If you mean like a TNT is good enough for a PSX emulator, possibly. It's silly to speculate on what emulators will need when they aren't even out yet. Heck, the current Saturn emulators require insanely fast computers to run the games at decent speeds.Originally posted by BaD_BURN
So...a GF3 would be good enough if a PS2 emu comes out. Right?
Id rather have the Emotion Engine over the kyro anyday. I reckon the GF3 really has the edge, and it has the infinity engine or whatever that claims to be able to get rid of the memory bandwidth problems anyway. The GF3 can do vertex and pixel shaders and has a programmamle pipeline. As far as i know, the PS2 doesnt, making the GF3 a hella lot more appealing to me.Originally posted by cairey
There is no doubt which is better, and I'd take a Kyro (DC chip) over the PS2 GPU anyday.
The Emotion Engine is the PS2's CPU, the 'Graphics Synthensizer' is it's GPU..Originally posted by Hairybudda
Id rather have the Emotion Engine over the kyro anyday.
Your right there are too many facts to back it up. In real world games (not theoretical fill rates, of course the PS2's theoretical numbers are superior to DC's theoretical numbers) PS2's GPU can spit out many more texels and pixels in less time than Dreamcasts GPU. What does this mean? More detailed models and textures at higher resolutions and framerates. It has incredible memory bandwidth of 48 Gb/s(2560 bit pipeline anyone?) and 16 pixel pipelines. I will concede that programming for this massively parallel design is difficult to say the least. Yet when utilized to its full capabilities it cannot be touched by the Dreamcast design which has the interesting tile rendering but lacks raw horsepower.Too many facts to back that up. Would you mind telling me exactly what about the the PS2's GPU is better than the DC's? Especially in terms of visuals. After all, STM/PowerVR is one of the biggest companies who are now developing grx chips.
Sure, I agree, the Kyro/DC has an intelligent, alternative method of throwing images on the screen, and has good image quality. (I think thats what you mean by IQ) It just doesn't have the horsepower.Well, I wasn't really talking about fill rates, it's no secret that the PS2 can pull off some good visuals when under high complexity scenes and maintain good frame rates. My point was the Kyro's IQ was better to that of the PS2's. A similar arguement between the GeForce DDR chips and the Voodoo5. Ok, GeForce chip has high bandwidth and fill rates, but the Voodoo5 IQ in my opinion is better. UT is a good example for me.