Forum Home
Press F1
 
Thread ID: 44180 2004-04-10 09:30:00 OT: X-Box for Easter miknz (3731) Press F1
Post ID Timestamp Content User
228436 2004-04-14 12:57:00 CPU: 128 Bit "Emotion Engine"
System Clock: 300 MHz
System Memory: 32 MB Direct Rambus
Memory Bus Bandwidth: 3.2 GB per second
Co-Processor: FPU (Floating Point Multiply Accumulator x 1, Floating Point Divider x 1)
Vector Units: VU0 and VU1 (Floating Point Multiply Accumulator x 9, Floating Point Divider x 1)
Floating Point Performance: 6.2 GFLOPS
3D CG Geometric Transformation: 66 million Polygons Per Second
Compressed Image Decoder: MPEG2

Graphics: "Graphics Synthesizer"
Clock Frequency: 150MHz
DRAM Bus bandwidth: 48 GB Per Second
DRAM Bus width: 2560 bits
Pixel Configuration: RGB:Alpha:Z Buffer (24:8:32)
Maximum Polygon Rate: 75 Million Polygons Per Second

So there are the specs for the PS2. Three years ago it was said that it was equivalent to about an 800mHz Pentium but because it was optimised for graphics it actually performed better than that, with plenty of processing power left over to do thousands of calculations a second to simulate, for instance, the dynamics of a car going round a corner. Notice also that it is a 128bit CPU. I read a number of reviews on the machine which led me to believe that it was up to the task of doing what it is said to be doing in GT3 for example. At the time it was said that the floating point performance was as good as anything around at 6.2 GFLOPS. With the cars exibiting torque twisting as well as nose up on acceleration and nose down on braking (varying depending on how much you brake or accelerate) I feel that it does as much as it needs to to persuade me and plenty of others that it is a superior game. Take a look at someone who knows what they are doing driving Monte Carlo if you need anymore persuasion.

Regards Robert. 		zqwerty (97)
228437 2004-04-14 12:58:00 > The GT series is a simplistic arcade game,held back
> by the limitations of the hardware and a basic
> physics engine,the fact they they encoded varibles
> into the physics engine does not make it a sim.

You might like to take a look at the GT4 preview on Jetstreamgames. It kicks the rear of any racing sim I've seen yet. 		segfault (655)
228438 2004-04-14 13:05:00 Further to my last post, here is a little on the dedicated guy who is the driving force behind the Gran Turismo series:

So what you got Planned Kazunori Yamauchi? **Exclusive First News**

In Tokyo's Toyota Living Room (I assume at a Motorshow? Gaming Press Conference) Kazunori gave the Following Information:

-Many Improvements were realised from GT3, however many of our ideas couldn't come to life.
-In GT4 we will explore aspects of Simulation in the Series.
-Gameplay Methods are to be revised, including Game Methods.
-A Game Network for example will be a huge advance Consituting to the Game which we plan to work hard on.
-We will equally Implement this work in Vehicle Management.
-Though GT will advance a step further, we must take in to account the limitations of the Sony Machine.
-Whilst we had to reduce our extreme GT ambitions for GT3 we still used virtually all of the 4,7 GB of the DVD...


and here is the link:

www.geocities.com

Regards Robert. 		zqwerty (97)
228439 2004-04-14 13:05:00 and which racing sims would they be?

I will be very surprised if they can implement a physics engine that can hold its own against the best pc sims,logic dictates that the PS2 simply doesn't have a tenth of the grunt needed to display good graphics,control the AI and take care of an advanced phyics engine.

The proof of the pudding shall be in the game of course,and im sure those looking foward to it won't be disapointed. 		metla (154)
228440 2004-04-14 13:06:00 and which racing sims would they be?

I will be very surprised if they can implement a physics engine that can hold its own against the best pc sims,logic dictates that the PS2 simply doesn't have a tenth of the grunt needed to display good graphics,control the AI and take care of an advanced phyics engine.

The proof of the pudding shall be in the game of course,and im sure those looking foward to it won't be disapointed. 		metla (154)
228441 2004-04-14 13:11:00 Further to the above:

www.nz.playstation.com

Regards Rob. 		zqwerty (97)
228442 2004-04-14 13:11:00 > CPU:
> CPU: 128
> CPU: 128 Bit
> CPU: 128 Bit "Emotion Engine"
> System Clock: 300 MHz
> System Memory: 32 MB Direct Rambus
> Memory Bus Bandwidth: 3 . 2 GB per second
> Co-Processor: FPU (Floating Point Multiply
> Accumulator x 1, Floating Point Divider x 1)
> Vector Units: VU0 and VU1 (Floating Point Multiply
> Accumulator x 9, Floating Point Divider x 1)
> Floating Point Performance: 6 . 2 GFLOPS
> 3D CG Geometric Transformation: 66 million Polygons
> Per Second
> Compressed Image Decoder: MPEG2
>
> Graphics: "Graphics Synthesizer"
> Clock Frequency: 150MHz
> DRAM Bus bandwidth: 48 GB Per Second
> DRAM Bus width: 2560 bits
> Pixel Configuration: RGB:Alpha:Z Buffer (24:8:32)
> Maximum Polygon Rate: 75 Million Polygons Per Second
>
>
> So there are the specs for the PS2 . Three years ago
> it was said that it was equivalent to about an 800mHz
> Pentium but because it was optimised for graphics it
> actually performed better than that, with plenty of
> processing power left over to do thousands of
> calculations a second to simulate, for instance, the
> dynamics of a car going round a corner . Notice also
> that it is a 128bit CPU . I read a number of reviews
> on the machine which led me to believe that it was up
> to the task of doing what it is said to be doing in
> GT3 for example . At the time it was said that the
> floating point performance was as good as anything
> around at 6 . 2 GFLOPS . With the cars exibiting torque
> twisting as well as nose up on acceleration and nose
> down on braking (varying depending on how much you
> brake or accelerate) I feel that it does as much as
> it needs to to persuade me and plenty of others that
> it is a superior game . Take a look at someone who
> knows what they are doing driving Monte Carlo if you
> need anymore persuasion .
>
> Regards Robert .


Heh?

ps2 was underpowered when it was released ,its output was/is crap when compared to a p3 800 with a gf3 . Thats why you have low res textures,output and limited number of ai openents,lack of crunch .

Still,if you want to repeat company fluff then so be it,my opinion of the game should have no bearing on your enjoyment of it .

I'll still take something less arcadish for my gameing pleasure . 		metla (154)
228443 2004-04-14 13:14:00 Go here for the latest:

www.gamespot.com

Regards Robert. 		zqwerty (97)
228444 2004-04-14 13:26:00 Just checked out your homepage metla, perhaps you know more than I do. If so maybe you can tell me why it is that the only thing I can't do on my computer is log into my ICQ mail. I have checked cookies, hosts file and domain. Works perfectly from my work computer but I can't get in from home computer with either o/s, Win98SE or Win2k. Can you suggest anything I could try? All other email sites are fine (I have 4 others). Tried using Mozilla, Firefox, IE6SP1, One by 1, browsers but won't work.

Help. Regards Rob. 		zqwerty (97)
228445 2004-04-14 13:37:00 Sorry,i have no idea about icq mail,didn't even know they ran a mail service.

Only advice i can give is to visit the site in question and look up either a faq or maybe a dedicated help forum.

My other bit of advice seeing as you have such a love for driving sims is to grab EA's f1 Challenge game for the pc (and a wheel, can’t drive these Sims with anything less) there is a multitude of mods for the game that take it up to a level unbelievable to someone who hasn't experienced them.

Visually and physics wise. 		metla (154)
1 2 3 4