• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Sony: Xbox 360 = Xbox version 1.5 (Ouch)

DopeyFish said:
Oh look! It's vince! The reject PS2 fanbot from Beyond3D! Hi!

Did DopeyFish just call someone a reject fanbot?

oa048.jpg
 
I've generally held out from engaging the E3 rumor mill simply because it is obvious that both Sony and Microsoft will both have their suprises at the show.. but I feel that I should contribute an observation. Sony really needs to add some fuel to its fire, some hype to its machine, because all I have been seeing are XBOX 360 "leaks".
 
Lazy8s said:
GhaleonEB:

Overdraw has reached as high as 50 in-game on PS2, so the PS2 processed 50 times the 3D data the Dreamcast would've had to, ironically, just to render that part.

The DC's comparative fillrate would be 5 gigapixels per second to the PS2's 2.4 gigapixels untextured/1.2 gigapixels textured there... shades of the deck of cards demo.
Oh man, don't whip out the "effective fillrate" card on us Lazy. :lol The greatest trick played on the uneducated masses by NEC and their team of PowerVR plants. Superkyro for everybody!!! :lol PEACE.
 
The only fillrate that matters is the fillrate that actually effects the image. The comparative multiplier is absolutely necessary because conventional renderers like PS2 are nowhere as effective as TBDLRs like DC:
One tool that the Serious Sam engine possesses is the ability to measure the actual fill rate of a card. This has been something that we previously had not been able to do, meaning that we relied simply on manufacturers numbers. As the above shows, those numbers are extremely misleading.

Remember how we mentioned before that when overdraw is taken into account, the effective fill rate of a conventional video card is essentially the theoretical fill rate divided by the overdraw amount? Well, the Serious Sam tests show exactly this. Take the GeForce2 Ultra, for example. Theoretically, this card has a 1000 megapixel per second fill rate given its clock speed and rendering pipe. What we see in actuality, however, is that the GeForce2 Ultra is only able to fill 375 megapixels per second. This means that given the synthetic Serious Sam fill rate tests, the GeForce2 Ultra is only 37.5% effective. One can attribute this to overdraw as well a memory bandwidth limitations

The Kyro II, on the other hand, features what many would consider a lowly 350 megapixel per second fill rate. However, when the tests are run, the Kyro II scores a fill rate that is only 22 megapixels per second less than the GeForce2 Ultra. Coming out at 352.89 megapixels per second, the Kyro II's effective fill rate matches its theoretical fill rate, something we cannot say about any other card on the market. According to the Serious Sam benchmarks, the Kyro II is actually 100% efficient.

This is quite exciting to see. Previous fill rate numbers have been misleading, to say the least. The Kyro II's tile based rendering architecture, however, opens a new path in fill rates where effective fill rates actually match theoretical ones. Can you imagine a Kyro II card that actually featured the theoretical fill rate of 1000 megapixels per second that the GeForce2 Ultra features? Out of this world would be the only way to describe it.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1435&p=13
 
The DC's comparative fillrate would be 5 gigapixels per second to the PS2's 2.4 gigapixels untextured/1.2 gigapixels textured there... shades of the deck of cards demo.
DC's theoretical peak 'fillrate' is around 4GPix (it can reject up to 40 something pixels/clock).
Of course in reality the only way to get something as bad as 50x overdraw is to use alpha-blending... LOTS of it - and that would kill DC pixel fill much faster then any other console's.
 
Sure, a multiple gigapixel scene isn't a realistic scenario, but I was trying to cover for Sony and their claim of processing 50x the 3D data of DC somehow.
 
Top Bottom