Sony Tomorrow: Synergy in the Livingroom

[marconelly!]

Actually I'm not. Michael Abrash (the guy who basically designed Xbox graphics) even stated that with absolutely exemplary programming the Xbox can sustain upwards of 50mpps in actual game situations. Again, this is with absolutely exemplary programming and taking full advantage of the programmable pipeline.

Well, I guess we'll wait and see.

I know that the only time I've seen an engine reaching 50-60MPPS, with lighting, effects and all, has been in that new STALKER game for a PC, running on a *fastest* PC available today.

ERP's racer was a first-gen Xbox game that was already pushing 30mpps.

Well consider that noone else has come even close, as far as I know. Besides, that F1 game is also a first game that team made for PS2, but that doesn't mean next year someone will magically make something that moves more polygons than they've accomplished.

 

[Lazy8s]

Almasy:

But Lazy, wasn´t PS2´s specs finalized in 1999 and Sony working on it since then?

All hardware has to be finalized a good deal of time before it goes into production. And with the Naomi 2, most of its parts even date back to 1998 as it primarily uses Naomi-1/DC parts.

Naomi then would be a year younger technology. Or are you implying they had this thing working in 1999? And when was the first NAOMI 2 game released? AFAIK, working with the hardware doesn´t necessarily mean that the final specs are ready, and that the thing is ready to go into production.

When was the design for the technology in each of these systems completed? Who knows... for every chip there's a "story" of some engineer who had it all written out on the back of a cocktail napkin months/years before (exaggeration). But, the point is, a technology isn't real until its actually successfully produced.

I can think of a lot of super ambitious/complex designs that would be impossible to produce now, but would be great in 2005. The thing about the PS2 chips is that they were so abnormally large in silicon area for their time that it wasn't very practical to produce them much earlier than they did. Yeilds were supposedly low as it was in 2000, let alone thinking about producing it much sooner.

Afterall, there´s a reason why it was unveiled close to the end of 2000.

Yes, there was - it was timed for an arcade show to reveal their plans for the next fiscal year is all... The timing for unveiling an arcade board is nothing like it is for a home console. They're not trying to initiate an elaborate hype campaign planned to strategically build and swell towards a launch - they reveal the board at their leisure, giving software and tools a much more ample time to mature comparatively, to eventually give their arcade partners and distributors a heads-up on upcoming products.

Anyway, my point here is that both systems date back to roughly the same time. This isn't a DC-PS2 or PS2-Xbox kind of time gap we're talking about.

 

[Lazy8s]

marconelly!:

Besides, that F1 game is also a first game that team made for PS2

If you're talking about Melbourne House, I believe it's at least their second PS2 game.

 

[marconelly!]

Lazy, you are right. Their first game was the port of their LeMans Dreamcast game. But they've openly admitted the F1 game was the first one made after they've actually researched the PS2 hardware.

 

[jvd]

Lazy, you are right. Their first game was the port of their LeMans Dreamcast game. But they've openly admitted the F1 game was the first one made after they've actually researched the PS2 hardware.

So how did they port lemans ? Pure luck ? Doesn't make sense .

 

[_phil_]

Actually I'm not. Michael Abrash (the guy who basically designed Xbox graphics) even stated that with absolutely exemplary programming the Xbox can sustain upwards of 50mpps in actual game situations. Again, this is with absolutely exemplary programming and taking full advantage of the programmable pipeline.

yes ,the more static and stripped is geometry the more polys it can throw on the screen ,no brainer there.(and less VS and PS instructions -> more polys ,aswell)

actually ,his calculation was based on the 250 mhz version of the NV2a.
http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=882/ddj0008a/0008a.htm

ppt:
http://www.gdconf.com/archives/2001/abrash.ppt

 

[marconelly!]

So how did they port lemans ? Pure luck ? Doesn't make sense .

Well, they said it themselves, they've slapped it together, without even testing what works well and what doesn't. Anyways, first game or not, my point was that when someone taps into hardware as much as they supposedly did, I don't expect someone else to magically overcome that by a long shot, just because they had more time to do a research and testing.

 

[London Geezer]

the thing here is,

give ANY platform in the 1999-2000 period that can run ZOE2 or Silent Hill 3 at the framerate they run on PS2.
or ever Burnout2.

this is it.

if u can't, then tough, it means someone here is right and someone is just trying to put out misleading information.

end of the story.

and if u REALLY think in your right mind that a Geforce 1 can run DOOM3 at 30fps u must be on drugs. maybe it could, if u take out the shadowing system, the shading etc... but that would look like quake3 then..... some people.....

 

[Phil]

3. When the PS2 was released, nothing graphics companies had out, ignoring the Naomi 2 and various other solutions that could've been implemented into a console environment with favorable results, could touch the thing for quite some time.

Oh boy

Bringing back your Naomi 2 vs PS2 arguement in again? No doubt, the Naomi 2 board would have compared favorably against PS2 in certain aspects - it's not the all superiour hardware though. We've already had this debate, no point in bringing it up again.

 

[London Geezer]

3. When the PS2 was released, nothing graphics companies had out, ignoring the Naomi 2 and various other solutions that could've been implemented into a console environment with favorable results, could touch the thing for quite some time.

Oh boy

Bringing back your Naomi 2 vs PS2 arguement in again? No doubt, the Naomi 2 board would have compared favorably against PS2 in certain aspects - it's not the all superiour hardware though. We've already had this debate, no point in bringing it up again.

yep.

and maybe the fact that Naomi has like 3 times more memory than PS2 and has 2 GPU's running in parallel...... how much $$$ was it again? now that's fair.... still, it doesn't push anywhere near as many polygons as PS2

 

[Lazy8s]

london-boy:

and maybe the fact that Naomi has like 3 times more memory than PS2

Besides the fact that arcade RAM allocations are provided in excess, it pays to have an efficient architecture that can utilize cheaper RAM like that. It means you can fit more in for the same cost.

and has 2 GPU's running in parallel......

Which is a nice addition, as the Naomi (DC) parts help it maintain backwards compatibility.

how much $$$ was it again? now that's fair....

The manufacturing costs are supposedly very similar to what the original Naomi (would be a Dreamcast in the home console realm) production scale was for the time. Remember, what a DC cost to produce in 2000 is far less than what it cost to produce in 1998 (especially with DC-on-a-chip technology eventually on the roadmap), so they could've built a more powerful console for the same cost fifteen months later.

still, it doesn't push anywhere near as many polygons as PS2

AM2 built the PS2's version of VF4 from the ground up... it wasn't just a port. The PS2 version features less geometry than the arcade version, with changes like some 3D structures in the distance of the backgrounds being turned into 2D bitmaps for the home console version.

 

[Phil]

AM2 built the PS2's version of VF4 from the ground up... it wasn't just a port. The PS2 version features less geometry than the arcade version, with changes like some 3D structures in the distance of the backgrounds being turned into 2D bitmaps for the home console version.

Of course, lets take AM2's development experties and blame the hardware.

On a different note, I'd like to see a game like ZOE2 run with the exact same amount of geometry/particles on a NAOMI 2 board. Or WRC2 or any other geometry insane game on PS2...

 

[Lazy8s]

Phil:

On a different note, I'd like to see a game like ZOE2 run with the exact same amount of geometry/particles on a NAOMI 2 board. Or WRC2 or any other geometry insane game on PS2...

Hey, wait... weren't you the one just advocating that two machines can both do things in different ways allowing them to offer relative advantages and disadvantages?

But now it's suddenly significant that they achieve something in the same way?
"I'd like to see a game like ZOE2 run with the exact same amount of geometry/particles on a NAOMI 2 board."

Phil said:

...when comparing two completely different architectures where developers need to use radical different approaches, I'd say it is ignorant to believe one offers nothing but advantages over the other.

...Sure, in the end one can argue if everyone chooses the "hard" way to reach similar things done easily on different hardware - that's something each developer has to choose for themselves. I sure know what I find more attractive though. I'm sure Jason Rubin wouldn't think much different, judging by interviews and Naughty Dogs work.

I can't keep up. And about whether or not a Naomi 2 could do it... well, why not? What part of the rating for ELAN and T&L and system performance makes you think it can't?

 

[Lazy8s]

Oh right, you were the one.

Phil said:
"On a different note, I'd like to see a game like ZOE2 run with the exact same amount of geometry/particles on a NAOMI 2 board. Or WRC2 or any other geometry insane game on PS2..."

PS2 having more fillrate is an advantage that developers may know how to utilize to pull of things that may be more difficult or not possible in the exact same way on a different architecture. This can be either postive or negative, but the potential is there.

...It's a plain and simple fact that different architectures [eg. PS2 <-> Xbox] will often give developers different kinds of advantages. I'm sure there are some games that already indicate the strengths of each platform, although it can be quite hard to distinguish which games are doing the hardware justice and could be used for an accurate comparasment.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4805&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

 

[BoddoZerg]

and if u REALLY think in your right mind that a Geforce 1 can run DOOM3 at 30fps u must be on drugs. maybe it could, if u take out the shadowing system, the shading etc... but that would look like quake3 then..... some people.....

And you think DOOM3 will run at 30fps on a PS2, without drastically reduced settings?

I doubt DOOM3 will be able to run at full quality even on an Xbox.

 

[Phil]

Lazy8s,

Hey, wait... weren't you the one just advocating that two machines can both do things in different ways allowing them to offer relative advantages and disadvantages?

But now it's suddenly significant that they achieve something in the same way?

Perhaps you should have the decency to read through all my posts before jumping to conclusions.
If you pay close attention, you might see that in this very thread on this very same page, that I replied to you saying:

"No doubt, the Naomi 2 board would have compared favorably against PS2 in certain aspects - it's not the all superiour hardware though."

Judging by your arguements further up, I take it that you are very convinced of the NAOMI 2's capabilities. Obviously it's a well designed board, but doesn't mean it compares in every aspect. As said, geometry does not seem to be its strength, therefore I doubt games as the above mentioned would be possible without compromises. The board has other advantages, no doubt about that though. Still no reason to bring up silly comparasments of a game that was

1), originally designed on the NAOMI 2, and
2), by a very high chance not very effieciantly programmed which probably resulted in reduced geometry

The only reason I brought up games such as ZOE2 and WRC2 is because it's almost nearly as pathetic as your comparasment, which again should underline what I have previously said about different architectures offering different advantages.

 

[London Geezer]

and if u REALLY think in your right mind that a Geforce 1 can run DOOM3 at 30fps u must be on drugs. maybe it could, if u take out the shadowing system, the shading etc... but that would look like quake3 then..... some people.....

And you think DOOM3 will run at 30fps on a PS2, without drastically reduced settings?

I doubt DOOM3 will be able to run at full quality even on an Xbox.

no i dont............


but it might be able to do the shadows, and bump the poly count a lot... but THATS IT... all the shaders would have to go (or most of it) and no hyper-hi-res textures...

i never wanted to infere that ps2 could do it and im sorry if it sounded like it

 

[marconelly!]

And you think DOOM3 will run at 30fps on a PS2, without drastically reduced settings?

Well, at least PS2 has something (Silent Hill 3) that resembles what Doom 3 is pulling out running at 30FPS. I would like to see how the Silent Hill 2 for PC runs on GF1 card, but considering how crappy the games lesser looking than SH2 used to run on it...

 

[London Geezer]

And you think DOOM3 will run at 30fps on a PS2, without drastically reduced settings?

Well, at least PS2 has something (Silent Hill 3) that resembles what Doom 3 is pulling out running at 30FPS. I would like to see how the Silent Hill 2 for PC runs on GF1 card, but considering how crappy the games lesser looking than SH2 used to run on it...

exactly that was my point..... but then Lazy8 thinks sega would have sold a naomi2 *as it is* for an acceptable price as a console.....

 

[DeathKnight]

Well, I guess we'll wait and see.

Yeah, I guess we will

I know that the only time I've seen an engine reaching 50-60MPPS, with lighting, effects and all, has been in that new STALKER game for a PC, running on a *fastest* PC available today.

That's also an entirely brute force approach which is what PC's are. Games running on closed architecture systems (consoles) can be finely tuned to take absolute full advantage of the system that they possibly can. This isn't the case with PC's. A comparable PC to the Xbox would never reach Xbox performance levels simply because of the fact that software running on that PC is not optimized entirely for that individual system. So in essence the Xbox is making much more efficient use of its resources clock for clock compared to PC's. Same thing for the Cube and PS2.

Well consider that noone else has come even close, as far as I know.

Quite a few games might come pretty close, or they might not. We don't really know because not many developers release said information (or are even asked) :?