Ikaruga
- Thread starter lethal_illuminati
- Start date
The progression made sense at the time, because each of the consoles you listed actually has that processing precision!
That the precision tended to be the same for a given generation of consoles was largely a coincidence born of market conditions, semiconductor processes, and price/performance ratios.
The first console to break that mold was N64, being a true 64-bit console in the "32-bit" era (or do you want to give N64 its own era - basically that would make it a HUGELY successful console!)... and look at it, it came out way late, was crippled by a memory subsystem that balanced cost but effectively crippled the system - going back to price/performance and such.
Anyway, the whole 'era' thing is very misleading, especially considering that despite this being the "128-bit era", the two most powerful consoles today are both using 32-bit precision.
ok, let me set things straight to those who still look at bits.
Saturn is a multi processor 32-Bit system with capabilities beyond N64.
Dreamcast is a 64-bit system with 128 bit capabilities thanks to some powerful components (taken from Electronic Gameing Monthly)
Playstation 2 is a 128-bit system thanks to the "Emotion Engine" core processor(taken from GamePro)
Gamecube (see Dreamcast)
X-Box is a 32-Bit system with 128-bit capabilities thanks to some VERY powerful components (taken from GamePro)
That is why they no longer rate systems by bits nowadays.
and back to the main question, sorry haven't really played any shmups on the Saturn, and the 2 demos i played i did not really enjoy.
Saturn is a multi processor 32-Bit system with capabilities beyond N64.
Dreamcast is a 64-bit system with 128 bit capabilities thanks to some powerful components (taken from Electronic Gameing Monthly)
Playstation 2 is a 128-bit system thanks to the "Emotion Engine" core processor(taken from GamePro)
Gamecube (see Dreamcast)
X-Box is a 32-Bit system with 128-bit capabilities thanks to some VERY powerful components (taken from GamePro)
That is why they no longer rate systems by bits nowadays.
and back to the main question, sorry haven't really played any shmups on the Saturn, and the 2 demos i played i did not really enjoy.
Which consoles, btw? And how important is data precision? You say a console with a 128-bit CPU and 32-bit data precision isn't a 128-bit system?
And don't worry about what era we are in. I simply said it to symbolise the time period we are in now compared with the consoles we have today. I won't classify a system by the time it comes out, but will classify a system by it's 'bits'.
If the systems today aren't 128-bit, then what are they?
-Edit, wait a sec, SEGAFan 3000DC just answered my question.
That set the record straight. :cheers :cheers
Ok, finale. So the only 'true' 128-bit system is the PS2, and others are not 'true' 128-bit systems but have the capabilites to produce 128-bit graphics. In the books, these would end up looking like the TurboGrafix/PC-Engine - being an 8-bit system but the capabilities of producing 16-bit graphics.
Originally posted by SEGAFan 3000DC@Dec 11, 2003 @ 08:59 PM
ok, let me set things straight to those who still look at bits.
Saturn is a multi processor 32-Bit system with capabilities beyond N64.
Dreamcast is a 64-bit system with 128 bit capabilities thanks to some powerful components (taken from Electronic Gameing Monthly)
Playstation 2 is a 128-bit system thanks to the "Emotion Engine" core processor(taken from GamePro)
Gamecube (see Dreamcast)
X-Box is a 32-Bit system with 128-bit capabilities thanks to some VERY powerful components (taken from GamePro)
That is why they no longer rate systems by bits nowadays.
and back to the main question, sorry haven't really played any shmups on the Saturn, and the 2 demos i played i did not really enjoy.
Satun isn't exactly 'beyond N64'... lol.
And GameCube's CPU is 32-bit, though it can run two 32-bit operations simultaneously.
Frankly... the whole '128-bit' thing is just incredibly stupid to me. And data precision and address range beyond 32-bit really is quite meaningless for consoles right now.
Upcoming consoles will probably use 128-bit floating point colour (FP32, 32-bit per component), but the CPU's still won't very likely exceed 64-bit, if even that. Well, except maybe PS3... Cell is just weird, and we don't know ANYTHING about the new graphics processor yet.
yeah, in a way it's true but the Saturn has the capabilities to out perform the N64, and PS1. It's kinda like the DC vs. the PS2 i guess, the PS2 beats the DC on paper but put them to the test on screen and the DC wins (not by alot, but it does). The Saturn can push 1,000,000 polys, as seen in Saturn Shenmue beta. not to mention the great work AM2 did with the unreleased but finished version of Saturn VF3 pushing 750,000 polys (with real 3D backgrounds), and running at 30 fps.
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
well, sat can do sum things better than N64, N64 can do sum things better than the sat. I dunno if u could say one is definatly more powerful then the other........
yeah, in a way it's true but the Saturn has the capabilities to out perform the N64, and PS1. It's kinda like the DC vs. the PS2 i guess, the PS2 beats the DC on paper but put them to the test on screen and the DC wins (not by alot, but it does). The Saturn can push 1,000,000 polys, as seen in Saturn Shenmue beta. not to mention the great work AM2 did with the unreleased but finished version of Saturn VF3 pushing 750,000 polys (with real 3D backgrounds), and running at 30 fps. [/b][/quote]
Saturn can't push 1,000,000 polys.
PS1 can barely push 500K with effects, and that's with a dedicated geometry processor.
And VF3 was running using an add-in graphics board. >_>
And um... PS2 games have been looking better than DC games for some time now! That argument worked early on but doesn't anymore!
Actually for the record, Saturn VF3 used no addon, apparently. The addon was never even completed.
Here's a little article about it http://www.teamsega.co.uk/saturn/previews/...tuafighter3.htm
And I got another one somewhere which I'll post later.
Here's a little article about it http://www.teamsega.co.uk/saturn/previews/...tuafighter3.htm
And I got another one somewhere which I'll post later.
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
anyone have a movie of VF3?
A SEGA employee at Beyond3D would disagree on that.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9074
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.ph...er=asc&start=40
ISTR seeing an interview with another Sega employee who said the cart was not used. Can't remember who it was, but IIRC it was definitely someone who would have known what was going on (one of Suzuki, Naka, or Sato). Can't find it atm <_<
edit:
PSX can't push 500K with effects (the GPU tops out at like 360K flat shaded untextured) , and the GTE is only more dedicated than the SCU DSP in the sense that it has a specialized high-level instruction set whereas the SCU DSP has a low-level instruction set.
edit:
PSX can't push 500K with effects (the GPU tops out at like 360K flat shaded untextured) , and the GTE is only more dedicated than the SCU DSP in the sense that it has a specialized high-level instruction set whereas the SCU DSP has a low-level instruction set.
Actually, it also features some lighting/shading calculations and a couple generic vector operations. What it actually accomplishes is up to the programmer, as it's part of the CPU rather than part of the graphics pipeline. From a programmer's standpoint, all it does is add geometry-specific instructions/registers to the CPU. You can't for example send a display list and command packets to the GTE for transformation the same way you can send it to the GPU for rendering.
That may be 500K transformed rather than 500K rendered. That is probably within the capabilities of the GTE.
Nes does rule. But so does nearly every other system released after the Nes. The difference is you get different styles of gameplay across different bit systems. Super Mario Bros feels different on the Nes than it does on the SNES in Super Mario All-stars. That's one example.
Saturn can't push 1,000,000 polys.
PS1 can barely push 500K with effects, and that's with a dedicated geometry processor.
And VF3 was running using an add-in graphics board. >_>
And um... PS2 games have been looking better than DC games for some time now! That argument worked early on but doesn't anymore! [/b][/quote]
Saturn can push 1,000,000 polys, however, by todays standards the sacrifices made to do that would not be acceptable. the only effects really used in Saturn Shenmue were textures, and the game ran at about 15 fps in low-rez.
As for Saturn VF3 AM2 using the latest and greatest Saturn development system (SGL 3.02 i believe it was called) was able to get a graphically near perfect port. few sacrifices were made, it ran at 30 fps in low-rez, and a few other small details were removed from clothing. The 64-bit upgrade card was originally required for this game but AM2 using SGL 3.02 found that the Saturn was far more powerful than originally thought running VF3 at 750,000 polys.
One reason the Saturn can do this is that the Saturn doesn't use triangles for graphics like the PS1, but uses squares, this is also why the Saturn got crappy PS1 to Saturn ports.
SGL 3.02 made it easy to develop Saturn games, in addtion unlocked an enourmous amount of possibilites with the capabilites of the Saturn. unfortunatly the it came out too late, and the Saturn was discontinued in Japan. Only a few games began development on SGL 3.02, and only VF3 was finished. The final gold copy was done and sent to the plant for mass production, but SEGA Japan at the last minute decided to cancel the game because they were afriad it might hurt the DC version VF3tb (this version wasn't even done by AM2, and why it's not arcade perfect).
Well now you know the Saturn was far better than expected once all processors were put to their true potential. And maybe the N64 is also capable of more, but not the Playstation.
Now as for the DC, here is why the DC stands strong in competiton with the PS2 graphically...
well first off you're right, the recent PS2 games do look better than most DC nearly all DC games, but also the PS2 developers have had time to learn it better. The DC's lifespan was far too short, and the games that are still coming out don't really test it's 3D capabilities.
The PS2...
About 300Mhz, a max of about 10,000,000 polys (with all effects on), 32MB of RAM, 4MB of VRAM, no texture compression, anti-alising only at software level
The DC...
200Mhz, a max of 8,003,000 polys (with all effects on), 16MB of RAM, 8MB of VRAM, 5:1 texture compression ratio, anti-alising at hardware level (better)
The PS2 is faster (Mhz) and can build larger levels with more on screen (RAM and polys), but the DC is not far behind in those aspecs, and can produce 10 times as many textures (VRAM, and texture compression), in addtion the graphics get cleaned up better with anti-alising at the hardware level.
I don't think it's too fair too call one better than the other in terms of power, they should be judged by the games that you like.
