The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
NINTENDO 64 EXACT SPECIFICATIONS
CPU: MIPS 64-bit RISC CPU (customized R4000 series)
Clock Speed: 93.75 MHz
MEMORY: RAMBUS D-RAM 36M bit
Transfer Speed: maximum 4,500M bit/sec.
CO-PROCESSOR:
RCP: SP (sound and graphics processor) and DP (pixel drawing processor) incorporated
Clock Speed: 62.5MHz
RESOLUTION: 256 x 224 ~ 640 x 480 dots
Flicker-free interlace mode support
COLOR: 32-bit RGBA pixel color frame buffer support
21-bit color video output
GRAPHICS PROCESSING:
Z buffer
Anti-aliasing
Realistic texture mapping:
Tri-linear filtered MIP-map interpolation
Perspective correction
Environment mapping
DIMENSIONS: Width 260mm (10.23") x Depth 190mm (7.48") x Height 73mm (2.87")
WEIGHT: 1.1kg (2.42 lb.)
SO THIS IS THE N64 SPEC MAYBE NOT THE BEST TO COME BUT THE CONSOLE LOOKS GREAT FEELS GREAT AND PLAYS ONE HELL OF A GAME...WELL BETTER MAKE THAT AROUND 300!
THE GAME
CPU: MIPS 64-bit RISC CPU (customized R4000 series)
Clock Speed: 93.75 MHz
MEMORY: RAMBUS D-RAM 36M bit
Transfer Speed: maximum 4,500M bit/sec.
CO-PROCESSOR:
RCP: SP (sound and graphics processor) and DP (pixel drawing processor) incorporated
Clock Speed: 62.5MHz
RESOLUTION: 256 x 224 ~ 640 x 480 dots
Flicker-free interlace mode support
COLOR: 32-bit RGBA pixel color frame buffer support
21-bit color video output
GRAPHICS PROCESSING:
Z buffer
Anti-aliasing
Realistic texture mapping:
Tri-linear filtered MIP-map interpolation
Perspective correction
Environment mapping
DIMENSIONS: Width 260mm (10.23") x Depth 190mm (7.48") x Height 73mm (2.87")
WEIGHT: 1.1kg (2.42 lb.)
SO THIS IS THE N64 SPEC MAYBE NOT THE BEST TO COME BUT THE CONSOLE LOOKS GREAT FEELS GREAT AND PLAYS ONE HELL OF A GAME...WELL BETTER MAKE THAT AROUND 300!
THE GAME
Page:
here's a nugget from Bonus's site:
"As we'll soon see, the above division of labor doesn't quite work for the PS2. In fact, that's a major understatement, so let me rephrase: it doesn't work at all. The PS2 requires you to rethink how you divide up the labor between the stages of the rendering pipeline, and how you move code and data around between those stages"
THIS is the bane of the PS2. Developers can all use normal PC architecture to get great results. This is NOT the best way to do things (as Bonus was pointing out), however, the technique is so widely used that it can give great results (look at DC games.... look at PC games)
It strikes me that Sony wanted a revolution in console design... rather than evolving current designs. However, at the high level of the PS2 they have trown developers in at the deep end. Maybe by the time PS3 comes in then they WILL be producing great results... but not for some time yet!
sonic
"As we'll soon see, the above division of labor doesn't quite work for the PS2. In fact, that's a major understatement, so let me rephrase: it doesn't work at all. The PS2 requires you to rethink how you divide up the labor between the stages of the rendering pipeline, and how you move code and data around between those stages"
THIS is the bane of the PS2. Developers can all use normal PC architecture to get great results. This is NOT the best way to do things (as Bonus was pointing out), however, the technique is so widely used that it can give great results (look at DC games.... look at PC games)
It strikes me that Sony wanted a revolution in console design... rather than evolving current designs. However, at the high level of the PS2 they have trown developers in at the deep end. Maybe by the time PS3 comes in then they WILL be producing great results... but not for some time yet!
sonic
Oh god! not that pipe and bucket rubbish!
Anyway...
FACT: ALL PS2 games are interlaced... they physically cannot send whold frames at once
FACT: a MAJORITY (if not all) DC games do not have this problem.
Now assuming the above to be true (which they are), then explain how the PS2 can possibly be "better" in this way?
Sonic
Anyway...
FACT: ALL PS2 games are interlaced... they physically cannot send whold frames at once
FACT: a MAJORITY (if not all) DC games do not have this problem.
Now assuming the above to be true (which they are), then explain how the PS2 can possibly be "better" in this way?
Sonic
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu /2q00/ps2/ps2vspc-1.html
(REMOVE SPACE)
There you go, I found the article for you. I hope you enjoy the pipes and buckets metaphors.
(REMOVE SPACE)
There you go, I found the article for you. I hope you enjoy the pipes and buckets metaphors.
Sonic, may I just bring your attention to the fact that the PS2 has 4Mb of embedded VRAM in the GS. The Gamecube, which has some stunning graphics, only has 3Mb embedded VRAM for it's games. You are pigeon-holing these consoles along with the PC. The PS2 and Gamecube have enough bandwidth to store data in without holding it in the physical RAM itself. I don't really think that you understand how this works, so I recommend you head over to www.arstechina.com, and look for the article comparing the PS2 to the PC, and see how this actually works.
turbonutter wrote:
> You forget the PS2 only clocks in at around 300mhz. PCs need
> stupidly fast processors because they are designed to run multiple
> types of applications. The PS2 (and only the PS2) is specifcally
> designed to run one application, the 3D game. The GC and the Xbox
> aren't really designed like this. The GC is slightly geared towards
> the 3D game, and the Xbox IS a PC so it's very much a multi-purpose
> console. The 700mhz is useless because you can get far much more
> power from a small processor if you just plan a little bit.
> Microsoft are being stupid with their spec.
The PS2's parts reach
> what could almost be described as synergie. The console can output
> more than the sum of its parts because of the amazingly efficient
> and radical way it's designed. The GC and Xbox can't really do this
> as they are still adhering (ish) to the IBM standards laid down 20
> years ago. This makes them very easy to develop for but you don't
> get outstanding power. The PS2 is amazingly hard to develop for but
> you can get outstanding results.
-Turbonutter
Where on earth have you heard this! The architecture of the PS2 is aweful! It has a great processor, but not enough VRAM to show full screen frames! Every single game released has had to interlace the screen!
And as for the comment about the GC and Xbox... get a lesson in hardware design! The Xbox is NOT anything like a PC in the way it runs... ok, it is designed like one, but so was the DC, and that has been praised by developers the world over for its simplicity! Meanwhile the PS2 is being cursed for not having Anti Aliasing automatically available. Why do you think MGS2 looks so good? Konami gave up waiting for Sony's dev kit, and made their own... with great results...
And the ultimate test of PC-likeness? The number of times the console crashes. Well, the Xbox has shown some shuddering graphics at E3... nothing major though! The GC has pretty much the same problems. The PS2 on the other hand performed so badly at last years E3 (many demos crashed or didn't work), that this year they drilled special holoes in the capsules that store the comsoles in ordre that they couyld be reset!
Sonic
> You forget the PS2 only clocks in at around 300mhz. PCs need
> stupidly fast processors because they are designed to run multiple
> types of applications. The PS2 (and only the PS2) is specifcally
> designed to run one application, the 3D game. The GC and the Xbox
> aren't really designed like this. The GC is slightly geared towards
> the 3D game, and the Xbox IS a PC so it's very much a multi-purpose
> console. The 700mhz is useless because you can get far much more
> power from a small processor if you just plan a little bit.
> Microsoft are being stupid with their spec.
The PS2's parts reach
> what could almost be described as synergie. The console can output
> more than the sum of its parts because of the amazingly efficient
> and radical way it's designed. The GC and Xbox can't really do this
> as they are still adhering (ish) to the IBM standards laid down 20
> years ago. This makes them very easy to develop for but you don't
> get outstanding power. The PS2 is amazingly hard to develop for but
> you can get outstanding results.
-Turbonutter
Where on earth have you heard this! The architecture of the PS2 is aweful! It has a great processor, but not enough VRAM to show full screen frames! Every single game released has had to interlace the screen!
And as for the comment about the GC and Xbox... get a lesson in hardware design! The Xbox is NOT anything like a PC in the way it runs... ok, it is designed like one, but so was the DC, and that has been praised by developers the world over for its simplicity! Meanwhile the PS2 is being cursed for not having Anti Aliasing automatically available. Why do you think MGS2 looks so good? Konami gave up waiting for Sony's dev kit, and made their own... with great results...
And the ultimate test of PC-likeness? The number of times the console crashes. Well, the Xbox has shown some shuddering graphics at E3... nothing major though! The GC has pretty much the same problems. The PS2 on the other hand performed so badly at last years E3 (many demos crashed or didn't work), that this year they drilled special holoes in the capsules that store the comsoles in ordre that they couyld be reset!
Sonic
Slaveunit wrote:
> Hang on... I think I have an Atari Lynx here somewhere....
:) He obviously wants sega though
> Hang on... I think I have an Atari Lynx here somewhere....
:) He obviously wants sega though
Hang on... I think I have an Atari Lynx here somewhere....
:)
:)
I think you were ripped off the PS2 wheter you like it or not is going to be around for along time. I think their should be a prize for the first person to name 15 dreamcast games worth having. I personally am not a playstation fan and prefer Nintendo if you get your hands on a gamecube I'll swap it for my SEGA master system and about 12 games.
I think you were ripped off the PS2 wheter you like it or not is going to be around for along time. I think their should be a prize for the first person to name 15 dreamcast games worth having. I personally am not a playstation fan and prefer Nintendo if you get your hands on a gamecube I'll swap it for my SEGA master system and about 12 games.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> The DC for a PS2 was a good trade. I would be surprised to get
> anything more than a GB for a PS2 because they are so rubbish.
Dont be daft, man! Lets see. Swapping a brand new console for a dead one. The decent DC titles are being released on the Sony, The sony has graphically superior PS2 titles, all PS1 games, DVDs, and some stunning games in the pipeline, added to the online capabilities. The DC has ceased production and has only 1 year of games left.
It's like swapping your Isla Fisher girlfriend for a corpse. I bet the bloke who got the PS2 is laughing so hard it hurt his sides!
> The DC for a PS2 was a good trade. I would be surprised to get
> anything more than a GB for a PS2 because they are so rubbish.
Dont be daft, man! Lets see. Swapping a brand new console for a dead one. The decent DC titles are being released on the Sony, The sony has graphically superior PS2 titles, all PS1 games, DVDs, and some stunning games in the pipeline, added to the online capabilities. The DC has ceased production and has only 1 year of games left.
It's like swapping your Isla Fisher girlfriend for a corpse. I bet the bloke who got the PS2 is laughing so hard it hurt his sides!
Page: