»

[Lord_Of_NoTiNg]

This is quoted from another forum I like to visit.
https://www.pcvsconsole.com/forum/vie...tid=448&page=1


XBox vs. PS2

The CPU

Of course, the Central Processing Unit, the heart of every computer or console. Most of the calculations take place here. The XBox has a Intel processor which runs at a clock-speed of 733MHz. That's a lot higher than the 300MHz at which the PS2 CPU is running. But does that make the CPU better? Nope.

Here's why the PS2 CPU (Emotion Engine) is a lot more powerful:
-Data bus, cache memory as well as all registers are 128 bits on the PS2 CPU while the XBox CPU is 32 bits.
-It has a maximum performance of 6.2GFLOPS while the XBox CPU can only do a bit over 3 GFLOPS.
-It incorporates two 64-bit integer units (IU) with a 128-bit SIMD multi-media command unit, two independent floating-point vector calculation units (VU0, VU1), an MPEG 2 decoder circuit (Image Processing Unit/IPU) and high performance DMA controllers. Yes, this is all ON THE EMOTION ENGINE ITSELF.

Okay now what does this mean? It means that the PS2 can handle heavier physics and 3D engines (and can do more accurate realistic visual effects like splashing water and explosions). It also means that the PS2 can handle a lot more sophisticated Artificial Intelligence programming so that you have intelligent human-like opponents. And with a floating-point calculation performance of 6.2GFLOPS/second, the overall calculation performance of this new CPU matches that of a super computer. This is a completely new CPU architecture especially designed for sophisticated graphics and physics while the architecture of the XBox CPU is pretty old and simple and looks a lot like the architecture of the 486 CPU from back in the early '90s. The architecture of the Emotion Engine really is very sophisticated so I'm not going to explain it in detail here. But simply put the main advantage of the PS2 CPU is that it is subdivided into lots of other tiny powerful processors, all of them designed to do a special task and almost all of them can work independently from each other.
And another thing... the processor inside the box does not say "Pentium III" anywhere. It simply reads "Intel". The XBox's processor is NOT an Intel Pentium III, as Microsoft would have you believe, but in fact a Celeron II. It is a 700mhz Celeron, complete with 128kb of L2 cache (P3 coppermines actually have 256kb L2 cache), but overclocked to a 133mhz FSB, resulting in PIII/Celeron hybrid. What makes it a Celeron II is the fact that it is still using a Coppermine Core, with 8 way set associative L2 cache rather than your typical Celeron 4 way set Level 2 cache. What it ultimately comes down to is that this Coppermine core, which allows Microsoft to market the XBox as a PIII Coppermine, is about a 10% speed increase over the Celeron equivalent of this processor. Is the XBox CPU a Celeron? Not really. Is it a Pentium III CPU in the sense that everyone thinks of a PIII Coppermine? Nope. It's somewhere in between.

The Graphics Chip and VRAM

This is where the images are rendered. The XBox uses an Nvidia Graphics Processing Unit running at 250MHz and the PS2 uses the Graphics Synthesizer running at 150MHz. Again, judging by these specs the XBox looks better. The XBox GPU has a few advantages (or maybe not) over the PS2 GS, for example:

-The XBox GPU can do 125 million polygons while the PS2 GS can only do 75million polygons
-The XBox GPU has a max. Resolution of 1920x1080 and the PS2 GS can do 1280x1024 The rest of the graphics chip will be comparable to NV-20 chip, there are a lot of neat effects the XBox GPU can do with its hardware, but all those effects can be done by the Emotion Engine in software too (while the XBox' CPU is not powerful enough to do complex visual effects in software).

But the catch is that these advantages (talking about higher resolutions here) don't make a lot of difference on a TV screen, even on an HDTV screen the difference would be barely noticeable (when the console's hardware is used properly). So, is the XBox Graphics Processing Unit better than the PS2 GS? It doesn't look like it, the architecture of the PS2 GS looks far more advanced. For example, PS2 has a parallel rendering engine that contains a 2,560-bit wide data bus that is 20 times the size of leading PC-based graphics accelerators. The Graphics Synthesizer architecture can execute recursive multi-pass rendering processing and filter operations at a very fast speed without the assistance of the main CPU or main bus access. In the past, this level of real-time performance was only achieved when using very expensive, high performance, dedicated graphics workstations. There is a 48-Gigabyte/sec memory access bandwidth achieved via the integration of the pixel logic and the video memory on a single high performance chip. The quality of the resulting screen image is comparable to high quality pre-rendered 3D graphics. (that is once the game developers have learned how to use it properly) There has also been a misunderstanding about the VideoRAM on the PS2. The VRAM is included in the 32MB of main RAM on the CPU (the developer chooses how much of it he wants to dedicate to VRAM). Everyone thought the 4MB of memory on the GS was the VRAM while that is just a buffer in which all the rendering is done so no external bandwidth is needed (only for texture streaming). Another rumor that's been spread by several gaming sites is that the XBox is capable of texture compression and full scene anti-aliasing while the PS2 isn't. This is simply not true. The PS2 can compress/ decompress textures and do full scene anti-aliasing without causing as much slow-down as on the XBox. And although the XBox GPU can do a lot of effects that are not 'built-in' in the PS2 GS, the PS2 can do all these effects and more in software mode (but at least at the same quality) through the Emotion Engine.

[Lord_Of_NoTiNg]

Now let's take a look at how Microsoft got the idea that their graphics chip can do 125 million polygons...
The PS2's Graphics Synthesizer has the highest pixel fill rate of the next generation of consoles. Most remeber the 4.0 GPixels on Microsoft's spec comparence sheet. Well, Microsoft was nice to include a "(anti-aliased)" next to it. What does "4.0 GPixels (anti-aliased)", mean? It's misleading. The Xbox has hardwired 4x FSAA, when this is turned on the actual total of 1.0 GPixels is re-rendered 4 times to remove aliasing. Another possible reason for Microsoft to say Xbox's fill-rate is 4 GPixels per second. Is that the 1 GPixels is with 2 texture layers, if it is NOT used Xbox would not gain any performance and if it is used Xbox wouldn't lose any performance. It remains 1.0 GPixels w/ 2 textures, so what MS possibly did was it doubled the fill rate twice. Trying to compare it to PS2's fill rate w/ no texture. What MS did was it came up with misleading numbers. The Xbox can't go higher than 1 GPixels per second.
The NV2a in the Xbox has 4 pixel units running at 250 MHz, that's 1 billion pixels/second. While the GS in the PS2 has 16 pixel units running at 150 MHz, which is 2.4 billion pixels every second.
Now let's talk about polygons. Right here I'm talking about polygon rendering and not polygon transformations. To calculate polygon rendering performance, you take the pixel fill rate, and write it in millions. So PS2s pixel fill rate is 2400 Million. When Sony says polygons, it is referring to 32 pixel polygons. Divide 2400 Million by 32. You get 75 Million (32-pixel) polygons per second. That is raw and doesn't include textures, they use up pixels also. Now let's take Microsoft's alleged pixel fill rate of 4000 Million, which MS has on it's spec sheet and divide it by 32, you get, yes you guessed it, 125 Million (32 pixel) polygons per second. Here's the problem, the NV2a doesn't have a 4000 M fill rate but a 1000 M fill rate. So it's 31 Million (32 pixel) polygons per second. This isn't raw, since there's also 2 texture units for each pixel unit. So that's 31 million with 2 texture layers, the PS2 is around 38 Million with 1 texture layer and 20 million with 2 texture layers. The Xbox maxes out at 31 MPolygons per second, if textures aren't placed on those polygons- Xbox will not gain a polygon rendering increase in performance. The PS2's Graphic Synthesizer could render 75 MPolygons per second with no texture. The NV2a in the Xbox can't render higher than 31 MPolygons per second at all.
Okay now take that all into account and then check out the following...
"Is the XBox graphics chip the same as a GeForce 3 card? Not quite. The NV2A chip that powers the XBox is quite similar to the GeForce 3, but isn't quite a GeForce 3. The GeForce 3 is a 64mb card with 350mhz RAMDAC. The XBox's NV2A is a card that SHARES it's memory with the XBox's system RAM and has a 250mhz RAMDAC. The NV2A compensates for this by having a Second Vertex Shader, as opposed by the GeForce 3's single vertex shader. However, Microsoft claims that this second vertex shader instantly bumps the XBox's theoretical max poly count from the 31 million that Nvidia lists for the GeForce 3, all the way up to 125 million pps. According to most experts, the area that will actually see the most improvement from this will actually be in Bump Mapping. Microsoft has yet to explain how the second vertex shader yields an additional 94 million polygons per second."
I don't know enough to go more in detail about this but this is definitely an interesting point, and either way you turn it, it doesn't seem like the XBox has the advantage here.


I can understand that this is all a bit confusing if you're not a real tech-freak. It comes down to this: when developers have learned how to use the power of the PS2 GS properly they'll get a lot more out of it than XBox developers will get out of the XBox GPU. The PS2 GS combined with the EE can do a lot more advanced visual effects than the XBox GPU combined with its CPU.

Please don't close this thread down.
I just want people to read the thread not to post anything.

[GaseousSnake]

The ps2 is all good but getting a very good result out of it is the MAIN PROBLEM

[Uchiha Sasuke]

Originally posted by GaseousSnake
The ps2 is all good but getting a very good result out of it is the MAIN PROBLEM

I believe in about 2 or 3 years the ps2 will start to really pump out some great,great looking games.All they need is time to figure the system out.

[GaseousSnake]

I just hope they figure out the console in time cuz in 2 or 3 years time,the other 2 consoles would have been also better and stronger.

[ludaman99]

do u think the ps2 has more potential than any of the other consoles ?

[KraftSLU]

ok, a few of the things that were said are kinda laughable and I just need to say something about them now:

Here's why the PS2 CPU (Emotion Engine) is a lot more powerful: Data bus, cache memory as well as all registers are 128 bits on the PS2 CPU while the XBox CPU is 32 bits.

The data rate for the emotion engine is listed as 128... yet it is actually 2 64 megabyte buses that don't even work together. Then again, what does this even matter? A pentium 3 running at 1.2 ghz is a 32 bit processor, and the atari jaguar was a 64 bit one... which system can run better games? Prolly the 32 bit due to its wonderful coding and L1 and L2 mem setup.

It has a maximum performance of 6.2GFLOPS while the XBox CPU can only do a bit over 3 GFLOPS.

This actually hurts the ps2. If you read up on it you will notice that the PS2 uses the graphics engine for *everything*, graphics, sound processing, physics, etc... 6.2 gflops would be a decent number for something running primarily game variables, but not something that is being dumped on with 4 other requirements (not to mention that the video bus on the ps2 is only 1.2 gigs a second while the xboxs is over 6!)

when developers have learned how to use the power of the PS2 GS properly they'll get a lot more out of it than XBox developers will get out of the XBox GPU

Lets assume that I believe it's true that the ps2 engine is superior to the xbox's (which I don't). Next, lets look at some game comparisons between the xbox and the ps2:

WRECKLESS (top=xbox bottom=ps2):
https://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen026.jpg
https://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen005.jpg


SSX Tricky (top=xbox bottom=ps2):
https://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen015.jpg
https://image.com.com/gamespot/images..._screen030.jpg

PS2 developers have had a long time to figure out their 'more powerful' system... if the xbox can come on the block and immediately pump out better looking games that don't even begin to tax its system, then Im kinda worried about all this 'potential' the ps2 has being lost. Anyways, real world stats time: the most graphically intense games that the xbox and gc have put out both clock in around 15 million polys a second (rogue leader and rallisport challenge) whereas ps2's big performer is mgs2 which peaks at right around 10. Xbox also has killer sound which no other system can even compare to:

sound card:
xbox - 256 2d voices, 64 3d voices, dolby 5.1 in-game!
gc - 64 2d voices, dolby 5.1 cutscenes
ps2 - 48 2d voices, dolby 5.1 cutscenes

do u think the ps2 has more potential than any of the other consoles ?

not even. dev's have already been complaining about the graphical limitations of the ps2, to which sony says there are ways around it with the emotion engine, but have yet to offer any suggestions. Other games are starting to make their way to gc and xbox solely on the fact that their graphics engines can do sooooo much more (look at resident evil).

[ludaman99]

What do u mean the Xbox can pump out better looking games. HaH most of the multiplatform games almost always look the same . I can even name a few
1) Tony hawk pro skater 3
2)Wreckless ( The pics u showed me did not look to much different if at all .)
The main point im trying to make is that if the Xbox is so superior to the ps2 and GC then how come most of the games arent showing it.
I know some Xbox games really make you go Wow like Doa3 or Wreckless but so far the Xbox has not really proven anything to me except It has the best graphics but not the best games. Where once again the title goes to the Ps2.

[KraftSLU]

Originally posted by ludaman99
What do u mean the Xbox can pump out better looking games. HaH most of the multiplatform games almost always look the same . I can even name a few
1) Tony hawk pro skater 3
2)Wreckless ( The pics u showed me did not look to much different if at all .)
The main point im trying to make is that if the Xbox is so superior to the ps2 and GC then how come most of the games arent showing it.
I know some Xbox games really make you go Wow like Doa3 or Wreckless but so far the Xbox has not really proven anything to me except It has the best graphics but not the best games. Where once again the title goes to the Ps2.

Check the texturing on the car in the xbox wreckless, then compare it to the PS2 model. and Tony Hawk 3 has no sign of jaggies (due to anti-aliasing) A much better draw depth and constant, unfluxuating framerate... something that the PS2's version can't boast. and Tony Hawk 3 was a rushed port. If you want to see what revamped graphics can look like, look at tony hawk 2x, that game actually had some work put into it. and IMO, looks better than tony hawk 3 (though THPS3 has better gameplay).

If you want to see what kind of graphics the XBox is capable of check out these titles:

DOA3
Rallisport Challenge
Hunter: The Reconing
Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind
WWF Raw
World Series Baseball
MotoGP
Gunvalkyrie

then you will have a good idea what the box is capable of. And just remember, these are 1st gen games.

[ludaman99]

like i said before i know The Xbox can deliver the graphics but can it deliver the games. That is where sony is blowing the compettion away. There is no use in having the Best graphics but having some crappy games. Most of the titles u listed there got some mediocore reviews. Which im not too suprised since the gameplay on the "Box" normally stinks which is due to the fact that the controller is not all that great.

[ludaman99]

I found a review for Wff Raw this is just an example of what im talkin about great graphics but somee crappy gameplay.( By the Way this is just one of the many bad reviews for just this game.)



I'm really sorry, but this WWF RAW game just flat out is horrible. I was playing it today, and my character hit some other dude with the table, and his head went through the table just like a ghost. The graphics on the title are good, but in the ring or the poses, I've seen better images from the Sega Master System, and I feel like I'm playing with Robocop with the characters walking the way they are. It's a cross between Robocop and Michael Jackson's moonwalk. They're walking and not even going anywhere. How stupid is that? Not only that, you could like put your hand through another guy kinda like the Indiana Jones movie, and sometimes the character's colors bleed. Oh, and I don't like the audience. Wake up!! I want an option to get rid of them. The signs they hold up are always in the way. Also, I would like one and only one camera angle, and since there are so many freakin' buttons on the XBox controller, maybe I could control the camera angle myself. Geesh. Get it right THQ or get out of the game.

[ludaman99]

just to be fair i put in another review.


This game is AWESOME. The graphics look exactly like the real thing. Entrances look real. Gameplay is real. They executes moves real. Hey just because this game lacked modes doesnt mean it stinks. So dont give it low scores if there arent enough gimmick matches. And an updated roster doesnt matter but anyways that is the way wrestling works people. If RVD appeared on Raw tomorrow night,and this game is coming out Thursday,dosent mean it is going to have RVD. More modes is not a way to tell if games are good or not. If u said the gameplay stunk,than u must stink at the game.

[KraftSLU]

Originally posted by ludaman99
like i said before i know The Xbox can deliver the graphics but can it deliver the games. That is where sony is blowing the compettion away. There is no use in having the Best graphics but having some crappy games. Most of the titles u listed there got some mediocore reviews. Which im not too suprised since the gameplay on the "Box" normally stinks which is due to the fact that the controller is not all that great.

Actually the controller is a love hate thing, I absolutely adore it, enough to the point I bought extras of the same model. And crappy gameplay? This coming from a supporter of a system that is notorious for pumping out plethoras of subpar games just so it has more available. Anyways, here are some games that have amazing gameplay, along with some others coming out that look absolutely unreal...

Halo
Hunter
Morrowind
Brute Force
Unreal Championship
Project Ego
World Series Baseball
Azurik
Blinx
Turok
Gunvalkyrie
Ninja Gaiden
Tom Clancy's Raven Shield
Mech Assault
Steel Battalion
Panzer Dragoon Orta

And those are just the exclusive titles. Xbox has already gotten ports with extra stuff added to it (levels, secrets, etc) such as tony hawk2x, tony hawk 3, blood omen 2, and soon Metal Gear amongst others.

Now, Im not saying that XBox has the most in lines of gameplay, PS2 has a lot of games since its been out for a while so it has a bunch to offer, and nintendo has its same franchises it has ridden on for the past 2 decades. But to say gameplay "normally stinks" just shows that you have probably not used a box too much at all. Oh, and by the way, the only game to get mediocre reviews out of all of those are MotoGP (because motorcycle games always get low reviews) and raw (because it did in fact suck. But then again, so does the new wrestlemania game which everyone was waiting for). Im not going to rip on the ps2 for crappy gameplay because all I've played is frogger and didn't much care for it, you ought to do the same towards the xbox lest you sound like a complete fanboy.

[ludaman99]

well it seems like all u do is say the xbox is so great and im trying to figure out why. Personally i agree with you on all terms that the Ps2 is inferior to the Xbox in almost every way except games.
I have also played the Xbox a lot because my friend has one it just seems to me that u like sayin this and that about the Ps2 so im just tryin to figure out why. Besides i dont have any of the Next Gen Consoles The only reason i would even consider a ps2 is because of the games. So i dont really think im coming off like a "fanboy" excuse me if i have.

[KraftSLU]

Im not saying the xbox is the greatest thing ever, if it was I wouldn't have bothered buying a gamecube and wouldn't give half a thought about the ps2, but you implying that the entire lineup for the xbox being weak is wrong. Yeah, there have been some dud games for the box (kabuki warriors, bloodwake) but all in all it has had the strongest first year in terms of quality I've ever seen on a system. And its not even the end of the first year yet.

BTW, you should check out the S controller if the original one is hindering your gameplay, it has been touted by many as better than the dual shock.

[ludaman99]

But to say gameplay "normally stinks" just shows that you have probably not used a box too much at all.

I never said it stinked that was someones review man. geez

[KraftSLU]

Originally posted by ludaman99
...Which im not too suprised since the gameplay on the "Box" normally stinks which is due to the fact that the controller is not all that great.

seems like right there you said the gameplay normally stinks. If that is in fact someone elses works you are using you should put some quote marks around it and give them some credit.

[KraftSLU]

Originally posted by Lord_Of_NoTiNg
CAN YOU PEOPLE STOP FIGHTING I DIDN'T POST THIS FOR A FIGHT I JUST WANTED PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT Ps2 CAN DO SOME GOOD THINGS TOO

Its not really fighting, its called debating. Without it we would have no government, no economic structure... actually our lives would lack a lot of things, you'd probably just bounce around and act like a tellytubby.

[ludaman99]

I dont think neither of us is fighting like he said were just debating based on your topic

[Pimp_Daddy507]

I had no idea ps2 was so powerful, maybe i'll stick with it?