When 1 texture, 1 light, and 1 color vertex is added, that fill rate is cut in half. This gives the raw fill rate of 2.4 billion pixels per second stated in Sony's stat sheet.
Its frequency is 233 mhz though which equates to a fill rate of 932 million pixels per second.Īs for the ps2's fill rate, the GS has 16 rendering pipelines running at about 150 mhz. The Xbox's NV2A has 4 rendering pipelines as well. This equates to that 648 million pixel per second fill rate.
The NGC's flipper has 4 rendering pipelines running at 162 mhz. I simply posted the above fill rate figures to prove to you that the ps2's GS is more powerful than you might think.Īs for how I got the above figures, its simple math.
I fully realize that the ps2 isnt "the best system" nor "the most powerful system."īut it is alot more powerful than you give it credit for.Īs for GPU speed, yes NV2A is faster than the ps2's GS (in any conditions save the rendering of raw polys and the above conditions).
PS2 has tbe best games out there right now, but even after a year of coding I haven't seen it do anything approaching Halo in terms of graphics, a first generation game.ĭont get me wrong. Nintendo also releases information based on real world in game testing, This made their numbers appear smaller, but also gave them a lot more credibility with me instead of using laboratory synthetic benchmarks. This is how things are going to be done in game, not in some benchmarking test. As for in game fill rate, who uses one texture, one light, and one color vertex? IIRC, the gamecube and Xbox worked a LOT better than the PS2 when you added multiple light sources and textures to each model, because of the vastly more efficient GPU and RAM architecture. I'm in no way saying that the PS2 is a bad system, but these things are going to be hard to impossible to pull of with the system resources as they are. Also, they report what developers tell them, and developers aren't always the most upfront people about these things. And yes, I don't believe a lot of what EGM or OPM tell me, since a lot of their screenshots are photoshopped or otherwise misleading. Where did you get the above numbers? Again, name your sources. I think its just becoming increasingly obvious that you're not going to listen to any argument that might indicate in some small way that the PS2 is not the greatest system EBAR!
Oh and Stasis, did you know that the ps2 has the fastest in-game fill rate of any of the nextgen systems?ġ.2 billion pixels per second (under the conditions of 1 color vertex, 1 light, and 1 texture).Ĭompare this to the NGC's peak 648 million pixel per second fill rate and the Xbox's 932 million pixel per second fill rate.ĭid you know that you could have said all these things in one post instead of spamming the boards and looking like you're twelve? To run a game in that high a resolution you need a fast and efficient GPU and a buttload of really fast RAM. No matter how much you love the PS2, and most of us do, we also realize that the PS2 is very oddly designed in a lot of ways, and their use of RAM is one of them. If you can back up your feeling that the PS2 can do this without any strain with facts or insights into the hardware I'm more than willing to listen, but just saying that you read it in a pro-PS2 magazine isn't going to cut it. There is no "anti-PS2" attitude, its just people who know the hardware enough to know that this would be quite a feat, and just because an official Playstation magazine says it can be done doesn't make it fact. With the way that the PS2 is set up this seems like an almost impossible feat to pull off. I guess you guys really have underestimated the power of the ps2."Įxit, you're being awful fanboyish on this one. "I dont see why you guys are so in disbelief about 1080i on the ps2.