phoenix_chipset
Regular
Texture cache of the N64 vs. that of Playstation
- Thread starter Squeak
- Start date
Counter with what evidence? I simply said a high-end pc from mid-1996 was more capable then the N64 in most ways, and i think dark10x summed up pretty nicely.
Not too far from the truth either.
More memory and faster clocks certainly wherent the only advantages og xbox had over GC, and Wii being better at some areas maybe. I for one see the OG xbox as the more powerfull console though, and the only main disadvantage it has against the Wii are memory. How does Far Cry on the Wii compare against the OG xbox edition?
Wii has the advantage of being a further development of the GC and thus enjoys more optimized/modern code/software. Im not dissing the Wii or GC but i remember asking here on b3d and xbox was by far the most powerfull console compared to the GC, ERP amongst others stated this.
The 733 P3 for one is on par with the GC's clock for clock (about) for most things, the Wii finally almost catching up to the og xbox from 2001. GPU i would think NV2A has the edge with its programmable pixel and vertex shaders. Only memory department the Wii has the edge, but im not seeing it running Doom 3 in the same fidelity on it.
Yeah Far Cry Wii vs Xbox is a good point. That Wii port may have been a minimal effort though. I'm not sure how many game developers really tried to adapt games/ports to the old NGC hardware. Or even enhance NGC to Wii ports for that matter.
Stencil shadows were probably not going to happen like Xbox. Apparently Xbox has double z rate characteristics, similar to NV30. But bump mapping was commonplace in good Wii games.
However two things Xbox does that even Wii can't do is 720p games and Dolby Digital Live. The latter in particular is really nice. Xbox has an excellent sound processor.
As for N64 vs PC of 96, I really wonder how S3 Virge compares. I've played some S3 S3D games and they run not unlike the speed of a N64 game and the detail levels aren't dissimilar really. Rendition Verite is probably superior to N64. PC had such a mess with proprietary APIs back then though. It was all too experimental yet.
Verite is interesting in particular as a N64 parallel because it too is based on a MIPS processor with a hardwired pixel pipeline. So it was quite programmable and did receive different microcodes.
Probably the most impressive Rendition Verite game using Rredline API. Also supports Glide.
The famous vQuake. Based on Quake software renderer to use span sorting instead of zbuffering, and you can enable particle and edge AA. Both reminiscent of N64. Plus you get the wavy underwater view unlike GLQuake.
Stencil shadows were probably not going to happen like Xbox. Apparently Xbox has double z rate characteristics, similar to NV30. But bump mapping was commonplace in good Wii games.
However two things Xbox does that even Wii can't do is 720p games and Dolby Digital Live. The latter in particular is really nice. Xbox has an excellent sound processor.
As for N64 vs PC of 96, I really wonder how S3 Virge compares. I've played some S3 S3D games and they run not unlike the speed of a N64 game and the detail levels aren't dissimilar really. Rendition Verite is probably superior to N64. PC had such a mess with proprietary APIs back then though. It was all too experimental yet.
Verite is interesting in particular as a N64 parallel because it too is based on a MIPS processor with a hardwired pixel pipeline. So it was quite programmable and did receive different microcodes.
Last edited:
apart from some nice background images my eyes are hurting from the blurry visuals
Silent_Buddha
Legend
N64 released for the first time in Japan in summer of 96, why are you saying 95?
Voodoo Graphics released in Oct of 96, just 4 months after the JP launch of N64 and 1 month after the NA launch of N64. So it's not like it had an uncontested lead for long. While in some respects the N64 graphics were comparable to Voodoo Graphics, the N64 wasn't able to use it's hardware nearly as well.
Also while Rendition Verite V1000 (96 also) didn't have the brute power or support from developers that Voodoo Graphics had, games written to take advantage of the cards capability were superior graphically to anything on N64.
Regards,
SB
He's saying that was when the chip was designed.
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...that-of-playstation.60851/page-5#post-2039096
"The 64 was state of the art in 95 when Nintendo finished its design, the only held it back to 96 because of mario 64 not being ready."
I guess for a truly fair comparison, you'd have to know when the other PC GPUs were finished in design and factor in their lead times to availability. Google!
Rendition was another of venture-funded companies developing low-cost 3d chips for PCs. In September 1995 they revealed first product in test stepping, the Vérité 1000. More attention than the hardware got a list of software developers supporting it. Among them were companies writing gaming history like id Software, Looking Glass and Papyrus. Rendition was opened to input from outside, allowed software developers to influence development to ensure good real world performance. And the strategy worked, proprietary Speedy3D API gained some foothold. Very promising for Rendition was Direct3d development. First D3d driver was written at Redmond together with Microsoft guys just finishing first version of the API. By the end of 1995 Direct3d accelerated by V1000 was publicly demonstrated and Rendition could proudly name it reference platform. However, chip mass production was getting delayed and board were not available until October-September 1996, like if one or two more chip respins were needed. Too late to avoid Voodoo, pricing had to be aggressive. Solid number of AIB partners offered Vérité cards. Creative was first, Intergraph followed. Game Publisher Sierra was so impressed with Papyrus'es use of Vérité that they decided to sell V1000 cards under their name.
That's what I can't connect with. What hurts my eyes are artifacts and glitches. Blurryness is disappointing, but it doesn't hurt. PS1 was, for me, a much bigger eye sore.
Not often have i seen discussions where platforms get compared where people take anything else then actual release dates, when you could actually buy the products. If a voodoo gpu is released autumn 96, design was probally done before that too. N64 done in 95, you just couldnt play it, lol. Funny how some stand for their platform.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Well and that's assuming that the N64 chip didn't run into production issues (it did, hence why it was constantly delayed) and that PC graphics companies didn't have working silicon earlier than their release date as well (as your excerpt illustrates). The one big hurdle facing 3dfx and many others, for example was the price of memory. PC graphics makers up to 1996 had to try to design around trying to use as little memory as possible or release cards at extremely high prices.
Hence from 1996, when the price of EDO DRAM dropped significantly, and onwards PC 3D graphics advanced much more rapidly.
All things considered, the N64, Voodoo Graphics and Rendition Verite 1000 were all contemporaries of each other.
Regards,
SB
Ignoring the last part for good reason, I'm pretty sure you've been told the first part is untrue before. If so, you've chosen to forget it.
But I don't know why you're pushing the false GC narrative in an N64 thread, other than that you brought GC in to try and discredit ERP's hands on experience with the N64.
There's another false narrative being pushed here too. And that's that Nintendo's only option for a 1996 console is to use a 1994 design and that we should compare N64 with PC parts from the time of launch.
That is to make the grave mistake of comparing the PC market of today with the PC market of 1994/5/6. Now, you can build a new part to run all DX and OGL games and optimise drivers on the fly, then the fastest part was a graphics card that used fucking *GLide*, that you had to wait for games to incorporate as an option, and you had to have enough games that used it before you could launch your card to a minuscule market. And none of your games were designed for it from the ground up.
Nintendo bought an existing design, had their own chip made from the design - ready early 95 - and then sat on it till they were ready for launch. Because they're Nintendo. Because that's what they do. Had somone wanted a Voodoo based design, and been prepared to work towards to a launch closer to final production candidate of the chip (like every single console vendor other than Nintendo does and has done since the mid 90s) they may well have been able to have a Voodoo based console earlier than the Voodoo 1 PC launch or at least around that time.
Though it would have been more expensive than N64. Because it's a lot better. And that's the point.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Not because it was Nintendo being Nintendo, but the N64 faced a lot of problems leading up to release. From Wikipedia with sources credited there.
Hardware issues, SDK issues, and production issues. The chip and software development environment were just not ready for release until 1996.
Regards,
SB
I wouldnt have found it strange if they waited till 1996 when cost of production would have been low enough to launch at a decent price.
The finalization of hardware is around a year earlier if not more from launch anyways for every console
Having the hardware specs ready in 1995 say nothing in itself. Every console maker wants to release as soon as possible. The hardware will be released when the market and other factors allow it to happen. So however we see it, N64 should be compared with whats available at time of launch not earlier. The PS1 was also a beast when final specs were announced around a year earlier.
The finalization of hardware is around a year earlier if not more from launch anyways for every console
Having the hardware specs ready in 1995 say nothing in itself. Every console maker wants to release as soon as possible. The hardware will be released when the market and other factors allow it to happen. So however we see it, N64 should be compared with whats available at time of launch not earlier. The PS1 was also a beast when final specs were announced around a year earlier.
Last edited:
Im not wrong in thinking that a high-end pc from summer/autumn 1996 would be more capable then N64?
Exaclly, ive never encountered someone comparing unlreased platforms against another, and ive read many forums since its in my intrest.
Not a console, but it's fair to compare a tech based on when it was created versus released. Hypothetically, let's say the PS2 was developed in 1985 but the EE and GS cost $10,000 each, so Sony waited until 2000 to release. For the time it was created (1985), it was generations ahead of the competition, would be a true enough statement. But not a terribly useful one.
Last edited:
Yeah i get what you mean, but if no-one could enjoy the hardware its kinda hard to use it in an argument. If PS2 would go for 10.000 each it simply wasnt ready for release
PS2 was quit impressive for a march 2000 console anyway, even if it didnt outdo a high-end pc in total it sure did things no other home-machine did and gave it its uniq style of graphics, some of its games can still be played today (like okami) and still be quit nice in graphics, infact i still have my now almost 18 year old launch PS2 connected and play on a modern TV without it being an eyesore... Some PS2 games really have some graphics that age well.
PS2 was quit impressive for a march 2000 console anyway, even if it didnt outdo a high-end pc in total it sure did things no other home-machine did and gave it its uniq style of graphics, some of its games can still be played today (like okami) and still be quit nice in graphics, infact i still have my now almost 18 year old launch PS2 connected and play on a modern TV without it being an eyesore... Some PS2 games really have some graphics that age well.
Yes that was the point. Experimental and test hardware behind doors that are significantly more powerful than available consumer products are a given any time. When you view the N64 as a product planned to be released for normal consumption at a logical price and cost, it doesnt make a significantly more interesting case. A PS2 developed in 1985 would have made a pretty interesting discussion under a completely different subject unless that hardware found some use in the industry in the 80s and had a significant impact. Similarly the Model 2 was released in 1994 (or was it 1993) and it blew the PS, the N64 and Sega's own console out of the water. Such hardware was impossible for home consumption. Funnilly it was $10,000 and its an interesting example because it was a real product that had an impact in the industry yet pointless to compare with a console. Even Sega couldnt make a console that reached its little finger years later. It makes zero sense to compare the impact of unreleased hardware or special cases with the impact of released hardware planned for home consumption. With that logic the N64 was underperforming because Model 2 was released earlier, the model 3 was released the same year and somewhere in some military lap they had an experimental mini super computer planned to run 3D warfare simulations with tenths of millions of polygons. Also in some lap there was an unreleased M2.Not a console, but it's fair to compare a tech based on when it was created versus released. Hypothetically, let's say the PS2 was developed in 1985 but the EE and GS cost $10,000 each, so Sony waited until 2000 to release. For the time it was created (1985), it was generations of the competition, would be a true enough statement. But not a terribly useful one.
N64's final specs in 1995 dont say much.
Last edited:
Indeed, but none of those problems - particularly the software ones - point to a leading edge featureset and leading edge performance. They are software and logistical issues.
Sega determined at some point before committing to the Saturn that the base that would become the N64 was too difficult to manufacture in early 94 or earlier. That doesn't mean that when the N64 arrived it was actually bleeding edge in the way DC or PS2 were.
In early 1998 the fastest public facing 3D device was the Naomi arcade board, which was the first application of the late 1998 Dreamcast chipset. It easily exceeded the 1998 Voodoo 2 and Pentium 2, it even surpassed the multi thousand dollar 1997 Model 3 arcade board, and it blew past the the 1994 Model 2 arcade board - still costing thousands. The N64 was far behind the Model 2 arcade board. When it launch in mid 96, or early 97 (EU), it did not lead gaming performance as Saturn, PS1, DC, PS2 had done.
It was an ageing chipset now far behind the bleeding edge of the rapidly evolving industry it had been intended to lead 2 ~ 3 years earlier.
The 3DO was what the leading edge console industry was supposed to be seeing in 96.
Finalisation of specs and finalisation of the physical implementation of the final release is different. You may easily be looking at a year or more between the two. E.g.Xbox 360 specs were finalised in 2003, but the physical chip didn't enter production till 2005.
If you compare the N64 to what's availble in 96 it is dated. The ageing Model 2 obliterates it, and in the home the Voodoo GPU massively surpasses it, and the cancelled 3DO soundly beats it.
As I recall, the whole point about N64 having been designed a year before it's actual availability on the market was only brought up to say it's design team wasn't so out of touch as it seamed, the actual release to market was just delayed for market reasons. It wasn't trying to say it, as a product, was more advanced than other products, it was just trying to provide context to the impression it was behind the times considering the delta between PS1 and 64 and between 64 and DC.
