PS2 vs XBox, very interesting read of who has the better hardware
- Thread starter Gomce
- Start date
This is absolutley absurd! The PS2 uses it's CPU for T&L. That's 6.5 GFLOPs. The XBOX's NV2A core does like, 50. Heh.
Main memory bandwidth
PS2 3.2GB/S
X-box if I remember right it's 6.4GB/S
In both situations, the PS2's grahpics processor is *constantly* loading the bus because it only has 4MB of VRAM. Sure, internally the frame buffer is hella fast, but with a frame buffer and double buffering the PS2 has less than 3 megs of cache for texture.
Yeah, sure, it doesnt' need as much texture memory as the X-box since it's geared towards polygons, and not texture oriented programs.
But this argument is also moot because the X-box has more polygon power than the PS2. Thus, it don't matter if it's geared to polygons or textures. It don't matter.
The PS2 has no form of vertex or pixel shaders
The PS2 has limited main memory size (32MB) which also means that they have a much smaller max polygon count than the X-box
The 48GB/S of internal bandwidth in the graphics synthesizer is intresting, but it has a friggin 16 pipes! Which is sorta a waste of space that could be used for EDRAM which the PS2 has prescious little of! That's 4X the amount of pipes than the NV2A. Problem here... they're all single texture pipes. That means that while max untextured fillrate is higher than the NV2A, once you add a texture you cut your fillrate in half. Add 2, cut it in 1/4th. NV2A has 4 pipes, yes, less pipes. But it can enable dual texturing with no performance hit and even multitexturing doesn't hurt too much. Plus, with all that fillrate, what are you going to do, run at high resolutions? Uh no, limited framebuffer RAM. 4 megs is already mad cramped. Make super high overdraw scenes? ooookaaaaaaaaaayyyy....... maybe rendering dust and heat and such could use such rediclously high fillrates, but for 640X480, I think it's a bit overkill. I say kill 8 pipes, give each extra pipe a texture block, and add more EDRAM!
In an X-box, there's a critical feature. Texture compression. Meaning that if you allocate 16 megs for textures and it's 8:1 so that means you could probably fit 128MB of uncompressed textures in there after texture compression. The PS2? 3 megs. Ahahahahaha!
True, the X-box has less processing power, but let's take a look at the processors.
X-box processor
16K of L1 data cache
16K of L1 instruction cache
128 K of L2 cache
If I remember right, the emotion engines cache spces aren't that hot
And also, 128 bit processors need 4X the amount of space to hold a single instruction than it's 32 bit counterpart.
Sure, you can have longer instructions, but who needs them in the game world? 64 bit was fine.
Thus, you have smaller cache, hurting performance. And then you realize that not only is the PS2's emotion engine An AI, physics calcuation engine, it's also the PS2's sole T&L engine. And maybe they'll use it for pixel/vertex shader emulation. The EE is clearly a bit overloaded, after having to share memory bandwidth with the Grahpics rasterizer.
This guy's really nuts. PS2 beats Xbox my butt.
Then again.. zee selection of games for the PS2 are <monty burns impression> Excelent...
And that's what wins in the console world, right?
But jeez, does that guy need to learn. The PS2 has it nearly as bad as the X-box interms of SMA because the main memory bus is constantly loaded with texture information because of the PS2's microscopic texture cache. The PS2 would be so much better if
1.Embedded cache would be just that, a texture/frame buffer *cache* and not memory. This would allow main memory to be a L2 cache so to speak, and drastically increase the PS2's texturing capabilities
2.Cut out the massive paralellism and cut the PS2's pipelines in 1/4th and added an extra texture block to each pipe, this would give it specs similar to the NV2A in the fillrate department. Use the left overspace to jack up the EDRAM. (Embedded DRAM). Keep the bus width the same.
3.*Maybe* build a T&L chip onto the same package as the grahpics synthesizer and given it it's own EDRAM supply so it could use it as a vertex cache, and clocked it at Geforce like speeds so that the EE wouldn't be so darn loaded with all the T&L work
4.Beefed up the sound processor to include dobly digital and such things
5.This is the biggest thing. Let the grahpics synthesizer support texture compression! This would do *wonders* to the texture storage capacity of the graphics synthesizer (Multiply the theoretical texture storage from it's measly 3 megs to around 20!!!) and if they increased the EDRAM amount while they're at it they could have some really impressive texturing capabilities.
6.Kept a huge narrow fast DDR pool of memory (64 megs or more of the stuff, not too expensive with 32 meg DDRSDRAMs probably not terribly expensive at the time ) with atleast 400MB/S of bandwidth as a buffer/cache. You could have a 16 bit bus just like RDRAM and if it operated at 100MHZ you'd have exactly 400MB/S. This could do wonders for maximum polygon count on the PS2, as the Polygons being currently worked with could be in RDRAM and the ones later in the level not being activley drawn could be cached in the cache.
4 and 6 as well as 3 are iffy, but 1 and 5 would have done wonders for the console's image quality and 2 would have allowed a larger EDRAM pool.
Well, what do you guys think? Am I decently informed on this stuff?
Main memory bandwidth
PS2 3.2GB/S
X-box if I remember right it's 6.4GB/S
In both situations, the PS2's grahpics processor is *constantly* loading the bus because it only has 4MB of VRAM. Sure, internally the frame buffer is hella fast, but with a frame buffer and double buffering the PS2 has less than 3 megs of cache for texture.
Yeah, sure, it doesnt' need as much texture memory as the X-box since it's geared towards polygons, and not texture oriented programs.
But this argument is also moot because the X-box has more polygon power than the PS2. Thus, it don't matter if it's geared to polygons or textures. It don't matter.
The PS2 has no form of vertex or pixel shaders
The PS2 has limited main memory size (32MB) which also means that they have a much smaller max polygon count than the X-box
The 48GB/S of internal bandwidth in the graphics synthesizer is intresting, but it has a friggin 16 pipes! Which is sorta a waste of space that could be used for EDRAM which the PS2 has prescious little of! That's 4X the amount of pipes than the NV2A. Problem here... they're all single texture pipes. That means that while max untextured fillrate is higher than the NV2A, once you add a texture you cut your fillrate in half. Add 2, cut it in 1/4th. NV2A has 4 pipes, yes, less pipes. But it can enable dual texturing with no performance hit and even multitexturing doesn't hurt too much. Plus, with all that fillrate, what are you going to do, run at high resolutions? Uh no, limited framebuffer RAM. 4 megs is already mad cramped. Make super high overdraw scenes? ooookaaaaaaaaaayyyy....... maybe rendering dust and heat and such could use such rediclously high fillrates, but for 640X480, I think it's a bit overkill. I say kill 8 pipes, give each extra pipe a texture block, and add more EDRAM!
In an X-box, there's a critical feature. Texture compression. Meaning that if you allocate 16 megs for textures and it's 8:1 so that means you could probably fit 128MB of uncompressed textures in there after texture compression. The PS2? 3 megs. Ahahahahaha!
True, the X-box has less processing power, but let's take a look at the processors.
X-box processor
16K of L1 data cache
16K of L1 instruction cache
128 K of L2 cache
If I remember right, the emotion engines cache spces aren't that hot
And also, 128 bit processors need 4X the amount of space to hold a single instruction than it's 32 bit counterpart.
Sure, you can have longer instructions, but who needs them in the game world? 64 bit was fine.
Thus, you have smaller cache, hurting performance. And then you realize that not only is the PS2's emotion engine An AI, physics calcuation engine, it's also the PS2's sole T&L engine. And maybe they'll use it for pixel/vertex shader emulation. The EE is clearly a bit overloaded, after having to share memory bandwidth with the Grahpics rasterizer.
This guy's really nuts. PS2 beats Xbox my butt.
Then again.. zee selection of games for the PS2 are <monty burns impression> Excelent...
And that's what wins in the console world, right?
But jeez, does that guy need to learn. The PS2 has it nearly as bad as the X-box interms of SMA because the main memory bus is constantly loaded with texture information because of the PS2's microscopic texture cache. The PS2 would be so much better if
1.Embedded cache would be just that, a texture/frame buffer *cache* and not memory. This would allow main memory to be a L2 cache so to speak, and drastically increase the PS2's texturing capabilities
2.Cut out the massive paralellism and cut the PS2's pipelines in 1/4th and added an extra texture block to each pipe, this would give it specs similar to the NV2A in the fillrate department. Use the left overspace to jack up the EDRAM. (Embedded DRAM). Keep the bus width the same.
3.*Maybe* build a T&L chip onto the same package as the grahpics synthesizer and given it it's own EDRAM supply so it could use it as a vertex cache, and clocked it at Geforce like speeds so that the EE wouldn't be so darn loaded with all the T&L work
4.Beefed up the sound processor to include dobly digital and such things
5.This is the biggest thing. Let the grahpics synthesizer support texture compression! This would do *wonders* to the texture storage capacity of the graphics synthesizer (Multiply the theoretical texture storage from it's measly 3 megs to around 20!!!) and if they increased the EDRAM amount while they're at it they could have some really impressive texturing capabilities.
6.Kept a huge narrow fast DDR pool of memory (64 megs or more of the stuff, not too expensive with 32 meg DDRSDRAMs probably not terribly expensive at the time ) with atleast 400MB/S of bandwidth as a buffer/cache. You could have a 16 bit bus just like RDRAM and if it operated at 100MHZ you'd have exactly 400MB/S. This could do wonders for maximum polygon count on the PS2, as the Polygons being currently worked with could be in RDRAM and the ones later in the level not being activley drawn could be cached in the cache.
4 and 6 as well as 3 are iffy, but 1 and 5 would have done wonders for the console's image quality and 2 would have allowed a larger EDRAM pool.
Well, what do you guys think? Am I decently informed on this stuff?
Gomce, don't feel bad about what codehack2 said. The PS2 in the end is a more balanced sollution than the X-box in the end when all is said and done. But that poster that you showed us had big hints of the way I used to be. Uninformed, but thinking you know it all. Anyways, Gomce, the PS2 is the machine *I* would like to own, but from a pure game standpoint, the X-box kicks the PS2's teeth out in terms of graphics power. In terms of game play, it's extremley arguable, because the PS2 has more headroom since you can load balance and decrease the polygon power and increase power to the physics or something, but X-box ultimatley has more power. The PS2 however, has more support, so my Macedonian friend, I would suggest the PS2 over the X-box anyday. I just like the PS2 better. 
Actually, I don't like microsoft and while the X-box has good games the PS2 has insured support, which microsoft does not.
Actually, I don't like microsoft and while the X-box has good games the PS2 has insured support, which microsoft does not.OMG! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I just noticed something, Codehack2.
And Gomce, you should listen to this too.
Did you know that from what I know the PS2's CPU is 64 bit, but he said it was 128 bit?
The Grapihcs chip is a 128 bit chip, from what i've heard.
Then again, I might be misinformed. If anybody can correct me, then do. But I swear the PS2 has a 64 bit CPU. There's no need for anything higher because all it does is waste cache and the gains from 128 bit processing power is very little, since you don't get any gain from being able to address more memory.
Gomce, I hope you now see the guy for who he really is. And realize, that while he is right, and the PS2 kicks a$$, he's obviously pulling numbers out of thin air.
Anyways,Gomce, I used to be *just* like him, so I don't blame him. It's just that people like me know better and I think after you read my comments, if you'll let me tell you a bit on the subject, you should too.
Here's my basic impression, Gomce.
PS2:
Powerful as hell CPU
Badly designed graphics
Limited memory
No HDD makes loading a bit slow...
X-box
Power as hell grahpics
Weak CPU
Less limited but still cramped memory
HDD gives more leeway in loading.
In the end, Gomce, it just really matters who makes the best games. And I think at this point sony has the advantage.
I just noticed something, Codehack2.
And Gomce, you should listen to this too.
Did you know that from what I know the PS2's CPU is 64 bit, but he said it was 128 bit?
The Grapihcs chip is a 128 bit chip, from what i've heard.
Then again, I might be misinformed. If anybody can correct me, then do. But I swear the PS2 has a 64 bit CPU. There's no need for anything higher because all it does is waste cache and the gains from 128 bit processing power is very little, since you don't get any gain from being able to address more memory.
Gomce, I hope you now see the guy for who he really is. And realize, that while he is right, and the PS2 kicks a$$, he's obviously pulling numbers out of thin air.
Anyways,Gomce, I used to be *just* like him, so I don't blame him. It's just that people like me know better and I think after you read my comments, if you'll let me tell you a bit on the subject, you should too.
Here's my basic impression, Gomce.
PS2:
Powerful as hell CPU
Badly designed graphics
Limited memory
No HDD makes loading a bit slow...
X-box
Power as hell grahpics
Weak CPU
Less limited but still cramped memory
HDD gives more leeway in loading.
In the end, Gomce, it just really matters who makes the best games. And I think at this point sony has the advantage.
Man, talk about your alltime misinformed people... that link leads to an obvious fanboy without a clue. Try checking out an informed, and responsible comparison by reading Anand's own comparison right here at this site.
Don't flame me people I only thought that is an interesting read, anyway I am PC gamer but lately there isn't anything interesting in this field, so I wanted to expand my hardware horisonts to a console, and since MS doesnt want to sell it's Xbox into poor countries I am limited to PS2, I don't regret it though, still, I am siting for things that favorise PS2's potential
still, I am siting for things that favorise PS2's potentiali dont know much about the technical workings of hardware, but doesnt the number of bits only affect performance when you are talking about bus width? doesnt the number of bits on a cpu (probably a better way to word this, but oh well) only determine the number of addresses it can deal with?
Why does the hardware matter at all? If one machine has more cool and fun games its the best not which can do the more GFLOPs.
<< but the xbox has good games too! theres halo, and... well... thats it for now >>
umm... that's really subjective... I personally think the xbox has quite a few great games... but hey i'm biased.. anyway, just goes to show you that it all matters on a personal choice... you cant really say that "halo" is the only great xbox game.
"Did you know that from what I know the PS2's CPU is 64 bit, but he said it was 128 bit?"
The PS2 "Emotion Engine" CPU is 128bit. At least according to Sony it is. Not that it really matters one way or the other.
The rest of your blurb comparing memory size and usage of the 2 consoles was a complete waste of time. No offense, I'm not saying any of your numbers are wrong, but you could draw more relevant information comparing a monkey to a desk lamp than trying to draw conclusions from the tech specs of consoles. The 2 architectures are so different that any head to head comparison means nothing. In the end, the XBox is probably more powerful overall, but who cares, the game library is still severely lacking and that's what matters most. Given the choice between the most powerful console on earth with a junk library and a much weaker console with games I want to play, I would go with the latter.
The PS2 "Emotion Engine" CPU is 128bit. At least according to Sony it is. Not that it really matters one way or the other.
The rest of your blurb comparing memory size and usage of the 2 consoles was a complete waste of time. No offense, I'm not saying any of your numbers are wrong, but you could draw more relevant information comparing a monkey to a desk lamp than trying to draw conclusions from the tech specs of consoles. The 2 architectures are so different that any head to head comparison means nothing. In the end, the XBox is probably more powerful overall, but who cares, the game library is still severely lacking and that's what matters most. Given the choice between the most powerful console on earth with a junk library and a much weaker console with games I want to play, I would go with the latter.
Actually Pariah... I think he's right. Anad mentioned it was a 64 or even 32 bit (I forget) CPU that had 128 bit registers. Which hardly makes the CPU 128 bit.
Again, I refer you to Anand's technical and knowlegable breakdown for your education in these matters. But the conclusion was pretty straight forward... the Xbox kicks the PS2's booty.
Again, I refer you to Anand's technical and knowlegable breakdown for your education in these matters. But the conclusion was pretty straight forward... the Xbox kicks the PS2's booty.
Xbox is clearly the best in performance/graphics/sound etc so PS2 fanboys STFU and stop being jealous. Oh, yeah GF4 Ti beats XBOX as well so - PC RULEZ JOO!!!
BD231
Lifer
- Feb 26, 2001
- 10,568
- 138
- 106
Dont forget that the 2 consols use completely different engines as well, and like Anand said, the PS2's engine is very inefficient. The PS2 could never do what the XBox can, which is evident. And the XBox can't beat the "Fame" of the Playstation console. Just as the fanboy in the artical linked said, "Don't you realize the system was made thinking on how it could look better than the PS2". In terms of power the XBox is "better" if you want to put it that way, but to all you PS2 fan's, I remember a period when you said the PS2 sucked just because of a poor game line-up, now there are plenty and there are almost no negative statements on the PS2. I'm sure the same thing will happen for the XBox as well, just give it time. As far as that artical goes, I'm not even going to touch on that.
Now you see why sony spent almost 5 years creating the PS2
Sure I do
Look at the replys to that fanboys little artical:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When it comes to the Playstation2 it's better than the others.The way the DVD settings for the playstation2 is great to work with, the games are excellent and the expansion bay in the back of it, I know they're going to make a perfect part for the PS2 so it can blow the others away. I hope that they keep making great stuff so they can blow their competition away. Do you??
Yeah, the DVD settings.... and that perfect part too
XBOX is the best. You suck.
Did I mention I'm a looser.....
Xbox may have the hardware, but Playstation2 destroys Xbox in games. Totally!!
Yeah alright, try saying that a year ago.....
The XBox will have plenty of good games in the furture, it took over a year and some months for the playstation to get a good line-up, whats to make you think that the XBox wont do the same?
Now you see why sony spent almost 5 years creating the PS2
Sure I do
Look at the replys to that fanboys little artical:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When it comes to the Playstation2 it's better than the others.The way the DVD settings for the playstation2 is great to work with, the games are excellent and the expansion bay in the back of it, I know they're going to make a perfect part for the PS2 so it can blow the others away. I hope that they keep making great stuff so they can blow their competition away. Do you??
Yeah, the DVD settings.... and that perfect part too
XBOX is the best. You suck.
Did I mention I'm a looser.....
Xbox may have the hardware, but Playstation2 destroys Xbox in games. Totally!!
Yeah alright, try saying that a year ago.....
The XBox will have plenty of good games in the furture, it took over a year and some months for the playstation to get a good line-up, whats to make you think that the XBox wont do the same?
"Actually Pariah... I think he's right. Anad mentioned it was a 64 or even 32 bit (I forget) CPU that had 128 bit registers. Which hardly makes the CPU 128 bit."
From Anand's article:
"The Emotion Engine (EE) is a 128-bit MIPS processor that operates at 300MHz. The idea of the EE being a 128-bit processor came about because it features 128-bit general purpose and SIMD registers as well as dual 64-bit integer units."
Regurgitating white papers doesn't make you an expert on a subject.
The XBox should be more powerful, it was released a year after the PS2. The Gamecube is more powerful as well, and at this point has more enjoyable games than the XBox as well.
From Anand's article:
"The Emotion Engine (EE) is a 128-bit MIPS processor that operates at 300MHz. The idea of the EE being a 128-bit processor came about because it features 128-bit general purpose and SIMD registers as well as dual 64-bit integer units."
Regurgitating white papers doesn't make you an expert on a subject.
The XBox should be more powerful, it was released a year after the PS2. The Gamecube is more powerful as well, and at this point has more enjoyable games than the XBox as well.
"Yeah, the DVD settings.... and that perfect part too"
I don't know what they mean by settings, but DVD performance on the PS2 out right stinks. You're better off buying a lowend $100 Apex player than using a PS2 for movie watching.
"The XBox will have plenty of good games in the furture, it took over a year and some months for the playstation to get a good line-up, whats to make you think that the XBox wont do the same?"
The problem isn't so much that there are no good games now, the problem is that there is nothing good announced either. The original PS entrenched Sony in the market and gave them A1 support from developers. With PS2 we knew what good games were coming, it was a question of when, not if. With the XBox, it isn't when, it's if. Surf to Gamespot and look at the top 10 games for each console which includes released and upcoming. The PS2 has all the big name games. XBox also has no games in the top 10 overall, which contains 2 PS2 games, 2 GC games and the rest are all PC.
I don't know what they mean by settings, but DVD performance on the PS2 out right stinks. You're better off buying a lowend $100 Apex player than using a PS2 for movie watching.
"The XBox will have plenty of good games in the furture, it took over a year and some months for the playstation to get a good line-up, whats to make you think that the XBox wont do the same?"
The problem isn't so much that there are no good games now, the problem is that there is nothing good announced either. The original PS entrenched Sony in the market and gave them A1 support from developers. With PS2 we knew what good games were coming, it was a question of when, not if. With the XBox, it isn't when, it's if. Surf to Gamespot and look at the top 10 games for each console which includes released and upcoming. The PS2 has all the big name games. XBox also has no games in the top 10 overall, which contains 2 PS2 games, 2 GC games and the rest are all PC.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
<< I don't know what they mean by settings, but DVD performance on the PS2 out right stinks. You're better off buying a lowend $100 Apex player than using a PS2 for movie watching. >>
I've watched plenty of movies on ps2s... seems fine to me.
the only system i have is a super nintendo. i play it every day. why? because in my opinion it has about 8 of the 10 best video games ever made. and to me, gameplay is 90% of the fun and graphics are 10%. sure i like to look at pretty pictures like everyone else, but they dont make or break the game. i dont really care how many gflops or vertex shaders or whatever it has as long as the games are sweet...
Yeah, just like I said... a couple of 64 bit integer units with 128 bit registers.
No good game announced? Are you a real gamer? My goodness, that's an absurd statement, and it makes me wonder if you're some kind of fanboy. Anyways, coming soon on Xbox (not all exclusive, but who cares... they are coming). Titles in bold are possible standout titles.
Sega GT 2002
Outlaw Golf
Morrowind
World Series 2k2
Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath Of Cortex
Buffy The Vampire Slayer
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon
Pro Race Driver
F1 2002
Spiderman
Grand Prix 4
Colin McRae Rally 3
Burnout
Splashdown
Hunter: The Reckoning
Unreal Championship
House of the Dead 3
Gauntlet Dark Legacy
Mike Tyson Heavyweight Boxing
Commandos 2: Men of Courage
Coming later...
Star Wars: KOTOR
Mech Assault
Tekki
Panzer Dragoon
Midtown Madness 3
Shenmue 2
Enclave
Duality
Soul Calibur 2
eRacer
Kakuto Chojin
Galleon
Project Ego
Yager
Outlaw Volleyball
Ridge Racer 6
Road to the World Cup
Street Hoops
TransWorld Snowboarding
Battlefield 1942
Baldurs Gate: Dark Alliance
Chase
Lord of the Rings
Lord of the Rings: FOTH (different)
Turok: Evolution
Crazy Taxi 3
The Thing
TransWorld Skateboarding
Jurassic Park X
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault
Crimson Skies
Dino Crisis 3
Doom III (questionable, not confirmed)
College Basketball 2K2
Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance
NBA Hoopz 2003
Vexx
Another Oddworld (title yet to be announced, but it's a new game)
Moto GP
Spyro The Dragon
Phantasy Star Online v2
Xbox online network
Ready 2 Rumble (new)
All of the SEGA Sports game ONLINE
All of the Microsoft Sports games ONLINE
All of these announced and confirmed (other than Doom III) but this is not of course everything, just some I could think of. Of course after E3 we will have a clearer picture of what else is to come, and the indication is that MS has saved it's big bullets for E3 this year. Also, sources close to MS have stated they have 18 new inhouse original games (first party) that will be announced at E3.
No good game announced? Are you a real gamer? My goodness, that's an absurd statement, and it makes me wonder if you're some kind of fanboy. Anyways, coming soon on Xbox (not all exclusive, but who cares... they are coming). Titles in bold are possible standout titles.
Sega GT 2002
Outlaw Golf
Morrowind
World Series 2k2
Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath Of Cortex
Buffy The Vampire Slayer
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon
Pro Race Driver
F1 2002
Spiderman
Grand Prix 4
Colin McRae Rally 3
Burnout
Splashdown
Hunter: The Reckoning
Unreal Championship
House of the Dead 3
Gauntlet Dark Legacy
Mike Tyson Heavyweight Boxing
Commandos 2: Men of Courage
Coming later...
Star Wars: KOTOR
Mech Assault
Tekki
Panzer Dragoon
Midtown Madness 3
Shenmue 2
Enclave
Duality
Soul Calibur 2
eRacer
Kakuto Chojin
Galleon
Project Ego
Yager
Outlaw Volleyball
Ridge Racer 6
Road to the World Cup
Street Hoops
TransWorld Snowboarding
Battlefield 1942
Baldurs Gate: Dark Alliance
Chase
Lord of the Rings
Lord of the Rings: FOTH (different)
Turok: Evolution
Crazy Taxi 3
The Thing
TransWorld Skateboarding
Jurassic Park X
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault
Crimson Skies
Dino Crisis 3
Doom III (questionable, not confirmed)
College Basketball 2K2
Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance
NBA Hoopz 2003
Vexx
Another Oddworld (title yet to be announced, but it's a new game)
Moto GP
Spyro The Dragon
Phantasy Star Online v2
Xbox online network
Ready 2 Rumble (new)
All of the SEGA Sports game ONLINE
All of the Microsoft Sports games ONLINE
All of these announced and confirmed (other than Doom III) but this is not of course everything, just some I could think of. Of course after E3 we will have a clearer picture of what else is to come, and the indication is that MS has saved it's big bullets for E3 this year. Also, sources close to MS have stated they have 18 new inhouse original games (first party) that will be announced at E3.
Hmm, then my information on the EE is bad. Sorry. I said I might be wrong, anyways.
My personal opinion is that the PS2 had a terribly designed graphics subsystem.
The tiny EDRAM cache and the fact that it doesn't even really act like a cache in the first place (textures must be in the cache to be used) makes the PS2 very texture limited. If they would have allowed texturing to occur straight from the main memory bus I would be more forgiving.
Another inexcusable oversight was the lack of texture compression, which would have saved the PS2 from the current bland textures seen today even if they hadn't have knocked up the EDRAM size.
That and it's memory is a bit cramped.
If they were to make a memory expansion through the firewire port though, that would be intresting. *Grin*
I said I might be wrong, anyways.My personal opinion is that the PS2 had a terribly designed graphics subsystem.
The tiny EDRAM cache and the fact that it doesn't even really act like a cache in the first place (textures must be in the cache to be used) makes the PS2 very texture limited. If they would have allowed texturing to occur straight from the main memory bus I would be more forgiving.
Another inexcusable oversight was the lack of texture compression, which would have saved the PS2 from the current bland textures seen today even if they hadn't have knocked up the EDRAM size.
That and it's memory is a bit cramped.
If they were to make a memory expansion through the firewire port though, that would be intresting. *Grin*
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter