Dreamcast Vs Playstation2...find out which one is more powerful inside->

[Blackhawk2]

Dreamcast Vs Playstation2 and what all the mumbo jumbo really means

Good article Thank god I didn't buy a PS2.

 

[HaVoC]

Did you notice that this is SegaWeb.com? I'd hardly call this a reliable article since it is biased towards the Sega platform. It does raise some interesting questions that need further analysis.

I do agree that right now the PS2 does not have much of a graphics advantage over DC. These are first generation games on the PS2 vs 3 to 5th generation games on the DC. I think what will make or break the PS2 is if the subsequent generation games can deliver on the initial PS2 hype.

 

[Blackhawk2]

Havoc, yup noticed the segaweb but have also seen some early and very ugly PS2 games

 

[rickn]

segaweb is run by a bunch of tards

 

[SilentBoB]

I would like to see an unbiased Dreamcast VS PS2 article here on Anandtech. I know it isn't Anand's "forté" but it would be a good article.

 

[Erasmus-X]

This article is very biased and only points out the PS2's weaknesses, while praising the Dreamcast (well, I guess that's typical for a Sega enthusiast site). A lot of people didn't buy the PS2 JUST for its console gaming capabilities. You can use it as your DVD player (I'm planning on using it for the TV in my room) and it's backward-compatible with old PSX games, input hardware, and memory cards. Plus it has 2 USB ports (a handful of PC input hardware has been reported to work with the PS2) and an IEEE 1394 port. For those who can't afford PCs, the PS2 also has web browsing capabilities. The Dreamcast simply can't touch a lot of those features (aside from the web browser it does include). With all things considered, you're really getting a lot for that $300.

I will admit that developers can produce games that look every bit as good (if not better) on the Dreamcast. But keep in mind that the Dreamcast has a good 1-year advantage in software development. I would personally give Sony time and then pass judgement.

 

[Deeko]

I read a very good article comparing PS2 to Gamecube, I think I got a link to it from a thread here. But anyway, it said that the PS2 isn't being used to near it's full potential. Most of the games out now use only the main CPU of the emotion engine, and aren't using either of the vector units, which is where the true power lies. They aren't using them because they are different and difficult, so once programmers learn to effectivly use them, the games for PS2 should be alot better.

 

[bernse]

The DC actually has closer to 2 years leadtime. I still found it a good read though, even if biased. I too would like Anand to to a H-H comparison. It would be a good read I bet.

Eric

 

[Stephen24]

I read some other articles there and they are extremely bias. In one article they were comarping how many games the DC had compared to the amount of games the PS2 had and harping on that fact that the DC had more. Well obviously it will have more because it has been out a lot longer than the PS2. They article made some good points though. I remember when I first heard about the PS2 being able to pump 75million polygons per second, what a load of bullsheit that was.

 

[SuperFreaky]

definately a biased article.... but makes a few good points none-the-less.

and I'm so sick of people buying a PS2 for the DVD playback!!! a dreamcast costs $150 and there are plenty of standalone players (that come with a remote) for less than the $150 more the PS2 costs!!! (and no, not just oritron, konka and zenith players, I got my Phillips for $145 from merc@t@.com)

 

[overmars]

hehe, I think I'll just go with Dreamcast later on since the popularity of PSX 2 will surely drive prices of DC even lower. There are DC consoles that go on for less that $100 now on some auction sites!!!! And they'll just keep going lower from here on out.

As for PSX 2, too pricey for my blood. I'll just stick with the cheaper console for now. And that DVD argument doesn't work for me either. There are plenty of DVD players out there for less than $150. Brand names, too!

hey, anyone know where there are other tech forums on the net? active ones

marc

 

[GL]

This is FUD

You need only look at the architectures of both systems to see that they're comparing apples to oranges. They claim the Dreamcast is better because it has more VRAM and that this leads to better, more realistic environments. Their numbers are correct. But what they fail to realize is that the PS2 doesn't use VRAM for storing textures. It in fact, has an amazingly high-bandwidth bus that streams textures at 48GB/s directly from main RAM instead of having to store these textures in VRAM. The PS2 has a philosophy of low cache, high bandwidth, whereas the Dreamcast and the PC have a philosophy of big cache, low bandwidth. On the PC and Dreamcast, we rely on very large amounts of RAM to store textures because the bandwidth of the busses in the system is just so crappy. The PS2 decided to use only the very minimum amount of memory and connect the various subsystems with every so high-bandwidth interconnects.

What does this all mean? Well, it is very different to program for the PS2 than it is for the PC and Dreamcast. Programmers have been used to just throwing textures into VRAM and hoping for the best, whereas with the PS2 they will have to stream textures during every frame (but there is no problem with this because at 48GB/s, the PS2 could effectively stream >800MB of textures per second and achieve a framerate of 60fps -> that is just over 800MB per frame).

The Dreamcast is like a PC in its approach and since it only has 8MB of VRAM, one will only be able to have <8MB of textures unless some sort of texture compression is utilized.

Just to sum this up, the Dreamcast and PC use large amounts of memory with slow interconnections to other parts of the system. The PS2 uses small amounts of memory with very fast interconnections to other parts of the system. So you can't just look at one dimension of the numbers (in this case...the size of the memory) and infer anything about why this makes one system better over the other.

EDIT
I also noticed that the article pointed out that the PS2 cannot pump 75 million polygons per second because it only has 4MB of VRAM. This is pure bs. The PS2 doesn't even use the VRAM for storing polygon data. The VRAM is used solely for texture storage (one frame may include more than 4MB of textures by storing different textures at different times when they are needed to render a part of the frame), colour lookup tables and the frame buffer. The polygon data is streamed right off the bus and is therefore limited to the bandwidth of the PS2 and not the VRAM.

-GL