Quantcast

Page 32 of 32 FirstFirst ... 222829303132
Results 466 to 480 of 480

Thread: Comparison of 6th generation game console hardware

  1. #466
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,652
    Rep Power
    98

    Default

    Post the important one sheath:



    Quake III is running on 1998/1999 GPUs here and it's running far better than the Dreamcast port which dips below 30fps quite frequently with lower texture and geometry detail.

  2. #467

  3. #468
    I remain nonsequitur Shining Hero sheath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    39
    Posts
    13,313
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    Back in reality:



    "... If Sony reduced the price of the Playstation, Sega would have to follow suit in order to stay competitive, but Saturn's high manufacturing cost would then translate into huge losses for the company." p170 Revolutionaries at Sony.

    "We ... put Sega out of the hardware business ..." Peter Dille senior vice president of marketing at Sony Computer Entertainment

  4. #469

  5. #470
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,652
    Rep Power
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Back in reality:



    The reality that those 1998/1999 spec PCs are blowing the Dreamcast out of the water in terms of performance? The only one close to Dreamcast performance is the RIVA and you conveneintly left out the resolution and other details you were running it at. It's also the only one not in the same PC with the same CPU.

    The reality that launch PS2 games were already hitting above 2 million polygons per second contrary to your previous claim years ago that the entire generation was hovering around 1 million polygons per second?

  6. #471
    Outrunner
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    621
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118 View Post
    Quake III is running on 1998/1999 GPUs here and it's running far better than the Dreamcast port which dips below 30fps quite frequently with lower texture and geometry detail.
    Which one of those systems cost $200 with everything included?

  7. #472
    Master of Shinobi Pyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,289
    Rep Power
    47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118 View Post
    The reality that those 1998/1999 spec PCs are blowing the Dreamcast out of the water in terms of performance? The only one close to Dreamcast performance is the RIVA and you conveneintly left out the resolution and other details you were running it at. It's also the only one not in the same PC with the same CPU.
    PC blowing any console in this era, a common 3DFX Voodoo3 3000 card is the most popular gpu on win95 era and it can handle over 7 million triangles per second and 333 megatexels per second fill rate. The upgraded models perform even bether.

    Visit my youtube channel Pyron's Lair
    Take here all my hacks made with love for all of us here
    Want to help me? Here is my Patreon!

  8. #473
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,652
    Rep Power
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zyrobs View Post
    Which one of those systems cost $200 with everything included?
    That's not the point though. We all know consoles win in the cost to performance ratio, especially back around the late 90s. The issue here though is that sheath years ago was trying to claim that the Dreamcast and other consoles were as powerful if not more powerful than PCs at the time of their launch. Which that's just absolutely ridiculous as his own graphs show.

    Here's an example of him claiming this in this very thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    In my experience, game consoles all the way up to the second "HD" generation happening today were always six months to a year ahead of much more expensive consumer PC hardware. The Dreamcast is no exception, the PS2 and PS3 were, the N64 had worse textures than PS1, Saturn or especially Matrox optimized PC games, and of course the Nintendo Wii, WiiU, PS4 and Xbox One have been established as old tech in a new package or smaller package and not much price benefit.

  9. #474
    I remain nonsequitur Shining Hero sheath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    39
    Posts
    13,313
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    So, the point is that I made a comment with "in my experience" clearly made. It was a discussion, I knew and still know that information needs to be found for any objective discussion to ever happen. I have been all about that, how about you trekkies?
    "... If Sony reduced the price of the Playstation, Sega would have to follow suit in order to stay competitive, but Saturn's high manufacturing cost would then translate into huge losses for the company." p170 Revolutionaries at Sony.

    "We ... put Sega out of the hardware business ..." Peter Dille senior vice president of marketing at Sony Computer Entertainment

  10. #475
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,652
    Rep Power
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    So, the point is that I made a comment with "in my experience" clearly made. It was a discussion, I knew and still know that information needs to be found for any objective discussion to ever happen. I have been all about that, how about you trekkies?
    Oh it goes back further than that, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Do you really want us to dig up all the "The entire generation was hovering around 1 million polygons per second" quotes again?

    As for Dreamcast vs 1998/1999 PCs we already know the answer to that from benchmarks back around the time. PCs outperformed it as was expected. No more information really needs to be found, it's already out there if you just look for it with an objective outlook. Heck I already posted plenty of benchmarks and raw footage of those games running on 1998/1999 PC hardware in this very thread years ago.

    The point is, you are the exact opposite of objectivity. You don't go in to these discussions to learn, you don't do research to learn. You do it to try and prove yourself right about a preconceived bias you have in your head and it ends up skewing your "research" and making most of your findings worthless. When we bring up our own research and facts that debunk what you're saying, you never admit to being wrong and own up to it and move on. You instead double down and start attacking us all and labeling us all as trolls.

  11. #476
    I remain nonsequitur Shining Hero sheath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    39
    Posts
    13,313
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118 View Post
    Oh it goes back further than that, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Do you really want us to dig up all the "The entire generation was hovering around 1 million polygons per second" quotes again?

    As for Dreamcast vs 1998/1999 PCs we already know the answer to that from benchmarks back around the time. PCs outperformed it as was expected. No more information really needs to be found, it's already out there if you just look for it with an objective outlook. Heck I already posted plenty of benchmarks and raw footage of those games running on 1998/1999 PC hardware in this very thread years ago.

    The point is, you are the exact opposite of objectivity. You don't go in to these discussions to learn, you don't do research to learn. You do it to try and prove yourself right about a preconceived bias you have in your head and it ends up skewing your "research" and making most of your findings worthless. When we bring up our own research and facts that debunk what you're saying, you never admit to being wrong and own up to it and move on. You instead double down and start attacking us all and labeling us all as trolls.
    Do you really want me to dig that up? Because it is still a valid observation. Lighting and multitexturing were an excuse for lower polygon counts, just like 1080p and 4K are an excuse for lower framerates today. You trolled me, actively instead of carrying on a discussion. I'd rather you not stay a troll.
    "... If Sony reduced the price of the Playstation, Sega would have to follow suit in order to stay competitive, but Saturn's high manufacturing cost would then translate into huge losses for the company." p170 Revolutionaries at Sony.

    "We ... put Sega out of the hardware business ..." Peter Dille senior vice president of marketing at Sony Computer Entertainment

  12. #477
    I remain nonsequitur Shining Hero sheath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    39
    Posts
    13,313
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyron View Post
    PC blowing any console in this era, a common 3DFX Voodoo3 3000 card is the most popular gpu on win95 era and it can handle over 7 million triangles per second and 333 megatexels per second fill rate. The upgraded models perform even bether.
    What I found interesting was the high polygon count tests. These coincide with developer comments from the time. This thread was getting interesting with vector counts from emulators as well.

    http://gamepilgrimage.com/content/3d...000-benchmarks



    "... If Sony reduced the price of the Playstation, Sega would have to follow suit in order to stay competitive, but Saturn's high manufacturing cost would then translate into huge losses for the company." p170 Revolutionaries at Sony.

    "We ... put Sega out of the hardware business ..." Peter Dille senior vice president of marketing at Sony Computer Entertainment

  13. #478
    I remain nonsequitur Shining Hero sheath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    39
    Posts
    13,313
    Rep Power
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barone View Post
    Is there any point you're trying to make with these posts or it's just your regular trolling?
    Nope, back in the day we posted results and discussed them. I have only a few ideas about what these results actually mean.
    "... If Sony reduced the price of the Playstation, Sega would have to follow suit in order to stay competitive, but Saturn's high manufacturing cost would then translate into huge losses for the company." p170 Revolutionaries at Sony.

    "We ... put Sega out of the hardware business ..." Peter Dille senior vice president of marketing at Sony Computer Entertainment

  14. #479
    Hero of Algol TrekkiesUnite118's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Age
    29
    Posts
    7,652
    Rep Power
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Do you really want me to dig that up? Because it is still a valid observation. Lighting and multitexturing were an excuse for lower polygon counts, just like 1080p and 4K are an excuse for lower framerates today. You trolled me, actively instead of carrying on a discussion. I'd rather you not stay a troll.
    Except it's not a valid observation at all. We now have polygon counts for numerous games including launch software for the PS2 and Gamecube which show not only more than 1 million polygons per second, but completely blowing it out of the water. Rogue Squadron 2 on the Gamecube was hitting 7-12 million polygons per second and it's a launch title. Ridge Racer 5, Tekken Tag Tournament, and Metal Gear Solid 2 all hit about 2.5 million polygons per second. F-Zero GX and Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube both hit around 6 million polygons per second. Burnout on both hits around 4-5 million. For most games supposedly hovering around 1 million polygons per second it was honestly hard for us to find ones hitting that low of a number beyond Dreamcast games and the PS2 port of Resident Evil 4. Bringing up those valid numbers is not trolling you. It's presenting facts to the discussion. How you handle that information is your problem.

    Your problem here is that coming into this discussion you're not able to deal with the possibility of learning that the Dreamcast might not be as amazing as you want to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    Nope, back in the day we posted results and discussed them. I have only a few ideas about what these results actually mean.
    Then discuss your point. If it's that you're still trying to prove that Dreamcast was 6 months to a year ahead of consumer PC technology, then I think it's safe to say your own benchmarks prove that wrong. And looking at benchmarks from the time, I'm seeing some big differences in what you have:

    http://www.3dgw.com/hardware/benchmarks.php3

    So I'm guessing either you didn't set your drivers and everything up properly, or you skewed the data. And considering that guy posted a lot more detail about exactly what he did than you, I'm willing to put more weight into his numbers than yours. All we have from you are some graphs and then a rant about the Dreamcast vs the world. How many times did you run each test on each set up? What drivers did you use and how did you get your frame counts? Did you kill all non important processes before hand? Those are all pretty important pieces of information which you didn't give.

  15. #480
    Master of Shinobi Pyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,289
    Rep Power
    47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sheath View Post
    What I found interesting was the high polygon count tests. These coincide with developer comments from the time. This thread was getting interesting with vector counts from emulators as well.

    http://gamepilgrimage.com/content/3d...000-benchmarks



    Humm nice, but we must be fair with the comparisons. Is not much about polygons... because none of this games are made to use the full potencial of any 3D card at the time...
    going to another side..

    GeForce 2 was launched much later than Voodoo 3 card, also 3DFX cards delivers a superior image quality and effects using glide than directX at the time and bether performance overall:



    Direct X


    Glide



    Much time later Nvidia launched GeForce2 to compete with VooDoo5 5000/6000 cards, this time nvidia card was in advantage, because it was a opengl monster and they was pushing the tecnology ahead with the developers because anyone can use it,
    against proprietary tecnology of 3DFX causing the majority of studios don't support Glide in the new titles... making 3DFX enters in the dark age!!!

    Voodoo cards just can compete on games that still glide suport like unreal tournament, but in quake opengl geforce jump ahead.





    Also in this time we know that nvidia using tricks in drivers to increase the performance in bechs/top games to gain fps to score over 3dfx cards,
    these tricks decreace image quality to gain fps.. even using opengl... any people can see it at time.. its sad!

    Geforce 2 Open GL


    Voodoo 5 Open GL



    So we must be carefull with comparisons

    Visit my youtube channel Pyron's Lair
    Take here all my hacks made with love for all of us here
    Want to help me? Here is my Patreon!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •