Comparison of 6th generation game console hardware

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stu

I see, well I took the remark for what it was, I saw it as a slightly bizarre attempt at claiming that the Saturn was better at handling Model 2 conversions than the PS1, even though there is really no evidence that this is true. It has to be said that the conversions on the Saturn aren't exactly "Model 2 quality" either, witness the original Daytona USA conversion for example- not full screen, tons of pop in, Yes I know that the game's development was rushed etc etc). Also as good as the VF2 conversion on the Saturn is, it still isn't up to the standards of Model 2, then again it really isn't possible for a $300.00 home system to match a state of the art arcade system costing thousands of dollars. In fact if I was so taken to I could probably go ahead and claim that the PS1 is better at realising Namco System 22 games than the Saturn, but I wouldn't because games like PS1 Ridge Racer aren't as good as the arcade original, BUT for the price of the home game system (either PS1 or Saturn) they are pretty good, just as the Saturn conversions of the Model 2 games are equally as good.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry I have to disagree here too, The PS1 (and the Saturn) WERE cutting edge in 1995 considering the price that these systems sold at ($300.00 - $400.00), where else are you going to get that kind of performance in a gamebox at that price? Yes both PCs and arcade systems outperform the PS1 (and the Saturn since this system is comparable to/better than the PS1 dependant on your POV) but PCs and and arcade machines cost FAR more and in the case of PCs were usually out of reach for most people. I have to say that I'm slightly puzzled at this creative attempt at reimagining history, I realize that you dislike the Playstation systems and thats fine (I might be even inclined to agree with you on some aspects regarding PS2 vs Dreamcast - the DC did deserve to beat the PS2) but trying to play down how much of an improvement the PS1 (and Saturn) brought in 1995 seems in my opinion to be wrong.

---

Again, not in 1995, they didn't. :p (as above) And, hell, the model 2 actually lacked some features that the PSX had (and Saturn to some extent too), like gouraud shading. (not sure about alpha blending capabilities of the modle 2)

Namco's System 22 is a better example of universal technical superiority to those consoles without feature compromise. (higher polygon rates, perspective correction, gouraud shading, and I'm pretty sure additive blending for colored lighting and alpha blending too)

But in any case, yes, the PSX and Saturn were indeed cutting edge in 1994/1995, as was the 3DO and Jaguar prior to that.

In fact, several examples from every console generation have been pretty solidly "cutting edge" gaming/graphics powerhouses, at least up to the 7th gen. (Xbox 360 was beyond the best consumer PC gaming hardware available in 2005, at least in some respects -more so given PC games were still mostly single threaded at that point, while the 360 forced developers to start optimizing for multi-core if they wanted to make good use of the CPU -and even so, the Xenon is technically at least moderately faster in raw CPU performance than the best Athlon 64 x2 4800+ of 2005; then there's the whole separate argument over the PS3's hardware from a 2006 PoV . . . though real-world performance is another story :p )
The PS4 and XboxOne are probably the first premiere top-end consoles to arrive that will be basically superceded by contemporary PC gaming hardware in all respects, at least if current specs floating around are accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

Forums have been disappointing me though, as nobody cites sources other than themselves.

---

^I resent this statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chessage

^I resent this statement.

---

Another thing I'd overlooked on the "citation" issue, is that, in a very large number of cases, I have linked to my sources (and secondary sources and analysis therof -in many cases more useful than the primary sources . . . especially in the cases of certain interviews -proper interpretation of primary source information is extremely important, including working through possible errors introduced by editors or just vagueness).
That's also why some of my posts were so long . . . and summarizing more things and cutting out others is one of the things I've doen to try and avoid the "information overload" issue (along with curtailing some of my branching, rambling offshoots in dicussions, and redirecting some of those to different threads entirely).

That, and in many cases these aren't rehashes with new members ont he forums, but ones I've discussed these things with before, so trying to digg up all the previously cited information that led to the current level of knowledge and understanding is redundant and quite time consuming for such casual discussion (again, it's not like we're working towards some major, compelling history piece here . . . that would be great, but noone's pretending that's what this is -and neither are the similar discussions on Atariage I've had with those actually working on such compelling, critically detailed, and informative works intended for publication, but the context of those discussions is different from those fully edited published works -of which only one has been released so far AFIK- and in any case, things change as more information becomes available -again, the Atari history scene is an excellent example of this)



For new members active in such discussions, I do tend to make more of an effort to cite or explain things in greater detail (and if not directly link to things, refer to specifics that can be fairly easily searched for). In many cases I link to relevant articles and discussion threads on the topic as far as I can immediately recall. (there's a lot more that's embedded in various flucutating, branching, rambling, or off topic dicussions in various threads I don't immediately recall and may not easily find via searching)







And a side note on "real world" examples and the Flare/Slipstream thing:
More recently (soem time within the last year iirc), the Slipstream web community got hold of an actual prototype development unit for the Multisystem and have since put together a working emulator as well. So there's some potential for actual homebrew on this quasi-vaporware system, and potential for more examples of what it can actually do. (and in the context of the existing 8086/8088 configuration -I forget if the dev units ever got the 8086 version or not)
http://www.konixmultisystem.co.uk/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LmMBbTg0Cg



They're also working on improving the demo as more old demos/games are recovered. (they have very few currently though)

Quote:

---

It has to be said that the conversions on the Saturn aren't exactly "Model 2 quality" either, witness the original Daytona USA conversion for example- not full screen, tons of pop in, Yes I know that the game's development was rushed etc etc). Also as good as the VF2 conversion on the Saturn is, it still isn't up to the standards of Model 2, then again it really isn't possible for a $300.00 home system to match a state of the art arcade system costing thousands of dollars.

---

Some of the Model ports were really really close with the likes of Last Bronx and Virtual Cop and in some ways Virtual Fighter 2 was better than the Model 2 coin up; its running at a far higher screen res and the character's arms suffer none of the trademark Model 2 blocky joints; where the arm joints in the Saturn version are much smoother and far more human like . And while it's not a Model 2 port Decathlere on the Saturns looks like it a Model 2 game and just looks stunning

Quote:

---

where else are you going to get that kind of performance in a gamebox at that price? Yes both PCs and arcade systems outperform the PS1 (and the Saturn since this system is comparable to/better than the PS1 dependant on your POV) but PCs and and arcade machines cost FAR more and in the case of PCs were usually out of reach for most people

---

Spot on. I've never seen in the point and why people feel the need to compare consoles to PC's , but back in 1994 PC's cost a fortune and in many ways the Saturn and more so the PC did have better 2D (not hard) and even better 3D . 3D fighters on the PC were shocking at that point and even 3D racers were way behind the consoles in terms of texture maps and running at 30 fps . I meant it took until the likes of Screamer and 3DFX cards for the PC to really catch up with the consoles . PS 3D was really stunning for the time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Again, not in 1995, they didn't. :p (as above) And, hell, the model 2 actually lacked some features that the PSX had (and Saturn to some extent too), like gouraud shading. (not sure about alpha blending capabilities of the modle 2)

Namco's System 22 is a better example of universal technical superiority to those consoles without feature compromise. (higher polygon rates, perspective correction, gouraud shading, and I'm pretty sure additive blending for colored lighting and alpha blending too)But in any case, yes, the PSX and Saturn were indeed cutting edge in 1994/1995, as was the 3DO and Jaguar prior to that.

---

I agree with you on both your points regarding Model 2/System22 and PCs (although Model 2's graphics are obviously still superior to the PS1/Saturn regardless of whether they lack certain graphical features, also by 1995 there were PC 3D graphic accelerators coming out that probably could match the PS!/Saturn performance under certain conditions) however my main point was that Sheath's comparison between those 2 systems and the PS1/Saturn is irrelevant considering the vast difference in price points between a $300 home game system and an arcade game system costing thousands of dollars or a $2000 PC. For the price, the PS1 and Saturn were a massive jump in performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

In fact, several examples from every console generation have been pretty solidly "cutting edge" gaming/graphics powerhouses, at least up to the 7th gen. (Xbox 360 was beyond the best consumer PC gaming hardware available in 2005, at least in some respects -more so given PC games were still mostly single threaded at that point, while the 360 forced developers to start optimizing for multi-core if they wanted to make good use of the CPU -and even so, the Xenon is technically at least moderately faster in raw CPU performance than the best Athlon 64 x2 4800+ of 2005; then there's the whole separate argument over the PS3's hardware from a 2006 PoV . . . though real-world performance is another story :p )
The PS4 and XboxOne are probably the first premiere top-end consoles to arrive that will be basically superceded by contemporary PC gaming hardware in all respects, at least if current specs floating around are accurate.

---

I agree 100% with that, consoles that I would add to that list are the Dreamcast and the OG Xbox, both were ground breaking for their time, considering their price points. PS3 is a strange beast imo, combining a groundbreaking CPU with an comparatively unremarkable GeForce7600 class GPU and split graphics and main RAM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Some of the Model ports were really really close with the likes of Last Bronx and Virtual Cop and in some ways Virtual Fighter 2 was better than the Model 2 coin up; its running at a far higher screen res and the character's arms suffer none of the trademark Model 2 blocky joints; where the arm joints in the Saturn version are much smoother and far more human like . And while it's not a Model 2 port Decathlere on the Saturns looks like it a Model 2 game and just looks stunning

Spot on. I've never seen in the point and why people feel the need to compare consoles to PC's , but back in 1994 PC's cost a fortune and in many ways the Saturn and more so the PC did have better 2D (not hard) and even better 3D . 3D fighters on the PC were shocking at that point and even 3D racers were way behind the consoles in terms of texture maps and running at 30 fps . I meant it took until the likes of Screamer and 3DFX cards for the PC to really catch up with the consoles . PS 3D was really stunning for the time

---

Thanks, I didn't really see the point of comparing a couple of $300 game systems to systems costing 10 times as much either, hence my reason for posting. It seemed to me to be an attempt to rewrite history and downplay the significance of these 2 systems (attacking the PS1 mostly) and the graphical improvements they brought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I am fairly certain by fall of 1995 a superior to PS1 PC could be purchased. Even if all games were limited to ~320x240 (they weren't) and low color they could at least run faster.

---

I'm really anxious to see you sharing sources pointing/videos showing which 3D games were running at superior than 30 fps frame rate on that 1995 expensive PC...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I'm not sure how my statement came across to you, but I was only comparing Model 2 and subsequent same-year PC tech to the PS1. My remark about the Saturn's late 1995 library showing a stronger resemblance to Model 2 than anything on the PS1 that year was just a remark. Bloody Roar 2 and a host of other 60FPS mid resolution fighters with 3D backgrounds are easy to bring up in favor of the PS1 over the Saturn, but they still aren't Model 2 quality especially with the texture warping and seaming issues.

---

So, what the "Model 2 quality" is all about? No texture warping and seaming issues? 'Cause I always thought that Model 2 games were impressive due to their high polygon counts, long draw distances and superb frame rate... And in such aspects I doubt the Saturn hardly matched the PS1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I was contesting that the narratives and fans all elevate PS1 graphics as though they were cutting edge when they were very far from that.

---

Feel free to point any racing game in any home platform at any cost delivering similar graphical effects and details at 30 fps in 1994:



The same for these 1995 offerings:



If those weren't cutting edge graphics by the time, then I really don't know what cutting edge is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stu

I see, well I took the remark for what it was, I saw it as a slightly bizarre attempt at claiming that the Saturn was better at handling Model 2 conversions than the PS1, even though there is really no evidence that this is true.

---

Yeah, seriously...

Man, if people wernt blown away by by the Playstation port of Ridge Racer back in 94-95, i dont know what their standards were.
By the way, i have always loved Motor Toon GP graphics, ever since i saw some screen shots of it on Game Fan magazine, in 1995. I really got to track down those games. Are they using gourad shadding?. Shame they didnt do a third game with the same graphic style late on the PS1 lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stu

I agree with you on both your points regarding Model 2/System22 and PCs (although Model 2's graphics are obviously still superior to the PS1/Saturn regardless of whether they lack certain graphical features, also by 1995 there were PC 3D graphic accelerators coming out that probably could match the PS!/Saturn performance under certain conditions) however my main point was that Sheath's comparison between those 2 systems and the PS1/Saturn is irrelevant considering the vast difference in price points between a $300 home game system and an arcade game system costing thousands of dollars or a $2000 PC. For the price, the PS1 and Saturn were a massive jump in performance.

---

I was talking about actual games available that could use said hardware (be it software rendered or using one of the early accelerators). The ViRGE 325 did indeed begin mass production in 1995, but actual references I've found (and anecdotal accounts) point to it not being available to consumers until early 1996. (may have shipped to some OEMs sooner though) Same thing for the Rage I, though that was both slower and more feature poor than the original ViRGE. (Rage II in late 1996 was a major improvement)
Then you had the Nvidia NV1, though whether that actually matches/beats Saturn/PSX performance is another story. (some really weird performance results in some of the NV-1 specific games, like Descent, though more typical in other cases -just as a fairly feature poor textured polygon renderer on the slow-ish side, and never got use of its custom curved surface drawing abilities or quad+triangle rendering)

Anyway, in terms of actual software, I'm almost certain none of those cards got any custom ports until 1996, and Direct3D didn't materialize until DirectX5 in 1997 either. So in the context of when the PSX/Saturn were actually new on the market (and thus potentially cutting edge), there was nothing actually on PCs to show for anything potentially more powerful.


As for effects, I'm not sure I completely agree there either. PSX games use smooth shading and lighting to good effect in many, many games, while the flat shading of Model 2 games is quite obvious in many cases. It may be a net "win" in most practical examples, with other advantages in visual quality (including the advantage of higher res, perspective correct textures), but it's still a noticeable issue. (and a bigger argument for System 22 vs Model 2)

Quote:

---

I agree 100% with that, consoles that I would add to that list are the Dreamcast and the OG Xbox, both were ground breaking for their time, considering their price points. PS3 is a strange beast imo, combining a groundbreaking CPU with an comparatively unremarkable GeForce7600 class GPU and split graphics and main RAM.

---

I'm not totally sure on the GPU issues . . . the specs seem to be in contention in some places, but going by the citation used by Wikipedia's listing, it's much more powerful than a 7600, and very much like a 7950 GT but with half the render output units (so namely a lower pixel fillrate and bigger bottleneck for higher resolutions than the actual 7950 GT). It's different from the 360's Xenos in using a fixed shader architecture (vertex shader and pixel shader) vs the unified shader architecture, and the raw vertex performance is significnatly lower there as well as lacking the programmable floating point coprocessing capabilities of unified shader GPUs. (though the SPE's in the Cell should have been more than enough to offset that in many cases -like for physics and such).
The pixel fillrate is modestly higher on the PS3 and the textel rate is much higher.

However, the bigger issue with the PS3 was its proprietary nature of design and API/OS requiring considerably more programming effort to optimize for it specifically in the case of multi-platform development. Additionally, the PS3 was lacking in raw main (general purpose) CPU resource.
Those SPEs are incredibly powerful for certain types of processing (especially complex math, including 3D physics computations), but not really useful for general purpose logic processing. The 360 uses 3 (slightly modified) PPE cores at the same clock speed as the Cell's 1, and while that's not typically going to get you 3x the actual performance in games (maybe close it for a very well balanced multi-thread optimized engine) it's still going to give you a big performance advantage for general purpose processing. (or compared to multi-core x86 CPUs of the time, and much more so as time went on -both due to increased performance and due to increased optimization for multi-threading in games)

I'm pretty sure that CPU issue is one of the reasons Skyrim chokes on the PS3 and why Dawnguard was delayed.

There's also the issue of the PS3 using split 256/256 MB dedicated to main/video, vs the unified 512 MB on the 360, meaning some RAM-intensive games are more difficult to port over. (the fact that both were limited to that RAM amount and without expansion capabilities, of course made it more and more of a bottleneck for later games, with PC counterparts starting out rather close to console spec for minimum RAM for 2005/2006 releases, but increasing dramatically as time went on -and more still recommended if you were running a bloated OS, though gamebooster type programs help there to some degree)

Quote:

---

Thanks, I didn't really see the point of comparing a couple of $300 game systems to systems costing 10 times as much either, hence my reason for posting. It seemed to me to be an attempt to rewrite history and downplay the significance of these 2 systems (attacking the PS1 mostly) and the graphical improvements they brought.

---

Yep. And console hardware, especially the really GOOD console hardware does tend to be among the most impressive designs of their time in many respects, largely related to the level of optimization and customization of the designs, but also in the context of keeping costs down and making relatively powerful hardware in spite of that constraint. (granted, there's exceptions there too, where the hardware wasn't really that low cost, but just heavily subsidized)

Several old home computer platforms are rather impressive for similar reasons. (and, aside from the custom features of many of the "game" computers, the likes of the Atari ST was also impressive given the rather elegant, and efficient -if minimalistic- use of a mix of off the shelf components and minimalst custom chips combined in a logical manner to create a quite powerful and efficient, yet very low cost design . . . and it still beat the vastly more expensive PC and Macintosh of the time in pretty much every techical performance area, just not the Amiga, aside from the modest lead in raw CPU grunt and the 640x400 70 Hz 31 kHz monochrome support -the later of which was certainly not a trivial feature for the business world)

Too bad neither the ST nor Amiga hardware got proper follow-on designs to their 1985 architectures. (and the ST's more minimalistic design should have left things a bit more open and straightforward for further expansion too)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Some of the Model ports were really really close with the likes of Last Bronx and Virtual Cop and in some ways Virtual Fighter 2 was better than the Model 2 coin up; its running at a far higher screen res and the character's arms suffer none of the trademark Model 2 blocky joints; where the arm joints in the Saturn version are much smoother and far more human like . And while it's not a Model 2 port Decathlere on the Saturns looks like it a Model 2 game and just looks stunning

---

Even the best Model 2 to Saturn ports are heavily downgraded. VF2 had much lower poly count (whether it looked aesthetically more pleasing is a different question), lower quality textures, lack of lightning, and single image backgrounds handled by a VDP2. It was also running interlaced, while the arcade version was progressive. It was nowhere near close to the arcade.

Decathlete looked good for the Saturn because you had backgrounds almost entirely handled by the VDP2, and because all characters had basically skintight clothing, making character models very simple. It was still nowhere near the detail that the model 2 could push.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zyrobs

Even the best Model 2 to Saturn ports are heavily downgraded

---

Well that was always going to be the case when trying to convert a £16,000 to a £399 console some things are going to give. That said Sega Rally and Virtual Cop were stunning conversions with Virtual Cop having everything thing from the Arcade in terms of detail

Quote:

---

VF2 had much lower poly count (whether it looked aesthetically more pleasing is a different question), lower quality textures, lack of lightning, and single image backgrounds handled by a VDP2

---

Its running at a far higher screen res and the limbs and joints in the Saturn version are much better smoother and far more human like

Quote:

---

Decathlete looked good for the Saturn because you had backgrounds almost entirely handled by the VDP2, and because all characters had basically skintight clothing, making character models very simple.

---

Yeah and that was the Saturn strength . Decahtlete look stunning with Model 2 like visuals in lovely High Res and all at 60 fps .

What do you mean by block joints?

Quote:

---

It has to be said that the conversions on the Saturn aren't exactly "Model 2 quality" either, witness the original Daytona USA conversion for example- not full screen, tons of pop in, Yes I know that the game's development was rushed etc etc). Also as good as the VF2 conversion on the Saturn is, it still isn't up to the standards of Model 2, then again it really isn't possible for a $300.00 home system to match a state of the art arcade system costing thousands of dollars.

---

Looks better than Model 2 quality to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Team Andromeda

Yeah and that was the Saturn strength . Decahtlete look stunning with Model 2 like visuals in lovely High Res and all at 60 fps .

---

Saturn high res games, or specifically the 640/704x448/480/512 stuff, by definition can't be 60 FPS . . . it's interlaced and thus 25/30 Hz max. Actually, it has to be a solid 25/30 Hz or you'll get tearing, since it's single buffered. (not enough framebuffer RAM to double buffer, so instead, each interlaced field uses its own framebuffer bank)

You could do 50/60 Hz for 224/240/256p though, including 640/704 pixels wide, and you can't do 320/352x480p either with VDP1. (the VGA/hivision modes aren't useful for VDP1, though VDP2 should be able to, including line doubling VDP1 images to higher res -but not deinterlacing, so it's going to be an effective 224/240/256p)

VDP1's framebuffers are organized as 1024x256 bytes, thus limiting it to 512x256 for 16bpp modes and 1024x256 in 8bpp modes. That's also why all the high res stuff only runs in 256 (paletted) colors and can't use any VDP1 sprite translucency or gouraud shading effects. (even flat shading is more difficult, and largely limited to software look-up based effects, also requiring palette swapping for textures -I think you could do that for textures, at least for 16 color textures since you could change/remap the 16 entry color index independently from the main 256 color palette)

Of course, you get a lot more colors for any VDP2 layers in any case. ;)


Technically, you should also be able to use a high-res diesplay with 16-bit color for VDP1 by staying within that 512 pixel constraint, so you'd have a horizonal boarder (pillarboxing), kind of like Atari ST or C64 games (or Apple II), and more of a horizontal boarder than typical VCS/A8/Amiga stuff.

Too bad there isn't a 10.74 MHz dot clock mode for the diplay, as that would let 512 pixels fill to the edge of the screen.
That or that they didn't allocate framebuffer space more like the 32x did, which would have allowed 640x204 at 16bpp. (or 408i)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Saturn high res games, or specifically the 640/704x448/480/512 stuff, by definition can't be 60 FPS . . . it's interlaced and thus 25/30 Hz max. Actually, it has to be a solid 25/30 Hz or you'll get tearing, since it's single buffered. (not enough framebuffer RAM to double buffer, so instead, each interlaced field uses its own framebuffer bank)

---

Isn't it a requirement to use high-res mode that your game render at 60fps otherwise you'll get really screwed up graphical errors?

Also I'm pretty certain that Sega themselves said that games like VF2, Decathalete, etc. ran in high res mode at 60fps. Yeah, the Screen output will be an interlaced image, but it can still render internally at 60fps. After all plenty of Dreamcast games do this if you are using composite, it's not like the frame rate for Sonic Adventure 2 drops to 30fps if you're not using VGA.

Most of the "high res" Saturn games are also 60FPS. I think KoolKitty is hung up on the interlacing. SDTVs only actually update at 29.97 FPS, but a 60FPS input displays one frame on lines A and the other on lines B. I always thought 60FPS games looked better on SDTVs than they do on progressive scan TVs or VGA monitors.