PS2 vs PC at launch [Necro-Tech]

This makes me quite often wonder how could the PS3 compete. GPU was less powerful, it didnt have unified memory, less memory was available also because the OS was taking a larger footprint and it didnt have the advantages of EDRAM. And memory is something that you never get enough of. So the PS3 was clearly hitting memory bottlenecks and the GPU couldnt compete.
Could the Cell and the fact that the system memory was fast XDR really compensate for all the limitations? I kind of doubt it. Or was the 360 not fully pushed?
Because honestly when I am thinking of the above the PS3 shouldnt have been able to perform so close to the 360 and initially the discrepancy between multiplatform games was quite large, often missing effects and having worse framerates on the PS3

 

Well yeah, PC's advantage over all these consoles would be that it had significantly faster cpu's, but from a graphical performance standpoint that couldn't save it.

I don't think the 360 had quite enough eDRAM, 12mb would've been ideal.

Alpha's aside (which the rsx was inherently worse at), ps3 had more available bandwidth - rsx had 35gb/s available to use while the xenos was limited to 32 gb/s, and ps3's xdr was faster than the gddr3 in both consoles. This shows even in engines where the ps3 was at a disadvantage, i.e. higher texture filtering in crysis 2 and shadows of the damned (Ce3 and Ue3).

PS3's memory failure was that the os used more than 360's, esp. early on. I think ps3's os used 1/4 of the memory at launch. Which still wasn't as much as the 3.5/3 GBs used in current consoles

Someone who used to post on gamespot that worked at ready at dawn didn't have very good things to say about the Xenon cpu, actually I recall developers saying they hit its limits early on. Wouldn't an athlon x2 dual core at 2.4ghz have beaten it handily?

 

I've been playing a lot of ps2 lately. Honestly I wish all later consoles followed the ps2's example with regards to bandwidth, even if the processors had to be a worse, it'd be worth it. Just try to find a game these days with particles as rich as Zone of the enders 2. Console games these days would have way better texture filtering too.

 

PS3 had non-unified memory. In total it had roughly 2x main+graphics memory bandwidth compared Xbox 360 (disregarding EDRAM). The SPUs had their own internal memories as well (huge internal bandwidth). Most PS3 AAA games used SPUs to assist the GPU in lighting and post processing. This freed GPU time and GPU bandwidth. The knowledge how to use SPUs efficiently increased during the console life time. In the end, cross platform games were equal quality between PS3 and Xbox 360. First party titles could use SPUs more creatively, allowing some nice technical choices in exclusives.

Agreed. 12 MB is needed to reach 720p. With 10 MB, games ended up being 10% sub-hd. But it is not as simple as that. 10% more pixels requires 10% more processing power, or alternatively 10% cheaper pixels. 720p wasn't really the native resolution of most "HD ready" TV sets. Most were 1280x768 or 1024x768. If you played at 1080p TV set, you used the console scaler to scale directly to 1080p. Single scaling operation, no matter whether the game output was 720p or slightly sub-hd. Thus 10% pixel difference wasn't a big difference (no double scaling or anything really bad happened). Practically nobody saw 720p at native resolution. It was always scaled.

 

offtopic but:
Those videos are ignorant, if anything. The ""450"" dollar PC uses gifted parts, second hand parts, and parts already lying around.
Legal windows, a 1TB hdd, and a case+PSU would cost north of 200 dollar.

You'd need to find a motherboard, a CPU, memory, a wireless controller and a GPU for 250 dollar. You don't have blu ray drive and you need to built it yourself.
Your video is essentially saying "can a 700 dollar PC beat a 399 dollar console ?!"

-But what if you got the parts for free?? < what if you got the console for free?
-But what if you already have a PC laying around? < what if you already have a console laying around?



Not to mention his videos are often fake, like this one:


at 1:20 and at other points in the video you can see the framerate counter is fake; no way in hell is that 30.0 fps

 

with $450 you can get a very nice gaming PC with all new parts;
g4560 $70 (same thing as an i3, basically as good as the old i5 2500 for gaming)
H110 MB $50
8GB 2400 $50
500GB hd = $30
good PSU = $30
case $20
RX 470 $170

this PC is enough to run games much better than the PS4, and games with better framerate than the PS4 pro (but lower res)
if you add windows it still under $550 (I think you can buy windows OEM with those parts), also you don't have to pay for Live or PSN.

obviously, when the PS2 was new, $500 PC would be limited for gaming, but right now it's quite good.

 

NSFW?

Spoiler

8====D
8=====D

 

Speaking about Xbox 360 is good to remember some things. It was very impressive not only because at launch it was more powerful than any PC. But also because it was strongly ahead of average PC. I bought Xbox 360 in August 2006, 8 months after it launched. All my friends and people who I know had PC with 1 core CPU, most powerful GPU was NVIDIA 6800 and only one of my friends had it, and RAM 1-2 GB. No one had HDTV, even HD ready, no one had widescreen monitor, no one even had flat monitor. That was great time to be Xbox 360 owner! When I started to play Xbox 360 I played on SDTV, it was 4:3 and wasn't flat! After two months I bought VGA cable and connected my Xbox 360 to 4:3 not flat monitor. That was amazing improvement! I showed games on Xbox 360 and people were shocked how good they look. Then there was Gears of War release. One of my friends told what game looks like movie! Almost after a year I bought flat widescreen monitor and that also was great improvement in graphics quality. In the end of 2008 I changed to 32" 720p TV, and only in 2012 I bought Full HD TV 55". So it was I long way! And I still play on Xbox 360!

 

from the video

Here are the Potato Masher Pro's specs:
i5 750 overclocked to 3.7 ghz
Asus P7H55 LGA 1156 motherboard
8GB DDR3 memory
Gigabyte GTX 1060 6GB G1 Gaming
320GB Samsung Spinpoint HDD
Cooler Master Wavemaster
Case Arctic Alpine 11 GT
cpu cooler EVGA
430 watt PSU
Logitech KB+M combo
Windows 10 64-bit

OK unless theres some super special out there I'm missing what gives, are they talking 2nd hand (which is obviously a bogus comparison)
the Gigabyte GTX 1060 6GB G1 Gaming alone costs ~$250US the i5 750 is > $200 so those 2 items alone are greater than $400,
windows 10 alone is $100 sure the other parts are not going to be much, but theres a fair few of them which adds up, so where can one go and get this right now?

 

Texturing and filtering were really the shortcomings of the PS2. There wasn't enough memory for really high res, high color textures, and applying textures cut the fillrate in half. But because the fillrate and bandwidth was so high, especially when considering the output resolution, many games made up for it by piling on multipass effects.

To answer the OP, the PS2 at the time had a very feature light GPU with fillrate that wasn't matched at launch. The mighty Geforec 2 GTS could draw 800 MP/S and twice that in Texels (1.6GT/S) while the PS2 did 2.4 GP/S and half that with textures (1.2 GT/S). The important thing to note here is that the GF2GTS was bandwidth constrained. It's unlikely you could ever achieve those numbers in game. The PS2 was a fillrate and bandwidth monster, but things like high quality texture filtering, or complex shading, weren't part of it's hardware feature set and had to be done with old fashion multiple passes.

 

For those making comparisions
pc games released in 2000

Deus Ex
Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force
Delta Force 3: Land Warrior
Giants: Citizen Kabuto
Quake 3: Team Arena
MechWarrior 4: Vengeance
X-Tension (X: Beyond the Frontier. mission pack)

 

That still leaves you without an OS and the rather expensive controller. It's also the lovely US pricing. An RX 470 still runs you €200+ in Europe. Sure, you could shop around endlessly, but that way you're bound to run across a PS4 deal as well at some point. And why would you wanna build a PC like that in the first place. A couple of years ago a GTX 750 could go toe-to-toe with the PS4 as well. Now it's hopelessly outdated.

 

Did that bandwidth advantage mean the Ps3 was actually the better of the two ?
Or did leveraging those aspects of the PS3 just bring it closer to the 360 ?
I thought it was commonly accepted that in general the Xbox 360 was the more capable
of the two..

 

Heh.

 

EDRAM really helped 360 achieve what the system was capable of. Obviously, it introduced it's own shortcomings, like the necessity to split your output into tiles if the scene exceeded the 10MB capacity, but overall I think it was the reason that most games ran a bit better on 360. The bandwidth to write as many pixels +Z with MSAA that is physically possible from the chip without memory contention is a huge advantage. The unified system memory didn't hurt either.

Deus Ex, Elite Force, Giants and Quake received PS2 ports if people want to make direct comparisons. They held up pretty well, except for resolution. I don't know about the rest of the titles, but Quake had KB and Mouse support.

 

I think it's probably debatable whether Xenos was outright better than *the* best PC GPU on it's day of launch. That GPU being the 7800GTX 512. Xenos was certainly more advanced but in terms of raw power the 512 had it beat in most areas. They compared directly as follows:
512 Xenos
Pixel Fill Rate: 8800 4000
Texel Fill Rate: 13200 8000
Geometry Rate: 275 250
Memory Bandwidth: 54.40 22.40 (+256 edram)
Total Shader GFLOPs: 255.20 240

Of course Xenos was a lot more flexible so I guess creative devs may have been able to produce better results out of it. It's also worth not forgetting about the 1900XTX. It launched about 3 months after Xenos I believe but was certainly far more powerful, albeit still less advances and using dedicated vertex/pixel shaders.

 

PCs had a 85Hz or 100Hz monitor when the PS2 came out, or other figures and you got to choose the refresh rate depending on resolution and monitor's scanning ability. The monitor was also a lag-free, big analog thing that weighed more than the tower. I find it easy to live with the tears that way, although if you've got a strategy / fixed overhead view type of game where it tears every time you scroll now I can understand this is berating, rather than minor.

(Windows XP had a "bug" where games were stuck in 60Hz unless you used one of several utilities. Windows 98 SE / 9x had a PS/2 mouse poll rate of 40Hz that made games "laggy" or "low framerate" even if your game was running at 100fps. Half-Life mouse smoothing option was a fix, a better fix was to change the system's mouse pol rate. Silly, small issues but I guess millions didn't know and were bummed!)