Different game console's graphic performance

[hk10Mbps]

Tell me their video performance please: Dreamcast, PS2, X-Box and GameCube.

 

[hk10Mbps]

You can also tell other component's performance like CPU, RAM and drive speed etc.

 

[gwlam12]

i think it's ranked...:

X-Box, Gamecube, PS2

i dont nkow where dreamcast goes

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: gwlam12
i think it's ranked...:

X-Box, Gamecube, PS2

i dont nkow where dreamcast goes

Pretty much what I was going to say. X-Box is only a little better than Gamecube, but both XBox and GC are quite a bit ahead of PS2.

 

[hk10Mbps]

So PS2 graphics is slower?

 

[vegetation]

From a computational point of view, the Xbox is about twice as fast as the GameCube, with just under 2000 MIPS, versus about 1100 MIPS. Dreamcast is an older generation system so it could do only 300 MIPS, but remember this was a phenomenal speed for a console back in late 98 when the dreamcast came out in Japan.

 

[Deeko]

Well, alot of that depends on what you are looking at, "performance wise". Overall, it will pretty much be Xbox, then Cube, then PS2, then Dreamcast, especially when you are considering the performance of their 3D accelerators. THe Emotion Engine CPU of the PS2 is actually a very powerful unit, despite its slow 300MHz clock speed, but the GS, PS2's graphic accelerator, is its downfal. It has a massively passive architecture, something like 16 pixel pipelines, which gives it a respectable pixel fill rate, however, those are untextured pixels, add even a single texture and you halve that fill rate right away, and in order to get the best performance out of a massively parralell architecture, you need very efficient coding. Gamecube, on the other hand, does not have this problem, Flipper, the ArtX/ATI graphics chip, is very efficient, and is capable of applying up to 8 textures/effects per cycle. It does lack the raw fill rate and pixel shading capabilites of the XBox, however. I do remember reading, way way back, that CPU perf. was actually reversed, that it went PS2, Cube, XBox. This actually wouldn't surprise me much, considering XBox uses the x86 architecture, which is not very efficient, so while it has the highest clock speed, it is no where near what the MHz-difference makes it seem, the modified PowerPC Gekko chip in gamecube and the totally custom Emotion Engine are right up with, if not more powerful than the P3 in the XBox. Dreamcast, well that is just behind them all. It uses a Hitachi 200MHz processor, and a PowerVR-based graphics chip. Cool thing about that is that the Dreamcast uses deferred rendering, which greatly improves its performance, however, it lacks the next gen capabilites and speed of the other 3.

edit: if any of that doesn't make sense, sorry, I've been doing Calculus problems since midnight.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: vegetation
From a computational point of view, the Xbox is about twice as fast as the GameCube, with just under 2000 MIPS, versus about 1100 MIPS. Dreamcast is an older generation system so it could do only 300 MIPS, but remember this was a phenomenal speed for a console back in late 98 when the dreamcast came out in Japan.

MIPS = Meaningless Indication of Processor Speed
MIPS = Meaningless Information Provided by Salespeople

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: vegetation
From a computational point of view, the Xbox is about twice as fast as the GameCube, with just under 2000 MIPS, versus about 1100 MIPS. Dreamcast is an older generation system so it could do only 300 MIPS, but remember this was a phenomenal speed for a console back in late 98 when the dreamcast came out in Japan.

MIPS = Meaningless Indication of Processor Speed
MIPS = Meaningless Information Provided by Salespeople

yea, pretty much so.