Comparison of 5th generation ("32/64-bit") game console hardware

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

Do vertices translate 3:1 to a triangle polygon as any sort of uniform standard? I'm pretty sure I've seen discussion here about the number of vertices possible not being directly relateable to polygon count at all. I don't recall if I saw any thorough discussion on how to convert a max vertex count, like Sony's for the PS1 GTE or the PS2 GE and turn that into any sort of real world polygon spec. As I understand it people have tried taking the vertices from PS2 and Dreamcast emulators as well and failed to come up with any concrete or comparable data. Anyway, I would love to know otherwise as it seems like vertices is a more readily available spec than the actual number of polygons per second.

---

PS1 hardware was designed around lists of triangles - PS2 strips, and more modern graphics card indexed lists. Taking vertex counts from games is often deceptive, as you're often fill rate limited on the poly's being drawn. ( However the GTE was part of the cpu on the PS1, so you could code up any form of input data - the output to the GPU had to be separate triangles or quads though )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I also haven't been able to substantiate the PS1 being capable of 66MP/s fillrate, the discussions we have had here ended with the discovery that the actual PS1 fillrate was closer to 30MP/s and the Saturn's VDP1 was 28MP/s. This came a lengthy discussion in this thread I think about the Saturn's VDP1 fillrate being as low as 10MP/s, which ended up not being the case. Ah, here it was in the Sega Saturn Mega Thread, where else?

---

One of the PS1 samples draws 2080 semitransparent 16x16 sprites onto a 640x480 screen at 60fps. Even though it's a interlaced trick ( 16x8 sprites really as only even or odd lines drawn ) it's still over 24M pixels/second with transparency. Non transparent fill is way higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

That Burning Road video is very interesting. The draw distance looks worse than Daytona USA's but the framerate looks to be solid 30FPS. Texture mapping looks better to me than most PS1 games in general. I don't know if I have ever head of any Model 2 ports to Playstation, that is cool on its own!

---

It's just an example of a daytona style game ( shameless homae ) - not a real model 2 conversion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlecRob

What do you mean by hilarious?

---

So much simplified that a few parts would end up looking like a joke when compared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazyace

PS1 hardware was designed around lists of triangles - PS2 strips, and more modern graphics card indexed lists. Taking vertex counts from games is often deceptive, as you're often fill rate limited on the poly's being drawn. ( However the GTE was part of the cpu on the PS1, so you could code up any form of input data - the output to the GPU had to be separate triangles or quads though )

---

The N64 was kinda funny - the GBI (Graphics Binary Interface) used indexed vertexes like newer hardware, but when the RSP converted those into the proper RDP command lists, it embedded three separate vertexes into a single triangle command, like OLD hardware. The N64 RDP doesn't support triangle strips or fans or anything similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlecRob

What do you mean by hilarious?

---

Laughable compared to the Saturn effect , Just check out Thunder Force V factory floor level in both the Saturn and PS versions to see what one means

Grandia's more repetitive ground textures and lack of details like building shadows is another good example. But yes, Thunder Force V's backgrounds are obviously lower color to the Saturn originals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

Grandia's more repetitive ground textures and lack of details like building shadows is another good example. But yes, Thunder Force V's backgrounds are obviously lower color to the Saturn originals.

---

You're talking about games developed by companies which were always Sega partners and prioritized the Saturn over the PS1 while Sega was still pushing it.
To use those games as the only examples of what the PS1 can or cannot do is like using Wipeout and Resident Evil as examples of the Saturn capabilities...

Well what's missing in most of those games are the VDP2 effects. So it's not that harsh to use them as examples as the PS1 really can't do them without extra effort.

Resident Evil on the other hand is obviously bad porting. Drawing simple 3D models over 2D backgrounds is quite literally what the Saturn's VDP set up is designed to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barone

You're talking about games developed by companies which were always Sega partners and prioritized the Saturn over the PS1 while Sega was still pushing it.
To use those games as the only examples of what the PS1 can or cannot do is like using Wipeout and Resident Evil as examples of the Saturn capabilities...

---

t
Technosoft were pretty equal on the Saturn and and PS and the really parts to show the clear differences was the VDP 2 effects, the other parts of the game didn't suffer much at all . You can use 3rd parties that made more games for the PS. Mass Destruction better on the Saturn thanks to VDP 2 , Street Racer better on the Saturn thanks to VDP 2, DOA better on the Saturn thanks to the VDP 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Well what's missing in most of those games are the VDP2 effects. So it's not that harsh to use them as examples as the PS1 really can't do them without extra effort.

---

What effects are you referring to? Transparency? The PS1 does that with no extra effort as seen in many games. Rotation and scaling? The PS1 does that with no extra effort as seen in nearly EVERY game. The ONLY thing the Saturn has over the PS1 is that the two VDPs work in parallel at the same time, while the single PS1 GPU does things in order, so if you use VDP2, it may be slightly FASTER due to the parallel execution. That's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

What effects are you referring to? Transparency? The PS1 does that with no extra effort as seen in many games. Rotation and scaling? The PS1 does that with no extra effort as seen in nearly EVERY game. The ONLY thing the Saturn has over the PS1 is that the two VDPs work in parallel at the same time, while the single PS1 GPU does things in order, so if you use VDP2, it may be slightly FASTER due to the parallel execution. That's it.

---

I was thinking mostly the rotating planes you get out of VDP2 where as on the PS1 you need to pretty much use polygons or do it through software. Grandia is also missing a lot of the VPD2 water effects and spell effects, and the background scaling is really awful.

I've always figured that a game that really uses the VDP2 like Grandia or Radiant Silvergun really does give the Saturn that 1.5MB of VRAM including the Frame buffers over the PS1's 1MB. I can see the argument for the PS1's VRAM being more flexible when we are just considering the VDP1 in comparison, but when the VDP2 is being used to its fullest there really should be more VRAM available for the Saturn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

What effects are you referring to? Transparency? The PS1 does that with no extra effort as seen in many games. Rotation and scaling? The PS1 does that with no extra effort as seen in nearly EVERY game. The ONLY thing the Saturn has over the PS1 is that the two VDPs work in parallel at the same time, while the single PS1 GPU does things in order, so if you use VDP2, it may be slightly FASTER due to the parallel execution. That's it.

---

Play Thunder Force V on both the PS and Saturn to see vast differences between the two on levels like level 3 on the floor . Even things like the menu system isn't has good in the PS

http://youtu.be/6N45rSySnb8

http://youtu.be/3iDaWp1_ZCE

Then you have games like Street Racer, Mass Effect using the VDP2 for reflection effects which just aren't there in the PS versions and the water effects in Grandia are terrible in comparison and when you see see the Grandia word in scales in the Saturn version (it doesn't in the PS version) . Even games like Croc make some decent use of the VDP 2 now and again - in the PS version the lava doesn't move in the Saturn version the lava moves thanks to simple use of the VDP 2 tricks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Play Thunder Force V on both the PS and Saturn to see vast differences between the two on levels like level 3 on the floor . Even things like the menu system isn't has good in the PS

http://youtu.be/6N45rSySnb8

http://youtu.be/3iDaWp1_ZCE

Then you have games like Street Racer, Mass Effect using the VDP2 for reflection effects which just aren't there in the PS versions and the water effects in Grandia are terrible in comparison and when you see see the Grandia word in scales in the Saturn version (it doesn't in the PS version) . Even games like Croc make some decent use of the VDP 2 now and again - in the PS version the lava doesn't move in the Saturn version the lava moves thanks to simple use of the VDP 2 tricks

---

Those tricksie VDP2 hardware effects! It's the floors at 9:06 and 7:40 in level 3 of both videos that stood out to me the most. The water in the first stage seemed lower color in the PS1 version as well.

There are a few main problems with the PS1 attempting to replicate VDP2 floors and backgrounds as I see it. One is having to use textured polygons that could be used in the main objects for the floors and backgrounds, but everybody insists that the PS1 is SO fast this isn't a problem for certain. Another problem is 8-bit color, there just isn't a lot of entirely 256-color floor textures in that generation. More important than that though is the never ending horizon that VDP2 floors create. When done right there is NO POP UP or draw in point for the floor, and the horizon is as realistically far off as that generation could ever dream of. This simply could not be replicated in that generation of hardware using texture polygons. If it could we would have had a lot more open field sandbox games way back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

More important than that though is the never ending horizon that VDP2 floors create. When done right there is NO POP UP or draw in point for the floor, and the horizon is as realistically far off as that generation could ever dream of. This simply could not be replicated in that generation of hardware using texture polygons. If it could we would have had a lot more open field sandbox games way back then.

---

Perfect example of this:



@TA, I believe you mean Mass Destruction, not Mass Effect ;)

The factory floor in Thunder Force V uses a rotating background, with an extra linescrolled background behind... nice illusion of 3d depth. The Playstation just doesn't have the extra background behind it.

The level after that also has a wavy fog missing on the Playstation. Now that I think of it, is that even possible with polygons?

Those playfield effects replicas on the Playstation are generally cruder looking with a lot of warping and popup, due to being drawn with polygon muscle... on the Saturn, the VDP2 draws them perspective correct, and they can repeat in patterns to endless length.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

What effects are you referring to? Transparency? The PS1 does that with no extra effort as seen in many games. Rotation and scaling? The PS1 does that with no extra effort as seen in nearly EVERY game. The ONLY thing the Saturn has over the PS1 is that the two VDPs work in parallel at the same time, while the single PS1 GPU does things in order, so if you use VDP2, it may be slightly FASTER due to the parallel execution. That's it.

---

Thanks for the reality check. There's so much overhype around here lately...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

There are a few main problems with the PS1 attempting to replicate VDP2 floors and backgrounds as I see it. One is having to use textured polygons that could be used in the main objects for the floors and backgrounds, but everybody insists that the PS1 is SO fast this isn't a problem for certain.

---

It isn't about people insisting, it's about the actual games showing that; yet you keep bringing it back all the time.
Also, I like how you just ignored the Crazyace's post challenging your lowered PS1 fillrate numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zyrobs

The level after that also has a wavy fog missing on the Playstation. Now that I think of it, is that even possible with polygons?

---

Are you really implying that the PS1 can't pull off a simple wavy effect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barone

It isn't about people insisting, it's about the actual games showing that; yet you keep bringing it back all the time.
Also, I like how you just ignored the Crazyace's post challenging your lowered PS1 fillrate numbers.

---

What I mean is that no PS1 games pull off the grounds in games like Panzer Dragoon, Panzer Dragoon Zwei, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Wing Arms, Shining the Holy Arc, Sonic R, Thunder Force V, Shining Force III, Grandia, Gun Griffon. What PS1 games do attempt it show lower detail texture maps on the floors, skies or whatever else.

When the PS1 and Saturn are both using mostly polygons I'd say the PS1 wins more often than not in framerate, texture quality, effects and draw distance. Such as with Black Dawn, Thunderstrike 2, Pandemonium, et al. It's a case of inconsistent performance from one platform to the other, not a case for which is ultimately superior.

I also didn't see Crazy Ace's comment about the 640x480 demo full of semi transparent sprites as evidence of the 66Mpix/s number being realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I've always figured that a game that really uses the VDP2 like Grandia or Radiant Silvergun really does give the Saturn that 1.5MB of VRAM including the Frame buffers over the PS1's 1MB. I can see the argument for the PS1's VRAM being more flexible when we are just considering the VDP1 in comparison, but when the VDP2 is being used to its fullest there really should be more VRAM available for the Saturn.

---

Ah, right - memory: that's the other advantage the Saturn has. That .5 MB of VDP2 ram is especially important since the VDP2 uses tiles, which is a form of compression, making the memory seem that much larger. So the two advantages the Saturn has are parallel execution for speed, and extra vram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Play Thunder Force V on both the PS and Saturn to see vast differences between the two on levels like level 3 on the floor . Even things like the menu system isn't has good in the PS

Then you have games like Street Racer, Mass Effect using the VDP2 for reflection effects which just aren't there in the PS versions and the water effects in Grandia are terrible in comparison and when you see see the Grandia word in scales in the Saturn version (it doesn't in the PS version) . Even games like Croc make some decent use of the VDP 2 now and again - in the PS version the lava doesn't move in the Saturn version the lava moves thanks to simple use of the VDP 2 tricks

---

Reflections are NOT an effect by either VDP in the Saturn. They are done using normal effects and software and can be duplicated by the PS1 with proper GPU commands and software. Probably the main reason for lack of effects in the PS1 version is a lack of vram. As mentioned above, the Saturn has more memory, so it can hold more textures for things like animated lava. If you are missing things like reflections, that's probably more laziness on the port than lack of capability. That's especially true where you see things like you mention - if the menu isn't as good, it's a poor/lazy port.

This lack of vram was seen the most in 2D fighters were the Saturn had more space for animation. The PS1 version often cut frames to fit the data in limited space.

The PS1 uses SGRAM, on a 32bit bus, clocked at 53MHz (15x NTSC). The memory has 2 cycle latency on every column access, but it also supports bursting data like normal SDRAMs do. Assuming absolute worst case scenarios where there's always random accesses happening without burst you end up at 67Mbytes per second speeds. But the machine uses bursting and has a texture cache and that figure gets much closer to 150MBytes/sec. The SGRAM chip also supports staggered reads and writes without speed penalty, which is important for scanning out the framebuffer. 320 x 240 x 16bit color x 60Hz takes almost 10MB/sec bandwidth, not counting in overhead for VBL and HBL, also completely leaving out refresh induced delays. In theory the 66Mpix figure is achievable without sweating much.

Saturn has vanilla SDRAM that is 16 bits and at half the speed. That is already 4 times loss in bandwidth... but unlike PS1 the Saturn has separate memory buses for every piece of memory so there can be full sequential reads and writes which SDRAM really loves.

Quote:

---

Those tricksie VDP2 hardware effects! It's the floors at 9:06 and 7:40 in level 3 of both videos that stood out to me the most. The water in the first stage seemed lower color in the PS1 version as well.

---

Yep Level 3 is where you see a real gulf . Gone is the semi translute floor with layers of parallax scrolling beneath in comes a shit basic floor effect and you start to ascend to the skies in that level, the PS floor effect is truly appalling compared to the VDP 2 Saturn floor and the way it can be drawn infinitely. Soukyugurentai is another game that suffers on the PS, So does Silhouette Mirage and well for a good laugh one should play both Darius Gaiden on both the Saturn and PS, to see the world of difference VDP 2 effects can do for your system.

Also there's never been a PS game with more impressive watter effects than those seen in the likes of Zwei,Saga,Grandia, RSG thanks to simple use of the VDP 2. For sure the PS had better 3D but there was some effects that only the Saturn could pull off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rOUVgl8BKE

Funny thing about that video; the last boss in Nights actually doesn't use the VDP2 much. All the backgrounds etc are VDP1 generated. The only VDP2 effects are the ones when you hit Wizeman and his body has those scrolling clouds in his silhouette.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barone

Are you really implying that the PS1 can't pull off a simple wavy effect?

---

No, I'm just not sure how'd you replicate a line scroll effect with polygons. You can't exactly tell each polygon to move line x of the display 1 pixel to the left and repeat.

Quote:

---

The only VDP2 effects are the ones when you hit Wizeman and his body has those scrolling clouds in his silhouette.

---

Yes the playfield reflection - Made that point in the comments

It's not a reflection, it just sets transparency vs a scrolling background (with the polygons set to 0% opacity, so it looks like a window cutout to the background).
Though given how VDP1 -> VDP2 transparency works, perhaps it might be called windowing instead of transparency to begin with...

Quote:

---

Reflections are NOT an effect by either VDP in the Saturn. They are done using normal effects and software and can be duplicated by the PS1 with proper GPU commands and software. Probably the main reason for lack of effects in the PS1 version is a lack of vram. As mentioned above, the Saturn has more memory, so it can hold more textures for things like animated lava. If you are missing things like reflections, that's probably more laziness on the port than lack of capability. That's especially true where you see things like you mention - if the menu isn't as good, it's a poor/lazy port.

---

What reflections in Thunder Force V? I haven't a clue what you are on about . Play both games on stage 3 and see the gulf in effects . Nothing at all to do with reflection effects

Quote:

---

Thanks for the reality check. There's so much overhype around here lately

---

No its calling its like it is . VDP 2 effects were hard to pull off on the PS

I think it was pretty stupid for the Saturn and PS1 to go with CDs. You get much faster load times and reliability with cartridges.

Not sure if this topic has been covered, but I wanna see what you guys think of the cartridge vs CD media war that was going on at the time.

The load times on the Saturn are fine really. I've experienced very few games that have bad load times on the system. Not to mention the RAM carts pretty much eliminate that issue.

I think the relative lack of VDP2-like effects in PS1 or even N64 games is obvious, there is no reason to attempt a 2D effect with fully 3D graphics. Developers of PS1 or N64 games with fully polygonal 3D environments were targeting PC like effects or using stock development kit effects and couldn't customize them. So the principle issue for Saturn to PS1 ports not having the exact same look isn't capability it is the development kits and developers not caring enough to make a 1:1 conversion.

As for Carts versus CDs I think this discussion perfectly mirrors 2D versus 3D. Just as 2D wasn't done advancing in most genres, consumer priced cartridges were just starting to break the 4Mbyte barrier when CDs took over. I wish platforms like the Jaguar, 32X and even Saturn cartridges had lasted until 2000 at least so we could see what 100MB cartridge games looked like. I also think that cartridges forced developers to think more about gameplay and less about superfluous cutscenes rendered on a far off workstation farm.

One of the most convincing arguments for CDs in general though is that they are so quick and inexpensive to make in mass numbers that developers weren't made or broken by guessing wrong about the number to make. They could make a low ball guesstimate and quickly fix the problem with a second run if retailers sold out quicker than expected. Apparently with carts the process took so long that demand would die before a second run could be shipped. So with carts developers had to commit to larger first runs than they maybe had reason to expect would sell and sometimes lost money in that process.

The Saturn didn't really have reliability issues when it came to the CD drive, unlike the PS1.

But with the N64, you'll get blazing fast load times. So fast, that you'll forget that the cartridges can only hold a single digit percentage of storage, and cost 7x more to manufacture.

Okay, I'm moderately trolling from a Nintendo perspective.

Cartridges may have been fine if the system was released in 1992. But for a late 1996 release, it wasn't wise. Probably the single move that made their continuous domination come to an end.

Still a great system from other perspectives though. Had it since 1998.

Quote:

---

I think the relative lack of VDP2-like effects in PS1 or even N64 games is obvious, there is no reason to attempt a 2D effect with fully 3D graphics

---

True to a point , but even in with the PS there was always a need for some sort of 2D. Just look at Tekken built around PS hardware but still had a flat floor and static background (which the Saturn could do with ease) . It always made me laugh at PS fans going on about how great Tekken 3 was;when VF 2 on the Saturn came out years earlier , was running at a Higher Res , a port of a far more advanced Coin up and had multiple scaling and moving backgrounds , compared to PS Tekken 3 one.

I'll not even try and make out that the Saturn had better 3D and there would be games like MGS that would lose a lot if they were translated to the Saturn, but the Saturn did have a great blend of amazing 2D and very decent 3D effects which when both were used in a game gave results that other consoles at the time would find hard to match .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

What I mean is that no PS1 games pull off the grounds in games like Panzer Dragoon, Panzer Dragoon Zwei, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Wing Arms, Shining the Holy Arc, Sonic R, Thunder Force V, Shining Force III, Grandia, Gun Griffon. What PS1 games do attempt it show lower detail texture maps on the floors, skies or whatever else.

When the PS1 and Saturn are both using mostly polygons I'd say the PS1 wins more often than not in framerate, texture quality, effects and draw distance. Such as with Black Dawn, Thunderstrike 2, Pandemonium, et al. It's a case of inconsistent performance from one platform to the other, not a case for which is ultimately superior.

---

Sounds about right - it's very difficult to emulate VDP2 exactly, especially if you take the extra 512k of memory and charmap indirection into consideration. I actually prefer the games that dont try to slavishly emulate it - R-Type and Einhander have more interesting backdrops because they are 3d for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I also didn't see Crazy Ace's comment about the 640x480 demo full of semi transparent sprites as evidence of the 66Mpix/s number being realistic.

---

The docs quote 2 pixels / cycle for sprites and untextured polygons - it's pretty black and white :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazyace

Sounds about right - it's very difficult to emulate VDP2 exactly, especially if you take the extra 512k of memory and charmap indirection into consideration. I actually prefer the games that dont try to slavishly emulate it - R-Type and Einhander have more interesting backdrops because they are 3d for example.

The docs quote 2 pixels / cycle for sprites and untextured polygons - it's pretty black and white :)

---

Hardly black and white, PSX.doc doesn't even mention fillrate or pixels per cycle from what I can tell. It does mention that a sprite is a textured quad and that quads are always rendered internally as two triangles. These untextured polygons, are they unlit as well? If they are unlit can they have any translucency? Can lighting or translucency be used anywhere on the screen while maintaining this poorly documented 66Mpix/second fillrate?

I'm a black and white kind of guy, but this higher fillrate has a lot of caveats that nobody seems ready or able to discuss at length. It looks to me like we're talking about impractical for gameplay specs that can't even be compared to how many particles the 3DO can toss around or how many Voxels the Saturn or Jaguar can display at once. Similarly, the GTE's calculations are always quoted in a vacuum and never in relation to the relative slowness of the CPU it is built in to. Even the now famous Ezra Driesbach about Quake 1 sort of dismisses that the CPU killed the port's framerate.

I'd like to know more about all of these facts and guesstimates, but it all looks to be a sea of grey to me.

CD load times weren't a problem to 80s/90s gamers because we were used to floppy load times... in comparison, CDs were FAST!! :D

It was the poor schmucks who couldn't afford an Amiga/ST/PC who were whining that the CDs weren't as fast as carts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

CD load times weren't a problem to 80s/90s gamers because we were used to floppy load times... in comparison, CDs were FAST!! :D

It was the poor schmucks who couldn't afford an Amiga/ST/PC who were whining that the CDs weren't as fast as carts.

---

Yes big ass 5.25 floppys but damn I ain't used one of those since I was a kid.

I don't remember loading being too terrible on the Kaypro or my first Macintosh. On the Kaypro everything loaded from the floppy as it was needed as opposed to all at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

Hardly black and white, PSX.doc doesn't even mention fillrate or pixels per cycle from what I can tell. It does mention that a sprite is a textured quad and that quads are always rendered internally as two triangles. These untextured polygons, are they unlit as well? If they are unlit can they have any translucency? Can lighting or translucency be used anywhere on the screen while maintaining this poorly documented 66Mpix/second fillrate?

---

How can you tell this? Are you saying that the Sony docs lied about the specs to all of the programming teams and no one ever tested the figures :)
Sprites are special - general quads are drawn as two triangles.
Untextured polygons can be lit as well - that has no effect on the pixel fillrate. Translucency is an extra cost though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I'm a black and white kind of guy, but this higher fillrate has a lot of caveats that nobody seems ready or able to discuss at length. It looks to me like we're talking about impractical for gameplay specs that can't even be compared to how many particles the 3DO can toss around or how many Voxels the Saturn or Jaguar can display at once. Similarly, the GTE's calculations are always quoted in a vacuum and never in relation to the relative slowness of the CPU it is built in to. Even the now famous Ezra Driesbach about Quake 1 sort of dismisses that the CPU killed the port's framerate.

I'd like to know more about all of these facts and guesstimates, but it all looks to be a sea of grey to me.

---

All 3D figures have caveats - 66MP is a peak fillrate figure - only likely to be seen on large sprites/flat polygons. 24MP is a recorded figure from sample code for transparent textures.

Sony absolutely did lie about the specifications for each Playstation system. That is why there are years of discussions on Usenet groups about when the PS1 would break the 1 million polys per second mark, or the PS2 would display 77 million polygons and blow the rest of the same gen consoles away. These "specs" leaked over to every major website and the printed magazines at the time and only gradually faded behind more modest, but still bloated, figures like 360,000 Textured and Lit polygons. Sony never stipulated that these figures were highly theoretical, or single chip in a vacuum, performance numbers. Omitting facts and critical criteria is the same as lying.

Hey, if you want theoretical numbers, the Saturn VDP1 can do 983030 (+/- 10) flat shaded quads per second. It just can't plot them fast enough in the framebuffer. (but, you have enough space in the VRAM to store that many write commands...)

In fact you can DMA in new commands on the fly too, but that halts the VDP1 and it can't draw while you are writing to the VRAM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

Sony absolutely did lie about the specifications for each Playstation system. That is why there are years of discussions on Usenet groups about when the PS1 would break the 1 million polys per second mark, or the PS2 would display 77 million polygons and blow the rest of the same gen consoles away. These "specs" leaked over to every major website and the printed magazines at the time and only gradually faded behind more modest, but still bloated, figures like 360,000 Textured and Lit polygons. Sony never stipulated that these figures were highly theoretical, or single chip in a vacuum, performance numbers. Omitting facts and critical criteria is the same as lying.

---

If I paste the relevant bits below:

3D Geometry Engine (High speed matrix calculator)
-called the GTE (Geometric Transfer Engine)
Clearing capacity: 66 MIPS
1.5 million flat-shaded polygons/sec
500,000 texture-mapped and light-sourced polygons/sec

This is actually true - but the most misinterpreted spec. The GTE can perform rotation/translation and perspective division on 3 vertices of a triangle in approx 22 cycles. This gives the 1.5million figure if you assume that the cpu is spending all it's time just transforming one giant triangle list. ( A similar spec has floated around for dreamcast )

Graphics
16.7 million colours
Resolution: 256x224 - 640x480
Sprite/BG drawing
Adjustable frame buffer
No line restriction
Unlimited CLUTs (Color Look-Up Tables)
4,000 8x8 pixel sprites with individual scaling and rotation
Simultaneous backgrounds
360,000 polygons/sec

Here we have the actual 'real' polygon figures. The 360K figure is the max number for the gpu - and if you combine it with the GTE figure you come to the conclusion that less than a third of the theoretical cpu transform performance is needed to saturate the gpu.
Perhaps a more interesting number is the 4000 8x8 sprites figure. This implies 240K quads/second and a pixel fill rate of ~15Mpixels in a case aimed squarely at the mode 7 / 2D applications. ( This is just enough for 4 scroll screens at 320x224, or 3 rotation screens. )
Both of those figures are also seen in samples in the sdk.