HomeForumsWhat's newResources 
 
 
Mac vs. PC thread
it290 - Oct 4, 2003

 < Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next> 

  Des-ROW Oct 6, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by antime@Oct 6, 2003 @ 05:55 PM



 Are you trying really hard to be a cunt or does it come naturally?


~ Oh, and, thank you for being such a gentleman.

 racketboy Oct 6, 2003
Des-ROW, I think you formating is fine. Adds spice to it.

I don't find it hard to read.

I'm just too much in a hurry to do all that

 Gallstaff Oct 6, 2003
heh I Just got it. Deikenkai right?

 Mask of Destiny Oct 6, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Des-ROW@Oct 6, 2003 @ 09:13 PM



 I think it is pretty accurate, especially considering that the diagram itself was made by SCEE employees, and not myself.



Even professionals can make poor diagrams and without knowing the original context I cannot say what the point of the diagram. It could be to show that PCs merely catch up to consoles before the next generation as you suggest, or it may only serve to demonstrate the greater granularity in improvement with consoles.


  
	
	

		
		

			The Radeon 9800Pro can move 380Million polygons per second? Are you sure? Polygons and Vertices are not the same thing. According to nVidia, their GeForceFX 5900 Ultra, which is the Ati Radeon 9800Pro's main competitor, can process up to 338Million vertices per second, while the Ati site does not give any figures regarding their GPU's polygon/vertices performance. My point is, I doubt the Radeon9800Pro can process 380Million polygons per second, while, in the other hand, I believe it may move 380Million vertices per second.


I know only what ATI's site says. On the specs page for the Radeon 9800 Pro for Mac it says:


  
	
	

		
		

			Eight parallel rendering pipelines process over 3 billion pixels per second 



Four parallel geometry engines process up to 380 million transformed and lit



polygons per second 



High precision 32-bit per channel rendering


I suppose it's possible they made an error on their page, but I have no compelling reason to believe otherwise. It's equally possible that it's nVidia's page that has the mistake.


  
	
	

		
		

			Anyway, 380Million vertices per second still means more polygon processing power than either the Sony PlayStation2, Nintendo GameCube or Microsoft Xbox, but that is not the point, I still have to see a PC game that looks as good as Team Ninja's Dead or Alive 3, AM2's Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution, Konami's Silent Hill 3, AM2's OutRun2, Polyphony Digital's Gran Turismo 4 and other console games.


I can't say I've been paying much attention to the games market as of late, but I would imagine Half-life 2 might be a contender graphically. Even if it falls short it doesn't meant there won't be another game released before the end of the current generation's life that will. It would be much better to look at PC games released up until about 98 or 99 and compare them with PSX/Saturn/N64 games. Right now I'm too lazy to, but if you pick out some of the best looking console games from that era I suppose I could go looking for PC games.


  
	
	

		
		

			I will not even talk about texture memory, because that is out of the question, the Sony PlayStation2 has only 4Mb of DRAM for texture memory (but with a 48Gb per second bandwidth) and still offers competition.


That's the total bandwidth of the system (the result of adding the bandwidths of all the different memories in the system). I was unable to find specs for the bandwidth to texture RAM, but the main memory bandwidth is 3.2GB/sec. Assuming that the PS2 can transfer data from main memory to texture memory at that rate it does beat out AGP 8X which is rated at 2.1GB/sec, but you're still limited by what you can store in main RAM. Sure you can keep transfering stuff off the disc, but the read rate of the optical drive is no where near 3.2GB/sec.


  
	
	

		
		

			I was exaggerating a bit, I know, but particular reason... yes... PC offers a very small range of different game genres and is plagued with FPS and Strategy games, there are even genres that practically never make it to the PC.


The PC is lacking in fighting games and shoot-em-ups and consoles are lacking in FPS and RTS games. If you really want a wide selection you get both as they are complimentary to each other. Of course if you don't like FPS and RTS games then your choice is obvious.

Your formatting doesn't bother me that much, though the frequent use of bold type does make it look rather busy. Eh, to each his own.

 ExCyber Oct 6, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Polygons and Vertices are not the same thing.


True, but once you set up the initial two vertices for a strip or fan, each additional vertex completes a new polygon, and the bulk of the calculations needed for transformation and lighting are per-vertex operations, so it makes more sense in modern architectures that support these structures to generalize the engine and specify performance in vertices + fill rate (which can be determined mathematically) rather than give a bogus "polygons" spec that changes based on size and organization of the polys.

 Des-ROW Oct 6, 2003
racketboy, thank you for the compliment, I am glad you like my way of writting.

Gallstaff, indeed, Daikenkai it is.

Mask of Destiny, regarding the Sony PlayStation2's VRAM bandwidth

Quote from Sony Computer Entertainment's Graphic Synthesizer Press Release:

"In the design of graphics systems, the rendering capability is defined by the memory bandwidth between the pixel engine and the video memory. Conventional systems use external VRAM reached via an off-chip bus that limits the total performance of the system. However in the case of the new GS, there is a 48-Gigabyte memory access bandwidth achieved via the integration of the pixel logic and the video memory on a single high performance chip."

 Mask of Destiny Oct 6, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Des-ROW@Oct 7, 2003 @ 03:48 AM



 "In the design of graphics systems, the rendering capability is defined by the memory bandwidth between the pixel engine and the video memory. Conventional systems use external VRAM reached via an off-chip bus that limits the total performance of the system. However in the case of the new GS, there is a 48-Gigabyte memory access bandwidth achieved via the integration of the pixel logic and the video memory on a single high performance chip."


They seem to be referring to nothing more than the bandwidth between the graphics processor itself and texture RAM (though it does invalidate my assumption on what the figure actually meant). While this probably says a lot about fill-rate, it says very little about the systems ability to DMA textures in on the fly. Even if this excessive bandwidth is achievable outside of the internals of the graphics chip itself, you can't copy data from main RAM any faster than you can read from it.

 gameboy900 Oct 7, 2003
A card like the Radeon9800 Pro has a memory bandwidth of upto about 22 GB/s (that's the onboard ram and not through AGP). The PS2 has a memory bandwidth of 48 GB/s between the 4MB of texture ram and the GS and only the 3.2 GB/s between the texture ram and main memory. One of the design flaws of the ps2 is that it has to effectively make up for it's extremely poor texture performance by throwing in more polygons to make up for it. Polygons that otherwise could have been used to generate even better looking scenes.

 Cloud121 Nov 6, 2003
Taken from Low End Mac...

The best Mac site on the net!

You know when you are in a verbal jousting match and the other guy just zings you one and you just sort of stand there drooling and by the time you think of what you want to say for your part of the riposte the other guy has already gone home and got videos from Blockbuster and everything?

I feel like that all the time.

So I decided to write all my notes out in advance. That way, I'll be ready with my smart aleck remark next time someone picks on me for using Macs. Since I'm compelled to write down all the useless things I think of in reverse relevance order, you get to benefit from the Lite Side's

Smart Alec Remarks in Response to Snide PC User Comments

PCU: "I thought Mac went out of business/is going out of business/was bought by Microsoft."

You: "That means I can get a spankin' G5 at fire sale prices! See ya!"

or: "I'd rather have a ten-year-old Mac than a brand spankin' new virus magnet!"

or: "Microsoft's research and development department just came out with this new thing called an iPod. Heard of it?"

or: "You think Bill's going to let his best defense wither on the vine and die?"

or: "Resistance is not futile; it's just inconvenient from time to time."

PCU: "There's no software for the Mac."

You: "In the time it took you to say that I wrote a spreadsheet, created a chart, inserted it into a presentation program, emailed the program to my boss, and applied for a job at a major software company. Pretty good considering I didn't even use software in the process."

or: "We don't call it software. It's just part of the system."

or: "You forgot the words crappy and lame. Try again."

or: "You meant to say, 'There's no software for the Mac in the Wal-Mart tumble bin,' didn't you?"

or: "Try to control your explosive flatulence so I can hear what comes out of your mouth and say that again."*

*Okay, that was cheap; I admit it. If I can't make you bust a gut laughing, then I'll settle for a chuckle. If you don't chuckle, then I'll go for a slightly twitchy sneer that no one else sees because you carefully avoid doing it in public.

PCU: "Macs are so expensive."

You: "So are houses, but luckily each one lasts for a long time."

or: "Dells are expensive, too, except you don't pay for it all at once."

or: "Well, it's nice to be independently wealthy. You get all the best toys."

or: "I don't buy cheap wine either."

PCU: "I hate Macs."

You: "Take some advice and never travel to Ireland."

or: "What have you got against Media Access Control?"

or: "They're okay if you leave off the special sauce."

or: "Why hate whole categories of computers when there's so much to hate on an individual basis?"

PCU: "Macs are toy computers."

You: "Your point being?"

or: "And the PC, being the most popular gaming computer, is what again?"

or: "For me, working on a Mac is like child's play compared to a PC, so it's appropriate."

or: "If this is your way of asking if you can play with my toys, it's not working."

PCU: "The Mac is all marketing hype and pretty boxes. There's no substance."

You: "Four out of five dentists disagree."

or: "I try not to be influenced by any form of advertising whatsoever. Lucky for me, popup ads are blocked by Safari."

or: "Did you know that statement is all marketing hype, too?"

or: "There's something to be said for pretty boxes. When I find someone who can follow an chain of logic, I'll tell them what it is."

or: "My mother was a marketing executive. You got a problem with that?"

PCU: "The Mac isn't compatible."

You: "And that's a gooood thing."

or: "Neither is an 8-track tape compatible with a cassette player. It doesn't matter if you're burning CDs."

or: "Monopolists stifle innovation. I don't want to be compatible."

or: "When I filled out the computer dating form, I didn't write 'SWM seeks illegal exceptions.'"

PCU: "Only like 5% of computers are Macs."

You: "Only 5% of current sales are Macs. The percentage is higher if you count functioning and useful computers, and even higher if you count non-lame computers."

or: "Ah, but it's the best 5%."

or: "Funny how 5% of the computers in a company provide 20% of the ROI." to which the PCU says: "Where'd you get that 20% figure?" and you reply: "The same place you got that 5% number."

or: "If only 5% of my computer is going to be a Mac, I'll settle for the CPU and the OS. You can have the rest."

PCU: "Why do you use a Mac?"

You: "When the clue train stopped, I got on."

:lol: :agree :cheers wned :thumbs-up:

Perhaps we should sticky this thread?

 mal Nov 6, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Cloud121@Nov 7, 2003 @ 11:38 AM



 Perhaps we should sticky this thread?


I don't think so.

 HimuraD Nov 6, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by racketboy@Oct 4, 2003 @ 02:11 PM



 can you buy one off the shelf yet? 



no



soon? probably


:blah

you're one of those people that ate up every turd that apple churned out in their advertising, right?

who hit 64bit first, and was on sale and sold first? PC =) not apple.

even apple and ibm execs in charge of the project were bluffed by their own marketing. God i wish i still had that interview saved =(

i'll try and find it.

 it290 Nov 6, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Anyway, 380Million vertices per second still means more polygon processing power than either the Sony PlayStation2, Nintendo GameCube or Microsoft Xbox, but that is not the point, I still have to see a PC game that looks as good as Team Ninja's Dead or Alive 3, AM2's Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution, Konami's Silent Hill 3, AM2's OutRun2, Polyphony Digital's Gran Turismo 4 and other console games.


Hmm... so I guess Silent Hill 3 looks quite a bit worse in high resolution than in low res, eh? You hardly need a powerhouse of a machine to run it in high res. Seriously, consoles are never going to be on par graphically with PCs unless someone decides to release some insanely expensive console that nobody will buy. Even when the Xbox was first released, its graphics chip wasn't the top of the line. I appreciate your point, but you obviously don't play a lot of PC games; you also have to take into consideration that playing games on a television makes polygons and textures look smoother than they really are, if less detailed.

 Gallstaff Nov 6, 2003
Look the only way to end this is to re-state the obvious:

Cloud just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, once again.

 Cloud121 Nov 6, 2003
Oh and you do punk?

 Ammut Nov 6, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by it290@Nov 6, 2003 @ 03:08 AM



 Seriously, consoles are never going to be on par graphically with PCs unless someone decides to release some insanely expensive console that nobody will buy. Even when the Xbox was first released, its graphics chip wasn't the top of the line. I appreciate your point, but you obviously don't play a lot of PC games; you also have to take into consideration that playing games on a television makes polygons and textures look smoother than they really are, if less detailed.


Pcs are great for benchmarking figures, consoles will never top them there. Having one specific platform to build for, however, means that it is wayyy easier to optimize for it. Although Pcs are undeniably "more powerful", top game makers can squeeze every last resort out of a console and even trick it to push past what it is meant to. This can't happen on pc due to the thousands of different combinations of components. Ever since I've bought this new computer (3 months now) I have yet to be blown away, even by newer top notch titles. Yes, the resolution is amazing and so are many textures but pc games seem to lack a certain graphical polish overall IMO...they don't even know what they are supposed to look like, it depends on the machine.

---Ammut

 Des-ROW Nov 6, 2003
Sure, they run in lower resolution, still they look better, and I personally do not care about how many fps you can get with a 500 USD video card, the ingame graphics are horrible in most PC games, why? I wouldn't know. I personally do not believe that fps and resolution are everything, how the game looks is more important. I still see more detailed character models and backgrounds in console games.

 mal Nov 6, 2003

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Gallstaff+Nov 7, 2003 @ 01:40 PM-->
QUOTE(Gallstaff @ Nov 7, 2003 @ 01:40 PM)
Look the only way to end this is to re-state the obvious:



Cloud just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, once again.[/b]