NVIDIA: PS3 GPU 50 times more powerful than PS2's GS

Hmm...I think "Toy Story graphics" was first mentioned in TIME magazine, actually. I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.
 
I dont think there are any official PRs from Sony out there with that stuff, but I do remember an article at IGN that said Sony PR was dripfeeding the stuff out to the press.
 
MS did worse than any magazine "toy story" comment when it tried to pass off that pre-rendered Raven video as being indicitive of the graphics performance of the Xbox.
 
teiresias said:
MS did worse than any magazine "toy story" comment when it tried to pass off that pre-rendered Raven video as being indicitive of the graphics performance of the Xbox.
To be fair, Sony and Nintendo did the same same with some of their promo demos. The GT 2000, Reiko & Wave Race demos for example have stunning IQ that was never reached in PS2 or GC software. The Raven demo's comparable to that, outside IQ it probably could be done on Xbox.
 
jarrod said:
To be fair, Sony and Nintendo did the same same with some of their promo demos. The GT 2000, Reiko & Wave Race demos for example have stunning IQ that was never reached in PS2 or GC software. The Raven demo's comparable to that, outside IQ it probably could be done on Xbox.

Allow me to disagree:
http://ps2movies.ign.com/media/news/video/ps2demos/psx2_2.mpg

Reiko demo has a lot of flickering and aliasing on the floor.
GT2000 is just pathetic compared to GT4 and so is Tekken demo compared to Tekken 5.
 
To be fair, Sony and Nintendo did the same same with some of their promo demos.
Every one of those Sony demos was realtime - and running on a 33% slower ps2 hardware to boot. And yeah as mentioned, the IQ on them generally sucked (even the FF ballroom demo was no exception to interlace flicekr and abundant aliasing).
 
Marconelly said:
Raven demo was done in realtime on Xbox later on, and it looked crappy compared to it's prerendered brother.


What?

The demo was done on the GeForce 2 kit which is why it looked like sheet, hence why it was called the "Raven NV15 realtime demo"

download that here: http://www.pipeworks.net/raven.mpg

Apparently it was done very very close to the CG version on the Xbox but was never released

for reference... the other Xbox tech demos

http://www.pipeworks.net/pong.mpg

http://www.pipeworks.net/garden.mpg

http://www.pipeworks.net/clack.mpg
 
I think the robot demo was exlipsed by Riddick, personally. So both systems beat their pre-release teases.
I think that various games on Xbox have eclipsed those tech demos Dopey posted above, but that Robot demo was pre-rendered and as such I don't think any game looks better than it in the sense of lighting precision and image quality (riddick often has pretty awful image quality actually).
 
SONY HYPE TRAIN PULLING AWAY FROM THE PLATFORM, DESTINATION SPINWORLD. ESTIMATED ARRIVAL TIME 2006.

local-arrival.jpg
 
Izzy said:
PS3 GRAPHICS CHIP MOST POWERFUL YET - SAY NVIDIA

nVidia claim PS3 GPU "far more powerful" than anything they've previously worked on

Please not this load of shit again. I really don't care if it looks like Toy Story just make sure the damn texture shimmering is gone and it can anti-alias on every game. There's no excuse for either of those faults on a next-gen system especially when they only pump out TV resolution. Nuff said.
 
50x is about right considering that they have to release it one year earlier the normal. But the most powerful chip ever thing is a little retarded.
 
seismologist said:
can someone put this in pespective. Like how many times more powerful is a 6800GT over PS2?

Ummm 5-7 times considering polygons and fill rate. :lol :lol
But really these numbers are useless.
 
http://www.totalvideogames.com/pages/articles/index.php?game_id=&article_id=6897

nVidia Discuss Playstation3

10/12/2004
By: Chris Leyton


The Playstation3 graphics processor is the result of a two year collaboration between nVidia and Sony...

Following on from Sony Computer Entertainment and NVidia announcement, further details regarding the graphics processor set to feature in the forthcoming Playstation3 have today come to light.

Speaking at a San Jose Press Conference, Jen-Hsun Huang President nVidia, claimed that the processor set to feature has been specifically created for the Playstation3 and is not based on a PC chipset. Huang claimed that both Sony and nVidia have been working closely for the last two years on the design of the chip, backing up earlier speculation that both companies were in collaboration.

Naturally Huang believes the Playstation3 to be far more powerful then anything currently on the market, with some vague suggestions hinting at a 50 fold increase in performance compared to the Playstation2.



Yes, they did on both counts. I recall distinctly, on this board, a press release from Sony calling out that the EE could "process 50x the 3D data" as the DC. I'll try to find an archive.


GhaleonEB

you're correct.

remember, circa march 1999:

PS2:
Sony claims the system is capable of pushing 3D graphical data
nearly fifty times faster than Sega's Dreamcast.

PS2:
handle nearly 50 times more 3D image data than Sega Dreamcast.


(here's a link) http://tinyurl.com/484eg
The World's Fastest Graphics Rendering Processor The new microprocessor which uses embedded DRAM technology will allow users to handle nearly 50 times more 3D image data compared with Sega's Dreamcast. The parallel rendering engine will contain a 2,560 bit wide data bus that is 20 times the size of leading PC-based graphics accelerators. Supporting NTSC/PAL television, High Definition Digital TV and VESA output standards, it will also let developers produce game characters comparable in image quality to movie-quality 3D graphics in real time.

now, I've seen it said that Emotion Engine microprocessor can handle 50 times more 3D image data than Dreamcast, BUT ive also seen it said about the Graphics Synthesizer, and I think it is in fact a comparison of Dreamcast to GS, not the EE. I think the 50x figure is coming from the memory bandwidth. 800 MB/sec (0.8 GB/sec) for PowerVR2DC in Dreamcast compared to 48 GB/sec bandwidth for GS in PS2.
 
BUT TEH KEN KUTAKUMKUM PROMISED 1000X TEH POWER OF PS2 FOR PS3 BACK IN 2000!!! BOMB BOMB BOMB....

no dude, that was back in teh 1999 :D

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.video.sega/msg/551d3b67432c8445?dmode=source
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19991006S0040
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...playstation/msg/3bee6fbf6a82fc7f?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...playstation/msg/60a3ac7f47789a16?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/it.comp.console/msg/d1dbb8080383de1e?dmode=source

(and many, many more)


http://ps2.ign.com/articles/072/072836p1.html?fromint=1

PS3 Will Have 1,000 Times Performance of PS2
SCEI senior VP says that PlayStation3 will significantly out-perform PlayStation2.
November 17, 1999 - According to a news release on AsiaBizTech, Shin-ichi Okamoto said, "We are working to create the PlayStation 3 game machine so that it will have 1,000 times the performance of the PlayStation 2." Okamota, senior vice president of the research and development division of Sony Computer Entertainment, said this when he gave a keynote speech at the "Microcomputer System & Tool Fair '99" held at Tokyo Big Site from Nov. 10-12.

As indicated by the story, SCE surveyed content developers when they were developing the PlayStation 2; the developers said that they would need a performance of 18,000 times that of the PlayStation in order to generate game images in real-time. Sony suggests that the PlayStation 2 is 300 times as powerful as the current PlayStation, falling short of what the content developers had wanted. In regards to this, Okamoto said, "We understand the requirement is half met. We would like to realize the goal in the development of our next version, the PlayStation 3."
 
the Sony demos were all real-time on PS2 hardware, or a fraction of PS2 hardware.

all the demos have been rivaled or surpassed in PS2 games. Sony was the most 'honest' when they did demos to represent PS2.

Nintendo had a combination of real-time and pre-rendered CG demos at SpaceWorld 2000 to represent Gamecube. the Wave Race demo @ 60fps was alot better looking than Wave Race: Bull Shit @ 30fps (sorry couldn't resist, and i own a GCN and love it, but come on!) and the Metroid CG demo was also false advertising since Metroid Prime and MP2:E does not look as good. although at least the MP games are 60fps like the SW2K Metroid CG. but image quality is much much worse on GC MP games than MP demo.


bottem line, Gamecube did not come close to the pre-rendered CG demos at SW2K. even the real-time Gamecube demos, looked better than the actual Gamecube games. the R-T Luigi's Mansion demo looked better than actual game. the R-T Zelda demo looked vastly superior to TWW, and only now is Cube getting a Zelda that comes close to the demo. now, to be 'fair & balanced' to the GameCube that I love, the Star Wars Rogue Squadran 2 demo was surpassed by Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike. and Resident Evil 4 looks better than the real-time Gamecube demos at SW2K. I really wished that Nintendo had made a Gamecube Pokemon game that looked like the R-T Meowth's Party demo....


some of Microsoft demos in March 2000 to represent Xbox were real-time, on GeForce2GTS / Nv15 but the others were totally pre-rendered. the Raven-Robot demo and the AfroThunder demo. later at E3, Nvidia had a crappier real-time version of the Raven demo running on GeForce2 GTS / Nv15. it looked roughly one fifth as good, IMO, as the pre-rendered Raven demo. someone on B3D claims that Nvidia did a 2nd realtime version of the Raven demo, that looked closer to the pre-rendered version, but that has never been seen.


in the 16-bit and 32-bit generations, SEGA did a massive amount of false advertising for its Genesis & Saturn console versions of its arcade games, often showing the arcade versions instead of the inferior home versions.

see, I've ripped on almost everyone. except SONY. but wait, Sony is the worst lying piece of shit of all! in 1998 before PS2 was shown, Sony's all powerful father of playstation said that PS2 would put an end to the polygon. that it would have film-like graphics, and that users would not notice that they are looking at computer graphics. what a load of vaginal-leak. :lol
 
xexex said:
the Sony demos were all real-time on PS2 hardware, or a fraction of PS2 hardware.

all the demos have been rivaled or surpassed in PS2 games. Sony was the most 'honest' when they did demos to represent PS2.

Nintendo had a combination of real-time and pre-rendered CG demos at SpaceWorld 2000 to represent Gamecube. the Wave Race demo @ 60fps was alot better looking than Wave Race: Bull Shit @ 30fps (sorry couldn't resist, and i own a GCN and love it, but come on!) and the Metroid CG demo was also false advertising since Metroid Prime and MP2:E does not look as good. although at least the MP games are 60fps like the SW2K Metroid CG. but image quality is much much worse on GC MP games than MP demo.


bottem line, Gamecube did not come close to the pre-rendered CG demos at SW2K. even the real-time Gamecube demos, looked better than the actual Gamecube games. the R-T Luigi's Mansion demo looked better than actual game. the R-T Zelda demo looked vastly superior to TWW, and only now is Cube getting a Zelda that comes close to the demo. now, to be 'fair & balanced' to the GameCube that I love, the Star Wars Rogue Squadran 2 demo was surpassed by Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike. and Resident Evil 4 looks better than the real-time Gamecube demos at SW2K. I really wished that Nintendo had made a Gamecube Pokemon game that looked like the R-T Meowth's Party demo....


some of Microsoft demos in March 2000 to represent Xbox were real-time, on GeForce2GTS / Nv15 but the others were totally pre-rendered. the Raven-Robot demo and the AfroThunder demo. later at E3, Nvidia has a crappier realtime version of the Raven demo running on GeForce2 GTS / Nv15. it looked roughly one fifth as good, IMO, as the realtime demo. someone on B3D claims that Nvidia did a 2nd realtime version of the Raven demo, that looked closer to the pre-rendered version, but that has never been seen.


in the 16-bit and 32-bit generations, SEGA did a massive amount of false advertising for its Genesis & Saturn console versions of its arcade games, often showing the arcade versions instead of the inferior home versions.

I don't get it. What you're saying is that while Capcom and possibly some other publishers surpassed Gamecube's tech demos Nintendo as a publisher didn't and that why you're frustrated?!?!? Don't forget tech demos are tech demos and not real games.
 
people are just bitter that their dc's started looking last gen when the ps2 tech demos were released. the demos look like shit compared to a lot of ps2 games being released now.
 
Marconelly said:
In all seriousness, I'm watching the Nalu video again, and I'm afraid to even think what Team Ico will be able to do with a hardware a lot more powerful than that.

Afraid to think, I tell ya.


Why would you be afraid? More powerful hardware could only mean more possibilities. I for one am excited to see what the team will be able to do with the hardware.

EDIT: To avoid confusion, I just thought I'd say that I know what Marco was saying... I just find the "so good it's scary" expression to be incredibly stupid.
 
"You can communicate to a new cybercity. Did you see the movie The Matrix Revolutions? Same interface. Same concept. Starting from next year, you can jack into The Matrix!"

fixed for PS3
 
Hypemachine...IGNITION!!!

This is just the beginning, people. Wait until you hear about the 1.5 billion polys the PS3 will be able to display!
 
there *is* no actual Xbox version of the Raven demo. there's a pre-rendered version and a real-time GeForce 2 version.

Xbox uses the NV2A which has elements of GeForce3, GeForce4 and even GeForceFX.


real-time Nv15 / GeForce 2 GTS (not Xbox) version of Raven-Robot demo, circa E3 2000
raven_0.jpg

raven_1.jpg

raven_2.jpg

raven_3.jpg

raven_4.jpg

raven_5.jpg



original pre-rendered CG Raven-Robot images, circa GDC 2000

68065.jpg
 
xexex said:
there *is* no actual Xbox version of the Raven demo. there's a pre-rendered version and a real-time GeForce 2 version.

Xbox uses the NV2A which has elements of GeForce3, GeForce4 and even GeForceFX.


real-time Nv15 / GeForce 2 GTS (not Xbox) version of Raven-Robot demo, circa E3 2000
raven_2.jpg


:lol :lol

tamer2.jpg

tamer1.jpg


:lol
 
^^ :lol :lol


hopefully Xenon and PS3 will be able to handle that pre-rendered shit in realtime, in games :lol
 
nVidia has always maintained that the Xbox is 3 times more powerful than the PS2. Thus, we can calculate that the PS3 is about 50/3 ~ 16.67 more powerful than the Xbox. My guess is that the PS3's GPU has 32x1 or 32x2 pipelines and runs at ~500Mhz, which puts it at 16 or so times more powerful than the Xbox.
 
Xbox is more powerful than PS2 in some ways (GPU features, texture mapping, image quality, amount of RAM) but Xbox is less powerful than PS2 in other ways (programmable CPU performance, raw fillrate, graphics bandwidth)

Xbox being 3x more powerful than PS2 is pure bull
 
Quite frankly, the Xbox could render the pre-rendered CGI Raven demo perfectly and it would still suck because it's quite possibly the worst example of generic, i'm-such-a-nerdy-bad-ass, western art that has ever been aborted onto a video screen.
 
"NVIDIA: PS3 GPU 50 times more powerful than PS2's GS"

.... but then it turns out they were cheating on the graphics benchmark test and it turns out it's just a Geforce 6800 GT variant! ;)
 
Quite frankly, the Xbox could render the pre-rendered CGI Raven demo perfectly

that is such a load of bullshit. the NV2A in Xbox is not capable of doing all the FSAA that is used in the pre-rendered CGI Raven sequence. among other things.


edit: nm I see what you mean. you didn't say Xbox can do it, i think you meant, 'even if it could'

sorry :)
 
xexex said:
Xbox is more powerful than PS2 in some ways (GPU features, texture mapping, image quality, amount of RAM) but Xbox is less powerful than PS2 in other ways (programmable CPU performance, raw fillrate, graphics bandwidth)

Xbox being 3x more powerful than PS2 is pure bull

Yes, that's correct. The PS2 has no pixel shaders at all so in fact the Xbox is infinitely faster than the PS2. :lol
 
Rubbish... it's not possible to make something 50 times more powerful without unconventional cooling measures. I don't believe this malarky for a second.
 
Top Bottom