Mips And Gflops


no intent for that,

but seriously in nowaday mobile computing, you dont need that much of RAM for a single game
even consoles like wii only has 88Mb and xbox(1) has 64Mb.

making a 1080P video quality VG for the iphone would be just an overkill, so on the end i doubt you need a 100Mb of ram
to play a game since you only get 320x480.

even if you loaded into RAM an all intensive full world 3D RPG (something again, a big overkill and waste of ram)
that would be just a bad way of programming it.

you just keep getting the wrong idea.
you said it, you're not a programmer and i believe all people around is just trying to help, but you keep falling on the same and the same again.
(i really dont understand what is your fixation with RAM)
 
DroneB Dev said:
no intent for that,

but seriously in nowaday mobile computing, you dont need that much of RAM for a single game
even consoles like wii only has 88Mb and xbox(1) has 64Mb.

making a 1080P video quality VG for the iphone would be just an overkill, so on the end i doubt you need a 100Mb of ram
to play a game since you only get 320x480.

even if you loaded into RAM an all intensive full world 3D RPG (something again, a big overkill and waste of ram)
that would be just a bad way of programming it.

you just keep getting the wrong idea.
you said it, you're not a programmer and i believe all people around is just trying to help, but you keep falling on the same and the same again.
(i really dont understand what is your fixation with RAM)
Yes but RAM is not just used for resolution and pixel pushing.
Fine lets go away from RAM I was just saying RAM and even VRAM is not just used for resolution. Now a days they do use tons of memory for textures, transparencies, particle effects etc.... Just because you are running on a portable console does not mean you're game has to be low texture based.
Look the whole point of this thread was to see if the Pandora really is better at Emulating devices than other solutions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TylerAW said:
Yes but RAM is not just used for resolution and pixel pushing.
Fine lets go away from RAM I was just saying RAM and even VRAM is not just used for resolution. Now a days they do use tons of memory for textures, transparencies, particle effects etc.... Just because you are running on a portable console does not mean you're game has to be low texture based.
Look the whole point of this thread was to see if the Pandora really is better at Emulating devices than other solutions.
On a 4.3" 800x480 display you don't need textures as high def as on a 20" 1600x1280 display.
Even with 256x256 textures, your games will look good.
klaus_poses.jpg

Imagine this on a 4.3" screen, wouldn't it be enough?

(just for info, PSP games usually use 128x256 textures on a 4.3" 480x272 display with 2MB of vram and 32[64 on psp 2000]-8[kernel]MB of ram)
 

Attachments

  • klaus_poses.jpg
    klaus_poses.jpg
    340.6 KB · Views: 28
Last edited by a moderator:
then i will have to ask

emulating WHAT? (ye ye yeah a game console, but which one?)
and what other devices solutions??

pandora has (EVERYONE EXPECTS IT TO HAVE)
great controls, and probably enough specs for consoles up to N64 psx n dreamcast. (and maybe even more)
a great battery life.
not to say you can also use it for other purposes.

and the most important to that question, pandora has, one of the greatest team and people that knows what it means to work with emus.

it would be useless a machine with better specs with no one working to produce the emus.

so still what is your real question again????
 
KodeIn said:
TylerAW said:
Yes but RAM is not just used for resolution and pixel pushing.
Fine lets go away from RAM I was just saying RAM and even VRAM is not just used for resolution. Now a days they do use tons of memory for textures, transparencies, particle effects etc.... Just because you are running on a portable console does not mean you're game has to be low texture based.
Look the whole point of this thread was to see if the Pandora really is better at Emulating devices than other solutions.
On a 4.3" 800x480 display you don't need textures as high def as on a 20" 1600x1280 display.
Even with 256x256 textures, your games will look good.
klaus_poses.jpg

Imagine this on a 4.3" screen, wouldn't it be enough?
There is still room to improve you can little details like replacement of clothing textures when you change inventory items (RPGs) or you can add more than one character, I'm guessing adding more characters requires more memory.
 

Attachments

  • klaus_poses.jpg
    klaus_poses.jpg
    340.6 KB · Views: 36
Last edited by a moderator:
DroneB Dev said:
then i will have to ask

emulating WHAT? (ye ye yeah a game console, but which one?)
and what other devices solutions??

pandora has (EVERYONE EXPECTS IT TO HAVE)
great controls, and probably enough specs for consoles up to N64 psx n dreamcast. (and maybe even more)
a great battery life.
not to say you can also use it for other purposes.

and the most important to that question, pandora has, one of the greatest team and people that knows what it means to work with emus.

it would be useless a machine with better specs with no one working to produce the emus.

so still what is your real question again????
My real idea behind this thread was to find out if the Pandora can outperform my PSP when it comes to emulation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TylerAW said:
There is still room to improve you can little details like replacement of clothing textures when you change inventory items (RPGs) or you can add more than one character, I'm guessing adding more characters requires more memory.

i doubt the processor/chipset will support all of that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TylerAW said:
My real idea behind this thread was to find out if the Pandora can outperform my PSP when it comes to emulation.
Yes.

Faster processor, more memory, better screen, better inputs (I HATE this frakking misplaced nub on the PSP).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TylerAW said:
My real idea behind this thread was to find out if the Pandora can outperform my PSP when it comes to emulation.

Wow, if that's all you wanted to know then that's very easy. "Yes."

You could possibly concoct some (probably useless) scenario where PSP can do more vector operations or maybe even draw more triangles (big big maybe, don't quote me on this), but when it comes to the stuff emulators need Pandora is way ahead. Just having L2 cache makes a huge difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TylerAW said:
My real idea behind this thread was to find out if the Pandora can outperform my PSP when it comes to emulation.

I just got finished reading this entire thread and I must say, if this is what you were after, then why in the world didn't you just ask that right out of the box!?

Dude, I love that you have questions and want answers, I really do. I myself would love to read a post by Exophase and actually understand it, which is why I read these kind of threads, I want to know more too. But I must say, you do have a tendency to create many topics of which many have already been discussed. When you do start a thread like this one, it takes 5 pages for you to actually say what is was you were looking for. Might I suggest when you ask a question, you narrow down your topic so these really smart people who try to actually answer you really know what it is you are looking for?

The thread could have started like this then:

Tyler: "Is the Pandora more powerful than the PSP in terms of emulation power?"
(Posters): "yes"
Tyler: "Why?", "How does one compare against other systems?" or even "Does RAM have much to do with it?"
(Posters) "It's hard to compare exactly, RAM only slightly matters depending on circumstances.."

I'm not saying I'm the best at asking questions or anything. Just trying to be helpful. Instead of 5 pages of arguments this could have been 5 pages of learning something and maybe even learning something very useful. Frankly, when this got down to asking if more RAM wouldn't be needed to put more characters in the game, I couldn't help but think you never even knew what it was you wanted to know as that was so far from the original question.

Hope things go better now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whoops somehow a double post AFTER someone else replied!?

Anyway, that comment was made more as a sign of respect Exophase.
More of us then not are amazed by what you have learned, which is so much more than we have, that what comes natural to you is way above our heads. Despite that fact I cannot help but read and try to absorb every detail of it, hoping someday to be smarter because of it!

I wouldn't have promised to take you out to a dinner for your contributions in the past if I wasn't thankful, even if I don't understand it all!
 
Kangal said:
WombleGoneBad --> thanks for your post

His post pretty much sums up what I said without asking the final question: Why is the marketing factor important anymore - Why on earth do we still depend on numeric values if we have videos of sample applications running, real world examples of useful software.

Mr B said:
The I7 is the most capable series of desktop CPU's available today... I'm assuming he was trying to get the point across, that todays most powerful folding rigs is indeed at he top of his list. Oh, sorry, folding, gaming...
Your rant on the issue seams mostly childlike, and unfit. You don't agree with the list, fine, ignore it.
B!
I do have an i7 myself. Yet it seldomly (read: never to my knowledge) contributed to the graphics on my PC. Anything I do graphics wise except for displaying the desktop (assumption time.. hooray) is done on the GPU.
Heck, even raytracers and physics are all done on the GPU now. Don't believe me? Just check out the demos "Agenda Cycling Forth" ([fact]Does rendering, physics and sorting on the GPU[/fact] - [assumption]the CPU is only used to control music which in turn feeds the GPU with timing and scene information[assumption]) or "Elevated" (Running entirely in a GLSL shader except for the terrain which is just a few draw-calls and again, music is on the CPU, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YWMGuh15nE)

Both of these demos work as far as sound processing is fast enough on the CPU and if the GL API calls can go through the driver fast enough. The GPU is the bottleneck - the CPU is almost idle. I do get the point that Kangal wanted to say that a "Gaming Computer" produces the best graphics (even though I think that this is not true - read on..) but he made it sound like the i7 (or CPU in general) is a major point. This is clearly not true, hence I question it because I don't want others to belive it. If you are expierenced enough to filter out that its not necessary: congratulations, however, some people are not.
(Note however, that the CPU COULD be used to raytrace or precalculate data which is an important part in cg. However, its not common to do much stuff on the CPU anymore in todays software except for logic, physics, ... [all sorts of things which don't necessarily contribute to graphics AND those things which have an impact on the logic])

Kangal said:
I just put the "core i7 gaming computer" because it is not difficult to find a computer today which outpaces the graphical performance of the PS3. If I had just put PS3 at the top, perhaps you would've still replied and told me off as a sony fanboy. It was just there to make a point, yes I already know its the GPU not the CPU its the combination of CPU and GPU that determine if it can play Crysis, I was just too lazy to type a kick-ass GPU up there (so many to choose from). BTW, thanks B! for getting it and I do think that rant was childlike and unfit.
No, the combination of CPU and GPU is important for the gameplay part of the game. However, the CPU shouldn't have much influence on the graphical quality (which your list was about). Todays software is heavily centered around the GPU. Even the folding mentioned above by Mr B. is actually done on GPUs as it seems (at least I remember seeing a whitepaper about it) .

Kangal said:
Again I used "i7" and "Gaming Computer" to save time. I mean a true geek would understand the meaning of the point instead of arguing its details like Dr Sheldon Cooper. That list is there as to also prove a point. We can compare the performance ... by our perception. It is a crude method, but one that relies on observation, and as a scientist I know physical observations are valid parameters to be able to make predictions and conclusions. And Fox one more thing, the claim is backed ... by my observations! So you can take it as a grain of salt if you please or reference it for a journal, it does not affect my stance. I dont know many things, infact easier to say nothing about how software in computers work. So their may be techniques to make some systems look better than others and I'm not arguing that.
A true "geek" sees that your post makes no sense because you use a CPU to "measure" "graphics capabilities". Actually all that i7 fanboy-ism at the moment makes me sick. People speak like only i7s can make current gen games possible. This is not true.
As a scientist you should also know that you should give REAL evidence for your claims (such as screenshots). If you don't have time to do that you shouldn't do it in first place. You should also set boundarys for your assumptions.

Kangal said:
To you this list may be useless (as you stated), then just ignore it or say I think this list is useless instead of a long long long Dr Cox rant.
This is a forum. It was made for discussions. If I wanted "yes / no" options I'd probably waste my time with something else. I don't answer your posts for myself but for you so you can improve your posts and contribute better information next time - spread the word and actually shape the community. So, that way I get something in return in the end by reading other users post which are far more wise and knowledgeable than my own posts. Yes, I'm looking at you exo, ari, laurent, pickle, adventus, ... *tons of others - don't complain if you are not on here - you know your names* :)


Kangal said:
But here's a kicker: Can you honestly say that an Xbox 360 has less graphical power (or however you state it) than a PS2, as to contradict the list?
Do you have any proof that disproves the list?
I don't have the patience to find hard proof for the list at this time, but I believe many people would be satisfied by the order.
Yes. Yes, I do have and no I'm not satisfired by the order
This is on amiga - did you see some of those effects on PS1? Probably not. Does this make the amiga more powerful in terms of graphics? Possibly - because we don't know if this can also be done with a PS1. Only because we didn't see it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Here is another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNCqrylNY-0
Sooo.... my washing machine (actually I have seen these microcontrollers in nearly anything - my switch has one in it for example) is actually higher in the list than a NES? (Now that you have seen what it can do)

Similar things can be said about the X360 comparison to PS2.
Additionally, I'm sure there are cases where the X360 can perform slower than the PS2. Depending on the running software this can be a necessary effect and make the PS2 perform better than the X360 (even tho this might be very rare).

You should also think about the fact that good graphics are not always photorealistic or complex to process by the hardware.

Imagine a quiz game. Isn't it enough to have 4 buttons with the answers on them on the display? Most systems can do exactly this - it might be what you could consider the best graphics for a special case.
Another example would be camera mapping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGI0ro5rXA8
(Randomly found on youtube)

All this takes is a high-res image and a few low poly objects without any additional shading. Nearly any system can do this. And for most games this is a great option to have high visual quality if the camera stays in some boundaries. The thing is: imagine doing this on the PS2 - works. Now do the same on the X360 - works. Does this make them equal graphics wise?
Probably not if we talk about processing power as the X360 will most likely be faster. Possibly not about output image quality because the X360 has a higher resolution output (thats another topic..). But you can say for sure that both achieve what the developer wanted to have and the user shouldn't be able to tell how the image was produced on any of the systems. If you wouldn't know which system was faster (because both should be able to do this at at least 60 FPS) before, you couldn't tell it afterwards. And if a PS2 game used this technique but a X360 game didn't, you would also say the PS2 produces higher quality graphics. You would have to assume the PS2 has a higher graphics processing capability

I'd put all systems on par when it comes to graphic capabilities. The only difference is how fast they can do it (because even your old gameboy COULD be used to raytrace a high quality HD image into memory if you swap it often enough and if you give it enough time). The speed is the limitation by the system, the other limitation would be the software developer himself who decides how the image is made AND who is responsible for implementing it in a fast way (implementation on CPU? GPU? some additional chip?) to work around the first limitation.

Kangal said:
Even with the best benchmarks in the world with the most comparable functions its impossible to have "2.8x" or "7.0x" rule. PERIOD.
Agreed :lol: but it is humiliating to see how literal you took a "hypothetical" scenario. I was just trying to say it isn't completely useless to have that extra piece of information, and was trying to back that up with an example. It's a shame if you didn't understand it.
Look around on the forums. All those who actually work on emulators or those who understand how they work are really PISSED OFF because this myth keeps coming up again and again. It's really frustrating to see the same thing turning up so many times even tho its completly false.

Kangal said:
Your move Fox. (fix'd)
We were talking about "childlike" before? ;)

sebt3 said:
Exo... You should just stop doing this.
I mean, you're just just giving insight on how thing works. And this is real insight and I love to read them.
But your argument while to the point and fully valid, are too technical to be understand by common mortal.

In that case, those who don't understand it should read up on their own to understand the discussion or maybe even contribute to it OR they should just shut up and leave this stuff to others. Whats the use in knowning about numbers if you can't do anything with them? It's just turning into fanboy-ism and wrong claims.


---

However, now that we have the reason why this topic was started we should also see that we have gone really offtopic.
Ontopic: Emulation is extremly case specific and should be asked for every emulator on its own. Yes. I even mean differences between emulators emulating the same system.
//Edit: I mostly agree with Exo though. For most emulators the Pandora should be faster if we talk about LLE and a platform without hundreds of add-on chips which have very specific operations.

//Note: Had to strip out the media tags because only one vid seems to be allowed per entry.. Sorry, because this also messed up the structure of this post
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suppose there were other reasons for this thread but they were already addressed and some people here really need to clam down.
 
I now see that the OP seems to have simply been wondering if the pandora were better than a psp for emulating, but earlier I was thinking maybe he wanted a number to use to impress "normals" (non technical people, general public, people who didn't throw down money to fund an open source hardware project, etc) ...so I'm still gonna say this even tho it's no longer related.

Really, a LOT of the people that I'm gonna be showing my Pandora to are NOT gonna understand much of what I'm saying if I answer their inquiry of "how fast is it?" with raw technical details that the likes of us are interested in.

For these "normals", I like to simply tell it in terms of what games it can run and consoles it can emulate, afaik from watching youtubes. So I'll explain a little bit about how ARM can't run x86 binaries, but that some games are open-sourced like the quake 3 engine, so it's been ported and runs great. That gives them a little bit of a reference to a similar computer they may have owned in their past that they played quake 3 on, and I'm sure to explain that due to the open nature of the device some drivers and programs are not optimized yet and that speeds will improve with further code optimizations.

Next I'll usually use N64 emulation as a good baseline reference for handheld consoles. So I'll start by explaining how you can hack a psp to make it run emulators and tell them about the typical performance of SNES and N64 emulation on my psp, from MY experience with running emulators on my psp. Which has always been that SNES ran great but usually needed some frameskip to run smooth, especially with the harder-to-emulate games like mario rpg and super mario world. Then I'll explain how N64 emulation on PSP is, which for me has always been too low of framerate to be playable and needed serious tweaks like rendering at a lower resolution and lots of code optimizations to do so. Of course now I'll tell them how great the Pandora runs N64, even at higher-than-original resolution, and once again throw in the bit about code optimizations for good measure.

By this time, I think most "normals" have a good idea of how fast the Pandora is. If they want more I just give them the raw marketing numbers on stats... "normals" don't care if one chip is more efficient than another for one thing or another... they just wanna know the numbers, let them jump to their OWN conclusions and give them the numbers!

I usually just give them some verbal copypasta off of the open-pandora.org technical specs page.
 
@Exophase: You're actually very clear, but people need to know the jargon to understand. For example:

lulzfish said:
I don't know what USSE is, ask Wikipedia.
I guess from the SSE that it's part of the Streaming SIMD Extensions that some x86 chips have, where they have extra silicon to handle specific vector math.

Wikipedia has failed you. Exophase was refering to the Universal Scalable Shader Engine that is implemented in the PowerVR SGX. Look it up if you're interested.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The RAM problem has been resolved.
The PSP vs Pandy has been resolved.
So I'm just replying to JayFoxRox.


JayFoxRox said:
Why is the marketing factor important anymore - Why on earth do we still depend on numeric values if we have videos of sample applications running, real world examples of useful software.

I was referring to a benchmarking figures as to show off to friends not marketing, funny how it didn't occur to me.
Then I got to thinking, geekish figures are not used in marketing factors anymore -oh wait (1GHz Snapdragon / 1GHz A4) ... they are used.
(BTW QSD is only little/not better than OMAP3's).

Okay you know why I wrote i7 - time saving.
But why i7? I could've typed a "Radeon HD 5870 Gaming Computer" which takes more time to write and search for.
So you still didn't get it.
I don't even have an i7, so your i7-fanboyism argument is flawed. I have an SU7300 CULV (and I'm happy wit it)!
What if I wrote Dual Core Gaming Computer - that can be associated with older dual cores and low powered ones.
Gosh! wtf I can't believe I'm rambling about this.

So your arguments about GPU used for gaming was actually a waste of time, bandwidth and post space imo.
Yes GPU is the main bottleneck, but it is foolish to suggest the CPU doesn't also contribute to the "graphics capability" either for gameplay or something else.


JayFoxRox said:
I do have an i7 myself.

Good on you.

JayFoxRox said:
I do get the point that Kangal wanted to say that a "Gaming Computer" produces the best graphics (even though I think that this is not true - read on..)

Sounds contradicting.


JayFoxRox said:
A true "geek" sees that your post makes no sense because you use a CPU to "measure" "graphics capabilities". Actually all that i7 fanboy-ism at the moment makes me sick. People speak like only i7s can make current gen games possible. This is not true.
.....
but he made it sound like the i7 (or CPU in general) is a major point. This is clearly not true, hence I question it because I don't want others to belive it. If you are expierenced enough to filter out that its not necessary: congratulations, however, some people are not.

You were the only one here who thought of it that way. So instead of saying you want to educate people to post as accurate as they can so readers don't get the wrong impression perhaps you should assess the situation. I am confident to say everyone (even the confusing Tyler) did filter it out and used the keyword "i7" to understand that this gaming computer is from the current era. I mean probably a Gaming Computer from 2001 would not match the PS3 in terms of "graphical power".
Anyway thanks for congratulating everyone.


JayFoxRox said:
As a scientist you should also know that you should give REAL evidence for your claims (such as screenshots). If you don't have time to do that you shouldn't do it in first place. You should also set boundarys for your assumptions.

Maybe you skim-read the part where I said I didnt have the time to look for the evidence, but you see that list; I have used every single console. Some I only had tested from others that owned it. The bottom line is to break the list, those I had not tested or remmember using since a log time and lost my confidence, hence the AFAIK. Also I didn't use the Pandora, which is on the list, but it has similar specs to the 3GS but slightly "lower" SGX graphics.

JayFoxRox said:
This is a forum. It was made for discussions. If I wanted "yes / no" options I'd probably waste my time with something else. I don't answer your posts for myself but for you so you can improve your posts and contribute better information next time - spread the word and actually shape the community. So, that way I get something in return in the end by reading other users post which are far more wise and knowledgeable than my own posts. Yes, I'm looking at you exo, ari, laurent, pickle, adventus, ... *tons of others - don't complain if you are not on here - you know your names* :)

Well your reply actually made me reflect what the majority would percieve as an "i7 Gaming Computer". After such reflection it has instilled confidence in me, to continue to use keywords as such. In the future I will still use it, and if someone would reply with "i7 isn't the best out-there" or "state the GPU not CPU" it wouldn't bug me as someone will be there to explain the message of the language. I am not shallow to comment on other people's form of post (exo, ari etc) , I mean they are spending their time and effort to give you their answer, at least you could show them the courtesy of attempting to decode what they are trying to say (Google never hurt anyone) before making criticism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kangal said:
But here's a kicker: Can you honestly say that an Xbox 360 has less graphical power (or however you state it) than a PS2, as to contradict the list?
Do you have any proof that disproves the list?
I don't have the patience to find hard proof for the list at this time, but I believe many people would be satisfied by the order.
JayFoxRox said:
Yes. Yes, I do have and no I'm not satisfired by the order
This is on amiga - did you see some of those effects on PS1? Probably not. Does this make the amiga more powerful in terms of graphics? Possibly - because we don't know if this can also be done with a PS1. Only because we didn't see it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Amiga is underneath the line, so to say I cannot recall its graphical performance. I still do greatly appreciate your contribution. Is there any other examples, please say.

JayFoxRox said:
Here is another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNCqrylNY-0
Sooo.... my washing machine (actually I have seen these microcontrollers in nearly anything - my switch has one in it for example) is actually higher in the list than a NES? (Now that you have seen what it can do)

Thanks that was awesome to watch. At 2:31 you can judge the its capability as it gives you a 2.5D/3D feel. At 4:17 it looks like it is displaying and warping a Mandlebrot/Juliet graph which is an incredible feat (for a microprocessor from an aircon/dishwasher/wherever it came from). But I think given the coder, the same visuals could be applied to the SNES perhaps with higher pixels, faster processing, different sound. So judging from that I wouldn't say its better than a SNES for "gaming power" or "potential" but it isn't undermined by any means.

JayFoxRox said:
Similar things can be said about the X360 comparison to PS2.
Additionally, I'm sure there are cases where the X360 can perform slower than the PS2. Depending on the running software this can be a necessary effect and make the PS2 perform better than the X360 (even tho this might be very rare).

Yes, like I've been taught nothing in this world is certain, including what I've just said. There are exceptions for everything even in nature, which is nature itself. But lets be more aggressive. While there may be many (several hundred) cases where the PS2 graphics can be proved to be superior to the X360, there would be much more opposing cases so that in a wide average it can be easy to deduce the X360 is "more powerful" at graphics than the PS2.


JayFoxRox said:
You should also think about the fact that good graphics are not always photorealistic or complex to process by the hardware.

Imagine a quiz game. Isn't it enough to have 4 buttons with the answers on them on the display? Most systems can do exactly this - it might be what you could consider the best graphics for a special case.
Another example would be camera mapping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGI0ro5rXA8
(Randomly found on youtube)

I see your point. This can be applied in the sake of the PSP, which some argue graphically looks better than the PS2 though it is less powerful.

JayFoxRox said:
The thing is: imagine doing this on the PS2 - works. Now do the same on the X360 - works. Does this make them equal graphics wise?
Probably not if we talk about processing power as the X360 will most likely be faster. Possibly not about output image quality because the X360 has a higher resolution output (thats another topic..). But you can say for sure that both achieve what the developer wanted to have and the user shouldn't be able to tell how the image was produced on any of the systems. If you wouldn't know which system was faster (because both should be able to do this at at least 60 FPS) before, you couldn't tell it afterwards. And if a PS2 game used this technique but a X360 game didn't, you would also say the PS2 produces higher quality graphics. You would have to assume the PS2 has a higher graphics processing capability.

Yes the loophole is that neat graphical tricks can be added to lower powered devices which can make them visually as good or better than another system.


JayFoxRox said:
I'd put all systems on par when it comes to graphic capabilities. The only difference is how fast they can do it (because even your old gameboy COULD be used to raytrace a high quality HD image into memory if you swap it often enough and if you give it enough time). The speed is the limitation by the system, the other limitation would be the software developer himself who decides how the image is made AND who is responsible for implementing it in a fast way (implementation on CPU? GPU? some additional chip?) to work around the first limitation.

That is your translation. I understand it is wrong to conclusively say one system is better than another but it is easier to just make a heirachy for the layman and then going into the nasty details if he/she so desires to know.

JayFoxRox said:
Even with the best benchmarks in the world with the most comparable functions its impossible to have "2.8x" or "7.0x" rule. PERIOD.
Look around on the forums. All those who actually work on emulators or those who understand how they work are really PISSED OFF because this myth keeps coming up again and again. It's really frustrating to see the same thing turning up so many times even tho its completly false.

I never said it was correct nor was it my intention to piss off anyone (sorry JayFoxRox). But just like the it is not accurate BUT realistic rule of thumb.
Here's an explanation:
Before the metric system everything was measured in "arms length".
So a peddler that had 40 armslength of silk from china (smaller workers) may have had less than one from india.
The system was flawed and it was so obvious.
BUT the system did work and was used throughout many regions of the ancient world.


JayFoxRox said:
Kangal said:
Your move Fox. (fix'd)
We were talking about "childlike" before? ;)

Sorry I dont get it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amiga's a reeal big target, I think the fastest one people respectfully still consider "an Amiga" is at least an order of magnitude (10x) faster than the slowest one.

Sorry about being too terse/technical, I'd explain more but typing kinda hates me right now and will continue to for some more weeks :{
 
Back
Top