PC versus different console GPUs

[HellRipper]

Hi guys, im new here and my first question is as follow:

Which was GPU was faster?

The Geforce 2 GTS 64MB vs the PS2 GFX engine?
Geforce Ti4200 128 vs XGPU? (xbox1)
X1900XT vs Xenos? (x360)
X1900XT vs RSX? (PS3)

And how did the pc fair against the:
PS1, N64, Sega Dreamcast, and the NES/SNES?

Thanks for the answers, will save it to a word file, so i can look back to it when its like 10 years past and nobody knows it anymore

HellRipper

 

[Sobek]

Just an FYI, probably best to compare a Geforce3 Ti 500 to the original Xgpu, as that was its closest comparison at the time IIRC.

 

[Tahir2]

X1900XT vs RSX? (PS3)

Shouldn't that be 7900GTX vs RSX?

If you factor in memory bandwidth alone then the PC GPU's have the advantage.

 

[Kaotik]

Shouldn't that be 7900GTX vs RSX?

If you factor in memory bandwidth alone then the PC GPU's have the advantage.

Depends what you want to compare, if you want fastest (single chip) out at a time, I guess it should be X1950 XTX vs PS3, unless G80 or R600 comes out before PS3 does.

 

[Tahir2]

The X1950XTX isn't out yet, but I thought the OP was going for NVIDIA (PC) vs NVIDIA (Console) and ATI (PC) vs ATI (Console).

I mean you could also then include the 7950 GPU series too.... on the PC side there is a lot to choose from.

 

[Fox5]

Geforce 2 GTS and PS2 (though I think the Geforce 2 Ultra was out by that time) both have strengths over each other, though overall I think I'd give it to the Geforce 2.
Ti4200 beats XGPU, I'd say a Ti 500 would be about a tie (better in some areas, worse in others) to the XGPU, with faster cpus on the PC side being the main thing saving the Ti500 from being a loss.
I'd say X1900XT likely beats both Xenos and RSX.

Against the Ps1, I believe the PC was slower at the time.

Voodoo was out by the release of the n64 I believe (or shortly thereafter) and though I don't think it beat the n64 in every area, overall I believe it was more powerful, though I'm not sure if PC cpus were up to the level of the n64's by that point.

I'd say Sega Dreamcast had a bit of an edge over the PC for its American release (unless you count the Geforce which came out shortly afterwards), and a huge advantage at its Japanese release (which doesn't seem to be what you're comparing to anyway, since I don't think geforce 2 gts was out in time for the PS2's Japanese launch).

NES was both faster and slower than the PC. It had actual 2d graphics hardware, which should give it advantage over PCs of the time but not Macs/Amigas/etc, but anything 3d the PC would win. Same for the SNES.

 

[Megadrive1988]

Dreamcast, at its launch in 1998 in Japan, was well beyond what any PC could do. The best PCs in late 1998 had Pentium IIs and 3dfx Voodoo2 or Nvidia TNT - overall, the Dreamcast completely outclassed such PCs.

 

[KimB]

Just an FYI, probably best to compare a Geforce3 Ti 500 to the original Xgpu, as that was its closest comparison at the time IIRC.

Not really. The NV2A had a number of enhancements over the NV20 that also made it into the NV25. The GeForce4 Ti 4200 comparison is valid, but the GeForce4 wins hands-down, because it has higher memory bandwidth.

 

[swaaye]

With both X360 and PS3 having 8 ROPs on the GPUs and 128-bit graphics memory buses, I'd say both of those consoles are soundly beaten currently as well. 360 with its eDRAM poses an interesting challenge though, but that advantage is only so in its environment with its less flexible usage demands (resolutions).

 

[Fox5]

Dreamcast, at its launch in 1998 in Japan, was well beyond what any PC could do. The best PCs in late 1998 had Pentium IIs and 3dfx Voodoo2 or Nvidia TNT - overall, the Dreamcast completely outclassed such PCs.

I did mention that at its Japanese release it was way ahead, it wasn't quite so far ahead at its American release.

 

[Beafy]

Voodoo was out by the release of the n64 I believe (or shortly thereafter) and though I don't think it beat the n64 in every area, overall I believe it was more powerful, though I'm not sure if PC cpus were up to the level of the n64's by that point.

A PC with a Voodoo Graphics chip was definitely more powerful than the N64. I don't believe there was anything looking remotely as good as the original GLQuake.

 

[compres]

I agree with everyone so far. The dreamcast was by far the fastest 3D console in relation to pcs when it came out. I still think it had better hardware than the later playstation 2, and it had a bunch of good software too. I remember it conected to the internet somehow.

The n64 was not faster than a pc with voodoos on sli but that setup was mightly expensive and the n64 was only worth 250usd back then, I remember I could not afford the voodoos.

Back in snes era we had the genesis and the neo geo among other lessers souls. The neo geo was probably the most amazing console ever in 2D, with it's hardware still being used in arcades by snk 10+ years later. If I am not mistaken the neo geo had dual 68000s and the ram was part of the game catridge, making the games too expensive, something in the 150-300usd range each.

 

[BrynS]

The 3DO Interactive Multiplayer had some impressive, custom video logic for it's time (US launch - May 1993), alas it was lumbered with a similarly impressive price ($699).

 

[KimB]

I agree with everyone so far. The dreamcast was by far the fastest 3D console in relation to pcs when it came out. I still think it had better hardware than the later playstation 2, and it had a bunch of good software too. I remember it conected to the internet somehow.

Yes, but the NES and SNES were also both amazing in their graphics compared to what the PC had to offer when those consoles were released.

And then there were also a great number of consoles with very poweful technology that failed for one reason or another, such as the Atari Jaguar, the Neo Geo, and the Sega Saturn.

It used to be that when a new console was released, you could expect it to totally outclass PC's for at least a year or so. Today it seems like PC's are ahead of the curve, partially due to 3D graphics hardware, and more recently due to the advent of multi-core CPU's. By the time the next generation of consoles roles around, I'd be willing to bet that they'll look positively weak compared to a high-end PC, just for the simple reason that a high-end PC will have a budget of around $3000, but a console will be closer to $400.

 

[hoom]

An important point here is also both API overhead in PCs vs direct access to hardware for consoles & lower res that consoles have to draw vs PCs.

 

[Fox5]

An important point here is also both API overhead in PCs vs direct access to hardware for consoles & lower res that consoles have to draw vs PCs.

Well, the APsI are relatively less cumbersome now, it used to be that what was needed to make code run fast on PCs was less known for PC devs than what was needed for consoles for console devs, and consoles used to be able to do dedicated hardware for a specific task while PCs were very general purpose. With the advent of specialized graphics cards, that really took away a major advantage of the consoles.

 

[swaaye]

If you load up World Driver Championship, and put it in high res letterbox mode, you'll think you're playing a Dreamcast game (go ERP!). All without even using the RAM expansion pack.

N64 was an ok machine with lots of little flaws. Took them years to be able to get much out of it. I hope we see some exclusives that leverage the unique hardware of each of the modern machines.

 

[Dave Glue]

If you load up World Driver Championship, and put it in high res letterbox mode, you'll think you're playing a Dreamcast game (go ERP!). All without even using the RAM expansion pack.

And the framerate...? A lot of N64 games had absolutely atrocious framerates.

 

[Fox5]

And the framerate...? A lot of N64 games had absolutely atrocious framerates.

I'm assuming the letterbox mode fixes the framerate by lowering the resolution down to almost nothing.

 

[swaaye]

Yeah obviously letterboxing reduces the actual pixel area. It runs probably 20-25fps I'd guess. It's smooth unless a lot of cars get on the screen. Full screen low-res was smoother yet though.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/game.php?id=2245

The screens out there kinda stink. The wonderful interlacing of a TV helps picture quality out too. Ya'll just have to come on over and see for yurselves I guess, eh. Oooo I could use the VIVO on my X850 and capture some gameplay lol......