»

[JetRacer]

Yes and no. Think: "using my NVidia 3D board as a computer", and you'll get pretty close to reality. Note that all 3D boards are based on modified MIPS processors.

It's like the X-Box without the P3 and the bottleneck. It won't give you faster 3D graphics, but everything else runs MUCH faster (the extra load on the MIPS plugs is negible).

[Lando]

JetRacer wrote:
> The CPU of ps1 was around 20-40 mhz iirc.

25MHz infact.

33Mhz MIPS R3000

Two MIPS processors running at 25MHz with GFX integrated on one of the chips.

No - only one. And a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) and a GTE (Geometry and Transform Engine) for doing 3D calculations.

If that doesn't ring a bell, then you really don't know anything. It's a multi-processor chip harbouring about eight processors each.

No it isn't. It's a single CPU.

The 250MHz PS2 Kicks the balls of both PPC and x86 so hard that the nuts will end up on the moon.

293Mhz MIPS R5k... and no it doesn't. Its nowhere near as powerful as the AmigaOne, Pegasos, or XBox or GameCube for that matter.
[/quote]

Not that im an expert, but I was under the impression that the hardware of the x-box was superior to the ps2. The xbox is 'just' a 7-800 mhz p3 with a nifty graphics card.
Im pretty confident that if games for the new amiga had the same funding behind it as games for the ps2, we would have games with similar quality

It's like comapring Amigas to PC, Apples to Oranges, the PS2 has it's unique architechture, using the Mhz comparision isn't a good measure of performace.

[CD32Freak]

Well, there is a Gamecube with DVD drive called the SL-GC10 by Matsu****a/Panasonic. There is even a Gamecube keyboard produced by ASCII :-o All you need is a mouse, a hard drive, Nintendo GC dev kit and you're in business..roll in the new Amiga CD128

[chromozone]

Lando My Main Man..

You know your #### ;-)

At last some one who Walks the Talk.

Keep it up Dude !

Do you know the Game Cube PPC & GFX Spec ? :-D

[Lando]

JetRacer wrote:
> The PS1 was comparable with a CD-32, exept for the 3D performance.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That was funny.

The PS1's only performance comes from a pair of MIPS CPU's.

It doesn't have a pair - it has one MIPS R3k @ 33Mhz.

It doesn't have a 3D chip, only RAW POWER strait through

It does have a 3D chip - the GTE. This is what gives it the power to do 3D graphics as the main CPU is very very slow. Try writing a 3D game on PS1 using only the R3k and see if you can hit 10fps...
It also has an MDEC decompression engine for movies.

. It's like having a Matrox board integrated on the same chip as a PPC with full parallel blast between them. And then you scare it up to 16x250MHz (16 processors, distributed over two chips), and do some finetunes to get the PS2.

Erm... You really haven't a clue what you're talking about have you?

Note: PS1 games looks like CD32 because it only have 5MB (unified) RAM available for games. Therefore most gfx is 8-bit with 32-bit (rgba) gfx effects ontop.

PS1 has 3.5MB RAM in total and it isn't unified. 2MB main RAM, 1MB video RAM (for frame buffers and textures) and 512k of SPU RAM (for samples).

PS1 games are nearly all in 16bit colour. Textures in PS1 games are usually 64x64 pixels in 16 colours (4 bit CLUT) as this happens to fit exactly in the texture cache (and also the amount of VRAM is very limited).

[Lando]

chromozone wrote:
Lando My Main Man..

You know your #### ;-)

At last some one who Walks the Talk.

Keep it up Dude !

Do you know the Game Cube PPC & GFX Spec ? :-D

As it happens theres a GameCube devkit about 8 inches away from me :-) It's not mine, unfortunately (I'm working on PS2, for my sins).

Cube has a 485 MHz custom IBM PPC CPU and a custom ATI "Flipper" (in keeping with the dolphin theme) graphics chipset. The graphics chipset can't be equated to anything on ATI's PC graphics cards - it was designed specially.

It was actually designed by a group of ex-SGI employees (many of the same people who worked on the N64) who founded their own company called ArtX, which was later acquired by ATI. Not sure if I can go into detailed specs as much of it is under NDA but it is very powerful.

[JetRacer]

Lando: I don't think there's a single accurate statement in your post. I've actually opened and checked the contense of my PS1. And read information from both MIPS and Sony. Where did you get that faulty information from? MIPS does not make single processor chips. Multi-processor chips are sometimes refered to as a "X-stage pipeline". Multi-stage pipelines is what makes the processors work together in paralel. GPU's are modified MIPS processors (the geometry and blabla added). On the other hand you may be half right; the PS1 may be using one MIPS strictly as a CPU and the other strictly as a GPU. I'm not 100% shure about the MHz figure of PS2, but you wasn't right about the PS1. Both PS1 oscillator and chips are stamped with the 25MHz figure.

The terms CPU and processor are kind of misleading. It's no a big secret. There's a grey area when it comes to what's a multi-processor CPU and what's "paralell" processor (as in executing many instructions per cycle). In MIPS case it leans towards multi-processor simply because that's their original purpose (enpowering SGI monsters).

I wrote that the PS1 has about the same performance as an A1 without hardware 3D support. What I didn't wrote was: exactly the same performance of a 600MHz PPC A1 with the hottest 3D board.

[Hammer]

JetRacer wrote:
> The CPU of ps1 was around 20-40 mhz iirc.

25MHz infact. Two MIPS processors running at 25MHz with GFX integrated on one of the chips. If that doesn't ring a bell, then you really don't know anything. It's a multi-processor chip harbouring about eight processors each. The 250MHz PS2 Kicks the balls of both PPC and x86 so hard that the nuts will end up on the moon.

Since PS2 has Linux, benchmarks would be nice e.g. SPEC Int/FPU, OGR, OpenSSL, Linux kernel re-compiling speed, ByteMark, Quake 1(software render) and ‘etc’.

The 250MHz PS2 Kicks the balls of both PPC and x86 so hard that the nuts will end up on the moon.

and why exactly does it do this? because the emotion engine isnt nearly as capable as a GeForce2 or because the main memory runs slower? or because the CPU's run at about Celeron 600mhz level speed?

I think you need to get a clue... spouting nonsense is stupid.

The A1/Pegasos/GameCube/Xbox are all an order of magnitude faster and more capable then the PS2.
The PS1 you can forget about... it's a pathetic little joke by todays standerds.

The 'design' of the emotion engine is intrigueing and efficent but in it's current iteration it's no more capable then a GeForce2.

Note that all 3D boards are based on modified MIPS processors.

thats a complete load of sh*t...

[bs71]

check this link out..has specs for gamecube
http://www.nintendo.com/systems/gcn/specifications.jsp

here are some 'real' (e.g not made up) specs on the PS1 and PS2

http://www.ngemu.com/psx/psxinfos.php

PS1

http://www.gamedude.com/psx-specs.html

http://www.vidgames.com/ps/hardware/techspec.html

PS2

http://www.techtv.com/extendedplay/v...225141,00.html

http://www.psx2central.com/misc/psx2info.htm]http://www.psx2central.com/misc/psx2info.htm[/url]

(remember people that there are 'MIPS" processors and the term 'MIPS" they are not the same it's a term used 'Millions of Instructions Per Second' and then 'MIPS Processor' )


http://www.planetxbox.com/hardware/system/

comparison


One note I'd like to make is that I own an SGI Octane dual R10K 250mhz machine... with a gig of ram... booting from a scsi drive... running IRIX (pretty lite unix) and it dosent come 'close' to beating even a P3 1ghz in terms of raw power..

I dont see how anyone can even argue a Playstation with its processors can beat an octane...let alone a well outfitted modern PC. granted it's got the emotion engine.. but it's not that big a deal when it cant pump the polys and isnt fully programmable.


I did find a site with a Linux benchmark here is a highlight... and the site (the Amiga beat the Linux/PS2 combo apperantly)

Pentium II 266 (Dual CPU) 520228.3 23.3
PowerMac 6100 w/NewerTech G3 (MkLinux, PPC750/248) 499742.7 22.3

AMD K6/266 (overclocked 233) 489414.5 21.9
Pentium II 266 484358.6 21.7
PPC 7100/80 (upgraded to G3/240) 480364.5 21.5
Amiga 4000/CyberstormPPC (604/233) 467746.8 20.9
R5900/294 (Sony Playstation 2 Linux -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer) 454782.2 20.3
AMD K6/233 435896.6 19.5

http://www.anime.net/~goemon/benchmarks.html

[JetRacer]

Damn. You got me there (I'd nearly prefer suicide than to admit that to you 'proc ;-).

After checking around abit it seems like you are right (not only your links (before you say it)). It's only later MIPS CPU's that are designed the way I was talking about, and the PS1 and PS2 processors are basicly redundant crap licensed away cheaply.

Sorry folks, my mistake.

mips_proc wrote:
One note I'd like to make is that I own an SGI Octane dual R10K 250mhz machine... with a gig of ram... booting from a scsi drive... running IRIX (pretty lite unix) and it dosent come 'close' to beating even a P3 1ghz in terms of raw power..

Me:
How the h**l is that possib... ...no, wait, Both AMD and Intel x86 execute about four instructions per cycle, right? Which means the 250MHz R10K suck, even compared to my own x86.

...

I'll just blame it on temporary brain defunct.

[mikeymike]

@ Al_B

... or maybe people buy PlayStations because they want a console, to play games on, so therefore not a computer. What percentage of PlayStation owners do you honestly think are interested in Linux even slightly?

And AmigaOS 4 will soon run on PPC only. Is 18 months work for a load of developers really worth it to get very slim pickings of potential PS2/AOS converts? I think Hyperion will need a bit of good fortune to break any profit on AOS4, let alone deciding to port it to another platform after that... and wouldn't porting x86 be a far wiser choice, from a business point of view?

(No, I'm not saying I think AOS4 should run on x86)

PS - would people stop these 'apple and orange' comparisons of processors please? Someone might design a processor that's especially good at adding 1 to any number given to it, faster than any other processor can, that doesn't mean it's better than any other processor. Processors are made to do specific jobs. Processors designed for desktop computers have to be able to do a lot more various tasks than most processors do (that doesn't make them "better" either, that's just a statement of fact). Infact, most of the comparisons going on here are like comparing the companies Apple and Orange and arguing about "which one is better"!