Retro Games Analysis Technical Discussion *spawn*

[BitByte]

I don’t know why people are getting their panties in a bunch debating the spec differences between the Ps5 and xsx. As far as I’m concerned, it’s irrelevant and they might as well be the same. We don’t see people argue the differences between 3060 vs 3060ti or a 6600xt vs 6700xt and those differences are more significant than this barely perceptible difference.

I miss the days when both companies used different GPU vendors. At least the debates had merit. The surplus of the XSX GPU is often used on resolution, the most wasteful improvement imo. It’s barely perceptible to the average viewer and fails to deliver any tangible improvement to graphics. The Xbox vs the PS2, now that was an interesting debate. The same goes for the ps360 era. Now, both companies use the same architecture and people are getting triggered over mostly meaningless differences. A real head scratcher.

 

[PSman1700]

The Xbox vs the PS2, now that was an interesting debate.

That one was ’unfair’ aswell due to the release window differences.

 

[Arwin]

Basically it is only unfair if it actually matters because more expensive components were used. In which case the console released earlier should be able to drop in price faster.

But the Xbox with its built in harddisk and pc parts just made completely different choices. And it is the fact that the consoles were so different which makes the discussion interesting, for the tech enthusiasts. And tech enthusiasts just like to geek over relative merits of various approaches, and are not tied to platforms in that regard. And often just own all platforms.

I have to say I am disappointed whenever anyone dismisses someone’s arguments based on perceived bias rather than just using counter arguments. I feel that has no place here, there are enough forums for that kind of stuff elsewhere.

 

[Nesh]

That one was ’unfair’ aswell due to the release window differences.

Still it was interesting, since, despite the XBOX being more powerful due to a later release, the two machines were vastly different and approached graphics each in their own way.
PS2 choose a unique path, which I wonder if developers could have produced some very unique results if they used both Vector Units as intended.
I think someone in these forums pointed at it but some intended uses were never exploited at the end.

 

[PSman1700]

Still it was interesting, since, despite the XBOX being more powerful due to a later release, the two machines were vastly different and approached graphics each in their own way.
PS2 choose a unique path, which I wonder if developers could have produced some very unique results if they used both Vector Units as intended.
I think someone in these forums pointed at it but some intended uses were never exploited at the end.

Absolutely much more intresting vs what we have today, ps5 vs xsx their performing basically the same.
And indeed, a 18 month release difference means quite alot in special back then, even today that would give advantages. Imagine xsx releasing 2022 and ps5 2020.
Being (much) more powerfull didnt matter anyway.

 

[snc]

I don’t know why people are getting their panties in a bunch debating the spec differences between the Ps5 and xsx. As far as I’m concerned, it’s irrelevant and they might as well be the same. We don’t see people argue the differences between 3060 vs 3060ti or a 6600xt vs 6700xt and those differences are more significant than this barely perceptible difference.

I miss the days when both companies used different GPU vendors. At least the debates had merit. The surplus of the XSX GPU is often used on resolution, the most wasteful improvement imo. It’s barely perceptible to the average viewer and fails to deliver any tangible improvement to graphics. The Xbox vs the PS2, now that was an interesting debate. The same goes for the ps360 era. Now, both companies use the same architecture and people are getting triggered over mostly meaningless differences. A real head scratcher.

Was xbox vs ps2 interesting debate ? Came 1 year later (edit: actulay 20 months) with vastly superior hardware (back in that time 1 year was like 3 now :d - in terms of hw performance gain)

 

[techuse]

Given how fast GPU tech was advancing at the time and how much Microsoft was willing to lose on hardware, the difference between PS2 and Xbox actually wasn't too big. Xbox had more features but was also slower in areas that were important at the time such as fillrate, transparencies and geometry.

Xbox was 20 months after PS2 IIRC.

 

[snc]

Ps3 vs x360 and psx vs sega saturn vs n64 was most interesting imo

 

[PSman1700]

Given how fast GPU tech was advancing at the time and how much Microsoft was willing to lose on hardware, the difference between PS2 and Xbox actually wasn't too big. Xbox had more features but was also slower in areas that were important at the time.

We have had several multiplat devs on this forum who claimed the og xbox was much more capable in every way except for some cases. It was quite obvious, but again not all that fair since it released much later using more expensive components.

Was xbox vs ps2 interesting debate ? Came 1 year later with vastly superior hardware (back in that time 1 year was like 3 now :d - in terms of hw performance gain)

Indeed, while it was intresting due to architectural differences, it was also not a simultanious release. I still think the 6th gen was the most fun though, even nintendo was up there with the gc.

 

[Karamazov]

Lynx came before gamegear but was still more capable

 

[PSman1700]

Lynx came before gamegear but was still more capable

It does happen PS>nintendo hw that releases (much) later since the last decade or so.

 

[PSman1700]

Xbox was 20 months after PS2 IIRC.

18 months if you take the japanese ps2 launch, otherwise shy of a year.

 

[techuse]

It was definitely the most fun during the PS2/Xbox/GC era since we had wildly different approaches to graphics. I’m not at all a fan of the super homogenized approach now though I understand why we ended up here. The only thing interesting now are platform exclusives(once cross gen hell ends)where developers have some freedom to exploit the hardware and we don’t get the same looking games with meaningless differences in DRS.

 

[PSman1700]

PS2 was what the ipad in the tablet world is today. The xb/gc went almost unnoticed, atleast over here in the EU. The amount of exclusives it had was something else entirely, the ps2 also was the baseline so power differences werent that much of a disadvantage, not as much as it could have been. The platform was exploited too like nothing else aswell, much more so then any orher platform in existence. The system was pushed, resulting in quite the lookers like SotC.
North of 155m units sold back then. The gaming market is larger now… If i’d had to pick a fav console it be the ps2 for sure.

 

[Nesh]

Was xbox vs ps2 interesting debate ? Came 1 year later with vastly superior hardware (back in that time 1 year was like 3 now :d - in terms of hw performance gain)

I think it was from the perspective of how the PS2 performed and what it did next to a more standardized hardware.
No console could compete on fillrate. Probably not even PS3. There was nothing like ZOE2 anywhere. The particles were crazy. The heat haze effect on GT3 and GT4 was no where to be seen on XBOX AFAIK. Even the PS3 didnt have that effect on GT5 and 6. We saw some games punching in ways that we never thought possible on PS2. I dont remember any game on PS2 looking as good as GT4. It still boggles my mind how TTT mimicked PBR. I dont think there is a single game during that generation that had so convincing materials. I would say that putting aside the lack of 3D roaming environments, it was probably the best fighting game of the generation. Including the DOA series on XBOX.
On the other hand we got some crazy visuals on XBOX with Ninja Gaiden and Panzer Dragoon Orta.
They were interesting cases where we could compare similar games between the 2 platforms and see how the PS2 handled visuals to reach a satisfying quality since it didnt have standardized feature sets.
DMC1 for me was the better looking game among the 3 DMC games, and we saw interesting use of bloom, transparencies, textures and lighting combined with beautiful art. The best contender on the XBOX was Ninja Gaiden. A tremendously amazing game. ZoE2 relied heavily on what the PS2 did best. Transparencies, huge amounts of geometry and particles. It was a technical showcase of the PS2's physics. The Silent Hill 2 and 3 were also incredible games that showcased PS2's unqiue capabilities on shadow and fog handling. Then we have the Jak games which I dont think they could have been fully replicated on XBOX while at the same time Conker's Bad Fur Day wouldnt be fully replicated on PS2.
The Splinter Cell series demonstrated some interesting approaches to some effects that the PS2's GPU wasnt designed for.

The PS2 vs the DC alone was a very interesting for similar reasons.
I d say that the DC was the first HD console released too. It also packed amazing AA and textures that were above the PS2's capabilities. I am sure that it had a lot of hidden potential.
I wish it didnt die so we could see more of what it could do. Sonic Adventure 2 was a better looking game than Sonic Heroes on PS2. I doubt Sonic Adventure 2 could have been a perfect port on PS2 if they wever tried.
The PS2 aimed in other areas that made it a physics and effects heavy powerhouse.
Two different hardware released at different periods where one excelled in areas that the other didnt.
So I always wondered how a Shenmue port would have looked on PS2 and how MGS2 or DMC would have looked on the DC because these titles aimed at specific capabilities of the hardware they were developed on.

 

[snc]

I think it was from the perspective of how the PS2 performed and what it did next to a more standardized hardware.
No console could compete on fillrate. Probably not even PS3. There was nothing like ZOE2 anywhere. The particles were crazy. The heat haze effect on GT3 and GT4 was no where to be seen on XBOX AFAIK. Even the PS3 didnt have that effect on GT5 and 6. We saw some games punching in ways that we never thought possible on PS2. I dont remember any game on PS2 looking as good as GT4. It still boggles my mind how TTT mimicked PBR. I dont think there is a single game during that generation that had so convincing materials. I would say that putting aside the lack of 3D roaming environments, it was probably the best fighting game of the generation. Including the DOA series on XBOX.
On the other hand we got some crazy visuals on XBOX with Ninja Gaiden and Panzer Dragoon Orta.
They were interesting cases where we could compare similar games between the 2 platforms and see how the PS2 handled visuals to reach a satisfying quality since it didnt have standardized feature sets.
DMC1 for me was the better looking game among the 3 DMC games, and we saw interesting use of bloom, transparencies, textures and lighting combined with beautiful art. The best contender on the XBOX was Ninja Gaiden. A tremendously amazing game. ZoE2 relied heavily on what the PS2 did best. Transparencies, huge amounts of geometry and particles. It was a technical showcase of the PS2's physics. The Silent Hill 2 and 3 were also incredible games that showcased PS2's unqiue capabilities on shadow and fog handling. Then we have the Jak games which I dont think they could have been fully replicated on XBOX while at the same time Conker's Bad Fur Day wouldnt be fully replicated on PS2.
The Splinter Cell series demonstrated some interesting approaches to some effects that the PS2's GPU wasnt designed for.

The PS2 vs the DC alone was a very interesting for similar reasons.
I d say that the DC was the first HD console released too. It also packed amazing AA and textures that were above the PS2's capabilities. I am sure that it had a lot of hidden potential.
I wish it didnt die so we could see more of what it could do. Sonic Adventure 2 was a better looking game than Sonic Heroes on PS2. I doubt Sonic Adventure 2 could have been a perfect port on PS2 if they wever tried.
The PS2 aimed in other areas that made it a physics and effects heavy powerhouse.
Two different hardware released at different periods where one excelled in areas that the other didnt.
So I always wondered how a Shenmue port would have looked on PS2 and how MGS2 or DMC would have looked on the DC because these titles aimed at specific capabilities of the hardware they were developed on.

good points, after having sega saturn and psx next generation became pc guy so missed many things (also there wasnt df in that time ;d), was shocked that some dreamcast vs ps2 games looks actualy better on dreamcast, also was surprised xbox released at november 2001 has ti4200 level gpu released february 2002

 

[BRiT]

Alright, discussion spawned to its own thread. Partake in all the member berries you want!

 

[PSman1700]

As function had explained, the OG xbox was (much) more capable than the PS2 ever was, in almost every way. The PS2's advantage was its fillrate capabilities which ment effects/particles monster for the time. That was about it though, in every other department the xbox was quite far ahead, as function noted, the gap, technologically seen was probably larger than the 20 months between their launches. Theres actual developers discussions on this forum somewhere.
Surprisingly (for me atleast), the xbox had the much more capable CPU, it wasnt even close (as compared to what the PS2 uses as CPU). During the 6th gen itself i thought the EE was the most powerfull cpu of the time.
NV2A was supposedly very far ahead aswell, in a different class alltogether if devs are to be believed, programmable pixel shaders and its twin vertex shaders, clocked at 233mhz, teamed to double the amount of quad pumped ram, it was quite 'unfair'.
The Xbox also had access to 1gb of HDD for 'scratchpad', hardware dd5.1 (all games have it, basically).

I remember ERP (i think it was him) saying that regarding multiplat games, they had the PS2 as a baseline, and the xbox was just porting and it would work quite well. The xbox even had gpu features that would come in the NV33 series i think it was, aswell that the vertex shaders could do physics.
Almost every cross-plat game both ran and looked better on the xbox, it was very uncommon the other way around.And, if you had a game designed and played to the strengths of the PS2, ported that over to the Xbox, it wasnt that far off.
When the same thing happened the other way around, it was this 'what the fuck are we looking at' kind of differences.
Also, the xbox was quite the particle/effects monster too, many games on that machine exhibiting such effects. Motion blur for example was a problem on GC when ported from PS2, but the xbox could hold its own.

The PS2 was very impressive for its time of japan-release (march 2000). The Xbox with its november ww 2001 release was even more so impressive though. The GC was supposedly trading blows with the PS2 in many regards, to contrary belief it was doing that with the xbox. Probably due to it being released around the Xbox's launch.

 

[function]

Given how fast GPU tech was advancing at the time and how much Microsoft was willing to lose on hardware, the difference between PS2 and Xbox actually wasn't too big. Xbox had more features but was also slower in areas that were important at the time such as fillrate, transparencies and geometry

Xbox was actually faster wrt geometry, so long as you were only feeding it into the 3D pipeline (e.g. not using it for collisions etc). It could also do T&L and skinning with very little by way of assistance from the CPU, where as this is significantly what the PS2 CPU was built for. While PS2 had higher fillrate (especially untextured), texture fillrate was higher on Xbox thanks to multi-texturing. Xbox had an effective GPU cache that could store compressed textures and drastically reduce BW use.

According to ERP, who optimised code personally for Xbox, PS2 and GC, in terms of geometry it was Xbox ->PS2->GC if you were using the hardware effectively. GC suffered with certain aspects of culling and the need for CPU assistance iirc. This is contrary to internet folklore about GC being a geometry beast.

Xbox was 20 months after PS2 IIRC.

Yeah, about 20 months which was a long time in those days. One additional factor may have been that while GS was a largely bespoke part, MS had the option of picking from an ongoing roadmap. Perhaps this meant that the actual time difference wrt making key decisions about tech was longer than 20 months.

It was a great generation for different approaches in hardware, especially GPUs. By PS360 gen GPU design had significantly homogenised (barring the Wii, still using basically a ~2000 GPU design).

 

[PSman1700]

Yeah, about 20 months

Isnt it fewer then 20 months though? The PS2 was released in japan march 2000 right, with a US/EU release in oct 2000 (when i got mine). The Xbox was october or november 2001 for a WW release. For everyone outside of japan, the xbox and PS2 where about 12 months apart.