost identical on on both systems, there were places were custom Ps2 design gave it edge, i think it was the scene when the ship is filled with water and ps2 had like really nice and cool effect while on xbox it was not so impressive. But games like splinter cell 3 showed the real gap between those two consoles. The advantages of ps2 could be done in some degree on xbox but the other way around was almost impossible (example Splinter Cell 3, doom3 ).

Hence the 'just about everything', BW/fillrate was a architectural difference, the PS2 needed them. See it like this, native PS2 games that took advantage of the whole arch that where ported to Xbox where quite close to the PS2 versions (even bad ports like mgs2). Games that took advantage of the Xbox and where ported to PS2.... ye we all know what happened then
Its just not a total fair-comparison hardware wise seeing the gap in time between the releases.

PS2 did impress the most though, being the first out the gate (DC didnt even make it to EU i think), it was the first console to power us with tekken tag, GT3, MGS2 graphics before the xbox and gc even saw the light. Its massive sales ment an ongoing support and devs optimized the hell out of that system.

yeah pretty much this. xbox was newer hw with "normal" gpu

 

[davis.anthony]

If we take MGS2 as an example the game looked almost identical on on both systems, there were places were custom Ps2 design gave it edge, i think it was the scene when the ship is filled with water and ps2 had like really nice and cool effect while on xbox it was not so impressive. But games like splinter cell 3 showed the real gap between those two consoles. The advantages of ps2 could be done in some degree on xbox but the other way around was almost impossible (example Splinter Cell 3, doom3 ).

yeah pretty much this. xbox was newer hw with "normal" gpu

MGS2 on Xbox had cut-backs and a poor frame rate compared to PS2.

This was the generation where people were impressed by crappy resolution normal maps and stencil shadows.

Xbox had some amazing looking games, but so did PS2.

I would also argue that PS2 games hold up better at higher resolutions then most Xbox games.

 

[swaaye]

I think that Splinter Cell Chaos Theory comparison is an example of PC and XBox goals aligning and the money pouring in to specifically target DirectX 8 style hardware. The PS2 port just looks low effort. Maybe they could do something similar on PS2 but it would require an entirely different approach. Of course this also shows why vastly different architectures make problems and why the tech has normalized today.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sorry, I didn't explain my point well. PS2 was powerful in certain areas, but the graphics leaps at the time left it looking very dated when compared to the more cutting edge graphics of the time.

Sure, but almost nobody had cutting edge graphics of the time because they were cutting edge and hardware cost 4x as much as the PS2. What games running on cutting edge hardware do you feel made the PS2 'look very dated'?

 

[davis.anthony]

I think that Splinter Cell Chaos Theory comparison is an example of PC and XBox goals aligning and the money pouring in to specifically target DirectX 8 style hardware. The PS2 port just looks low effort. Maybe they could do something similar on PS2 but it would require an entirely different approach. Of course this also shows why vastly different architectures make problems and why the tech has normalized today.

I'm pretty sure it was a different part of Ubisoft that did the PS2 version.

 

[Nesh]

I miss these days. Technology was very experimental and we were waiting to see what kind of new tech they manufacturers would bring on the table that would push graphics in new ways. The things PS2 was putting out was extraordinary graphics back then.
I remember the first videos of games like GT3, SH2, TTT, RRV etc before release and there was nothing like it anywhere
They were putting out effects that were never seen before. Games on PC were pushing only higher polygons and texture res

 

[davis.anthony]

I miss these days. Technology was very experimental and we were waiting to see what kind of new tech they manufacturers would bring on the table that would push graphics in new ways. The things PS2 was putting out was extraordinary graphics back then.
I remember the first videos of games like GT3, SH2, TTT, RRV etc before release and there was nothing like it anywhere
They were putting out effects that were never seen before. Games on PC were pushing only higher polygons and texture res

It was an amazing time for hardware!

PS5 does kind of remind of PS2 a little as in it's been designed to move data around it's systems very quickly, just like PS2 was.

 

[PSman1700]

I think that Splinter Cell Chaos Theory comparison is an example of PC and XBox goals aligning and the money pouring in to specifically target DirectX 8 style hardware. The PS2 port just looks low effort. Maybe they could do something similar on PS2 but it would require an entirely different approach. Of course this also shows why vastly different architectures make problems and why the tech has normalized today.

That could be said about the ports to xbox too. MGS2 wasnt a good port at all, not even pc. The xbox kinda bruteforced alot of it there.

PS5 does kind of remind of PS2 a little as in it's been designed to move data around it's systems very quickly, just like PS2 was.

The PS3 was the last console from Sony to be something akin the PS2. And we can be thankfull for that i think

 

[davis.anthony]

The PS3 was the last console from Sony to be something akin the PS2. And we can be thankfull for that i think

No it wasn't, as I said above, PS5's design of having a dependence on streaming data in and out very quickly (And cache scrubbers) is also akin to how PS2 was set-up as it was also designed for high speed data streaming around the system rather then keeping everything in memory.

 

[eastmen]

It be great to see videologic , power vr or whatever they are come back to pc gaming with something large and unique. Maybe they can come in and shake things up

 

[Nesh]

It be great to see videologic , power vr or whatever they are come back to pc gaming with something large and unique. Maybe they can come in and shake things up

I dont see that happening. The technology is so standardized that whoever comes into the market with something new and isnt NVIDIA in market share it simply wont be supported.

 

[davis.anthony]

It be great to see videologic , power vr or whatever they are come back to pc gaming with something large and unique. Maybe they can come in and shake things up

I'm hoping Intel will shake up the GPU market, AMD are doing OK but they're just not large enough to truly combat Nvidia, Intel are.

 

[PSman1700]

No it wasn't, as I said above, PS5's design of having a dependence on streaming data in and out very quickly (And cache scrubbers) is also akin to how PS2 was set-up as it was also designed for high speed data streaming around the system rather then keeping everything in memory.

Others might chime in for more correct answers but, i seriously doubt the PS5 is anywhere close to what the PS2 architecturally was doing. And for good reasons. Streaming in and out data is kinda what were seeing everywhere now. Be it PS5,Xbox series, PC or apple devices.
But lets get ontopic (were going into a different discussion otherwise ). It doesnt matter if the PS5 is a follow up to PS2 or not anyway.

Anyway 6th gen was intresting from a hardware standpoint, very intresting times with MS entering the console business, the dreamcast being murdered by the PS2 with its alien tech hardware and nintendo finally aiming more at the hardcore gamers. This was also the gen where one of the consoles launched MUCH earlier (PS2) as opposed to its competitors.

yeah pretty much this. xbox was newer hw with "normal" gpu

It just wasnt all that fair of a comparison, the differences where quite huge (xbox much more capable overall). With almost two years between them in a time where hardware moved extremely fast, thats no suprise. Still, the PS2 was holding its own quite well due to the dedication of exclusive studio/developer input for the console.
Imagine what it would look like if the PS5 would release at the end of 2022 and the XSX end of 2020. It would be a bloodbath performance and feature wise most likely. And thats nowadays when hw isnt evolving as fast anymore.

 

[davis.anthony]

Others might chime in for more correct answers but, i seriously doubt the PS5 is anywhere close to what the PS2 architecturally was doing. And for good reasons.

You are seriously reading way to much in to my comment.

Anyway, back on topic.......

 

[PSman1700]

Anyway, back on topic.......

Good idea

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm hoping Intel will shake up the GPU market, AMD are doing OK but they're just not large enough to truly combat Nvidia, Intel are.

Ever since Larrabee, it has felt like this was about to happen for more than a decade but I've lost hope of a new contender. The fact that Apple has recently swept in from nowhere and blown past Intel in a couple of years has reset my expectations. F***ing Apple!

 

[eastmen]

I dont see that happening. The technology is so standardized that whoever comes into the market with something new and isnt NVIDIA in market share it simply wont be supported.

Any market can be disrupted. They would first have to launch a product that offered extremely good price to performance metrics. If I recall the biggest issues with the tech was the size of the tiling storage. in the days of a 128megs of infinity cache they could really put out something nice. Of course their first generation would most likely have to either be much more performant than the compeition or be a loss leader for them. I would think this would be the perfect time for a disrupter to enter the market with supply lines so tight a lot of people would be willing to buy something that performed in line with the name brands just so they can get their hands on something. Even a 3060 performance part could be a game changer since those can be hard to find at $500

I'm hoping Intel will shake up the GPU market, AMD are doing OK but they're just not large enough to truly combat Nvidia, Intel are.

Intel is always interesting but I think they need to always push capacity towards their bread and butter of server cpus. I also worry because as much as people like to piss on amd's driver history well its a perfect record compared to intels lol

 

[Nesh]

Any market can be disrupted. They would first have to launch a product that offered extremely good price to performance metrics. If I recall the biggest issues with the tech was the size of the tiling storage. in the days of a 128megs of infinity cache they could really put out something nice. Of course their first generation would most likely have to either be much more performant than the compeition or be a loss leader for them. I would think this would be the perfect time for a disrupter to enter the market with supply lines so tight a lot of people would be willing to buy something that performed in line with the name brands just so they can get their hands on something. Even a 3060 performance part could be a game changer since those can be hard to find at $500

I dont think the disruption will happen by a company with small market share. Extremely good price to performance metrics?
Well we will have to define that and the rate of adoption.
It needs someone who already has huge market presence or who will gain huge market presence.
Everything is tight to how many own what hardware and the software. Everything is much more set in stone than before, ton of software are designed already around what the current market leaders have.
Developers want as unified environment as possible to be able to port as easily their titles to as many platforms and hardware configurations as possible.
It's gonna be a very big outlier if we ever get something exotic again.
I d say that Microsoft is somewhat responsible for this. Before their entry in the market, console and PC gaming were more distinct experiences, with many games being exclusive on consoles forever and some finding their way later on PC. The platform holders in the console space were focusing on the unique console experience and how to differentiate their console, so they tended to invest on unique hardware features. As long as this was the norm, a lot of console games stayed on console, and less PC games found their way on console. For that reason the markets were more distinct, and more people were shifting away from PC to the console space for their gaming needs. Sony had the room to experiment and do crazy things, knowing that the Playstation was home to countless of exclusive games of which many were from japanese developers.
Microsoft on the other hand had other plans.
MS wanted to unify the two to support gaming and entertainment on Windows and turn PC and console into one in the process. To achieve this they had easy ports between PC and console in mind. The hardware was designed around this idea.
The XBOX was the first console I ever played were I felt I was playing PC games on. By the time that happened, hardware standardization and the importance of PC ports were hastened in the console space.
Western developers of which many were predominantly PC developers found their way on console and popularized their IPs there, whereas the big japanese developers started making all their games available on PC as standard.
The difference between console and PC are more blurred than ever. And with that the motivation to experiment on exotic and unique solutions vanished as it makes less business sense with the standardization, risk involved and huge R&D costs.

 

[Theeoo]

I'm not sure another 1.5 years in the oven would've significantly changed the PS2's design to match Xbox. I think Sony would've probably just put in a souped-up version of the Graphics synthesizer with more ram, because at that point they were the dominant market leaders, and PS2's success was almost assured. At least they didn't try and use Cell for graphics in ps3.

What games running on cutting edge hardware do you feel made the PS2 'look very dated'?

No point comparing worst to worst, you have to compare best to best for a real gauge.

 

[davis.anthony]

I'm not sure another 1.5 years in the oven would've significantly changed the PS2's design to match Xbox. I think Sony would've probably just put in a souped-up version of the Graphics synthesizer with more ram, because at that point they were the dominant market leaders, and PS2's success was almost assured. At least they didn't try and use Cell for graphics in ps3.

It may not have changed the design but even being able to add proper texture compression with slightly more system RAM and even 1Mb more EDRAM would have made such a massive difference to it.

Maybe even a clock speed increase.