Provocative comment by Id member about PS2 (and Gamecube)!

[PC-Engine]

Well if you cannot even admit that Xbox is superior to PS2 in most ways then there's

really no point in continuing.

1. More polys
2. Per pixel effects like BM
3. Higher quality filtering like trilinear/Anisotropic
4. Higher resolution textures
5. Texture compression
6. Progressive Scan output + 720P support
7. HDD
8. Ethernet
9. 4 controller ports
10. D.I.C.E.

1: According to microsoft yes, but have we ever seen a game that came even close to the 125 million pps claimed, or even the revised "realistic" number, 31 million?
To me PS2 and xbox seems very much on par when it comes to polygons, maybe with a slight edge to PS2 (see J&D and R&C).

2: True, that is an advantage, but only a slight one. It isn’t like you can afford to sprinkle everything with high-res dot3 textures.
It can only be used sparingly, but even then at a cost.

3: xbox does have better looking mip mapping on textures but question is if that’s down to people better knowing the xbox SDK/tools, or a hardware deficiency on the PS2s side.
PS2 is perfectly capable of performing high quality mip mapping, we’ve seen that in a number of games, but far to many, even big games, doesn’t use it for some reason.

Regarding trilinear and anioso, trilinear is actually very often missing from even big titles on xbox, and anioso when it is used, doesn’t look that good. It looks as though they’ve just replaced the texture with one of its mip levels, at low angles.
PS2 has could do anioso using the GS’s clamp function to create rip maps, of course only sparingly.

4: xbox has its share of blurry textures to. Take a look Panzer Dragoon Orta, which by some is regarded as the best looking game on the machine:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/panzerdragoonorta/screens.html?page=175

And this is not just a single bad pic, there are many examples of blur like this throughout the game.

xbox’s big advantage is, that for some reason, it is very easy to do detail texturing, that´s IMO what PS2 games are really lacking.

5: I dont know for sure (as I'm not a developer) but I don’t think texture compression is as big an advantage as it is often made to sound like (at least not S3TC/DXTC), and I don’t think it is actually used very often in real games. Multitexturing is a far more efficient and flexible (mip mapping, alpa etc.) "compression method".

6: 720P doesn’t come for free, just look at Soul Calibur where the game is "zoomed in" to make less polygon and textures visible to counteract the higher pixelfillrate requirement, in 720P mode.

7: Apart from ripping music to the drive I can’t see the great advantage of a HDD.
After 3 years with PS2 I’m only on my second memcard, without having made any compromises, and I’ll most likely be able to take the savegames with me, when PS3 comes.

8: All US PS2s have ethernet port a standard now, and probably soon jap and EU models too. Besides what’s the big deal? It costs about the same to get online with either xbox or PS2, and PS2 did it before xbox.

9: I don’t know if I’m unusual, but in all the time I’ve had a Gamecube, I’ve only once been able to get 4 enthusiastic, equally good players in front of the television.
But even then, playing on a 320x240 or less screen area is hardly ideal?
The only game that I can think of, that is still fun with more than two players on the same screen, is Bomberman.

10: Don't know what that is.

1. So you can look at a game like J&D/R&C and magically know it's pushing more polys than any Xbox game to date? Xbox CAN push more polys than PS2 whether you're talking about RAW or in-game. Tests done by EA already give a good idea as to what Xbox is capable of compared to PS2. PS2 can do 66 RAW Mpolys/s while Xbox can do 116 RAW Mpolys/s. Why would Xbox almost double the PS2's RAW poly number then suddenly push less than the PS2 when it's in-game??? I don't see the logic in that.

2. Nothing is FREE. Also you wouldn't want BM all over the place anyway. Some surfaces are smooth in nature so why would you want to BM those? Overuse of BM like any other feature is ridiculous period.

3. Why do high profile PS2 games not use mipmapping? Maybe because it's a trade off to get better performance somewhere else? Mipmapping should be used as much as possible to clean up the shimmering.

Trilinear and Anisotropic filtering is superior to Bilinear period. Just because PS2 can emulate it in software doesn't mean it's fast enough to be used in-game. My i486DX could do raytracing too AND??? Xbox has the potential and often does use Trilinear in games instead of Bilinear. Anisotropric is useful for road signs etc. in racing games.

4. There are Xbox games that have high resolution textures that PS2 can only dream of end of story. Every console has games that display blurry textures. They're most common on PS2 than Xbox.

5. Simon F addressed this one already.

6. Nobody said 720p was free. NOTHING is FREE!!! Point is there are 720p games on Xbox while there is none on PS2 even after being on the market for what 4 years now?

7. Point is it came with EVERY Xbox sold. What it is used for depends on the developers.

8. See #7

9. Some games don't NEED a divided screen. Played any tennis or volleyball games lately???

10. London boy addressed this one already.

 

[randycat99]

PS2 can do 66 RAW Mpolys/s while Xbox can do 116 RAW Mpolys/s. Why would Xbox almost double the PS2's RAW poly number then suddenly push less than the PS2 when it's in-game??? I don't see the logic in that.

...because you disregard the contexts in which those numbers are possible. Given normalized, controlled circumstances, you may find the respective ratings for the 2 consoles are closer than you'd expect than just noting marketing numbers.

 

[PC-Engine]

PS2 can do 66 RAW Mpolys/s while Xbox can do 116 RAW Mpolys/s. Why would Xbox almost double the PS2's RAW poly number then suddenly push less than the PS2 when it's in-game??? I don't see the logic in that.

...because you disregard the contexts in which those numbers are possible. Given normalized, controlled circumstances, you may find the respective ratings for the 2 consoles are closer than you'd expect than just noting marketing numbers.

WTF are you talking about??? Normalized...Controlled??? LMAO

So you saying in-game Xbox pushes less polys than PS2???

 

[randycat99]

Well if I told you, you would just disregard it anyway. So that just leaves it to you to dig a little deeper on your own as to the origin of those specs, if you really want to know better. It isn't as simple as comparing 116 to 66, just because it appears in a bulletpoint. Your repeating these specs without qualification only shows your unwillingness to delve further into things beyond face value. Remember, it isn't about finding bigger numbers to bandy about at all costs. It's about understanding the nature of the numbers, and if the "corrected figures" don't automatically support your original assertion, that should be OK too, as you have learned something. Sort of like, you don't swiftly make comparisons of power outputs of 2 audio amplifiers unless you are reasonably sure they are referenced to similar distortion, bandwidth, and S/N ratings.

That is all I care to address you on this.

 

[PC-Engine]

Oh I think I know why you used "normalized", it's a last ditch effort to make it sound like the PS2 can somehow "keep up" in "normal" gaming conditions. Riiiight...btw how much more Randycat BS do you have left???

Mysteriously when it comes to Xbox, the superior poly numbers are considered "hype" because it goes against your belief that the PS2 can somehow certainly "keep up" but face the facts, the PS2 gets RAPED either way unless you have some highly detailed top secret classified Xbox polygon performance benchmark cheating that nobody knows about

PC-Engine- Can an xbox really do more raw polys than ps2?

Make sure you ask him to qualify his answer with whether it is derived from a MS "micro-poly" rating, regular polys, or some sort of Nvidia hype spec.

Since you act like you know the details... why don't you explain your belief why Xbox's 116 Mpolys would suddenly drop by a whopping 81% while PS2's 66 Mpolys drops by only 66% in games???

How about we hear YOUR conspiracy theory since the polygon discrepency is too great for your satisfaction???

BTW care to define *cough* micropoly vs regular poly?*cough*

 

[Magnum PI]

it remembers me when ERP posted his finding w/ the three consoles during the development of the racing game...

 

[PC-Engine]

it remembers me when ERP posted his finding w/ the three consoles during the development of the racing game...

I'm not arguing why polygon numbers decrease in-game...that's obvious.

 

[Magnum PI]

i'm reffering to the fact he found that the xbox had the more polygon power in-game then the ps2 then the GC.

some ppl didn't appreciate it...

 

[PC-Engine]

i'm reffering to the fact he found that the xbox had the more polygon power in-game then the ps2 then the GC.

some ppl didn't appreciate it...

Yep and EA did the same thing and yet some people still hang on to the notion that the PS2 can somehow "keep up" in poly performance because:

1. They can't see the polygon difference onscreen because of clever art direction so the polygons must not exist.

2. MS is using some "hype" spec since there's NO WAY Xbox can push 2 times the number of polys as PS2....IT JUST CAN'T BE....IMPOSSIBLE..NEVAZ!!!

 

[Phil]

PC-Engine:

Yep and EA did the same thing and yet some people still hang on to the notion that the PS2 can somehow "keep up" in poly performance because:

Why should we take EA's little benchmark as prove, just because it suits your version and belief?

1. So you can look at a game like J&D/R&C and magically know it's pushing more polys than any Xbox game to date? Xbox CAN push more polys than PS2 whether you're talking about RAW or in-game. Tests done by EA already give a good idea as to what Xbox is capable of compared to PS2. PS2 can do 66 RAW Mpolys/s while Xbox can do 116 RAW Mpolys/s. Why would Xbox almost double the PS2's RAW poly number then suddenly push less than the PS2 when it's in-game??? I don't see the logic in that.

I'd second that. What you're doing is basically saying that a truck with a 600hp engine is faster than a sportscar with 400hp at 1/8th the weight of the truck. PS2 should be able to push more geometry around on screen in the end thanks to fillrate. Still, what you're arguing is pointless as more polygons alone won't always gain a prettier result (though it can, if used well).

Side note: Pana knows more on the subject, but the 66 MPoly/sec rating is for VU1 alone. Using both VUs would give you a higher number close enough to the claimed Xbox spec (though under gaming conditions a just as pointless number).

3. Why do high profile PS2 games not use mipmapping? Maybe because it's a trade off to get better performance somewhere else? Mipmapping should be used as much as possible to clean up the shimmering.

It's a trade off on Xbox too, perhaps in most cases even a framerate trade off.

6. Nobody said 720p was free. NOTHING is FREE!!! Point is there are 720p games on Xbox while there is none on PS2 even after being on the market for what 4 years now?

That doesn't make it a fact. I have Linux running on my PS2 that displays a res that puts 720p to shame. Considering the amount of games running at 720p (and considering the trade offs in most cases again) on Xbox, I wouldn't even dare to bring it up as a point in the first place.


Still I don't quote see the point of these "facts" (you should read the definition of a fact) by posting Microsoft marketing specs around. If you want to talk facts, I could post an equally sized list that would be pro PS2 in that regard (i.e. number of games), though that would be just as pointless as that in itself proves nothing. In the end, it all comes down to personal preference as specs are just that, specs. The endresult though, show that the two consoles are pretty close each emphasizing different qualities.

 

[cybamerc]

marconelly!:

> Cybamerc, don't see why are you obsessing over semantics so much.

It's not semantics. London-boy is completely wrong and eventhough I've told him so many times in the past he still insists on spreading lies.

> OK, it's not cut from the hardware but from firmware (or software).

Er... it's not cut from the firmware either. It's cut from the bloody games.

> I think it's pretty obvious that's what's his point.

I don't care what his point is. The whole lack of prog scan has become somewhat of a crusade for him and he'll jump at any chance to whine about it. The least he can do is direct his bitching at the real issue rather than a manufactured one.



Qroach:

> Cybermerc is just doing what he always does. Just ignore him.

Yet another invaluable contribution from Quincy. Why are you even here? You never contribute to discussions. All you do is troll.

 

[randycat99]

Oh I think I know why you used "normalized", it's a last ditch effort to make it sound like the PS2 can somehow "keep up" in "normal" gaming conditions. Riiiight...btw how much more Randycat BS do you have left???

No, nice try, though. "Normalized" meaning the test conditions and test samples are equalized. As a hint, you wouldn't take the the poly rating of one console making really, really small polys in its test and compare that to the poly rating of other console making standard test sized polys in its test. If you want any sort of meaningful comparison (not what marketing would slip over your eyes), you get a poly rating from each console while generating the same size polys. It's a small distinction, perhaps, but certainly critical to deriving results that can be compared in any meaningful way.

Mysteriously when it comes to Xbox, the superior poly numbers are considered "hype" because it goes against your belief that the PS2 can somehow certainly "keep up" but face the facts, the PS2 gets RAPED either way unless you have some highly detailed top secret classified Xbox polygon performance benchmark cheating that nobody knows about

Speak for yourself, because you do protest a bit too strongly.

Since you act like you know the details... why don't you explain your belief why Xbox's 116 Mpolys would suddenly drop by a whopping 81% while PS2's 66 Mpolys drops by only 66% in games???

...the size of the polys that typically appear in games vs. the size of polys used in the tests that gave you the 116 and 66 number. I know- blasphemy, right? Well, we already knew you would never take my word for it. Sort of like wondering why that tiny amplifier is rated at 600 W and that huge amplifier is rated at 300 W...until you realize that the rating for that tiny amplifier corresponds to 20% THD and a time period of 1 msec (just prior to the power supply fusing into a puff of smoke). The conditions that precipitate the rating are key.

 

[PC-Engine]

Oh I think I know why you used "normalized", it's a last ditch effort to make it sound like the PS2 can somehow "keep up" in "normal" gaming conditions. Riiiight...btw how much more Randycat BS do you have left???

No, nice try, though. "Normalized" meaning the test conditions and test samples are equalized. As a hint, you wouldn't take the the poly rating of one console making really, really small polys in its test and compare that to the poly rating of other console making standard test sized polys in its test. If you want any sort of meaningful comparison (not what marketing would slip over your eyes), you get a poly rating from each console while generating the same size polys. It's a small distinction, perhaps, but certainly critical to deriving results that can be compared in any meaningful way.

Mysteriously when it comes to Xbox, the superior poly numbers are considered "hype" because it goes against your belief that the PS2 can somehow certainly "keep up" but face the facts, the PS2 gets RAPED either way unless you have some highly detailed top secret classified Xbox polygon performance benchmark cheating that nobody knows about

Speak for yourself, because you do protest a bit too strongly.

Since you act like you know the details... why don't you explain your belief why Xbox's 116 Mpolys would suddenly drop by a whopping 81% while PS2's 66 Mpolys drops by only 66% in games???

...the size of the polys that typically appear in games vs. the size of polys used in the tests that gave you the 116 and 66 number. I know- blasphemy, right? Well, we already knew you would never take my word for it. Sort of like wondering why that tiny amplifier is rated at 600 W and that huge amplifier is rated at 300 W...until you realize that the rating for that tiny amplifier corresponds to 20% THD and a time period of 1 msec (just prior to the power supply fusing into a puff of smoke). The conditions that precipitate the rating are key.

Sarcasm...look it up...

Dodging is what you do best anyway, when there are no more straws...I'll just leave it at that

BTW there's no need for you to prove it to me, you need to prove it to yourself because your defense doesn't hold any water at this point.

EA and ERP among others is all the proof I need.

 

[PC-Engine]

Why should we take EA's little benchmark as prove, just because it suits your version and belief?

Because we have at least two developers who have demonstrated and/or said so. That's more relevent than any lawn chair expert or consiracy theorist.

I'd second that. What you're doing is basically saying that a truck with a 600hp engine is faster than a sportscar with 400hp at 1/8th the weight of the truck. PS2 should be able to push more geometry around on screen in the end thanks to fillrate. Still, what you're arguing is pointless as more polygons alone won't always gain a prettier result (though it can, if used well).

So bringing up flawed analogies suddenly makes your word more credible now??? So since you're sitting comfortably on your couch making up BS that automatically means both EA and ERP are WRONG??? Get off the pipe man.

Side note: Pana knows more on the subject, but the 66 MPoly/sec rating is for VU1 alone. Using both VUs would give you a higher number close enough to the claimed Xbox spec (though under gaming conditions a just as pointless number).

IIRC the GS's triangle setup is limited to 75 Mpolys/s while the EE can only dish out 66 Mpolys/s so the bottleneck is at 66...

It's a trade off on Xbox too, perhaps in most cases even a framerate trade off.

Nobody said it was free, however MOST high profile Xbox games use mipmaping while on PS2 they do not. Are you saying mipmapping is the main bottleneck that causes low framerate on most Xbox games??? Also if there was a switch to turn off mipmapping on those 30 fps Xbox games, that will allow those games to jump up to 60 fps???

BTW why do you think jaggies, shimmering, pixelated mess, and overall poor IQ are associated with PS2??? Time to wake up from your dream.

That doesn't make it a fact. I have Linux running on my PS2 that displays a res that puts 720p to shame. Considering the amount of games running at 720p (and considering the trade offs in most cases again) on Xbox, I wouldn't even dare to bring it up as a point in the first place.

Let me know when there's a PS2 game I can buy that supports 720p let alone 1080i...

Still I don't quote see the point of these "facts" (you should read the definition of a fact) by posting Microsoft marketing specs around. If you want to talk facts, I could post an equally sized list that would be pro PS2 in that regard (i.e. number of games), though that would be just as pointless as that in itself proves nothing. In the end, it all comes down to personal preference as specs are just that, specs. The endresult though, show that the two consoles are pretty close each emphasizing different qualities.

We are talking about hardware superiority not how many games are available. Nice try though...

Wanna talk games? Look at previous generation consoles or the GB library

 

[Phil]

So bringing up flawed analogies suddenly makes your word more credible now??? So since you're sitting comfortably on your couch making up BS that automatically means EA and ERP is WRONG??? Get off the pipe man.

Passing the ball back at you, how do you know how valid the EA benchmark is? I thought we were arguing about hardware superiority, not developers achievements?

Because we have at least two developers who have demonstrated and/or said so. That's more relevent than any lawn chair expert or consiracy theorist.

IIRC the GS's triangle setup is limited to 75 Mpolys/s while the EE can only dish out 66 Mpolys/s so the bottleneck is at 66...

Sadly, one will only believe what he wants to believe... I don't think I'll bother arguing with you, considering that you obviously have no answer to the valid points showing your misconception of facts and flawed evidence presented thus far.

We are talking about hardware superiority not how many games are available. Nice try though...

If this is so, then "facts" like Progressive Scan output + 720P support shouldn't even be in your post, as both hardware are very well capable of doing it. On the other hand, might as well also point out facts that PS2 rips the Xbox apart in fillrate, physics, has backwards compatability etc.

Showing only one side of the picture rarely shows the whole one. This in itself shows how pointless your whole post is.

 

[rabidrabbit]

...IIRC the GS's triangle setup is limited to 75 Mpolys/s while the EE can only dish out 66 Mpolys/s so the bottleneck is at 66...

Whats the situation in xbox?
How much can the 733 MHz CPU push out polys?
Is the 116 million polys on xbox a theoretical number that the GeForce chip could push, if the CPU could feed it enough data?
I'm just asking because this is unclear to me.

 

[chaphack]

tsk..tsk ...tsk...PCEngine doesnt know what he is talking about. PS2 is good, Good, GOod, GOOd and GOOD! 8)

PS2 polygons >= Xbox, as evident from pics below. http://www.geocities.com/kshlam/Page05.htm

at the same time look at the similarly comparably quality of effects. Superb!

 

[PC-Engine]

Passing the ball back at you, how do you know how valid the EA benchmark is? I thought we were arguing about hardware superiority, not developers achievements?

Superiority is based on benchmarks and or in-game numbers. What's the highest in-game numbers for ANY game on PS2? What's the highest for Xbox? I rest my case.

Sadly, one will only believe what he wants to believe... I don't think I'll bother arguing with you, considering that you obviously have no answer to the valid points showing your misconception of facts and flawed evidence presented thus far.

IIRC 66 Mpolys were for both VUs and the EE is the bottleneck not the triangle setup on GS. Feel free to correct me...

If this is so, then "facts" like Progressive Scan output + 720P support shouldn't even be in your post, as both hardware are very well capable of doing it.

More powerful gaming hardware allows better graphics, sound, AI, physics etc. Even an arm chair expert realizes this. Why don't we go back monochrome Asteroids graphics then??? Again my i486DX can do raytracing...AND??? Most Xbox games support progressive output while very few PS2 games do. It's a fact of life.

On the other hand, might as well also point out facts that PS2 rips the Xbox apart in fillrate, physics, has backwards compatability etc.

Fillrate and backwards compatability sure.

Physics..maybe maybe not.

Is that the long list?

 

[chaphack]

Let it go PCEngine, you got owned by my last post. Sure Ps2 Splinter Cell, on average, is doing 1200 less polygons and 4-5mb less textures and less enemies/objects per scene and some others(damn geocities limit!), than the Xbox version, we have seen both games and they look comparable.

As for the physics part. I agree. PS2 > Xbox too. The name Emotion Synthesising Engine sounds so freaking impressive it has to be. I say Climax totally lied out when they said MotoGP2 couldnt be done on Ps2, physics being part of the reason. As usual, lazy Xbox/PC developers. :?

 

[cthellis42]

Superiority is based on benchmarks and or in-game numbers. What's the highest in-game numbers for ANY game on PS2? What's the highest for Xbox? I rest my case.

Resting? Shit, man, resting on WHAT?! It's frickin' impossible to GET confirmation on performance numbers from any of the developers, and it makes the baby jeebus cry.

I'd give my left gonad to see a reasonable compiled list for all the systems, but the information is always so scattershot and many unofficial remarks.

The most offhand I know for PS2 was extrapolated from comments about Grand Prix Challenge which stuck it at 18 million. The most I've seen mentioned for GameCube has been 15 million at the high end for Rogue Leader. With the Xbox I'm not positive.

Still, "max" amounts to little without knowing how long a console can sustain it, either, and I don't see Performance Analyzer and detailed runthroughs being leaked out for we mere mortals...

I'd rather appreciate a detailed listing, though, as far back as you can compile it. Hurry, hurry! (Sources would be rather good at this point too, of course. See way too many conflicting figures thrown about.)