Real PSP performance numbers

[Panajev2001a]

Re: Question refrased

Let me refrase the question.

Looking at currently available PSP games, based on your expert opinion, how many polygons and layers of pixels we can see on the screen in various games?

1. launch games.

2. generally lower than console games budget.

3. short development times.


Would you judge PlayStation 2's peak performance from Emotion Type-S or from Metal Gear Solid 3 ?

 

[Phil]

I might just re-quote this again since it basically sums up this meaningless thread and is as accurate as one can get...

a developer[/u]]The machine can render pixels at the stated speed - end of story.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I might just re-quote this again since it basically sums up this meaningless thread and is as accurate as one can get...

a developer[/u]]The machine can render pixels at the stated speed - end of story.

question is, can it do anything else while rendering those pixels?

 

[London Geezer]

I might just re-quote this again since it basically sums up this meaningless thread and is as accurate as one can get...

a developer[/u]]The machine can render pixels at the stated speed - end of story.

question is, can it do anything else while rendering those pixels?

... What kind of a question is that?

 

[version]

PSP stronger and faster than ps2

yes, cpu is slower but GPU have T&L, clipping , bezier

 

[London Geezer]

PSP stronger and faster than ps2

yes, cpu is slower but GPU have T&L, clipping , bezier

The presence of those features doesn't necessarily mean PSP is faster than PS2. Cause it isn't.

 

[version]

how mutch FLOPS in PSP's gpu? any DOCS?

 

[version]

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I might just re-quote this again since it basically sums up this meaningless thread and is as accurate as one can get...

a developer[/u]]The machine can render pixels at the stated speed - end of story.

question is, can it do anything else while rendering those pixels?

... What kind of a question is that?

We all know about theoretical fill rate and Maxamun usable fill rate and what you actually get in games when the system is doing other things like AI interrupt handling, etc....

 

[darkblu]

We all know about theoretical fill rate and Maxamun usable fill rate and what you actually get in games when the system is doing other things like AI interrupt handling, etc....

what kind of AI. spurring what interrupts?

you do realize that the nature of your question is highly statistical - it takes a good set of sample data to answer it. until such a sampel set is collected you will have to put up with the platform's raw specs.

 

[ERP]

I might just re-quote this again since it basically sums up this meaningless thread and is as accurate as one can get...

a developer[/u]]The machine can render pixels at the stated speed - end of story.

question is, can it do anything else while rendering those pixels?

... What kind of a question is that?

We all know about theoretical fill rate and Maxamun usable fill rate and what you actually get in games when the system is doing other things like AI interrupt handling, etc....

Ther problem is that there is no answer to that question. It's going to vary from frame to frame even inside a single game. It depends on triangle load, distribution, size, aswell as CPU usage and simply what the game is asking for.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

erp,

there is an answer and it is not what they are claiming.

lets take a Radeon 9500Pro for example

8 pipes*275Mhz = 2.2Gigapixels a sec (single textured) cut that in half if you want 2 textures / pixel or by 4 if you want quad textures or by 8 if you want 8 textures a pass. So theorectically your fill rate can be anywhere from 275Mpix a sec to 2.2Gpix a sec.

Now play a game like quake 3 and I can get a pretty hefty frame rate on it but it is nowhere near the theoretical max that the video card can handle.

Now I have an AMD Mobile athlon 2500+ running at 2.8Ghz (1.8G is stock) and I am going to install and run Quake III just to see where my 9500Pro sits and come back and post the numbers for you but I can guess that they are nowhere near what the claimed ones are

 

[Ty]

How can there be a single "answer" to your question? What are you looking for? 35? 42? 1009?

 

[cthellis42]

Yes. Quake III won't deliver theoretical rates. And then put in Warcraft III, Far Cry, Everquest II... That is the point.

Hell, we don't even have the "straight numbers asked for" from the PS2 despite years of development and an active performance measuring tool. We have a few tantalizing numbers thrown out from time to time, but the rest is always kept under wraps, and we have no active way to compare between game types, from year to year, etc. And yet some demos and code bits can spit out ponderously-enormohuge-figures-of-no-use-whatsoever.

The querent wants more than we've already gotten from other MUCH more known targets, and... it's likely we'll NEVER know well enough.

 

[ddes]

The machine can render pixels at the stated speed - end of story.

Sure. Nice to see how much people really believe all kinds of marketing information.

Am i seeing right? I know this will sound very corny, but do you know who you're talking to?

Sorry, it works both ways. I do know a thing or two about these things as well.

 

[ddes]

Re: Question refrased

Let me refrase the question.

Looking at currently available PSP games, based on your expert opinion, how many polygons and layers of pixels we can see on the screen in various games?

Hey i wasn't talking about me. You replied to Faf as if he was "someone who will just believe Sony's Marketing stuff". Hence my question, do u know who he is? Not only he developed Axel Impact for PS2, but there is also a version scheduled for PSP, although i'm not sure he's working on that project.

So, really, if he says something, people tend to just listen to him in this forum. Just a bit of newbie advice.

I'm so amazed about the low quality of the discussion here. My point since the beginning has been, that the PSP games today don't deliver near the number of polygons and pixels per second that the PSP is capable of/is said to be capable of. I only would like some opinions about the complexity of current games for PSP.

 

[ddes]

Re: Question refrased

Let me refrase the question.

Looking at currently available PSP games, based on your expert opinion, how many polygons and layers of pixels we can see on the screen in various games?

1. launch games.

2. generally lower than console games budget.

3. short development times.

1. Sure.

2. Sure.

3. Sure.

Now this is not an answer to my question.

 

[Fafalada]

Sure. I just have a technical engineering interest on how fast the hardware really is and what kind of games we can expect to see.

Well first problem is that there's no single answer to that, like ERP pointed out. Second, as I mentioned there is not much out there publically that one can discuss (and I'm not interested in being that guy that provides leaks).

Anyway personally I rather not make estimates on current games because some people might assume they aren't just estimates and draw god knows what conclusions from it.
But I do think the PSP software still has lots of room to grow, if that helps any.

 

[version]

if use BEZIER on psp, then GPU compute bezier with subdiv(4x4) , T&L and clipping
gpu can to render 1 million bezierpatch/sec(4x4)
CPU can backface-culling with about 0.5 million patch

in all 1.5 million patch(4x4)/sec = 48 millions polygon/sec with texture

bezier datas upload to GPU less than polygons, hence much more texture upload possibble, and CPU about free for AI, and phisics and game

ps2's polygons count in game about(max) 20 millions/sec, psp better !

 

[Fafalada]

version,
where did you get the number for GPU bezierpatch peak calculation?

Anyway - PSP memory subsystem is different from PS2s - less eDram bandwith, and different caching scheme, so you shouldn't assume things work exactly the same in both machines.