rec.autos.simulators

People keep telling me that the PS2 has aliasing problems. On my tv - a
Panasonic pure flat 28" - there was a fuzzyness around bright colours, but
that wasn't aliasing, it was the composite video connection (when I stick my
vcr into my tv card I get the same problem). When I connected them up with a
'real' cable, there were no problems at all. The aliasing is a lot worse on
a regular tv program than in a game. It is only noticable on recent games if
you look really hard. Some release games (such as SSX) do exhibit quite a
lot of aliasing, but read on...

And by the way - to dispel the myth - the PS2 does have an antialiasing unit
on board, but just like those vector units it is really hard to code fast
enough. Due to the fact Sony just gave out a list of assembler op-codes and
no C libraries whatsoever to the developers, the developers have had to
start from scratch. That is why PS2 games are getting better and better all
the time. Big software houses, like Konami, Square, EA and so forth, have
developed their own kits which are vastly different to each other. I know EA
use one of the vector units to generate realtime dolby digital surround
sound in games like SSX Tricky and NHL '02 while the other unit is running
the entire game all by itself. This shows just how much potential there is
in there.

When the games can fully utilise all of the PS2 hardware (I estimate about
another year or so), then we can truly compare the performance (and
graphical capability) of the consoles. The xbox was at it's peak from day
one, due to the fact that everybody is used to getting the most out of PC's,
and that is what it is (more or less). I have no idea about the GC dev
setup, as I have no intention of writing a game on it (the Nintendo QC dept
is *way* too strict for my liking - they don't like niche games at all).

I was looking up how the PS2 and xbox compare under benchmarking (for the
CPU, graphics chips etc) to see really which one is better. We all already
know how Mhz is a completely pointless method of comparing RISC and CISC
chips (as the CISC chips don't usually execute 1 instruction per clock
cycle, and it has really weird microcoded operations and other random stuff
going on in there), and I like to have facts rather than sales hype. I found
some interesting facts:

1) The PS2 has a 2,560-bit data bus in its parallel rendering engine. All I
can say is '!!!' (actually, I doubt I can say '!!!', but you see the point).
The xbox GPU has a 128-bit bus by way of comparison.

2) The 4.0 GPixels produced by the xbox GPU is in antialiased mode (the xbox
is hardwired for 4xFSAA). This passes over each pixel 4 times, so in actual
fact, 1.0 GPixels are each rendered 4 times, which is a total of 1.0 GPixels
(different ones, which is what counts).

3) The differences between a GeForce 3 and the xbox GPU: xbox GPU shares
64Mb with the rest of the system and the memory is 100Mhz slower than the
dedicated 64Mb on the GF3. The xbox GPU has 2 vertex shaders, rather than
the GF3's one vertex shader. However, Microsoft claims that this second
vertex shader instantly bumps the XBox's theoretical max poly count from the
31 million that Nvidia lists for the GeForce 3, all the way up to 125
million pps. Uh? I cant see a vertex shader suddenly quadrupling the pps
count, especially when combined with less memory *and* slower memory. This
kinda proves point 2. So the xbox can only absolutely manage 31 million pps
(nothing will ever hit the maximum, anyway, this is just the absolute top
throughput). The PS2 can do 75 million pps (again, no games will hit the
maximum). That may seem like a huge difference, but these are 32 pixel
untextured polygons, rather than anything you would see in a game, unless
you are playing Virtua Fighter (the original, flat-shaded one) in 320x240 on
your console :-).

4) This is something I thought up, which may be completely useless, but it
seems to have a shred of potential in it... With regards to straight
comparisons, remember how the Mhz is useless. Think of this: the PSone had
33Mhz. Tomb Raider was identical on the PSone and the PC. The PC version
needed a P133 and a 3DFX graphics chip to run properly, or something like a
166/200Mhz Pentium. You could look up the recommended specs for the game if
you want to check. That is a scale factor of about 4 with the 3DFX. The PS2
processor is an evolution of the PSone processor, just as the celeron in the
xbox is an evolution of the Pentium (and don't let Microsoft tell you it's a
P3 because it isn't). Using the same scale factor, the 295Mhz PS2 chip would
equal a 1.1Ghz Intel chip. Obviously that is a very random example, you
could try this with a whole bunch of games to see the differences. You have
to run the game in the same resolution at the same FPS to get an accurate
reading. As another example, Quake 3: Revolution, Medal of Honor: Frontline
and James Bond 007 in Agent Under Fire all use the PS2 Q3 engine. Quake
3:Arena, Medal of Honor: Allied *** and Jedi Outcast all use the PC Q3
engine. Running the games on my Cel500 with an almost identical graphics
card to the xbox GPU at 640x480 got me about 15fps. I now have a 1.8Ghz P4
so I can't compare, but I don't think a 733 would run it at 60fps. More like
1Ghz. That is a quick and dirty (and somewhat innacurate) method of
comparing the two processors in terms of real *** performance (ie the
only thing that really matters).

It's interesting stuff, the actual hardware details between the three
consoles. I understand these numbers and how they are calculated, but I
can't verify them, as it is all based on what the companies say (ie they
might, well, they do lie - it's just a matter of not believing anything you
read unless it is independent).

As always, correct me if I am wrong...

--
Nick

"The overriding purpose of software is
to be useful, rather than correct."
John Carmack, id Software

That is 4Mb of video cache, for all the textures stored in main memory,
actually. That is why they failed to mention it, because it is untrue.

That is what I said, the numbers in the post are absolute maxima (for
untextured 32-pixel polys on both systems) - you would never get anything
like that in a game in tems of polys - on an xbox, PS2 or GC (probably not
even on a PS3 or xbox 2).

Or I could just downgrade my P4 1.8Ghz to a 733 Celeron :-) Remember the
xbox is made by a whole bunch of different companies - it has an Intel chip
connected to an Nvidia GPU through an AMD HyperTransport bus. AMD and Intel
working together? Yeah, that's because the xbox was going to originally have
an AMD processor, until they realised that would make it *even* bigger and
*even* louder, and use *even* more power.

Here is a quote from one of the hardware review sites I found - "In the DOA3
Character Select screen we've selected the character but his model has yet
to appear as it is still searching for it on the hard drive. This delay is
usually around 1 - 2 seconds at most. Here in Project Gotham, we've selected
the Boxster S but the car on the screen is still the Audi TT coupe. It will
be another couple of seconds before the car model switches as the slow hard
drive must send data off to memory. Originally we assumed that this delay
was because the system was reading off of the DVD, but upon closer
inspection it's clear that the delay was in accessing the hard drive. What's
even more interesting is that the delay continues to exist regardless of how
many times the car or character is selected in succession, indicating that
the data isn't being cached to main memory." - Fantastic use of the hard
disk drive (that's what happens if you stick in 5,400 RPM drives to save
money). Ironically, the PS2 (and probably the xbox itself) can stream off
the CD/DVD faster than this. In case you don't know - a HD is faster on a
straight read, but the drive head takes a long time to get to the data - it
has to seek to the position on the disk (the two HDs the xbox uses are only
single-sided, single-platter disks anyway). Then it has to wait for the data
to come around the disk until it is under the head. Then it reads a bunch of
data, storing it in a cache, before sending it all out in one go. That is
where the RPM and seek times of a HD are really important - much more
important than the burst transfer rate. HDs also get very fragmented unless
they are written to very carefully (meaning more seeking between bits of
data) - with a DVD the data is written to keep seek times to a minimum. The
HD isn't used to accept game installations either, so there is no
performance benefit there.

To reply to your statement - I do care about hardware, which is why I hate
the general PC design (although I still code for it), and the same goes for
the xbox. I would rather get a dedicated hardware machine from a company
which is known throughout the world for its robust, top quality electronics
(Sony), or a company which has made its name developing fantastic
out-and-out games machines (Nintendo), than a company who write Operating
Systems for lots of different pieces of hardware and never get them to work
together correctly, but expects me to believe they have nailed it just this
one time. I just think of these two points: 1) Numbers don't mean anything -
bottlenecks appear between all the high-speed parts (especially along the
xbox's 32-bit busses), and 2) Especially when Microsoft has been lying about
it's numbers (or just getting a calculation wrong in computing them, which
is more likely).

The GC is the best console out there by far, but nobody over 15 wants that
type of cutesy cartoon game. If Nintendo loosened up development a little,
to the PS2/PC/xbox standard, then it would nail the whole console market.
Nintendo won't do that because there will be some ***games made for it's
console, and they love the 'Official Nintendo Seal-of-Quality' on all of
their games. Shame, and a waste.

These posts weren't especially anti-xbox or anything, it was just explaining
some of the things that people believe about the next-gen consoles which
aren't true (you gave another one - about the PS2 only having 4Mb of Video
RAM, when it is actually just a cache - the original 3DFX had 4Mb video ram,
and compare the textures on that to the PS2 and you can see that it
blatantly can store higher-definition images). Just take everything you hear
with a pinch of salt and find out what developers are saying about the
consoles, and the actual technical details rather than what your local games
store salesman tells you. It's enlightening stuff...

--
Nick

"The overriding purpose of software is
to be useful, rather than correct."
John Carmack, id Software

I don't own either but I've played both... you seem to be defending the PS2
and you say that it's only going to reach its peak in another year or so....
well that's fine with me, more good-looking games is a good thing. Shame
that they did such an appalling job of getting it ready before release, eh?

Can't say I'm ever going to be convinced by a "the PS2 is as good as the
Xbox" argument though, cos having seen both, it's not, and it's not really
all that close either.

My $0.02. :0)

Yep, you're right.  It is a video cache.  The Dreamcast has an 8MB video
cache BTW.

Of course.  Sony has made the most outrageous claims about the PS2's polygon
ability.  Figures aside, the PS2 looks only marginally ahead of the DC in
polygons per second in the best games from each system.  Both systems are
quite a way behind the XBox.  The DC *is* almost 4 years old though now and
the PS2 about 2 years old.

I bought a $50US quiet heatsink/fan combo for my AthlonXP - still worked out
much cheaper than an equivalent speed P4 chip.  Yes, Athlons are hot in more
ways than one.  The Athlon and the PIII/celeron aren't radically different
chips.

A hard disk head taking longer to seek than a DVDROM?  Absolute nonsense.
The 5400RPM drive in the Xbox is capable of about 15MB/s with an 12ms seek
time (which is pretty slow for a modern hard disk) and the DVD drives in the
PS2 and Xbox do a (maximum) of 7MB/s with an 80ms seek time.

I guess you're either into Nintendo or you're not.  My criticisms of their
system are underpowered hardware and the limited target audience.

Indeed.  At the end of the day, all you can do is look at the games that are
available and base a decision of that.  Once a console has been released,
the specs aren't as important.

--
Damien Smith

ICQ: 77028579
F1 2001 rank: -11.512

You would expect the X-Box to be better than the PS2 simply because
it's quite a bit newer. But also remember that PC's are horribly
inefficient at doing their jobs; it's the sheer brute force that's
doing its job quite well so it does get on top of most things.
The Intel P4 (as I've read) very inefficiently handles code, in
exchange for the possibility of being able to handle speeds up to
10GHz.

More elegant designs (there were a few in video cards the last few
years) can produce better efficiency, but sometimes just brute force
methods provide the most advancement nevertheless.

So the PS2 is an interesting beast still, because it is targeted at
games. The PC/X-box is more a horrible thing that is fast enough to
run at fast speeds because of force. Ofcourse you then choose a PC,
but beauty is also attractive. ;-)

I won't buy an X-Box simply because I think it's too much like a PC,
and Microsoft is behind it, and I'm worried what will happen if they
try and push their box for games by making it harder to make the same
games under PC's.

Anyway, enough talk. :) I generally like better designs better, but
that doesn't always mean better speed. Look at my SGI's. :(
Almost never crash (except sometimes because of memory chips) but
they're quite dead slow by now, except for video stuff.

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/