Well I've only got an overclocked TNT2 Ultra and I've played games on it that look better than any PS2 game I've seen including the Metal Gear demo. Anyone played Deus Ex for PC? try it on a Geforce 2 and you'll see what I mean. For an example: In a PS2 game a wall gets more pixelated the closer you are to it. In Deus Ex when you move closer to a wall it not only stays clear, but you can actually see more and more texture in the pattern when you move closer. You know you've got a good video card when you actually want to stop and stare at the wall for a while.Originally posted by Dan
I have been able to convince my Playstaton-loving-pc-smashing-videoit friend that games do look better with a pc than the PS2. But i guess that is mostly opinion.
Whoa there! Someone has been putting wacky-backy in your pipe, me thinksOriginally posted by Dan
350 MHz RAMDAC
7.36GB per second memory
5 Gpixels per second (3.2 Gpixels FSAA)
Theory is a wonderful place: everything works in TheoryNow for the polygons persecond, you cant quite make a number. Because the GPU is programable, the number of polygons depends on how effecient the person programed the GPU. It can theoretically (according to nVidia) push 125 million.
I always check out technology/hardware when it comes out. My background is electronics, so highspeed chip technology always gets my interestOriginally posted by Adair
Wow Lewpy, you really know alot about that stuff. Thanks for all the info. So If a PS2 can do all that then why aren't the games alot more impressive? Is the unoptimised texture fetching process or are they just not using the full capability of their hardware on purpose?
No, the memory arguement is far from moot Their memory "crossbar" is a good thing, of course. But is it radically different from what Matrox implemented with their "dual independant buses", which split the bus in to two smaller buses, each independant? nVidia have extended it to 4 smaller buses. Logical progression to meOriginally posted by Dan
Also, you talk about memory problems, the internal memory gives it a nudge of speed by bypassing the GPU all together...
"Lightspeed Memory Architecture implements four independent memory controllers that not only communicate with the graphics processor but with themselves as well. In theory, this "crossbar" memory architecture can be up to four times faster than previous designs by being able to move smaller amounts of data in 64-bit blocks rather than tying up the entire 256-bit capacity of the memory bus when it's not needed. " -Nvidia
This is only effective with the cards onboard memory. So as long as it is swapping between its onw 64/128/256mb of memory, the memory argument is moot.
I don't think the PS2 design is a big waste, it just needs to be deisgned/programmed for. That will take a few generations of games. The XBox is more like a PC in architecture, so companies that are inherently PC based can make the transistion to console developers far more easily. Good thing, Bad thing? I don't know. Time will tell.Originally posted by tekwiz99
...never would thought Lewpy will tug-in for lecture, so... would PS2's design turns out to be a big waste? and speaking of XBox, how it gonna perform against PS2? (focus on their graphics engine)