Mips And Gflops

[Kramy]

I did not mean they are limited in distribution size I mean Apps made on the App store are limited to 32MB of RAM, the rest is taken up by iPhone OS, at least that's what I heard last sure most programs running on that thing would not need it but 3D ones might.

And fine more ram does not mean more performance fine. But more RAM certainly helps 3D related tasks. So what is RAM needed for on Pandora? I'm trying to listen.

You sure you aren't thinking of WinCE 5.0?

I love Exophase's posts. I understand 80-90% of them, and look up the rest. Almost every single one leaves me more knowledgeable.

calc84maniac: Very insightful post, a few pages back!

 

[Vorporeal]

I miss PoisonedV - this thread wouldn't have made it past the first page.

P.S.: Exo, your posts are incredibly informative. I love reading your posts, not totally understanding things, going to class, and being taught the exact things you were talking about. (For example, you were talking about the TLB in relation to the N64, IIRC, and the next day, we covered it in my computer systems class.)

EDIT: Fuck, used the wrong your.

 

[JayFoxRox]

I was referring to a benchmarking figures as to show off to friends not marketing, funny how it didn't occur to me.

That's what I meant by marketing too. Maybe one could even go as far and say its fanboy-ism. Throwing around benchmark values is of no need anymore. mitosis said exactly what I was trying to say earlier.

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.

It's not your bad. But something generic like "Gaming Computer" would have been enough. People would have implied its from the current gen. However, giving exact informations on a specific part makes it look like exactly that part is necessary.

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.

Give me one good example where the CPU of a modern gaming system contributes to the graphics capability in modern software.

I do have an i7 myself.

Good on you.

My point was: It's not necessary to have it for good graphics. I was not trying to show off (in this particular case ).

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.

I gave examples, still contradicting?

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.

People might come accross this board using google or they might just read it and take it for granted (without responding). And I'm sure we will see posts like: "I herd i7 is neededz fo thiz gamez! LOLZ UPGRADING!" on youtube etc. Wording like the one you used is one of the reasons for this.

 

[JayFoxRox]

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.

Maybe you skim-read the part where I said that you shouldn't have done it in first place then. I have to respect that you put time and effort into this list, but in the end its not useful if there are no screenshots or other backups. My last post should have shown that its not about raw "graphics power" anymore but what the developer makes out of the available resources. I'm sure screenshots would have revealed some tricks and they would have allowed others to present other examples for a given system to put it higher on the list.
In turn this would mean: It's not about the hardware / system, but software. Again, making this list useless.

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.

So you actually expect others to fix your false informations even though you knew that you are stating wrong things, or things which could be misunderstood at the time of posting? Thats a bit stupid to me.

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.

Wait... what?! Read again please
Either my english is not good enough to understand this post or it makes no sense.
What I tried to say was: The persons I listed contribute great posts to this forum which make it highly useful to me. I do understand most, not all, bust most posts without looking up additional informations and can usually understand all of it and learn something by looking up the parts I don't understand.
However, your answer makes it sound like I don't understand their posts and even criticise them. This is not true.

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.

There are hundreds of examples. Just look around in the demoscene. But like exo said: "amiga" is not well defined. Since I'm not too informed in that area neither I should have left that one out in first place. I was already thinking about dropping it before posting but than didn't do it because its visually impressive and I just had to assume that even the latest "amigas" would be considered worse than some other platforms on the list.

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.

We can't say anything for sure, can we? Until then we shouldn't compare them.

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.

True But that doesn't mean the PS2 is not suitable for good graphics. Your list is based on observations and you can't see the time left for further processing. Hence you can't tell which system is faster if both are getting 30-60 FPS on the effect the developer was aiming for.

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.
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.

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.

The thing is: it's not necessary nor even possible to get into the nasty details. Todays systems are so complex that it is impossible to compare them. You can only compare systems with one specific, optimized piece of software.

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.

Well I wasn't really pissed off this time as you at least tried to have a new unit to measure things. But this rule will come up again and lead to useless discussions and broken dreams for those who think emulating a system is possible only because of this rule.
Your example is good, but imagine the same with more than a million arms and possibly legs, and headsizes. There are different ways to emulate a system, most common are probably [abstract]LLE and HLE or something mixed AND that has to be combined with an implementation for the code which would most likely be a dynarec, a static recompiler or an interpreter[/abstract].
All of these have different requirements and last but not least "MHz" can't be compared between architectures. This makes the rule unrealistic - completly. And using it will cause problems.
You could have a rule per emulator. Look what sort of "technique" it uses, what host platform it runs on, what it emulates and so on and then make a general thumbrule for that. But not even that is possible and would be unrealistic.

*Ran out of quotes here*

/*
Kangal: Your move Fox. (fix'd)
JayFoxRox: We were talking about "childlike" before? ;) 
Kangal: Sorry I dont get it.
*/

I just thought that saying "Your move" was very childlike too. It almost sounds like an invitation to some fight in the backyard.

 

[Kangal]

People might come accross this board using google or they might just read it and take it for granted (without responding). And I'm sure we will see posts like: "I herd i7 is neededz fo thiz gamez! LOLZ UPGRADING!" on youtube etc. Wording like the one you used is one of the reasons for this.

I know I'm being mean when I say this, but if someone read that list, then said "I HAZ TO GET AN i7" that is their stupidity. I didn't structure that post as to persuade a reader to feel the i7 is Bleeding Edge, though that's how it is seen by all this commercializing. Perhaps they might get a great bargain with an i7. More likely someone with that reaction will just buy it from the first place they see one, potentially paying excess.

Yes it is better that such things should not happen. Realistically it is impossible as we do not live in a perfect world. So here is my point, when someone want to give out a very detailed peice of information, the importance of accuracy is exceedingly higher. Which is why Exo gets so much praise with his posts. As you can see that list is well, just a list, no details involved. So adding "i7" to the sentence "Gaming Computer" was not wrong but not the Godhonesttothebone accurate. So the reason why I was defending what you're arguing as misinformation is well; its not that wrong/misinforming and the need for that single piece of information to be accurate is minuscule.

I have to respect that you put time and effort into this list, but in the end its not useful if there are no screenshots or other backups. My last post should have shown that its not about raw "graphics power" anymore but what the developer makes out of the available resources.

Thank you. I wouldn't put it that way; I would go as to say this list is useful for those that are interested yet have no clue about the products. I mean imagine a villager coming into western society and wants to take up gaming and is only concerned about hardcore graphics. He wouldn't know the difference between an Amiga or PS3! Or an enthusiast who (knows both of their technical specs and has somewhat seen their capabilities) is lurking for other people's ideas.

So you actually expect others to fix your false informations even though you knew that you are stating wrong things, or things which could be misunderstood at the time of posting? Thats a bit stupid to me.

Why are you making this difficult. It's like plucking tooth from chickens :huh:
I don't purposefully write rubbish in hopes someone will correct it, that, that is dangerous: a slippery road to trollism!
If the importance of the accuracy of my post is very little, then I have a liberty to say; what I want, how I want even if it means the accuracy is sacrificed.
Remember posting is a 2-way street.
And on top of this I have the confidence that from a great community like this, that if some idiot layman decided to question its accuracy then there would be followers that elaborate on my post to make things crystal-clear to that individual.

I mean otherwise its time consuming and a long process for many users to edit all their posts and make it much longer to express the quivacle truth.

On another note I'm astonished at your critique skills. Though I'm also astounded by the fact you missed the Achilles' heel. Why had you not argued the "graphical power" between the Xbox 360 and PS3? Their is an all-out internet war on this topic and all you needed to say was "What made you put PS3 in second rather than third". You could've found many arguments supporting Xbox 360 over PS3, although I could've rebuttal also with examples.

Wait... what?! Read again please
Either my english is not good enough to understand this post or it makes no sense.
What I tried to say was: The persons I listed contribute great posts to this forum which make it highly useful to me. I do understand most, not all, bust most posts without looking up additional informations and can usually understand all of it and learn something by looking up the parts I don't understand.
However, your answer makes it sound like I don't understand their posts and even criticise them. This is not true

I didn't skim read but indeed I read it wrong. My apologies. I thought it was more like "Hey Kangal you made a mistake it's alright and I read posts to get info from them and write posts to correct member's mistakes and I've seen others do it like Exo etc ect".

We can't say anything for sure, can we? Until then we shouldn't compare them.

Yes we can't be sure until its tried and tested. But what stops us (or should stop us) from making guestimates or predictions.
If I saw a housecat (PS2) and a horse (Xbox 360) I could predict the horse is faster based on observations of them running.
But until we put them side-by-side on a track we cannot be certain. Does that analogy help?

The thing is: it's not necessary nor even possible to get into the nasty details. Todays systems are so complex that it is impossible to compare them. You can only compare systems with one specific, optimized piece of software.

Getting Quake 3 optimized and seeing the average fps is a benchmark as someone earlier stated. That is information which is better reserved for the purpose of "details". Check NotebookCheck for instance in comparing laptop GPUs. So I wouldn't be quick to say it is not possible, just not easy.

I just thought that saying "Your move" was very childlike too. It almost sounds like an invitation to some fight in the backyard.

Yeah after a long serious post I had to have something with more essence than "will be looking forward to your post".

Well, your turn?

 

[Nation.A.List]

I have a pair of Flip Flops that will only run as fast as I can.

 

[laurencevde]

Anyways, for the ones wanting actual benchmarks, Phoronix's test-suite contains a couple of results of benchmarks on beagleboards. Just search for arm-cpu's.

 

[JayFoxRox]

I know I'm being mean when I say this, but if someone read that list, then said "I HAZ TO GET AN i7" that is their stupidity. I didn't structure that post as to persuade a reader to feel the i7 is Bleeding Edge, though that's how it is seen by all this commercializing. Perhaps they might get a great bargain with an i7. More likely someone with that reaction will just buy it from the first place they see one, potentially paying excess.

Why are you making this difficult. It's like plucking tooth from chickens :huh:
I don't purposefully write rubbish in hopes someone will correct it, that, that is dangerous: a slippery road to trollism!
If the importance of the accuracy of my post is very little, then I have a liberty to say; what I want, how I want even if it means the accuracy is sacrificed.
Remember posting is a 2-way street.
And on top of this I have the confidence that from a great community like this, that if some idiot layman decided to question its accuracy then there would be followers that elaborate on my post to make things crystal-clear to that individual.

I wouldn't rely on that. Because:
You are the reason for their stupidity to some degree (Don't take it personal).

The addition of the "i7" pushes it even more than it already is and can cause a stupid reader to spread the word OR even buy one. However, this is... well of very few importance here. I think and we should just conclude: adding "i7" was unnecessary - just like discussing the use of it.

Thank you. I wouldn't put it that way; I would go as to say this list is useful for those that are interested yet have no clue about the products. I mean imagine a villager coming into western society and wants to take up gaming and is only concerned about hardcore graphics. He wouldn't know the difference between an Amiga or PS3! Or an enthusiast who (knows both of their technical specs and has somewhat seen their capabilities) is lurking for other people's ideas.

True.
But, as a developer, especially interested in graphics development, I'm interested in what a system can do if the software is optimized for it.
You were talking about the average piece of software pushed out, while I was talking about the goals of the developer being reachable.
The title could have been picked better than: "Better at graphics"

On another note I'm astonished at your critique skills. Though I'm also astounded by the fact you missed the Achilles' heel. Why had you not argued the "graphical power" between the Xbox 360 and PS3? Their is an all-out internet war on this topic and all you needed to say was "What made you put PS3 in second rather than third". You could've found many arguments supporting Xbox 360 over PS3, although I could've rebuttal also with examples.

I'm wearing a tshirt which says: "XBox" on the front and I have been xbox fanboy from day 1. I didn't even took that point serious because I know how it is in real

Actually... It's just that it depends on the software again. This was also true with Xbox and PS2. There were many Xbox games which were poor ports from PS2 games which looked and played worse while the Xbox was able to do some things which were not possible in hardware on PS2.
Why would I even mess with the list if I said its useless (to me) anyway?

Yes we can't be sure until its tried and tested. But what stops us (or should stop us) from making guestimates or predictions.
If I saw a housecat (PS2) and a horse (Xbox 360) I could predict the horse is faster based on observations of them running.
But until we put them side-by-side on a track we cannot be certain. Does that analogy help?

Without being an animal expert, let me just say that even a good horse runs only fast if there is a good rider. A housecat will be quite fast if you put a mouse infront of it
However, if you want to be fast without too much effort you would probably buy a horse, rather than putting a saddle on a cat.
But in theory both should be able to reach the goal (good graphics) like you wanted (you don't even want to add more things because the graphics style and features are exactly what you were going for) with both of them [if you are light enough or you have a monster housecat ].
The difference is that it takes longer to teach the cat to transport you (time of development) and the horse will most likely still have enough power to do additional stuff for you (meaning you could add more effects).

The thing is: it's not necessary nor even possible to get into the nasty details. Todays systems are so complex that it is impossible to compare them. You can only compare systems with one specific, optimized piece of software.

Getting Quake 3 optimized and seeing the average fps is a benchmark as someone earlier stated. That is information which is better reserved for the purpose of "details". Check NotebookCheck for instance in comparing laptop GPUs. So I wouldn't be quick to say it is not possible, just not easy.

Save your time - Don't get me started on FPS.

But in theory: Yes - comparing something like this does work. Why?
Because software for computers is usually not optimized per system but for the average computer. Measuring performance in games is fine as these are real world cases which you care about (Even though its a limited test-case again, set by the OS, drivers etc - but lets just leave that alone).
However, comparing XYZ between PC and Pandora is harder because you don't have the stock XYZ on Pandora, but most likely an optimized version. Running the stock version might be slower than you would expect. But you don't drop it because of that but start to optimize - something you wouldn't or couldn't necessarily do on PC, because it often can't be done as the programmer is presented with a very abstract workspace.

 

[Exophase]

Save your time - Don't get me started on FPS.

Glad I'm not the only one unhappy with people citing FPS deltas as absolute changes in software performance. Sadly, I see even highly skilled emu devs doing this (my change of X made things Y fps faster)

 

[sebt3]

When comparing orange to peach, using banannas metrics won't help much

Who stole the apples ?.

Oh, And fruit salad anyone ?.

Trooper

Sorry I was out of car analogy (well the only one I was thinking about was counter-productive) tuss this fruit salad one. Promiss, next time i'll think twice before *not* posting a car analogy

 

[sebt3]

EDIT : I re-read the JayFoxRox answer, and it's clearer : I was talking giberish.

 

[Kangal]

I wouldn't rely on that. Because:
You are the reason for their stupidity to some degree (Don't take it personal).

The addition of the "i7" pushes it even more than it already is and can cause a stupid reader to spread the word OR even buy one. However, this is... well of very few importance here. I think and we should just conclude: adding "i7" was unnecessary - just like discussing the use of it.

You are stating this as that my information (which is not the ultimate truth in a sentence where the ultimate truth does not matter) is misinforming a person without much knowledge on the matter as to cause him to decrease their iQ/mQ/morality.
As stated, someone who does not filter information as correct, incorrect or neutral has much more problems than choosing what CPU to buy.
So I support my stance when I say "i7" doesn't push the reader/persuade them to purchase one.
To you "i7" was unnecessary, to me it was a vital bit of information to allow the reader to understand that such a computer is from the current era/market but yet adding that information did not add to the effect of persuading a purchase.

I'm wearing a tshirt which says: "XBox" on the front and I have been xbox fanboy from day 1. I didn't even took that point serious because I know how it is in real

Actually... It's just that it depends on the software again. This was also true with Xbox and PS2. There were many Xbox games which were poor ports from PS2 games which looked and played worse while the Xbox was able to do some things which were not possible in hardware on PS2.
Why would I even mess with the list if I said its useless (to me) anyway?

I wouldn't need to mess with the list to say its useless. A simple
"I think this list is useless due to the sheer lack of evidence supporting the placements of the systems. Example what evidence made you put the PS3 above the Xbox360?"
wuold've sufficed. Anyways its offtopic now.

Without being an animal expert, let me just say that even a good horse runs only fast if there is a good rider. A housecat will be quite fast if you put a mouse infront of it
However, if you want to be fast without too much effort you would probably buy a horse, rather than putting a saddle on a cat.
But in theory both should be able to reach the goal (good graphics) like you wanted (you don't even want to add more things because the graphics style and features are exactly what you were going for) with both of them [if you are light enough or you have a monster housecat ].
The difference is that it takes longer to teach the cat to transport you (time of development) and the horse will most likely still have enough power to do additional stuff for you (meaning you could add more effects).

I like to contradict, because I think a horse can run faster without a jockey which is just 80+kg (jockey & gear) unnecessary weight that constrain its movements and agitate when the gear hops on the animals back. My analogy was not which would be faster if you rode it, but which is faster in a race without the rider. Yes housecats can exceed 50km/h but horses can exceed this upto 90km/h. Although the speed of horses is so much variable you can have some that might only match the housecat. Housecats have a smaller variability of speed from what I know.
The analogy was:
Both are blazing fast. If I saw them I would be tempted to say the horse is indeed faster due to its size and longer forearms and legs (not thighs and arms) which allow it to have an increased distance in every stride/gallop, in contrast to the housecat. And upon such observation (little tech background) then actually watching each animal individually run; this would make me certain that my prediction (horse is faster) is infact true. However, they have not competed head-head. The difference in software you say, in this analogy comes to the difference in conditions.
ie Ground = (concrete/grass/soft soil etc)
Weather = hot/cold/windy/rainy/sunny/snow etc
Visability = mist/rain/snow etc

Save your time - Don't get me started on FPS.

But in theory: Yes - comparing something like this does work. Why?
Because software for computers is usually not optimized per system but for the average computer. Measuring performance in games is fine as these are real world cases which you care about (Even though its a limited test-case again, set by the OS, drivers etc - but lets just leave that alone).
However, comparing XYZ between PC and Pandora is harder because you don't have the stock XYZ on Pandora, but most likely an optimized version. Running the stock version might be slower than you would expect. But you don't drop it because of that but start to optimize - something you wouldn't or couldn't necessarily do on PC, because it often can't be done as the programmer is presented with a very abstract workspace.

Okay I see your point. Their is an example out there to try to explain my point but it has not come to me.
'nuff said

 

[Iorgy77]

1.21