Originally posted by Tagrineth@Nov 9, 2003 @ 10:20 AM



 Actually, the Emotion Engine is quite a lot more powerful and flexible than Gekko and XCPU.



But only the EE as a whole; the CPU (r5900i) can't compare at all.



Having two Vector Units bolted on doesn't hurt, you know. =)



 
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			I think this is the favorite BS marketing tactic of 3D console makers (except Nintendo; they've actually given real-world performance estimates on their spec sheets) - give your vertex processing capablility and don't say anything about fill rate, giving a big impressive number that means nothing by itself. 
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			I agree.. I was just arguing with someone about Sony's 75mil figure recently, never mind the fact that it's nearly impossible to actually display that many polygons on almost any of today's display hardware (not counting obscured polygons). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe their claim was actually polygons, not vertices. 
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			And, why argue if it is possible or not, when you can argue over the 125Million polygons per second figure that Microsoft stated? You have something just against Sony, maybe?
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by it290@Nov 9, 2003 @ 05:51 PM



 Right, but I still don't believe it's theoretically possible to draw 75 million polys in one second, ya dig? No one has even come close to acheiving the 'real-world' figure of 20 million, so it's still hype - that is, words that have yet to be backed up by anything. 
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by gameboy900@Nov 9, 2003 @ 06:22 PM



 I think by now they may have gotten as far as 4.5-5 million. I can't say anything about Xbox or GC since I haven't kept up with their info (or any other for that matter.) 
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by ratfish@Nov 9, 2003 @ 06:02 PM



 blah blah blah



As long as there's good games being developed out there, I don't give a rat's ass about polygons and verticies. Why should people dwell on technical specifications to try to prove one console is better than another? There IS no reason!



I say cut the crap, and start talking about something meaningful. If you care about hardware, good for you, but I'm betting if you took a great developer like Sega, and made them focus as much development on a game for an older console as they do for games on any of today's sytems, they would make a quality game.



Polygons, pfft, who needs more polygons?



If people keep pushing the systems, and only focus on hardware then I don't want to be a part of this commercial video game culture. 
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by it290@Nov 9, 2003 @ 05:51 PM



 Right, but I still don't believe it's theoretically possible to draw 75 million polys in one second, ya dig? No one has even come close to acheiving the 'real-world' figure of 20 million, so it's still hype - that is, words that have yet to be backed up by anything. 
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			I think this is the favorite BS marketing tactic of 3D console makers (except Nintendo; they've actually given real-world performance estimates on their spec sheets) - give your vertex processing capablility and don't say anything about fill rate, giving a big impressive number that means nothing by itself.
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			I still love how Sega UNDER-hyped the Dreamcast's polygon performance at something like 2.5 million polys per second. Then a few months after the consoles release games were pushing 3 million and eventually a couple hit 3.25 million. PS2 (at least the game for the first year and a half) could only push about 3 million polys to the screen. I think by now they may have gotten as far as 4.5-5 million. I can't say anything about Xbox or GC since I haven't kept up with their info (or any other for that matter.)
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			Nobody says it's possible to draw that many.



The 75 million per second figure is for raw computation only. Hell, that figure doesn't even include a single static light, which would make the theoretical output impossible to see anyway.




		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			So, Sony says the PlayStation2 can draw up to 20Million polygons per second, Microsoft says their Xbox can move 125Million polygons per second, and Sony is "hyping-up" their system? Especially considering that you state that no game has come close to the 20Million pps figure.



AM2 has been able to go over 10Million pps with Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution, on PlayStation2, which is an extremely complex hardware to develop for, I believe that Dead or Alive 3 dislpays the same quantity of polygons per second (probably even more), and on a standard DirectX8.1 platform.




		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Tagrineth@Nov 9, 2003 @ 10:20 AM



 Not defending Microsoft or anything here, but IIRC that original 300 million claim was vertices, not polygons. 
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			I think by now they may have gotten as far as 4.5-5 million. 
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by gameboy900@Nov 9, 2003 @ 06:22 PM



 I think by now they may have gotten as far as 4.5-5 million. 
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			Yes yes yes...I probably should have mentioned my 4.5-5 million numbers were for games that were released in the first 6-8 months of the console (as a comparison to the DC directly) and not what current games years later achieve.
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by it290@Nov 9, 2003 @ 07:11 PM



 That's not entirely true... since the figures are for unlit polygons, you could display them by drawing them in single colors only, you don't need a light to do it. I know the figure is supposed to be for computation, but the term 'peak drawing capacity' certainly implies drawing the polygons; it should have been stated otherwise if that was not the case. 
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			 VF4 and VF Evolution push upwards to 15 million. I might've even read close to 20 million.
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			 DC pushed more than that in later times. Its hard to actually say how many polys because the PVR2 does deferred rendering. Even today the quality produced by the system is pretty good on a lot of its titles.
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			Tagrineth: You still didn't answer my question. Which is more powerful, the Gekko or the XCPU? If the Xbox's CPU is underpowered, what does that make the GCN's CPU?
		
		

	

	
	

		
		

			 Will you stop nitpicking every little tiny detail already. I made a mistake for not mentioning what time frame I was talking about. Just get over it already.