PlayStation 3 polygon, fillrate performance hints

[R420]

First, just to refresh your memories on Playstation2 performance

PS2 polygon rates:

max 66 million triangles transformed (Emotion Engine)
max 75 million triangle drawing rate (Graphics Synthesizer)
max 25 million triangles with texture, gouraud shading, alpha blending

most PS2 games use 3 to 10 million polygons/sec and a few games reach
15-20 million polygons/sec. so most PS2 games are pushing less than
10 million.

PS2 fillrate:
max 2400 million or 2.4 billion pixels/sec, no texture
max 1200 million or 1.2 billion textured pixels/sec

adding a second texture by doing another rendering pass cuts PS2's
fillrate to 600 million pixels/sec.


k, now the Playstation 3 stuff. this is talking about a patent Sony
has for a rasterizer / graphics processor.

quote:
_______________________________________________________________________________
For example, a rendering process capacity of the order of several
hundreds [Mpolygon/sec] and several tens [Gpixel/sec] is frequently
required.
_______________________________________________________________________________

source: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12899

that translates into *several hundred million polygons/sec* and
several *tens* of billions of pixels/sec so at least 20 billion
pixels/sec

keep in mind that Playstation 3's GPU is most likely based on Cell
technology, at least in part. Cell is a joint effort by Sony, IBM and
Toshiba. Cell is not a specific processor, any more than PowerPC is a
specific processor. the PS3 will use specific Cell-based processors,
currently known as the Broadband Engine (CPU) and Visualizer (GPU).
the Visualizer GPU is what this post is about. The quoted text above
is probably specifically about the Pixel Engines, which are the
rasterizing part of Visualizer, the PS3's GPU.

[deKay]

Soni tempori elseu romani yeof helsforo nisson ol sefini ill des 2 Jun 2004
12:50:38 -0700, sefini jorgo geanyet des mani yeof do
uk.games.video.playstation, yawatina tan reek esk radeonr420@yahoo.com (R420)
fornis do marikano es bono tan el:
First, just to refresh your memories on Playstation2 performance

STOP CROSSPOSTING THIS SHIT!

(fus to alt.games.video.sony-playstation2)

deKay
--
+ Lofi Gaming - www.lofi-gaming.org.uk AC: deKay in Sponge
|- ugvm Magazine - www.ugvm.org.uk Gamertag: deKay 01
|- My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that
|- "I'M IN THE GROOVY GANG"

[Jootec from Mars]

Every generation Sony hype the performance of the Playstation. And so far it
has never lived up to the hype, although it does sell by the shedload.

Playstation graphics looked bad when compared to a N64.
Playstation 2 graphics look bad when compared to a Gamecube and especially a
Xbox.

And so I will not be believing anything Sony say about the PS3 until I see
one running and have compared it to the competition.

James

[Android]

"Jootec from Mars" <antispam@snuff.com> wrote in message
news:c9le6p112u6@enews2.newsguy.com... Every generation Sony hype the performance of the Playstation. And so far
it has never lived up to the hype, although it does sell by the shedload. Playstation graphics looked bad when compared to a N64.

Not necessarily. Some of the better PS One games (MGS and Gran Turismo, for
example) look better than most N64 games. N64 games tended to have a lot of
"fog" to hide pop-up, as well as bland, repeated textures.
Playstation 2 graphics look bad when compared to a Gamecube and especially
a Xbox.

Overall, yes the PS2's graphics are not as sharp or colorful as the Xbox and
GameCube, but that is not the case with every game. There are a few GC and
Xbox titles that don't look very impressive and not as nice as some of the
best PS2 titles.
And so I will not be believing anything Sony say about the PS3 until I see one running and have compared it to the competition. James

This reminds me of an ancient commercial in the console wars between the
Atari 2600 and Intellivision. Everyone knew that the Intellivision had
better graphics, and to illustrate that point, Mattel ran an ad comparing
2600 and Inty sports games side by side. Atari responded with an add
comparing their big name 2600 titles (Asteroids, Missile Command, Warlords,
etc.) side by side with blank Inty screens--in other words, Atari offered
games that the Inty couldn't provide. Back then, just as now,
technologically inferior systems could prevail if they provided more of the
games that people wanted.

Along those lines, I don't really care if the PS3 graphics look slightly
fuzzier, less colorful, etc. when compared to the next Nintendo system and
Xbox2. As long as PS3 has more of the games people want to play, it will be
a big seller and I will be happy to purchase one. That doesn't mean I won't
buy all the other systems too, just that it won't bother me if the PS3
doesn't live up to whatever "hype" starts to develop in the next year or
two.

[Tommy Stenberg]

"Android" <androvich@NOcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:9btvc.8975$sI.4331@attbi_s52... "Jootec from Mars" <antispam@snuff.com> wrote in message news:c9le6p112u6@enews2.newsguy.com... Every generation Sony hype the performance of the Playstation. And so
far it has never lived up to the hype, although it does sell by the shedload. Playstation graphics looked bad when compared to a N64. Not necessarily. Some of the better PS One games (MGS and Gran Turismo,
for example) look better than most N64 games. N64 games tended to have a lot
of "fog" to hide pop-up, as well as bland, repeated textures. Playstation 2 graphics look bad when compared to a Gamecube and
especially a Xbox. Overall, yes the PS2's graphics are not as sharp or colorful as the Xbox
and GameCube, but that is not the case with every game. There are a few GC and Xbox titles that don't look very impressive and not as nice as some of the best PS2 titles. And so I will not be believing anything Sony say about the PS3 until I
see one running and have compared it to the competition. James This reminds me of an ancient commercial in the console wars between the Atari 2600 and Intellivision. Everyone knew that the Intellivision had better graphics, and to illustrate that point, Mattel ran an ad comparing 2600 and Inty sports games side by side. Atari responded with an add comparing their big name 2600 titles (Asteroids, Missile Command,
Warlords, etc.) side by side with blank Inty screens--in other words, Atari offered games that the Inty couldn't provide. Back then, just as now, technologically inferior systems could prevail if they provided more of
the games that people wanted. Along those lines, I don't really care if the PS3 graphics look slightly fuzzier, less colorful, etc. when compared to the next Nintendo system and Xbox2. As long as PS3 has more of the games people want to play, it will
be a big seller and I will be happy to purchase one. That doesn't mean I
won't buy all the other systems too, just that it won't bother me if the PS3 doesn't live up to whatever "hype" starts to develop in the next year or two.

Also, one should consider that the PS2 came long before the Xbox og Gamecube
and thus it's only natural that it was slightly less powerful. The same goes
for PSone, as the N64 came long after the PSone/PS1 and therefore it had
better graphics and such in terms of capability. The biggest problem though,
was that it couldn't really take too much advantage of it, since the
cartridges didn't nearly hold as much data as the cd's did.

Tommy


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 01.06.2004

[Tim Miller]

R420 wrote: First, just to refresh your memories on Playstation2 performance
Organization: http://groups.google.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.12.6.16
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1086205839 6137 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2004 19:50:39
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com

The constant breaking of uk.games.video.* charters is getting very tiring.

Tim (tm)
--
tim at economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.economic-truth.co.uk - the students' economics resource
http://www.ugvm.org.uk - the uk.games.video.misc magazine
Xbox Live gamertag: Xexyz

[N]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 23:14:13 GMT, "Android"
<androvich@NOcomcastSPAM.net> wrote:
Along those lines, I don't really care if the PS3 graphics look slightlyfuzzier, less colorful, etc. when compared to the next Nintendo system andXbox2. As long as PS3 has more of the games people want to play, it will bea big seller and I will be happy to purchase one. That doesn't mean I won'tbuy all the other systems too, just that it won't bother me if the PS3doesn't live up to whatever "hype" starts to develop in the next year ortwo.

You have a good point (games matter, not the graphics so much), but
doesn't that negate the need for PS3, or any next gen consoles for
that matter? Why do we need more powerful consoles than the current
ones? Didn't the Japanese developers just say a few years ago that PS2
has so much power that they have hard time thinking how to use all
that power? Were they lying or what happened?

Do we need the new consoles to get us better gameplay, or merely
better graphics that can still compete with the graphics of future PC
games?

What is the main weakness with e.g. PS2 hardware nowadays? Maybe more
memory wouldn't hurt? Why then not just release an updated PS2 with
double or triple the memory, or something?

And then they say only PCs are in the hardware upgrade frenzy. It
seems the three console companies are in a hurry to release new
hardware just to compete with each others, not necessarily because we
would need the new hardware for new games. After all, I bet PS3
flagship games will be a new Tekken and new Ridge Racer (or some other
similar arcade driving game), where the only difference will be
somewhat better graphics than the earlier equivalents on PS2. Gameplay
is probably left intact.

[Andrew Ryan Chang]

N <n@invalid.invalid.com> wrote:that matter? Why do we need more powerful consoles than the currentones? Didn't the Japanese developers just say a few years ago that PS2has so much power that they have hard time thinking how to use allthat power? Were they lying or what happened?

I think they were giddy on hype or something. The very best PS2
games look fine, but it's hardly like "this is the best realtime graphics
will ever get".


--
'When I read that the State Department doesn't want to interfere with a killing-
and-torture-and-raping spree sponsored by Indonesia's official fucking military
because doing so would inconvenience Exxon Mobil, I knew this War on Terrorism
was "for real"!' - Get Your War On - cf http://www.interactorg.com/indonesia.htm