PS2 graphics chip vs. the GeForce3 Ti

[BaD_BURN]

I don't know much about technical stuff about the two. Can anybody post the specs? Anyways, which is superior?

[Demigod]

I dunno much about the PS2's GPU, but here are the specs I found:

PS2 Graphics Synthesizer

Core Clock: 150 Mhz
Embedded Memory: 4 MB
Memory Speed: 150 Mhz
Memory Bandwidth: 48 gigabytes/s
Bus Bandwidth: 2,560 Bits
Die: 0.25 µon
Pixel Fill Rate: 150x16 (2.4 gigapixel/s w/ Alphablend, 1.2 gigapixel/s w/ Alpha and Texture)

Nvidia GeForce 3 Ti 500

Core Clock: 240 Mhz
Embedded Memory: 64 MB
Memory Speed: 500 Mhz DDR
Memory Bandwidth: 8.0 gigabytes/s
Bus Bandwidth: 256 Bits
Die: 0.18 µon
Pixel Fill Rate: 240x4 (960 megapixel/s)
Texel Fill Rate: 3.84 gigatexels (AA sampled)

Each GPU also comes with their own set of features and abilities. The GeForce 3 has, by far the superior feature set and fill rate capabilities but the PS2 has unprecedented memory bandwidth. Each card is suited for their own particular system but the PS2's GPU is a lot more optimized.

Still, there is no actual, genuine way to compare the two GPUs and say which one is superior. I, personally believe the GeForce 3 has the edge but the PS2's graphics are pretty awesome as well.

[Fury]

it seems that gf3ti is better...

[fivefeet8]

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561

Check there for an indepth comparison between the Xbox and Ps2.. Very technical.. The xbox is between a geforce 3 ti200 and a geforce3 ti 500...

[BaD_BURN]

Originally posted by Fury
it seems that gf3ti is better...

So...a GF3 would be good enough if a PS2 emu comes out. Right?

[Ryos]

Originally posted by BaD_BURN
So...a GF3 would be good enough if a PS2 emu comes out. Right?

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.

[BaD_BURN]

Hi Ryos!

[cairey]

There is no doubt which is better, and I'd take a Kyro (DC chip) over the PS2 GPU anyday.

[Hairybudda]

Originally posted by cairey
There is no doubt which is better, and I'd take a Kyro (DC chip) over the PS2 GPU anyday.

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.

*wheeze* im so stoned, i shouldn't be typing right now

[cairey]

The Kyro is better than the PS2 GPU. If the Dreamcast has high speed bandwidth and more memory it would kill it, this would be better for larger textures, larger FB, better fill rate. PowerVR are no rookies, they have some of the nicest visuals, and also the fact that it has AA unlike the PS2, and BF actually works at no cost. It's the hardware surrounding the Kyro that let the console down. The processor was too weak and had very little memory.

[Hairybudda]

Originally posted by cairey
The Kyro is better than the PS2 GPU.

No its not. You may be a DC hardcore elitist, but thats just a plain lie.

[cairey]

Urm.. no. That isn't a lie. Now, let me see, what would happen if Sony entered the PC graphics hardware market with their GPU currently in the Playstation2. They would be a piss take. Damn, to hard to program for, PowerVR API is superior, fact! No AA - now, that is very uncommon now in modern hardware. Kyro IQ, AA sampling is one of the best in a grx card, some say it's even comparable to a Voodoo5, I wouldn't disagree with them. Man, the list goes on....

As for being a DC hardcore elitist, no I'm not. I don't own a DC at all. I happen to like Kyro II's and Voodoo 5's though.

[Whoever]

GF3/Xbox GPU is superior to the Playstation 2's GPU, no argument here.

Playstations 2's GPU is superior to Dreamcast's GPU, no argument here either.

[FireGL]

gf3 has a lot more feature than the ps2 gpu

[Fury]

Originally posted by BaD_BURN


So...a GF3 would be good enough if a PS2 emu comes out. Right?

i guess so.... i hope so...

[cairey]

"Playstations 2's GPU is superior to Dreamcast's GPU, no argument here either."

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.

[CD]

Originally posted by Hairybudda

Id rather have the Emotion Engine over the kyro anyday.

The Emotion Engine is the PS2's CPU, the 'Graphics Synthensizer' is it's GPU..


PowerVR's tile-based rendering method is quite nifty, and probably the future of 3D rendering. However, a Kyro II is nothing compared to the Graphics Synthesizer. The Graphics Synthesizer may have little embedded vram, but it has 48 Gigabytes/sec of memory bandwidth at it's disposal, which aids it very much so. You won't see bandwidth like that on any modern consumer graphics card.

[Whoever]

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.

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.

[cairey]

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.

[Whoever]

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.

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.

Voodoo 5 is actually an attempt at a brute force design (with the dual processors in the inefficient SLI mode). Yet it also has good image quality and most people will agree that Glide is an amazing API.(thats why UT, one of the few recent games that supports glide, runs so well on it.)