[Update 30/04/2018: Added Dreamcast since people were asking about it! Thanks again for all the feedback.]
Hey guys. Today I figured I'd try something new, since I like ranting about technical stuff and some people enjoy it for some reason. I'm starting a blog series called "Tech Talks" where I'll be talking about technically impressive stuff as well as trying to break down tech and hardware to a level where any reader can understand.
Also, before I go any further, I won't try and cover anything up; I'm a big fan of the PS2. It was my first system and remains one of my favourites. It is also the system I have the most experience working with. However, I also still play GameCube games on my Wii U and I've enjoyed a few Xbox titles as well, and I assure you that this blog post will have as little bias as possible - this is intended to be a neutral overview.
If you asked someone about the 6th generation console hardware hierarchy, the response would usually be Xbox, GameCube, then PS2 and Dreamcast. But today I'm going to try and break down what was really the most powerful console of that era.
The reason why people will tell you that Xbox was the most powerful is a combination of a few reasons. Firstly, multiplatform games generally looked and/or ran better on Xbox compared to its competitors. Secondly, people will have a quick glance at the specs and tell you an answer on paper without reading into it. Speaking of specs, I'll list the specs of all 4 systems (Xbox/GC/PS2/DC) from Wikipedia - don't get scared by the numbers, I will explain everything in a simplified form.
(A few key words for the less technically familiar readers; CPU refers to the Central Processing Unit. This is the brains of any hardware that does calculations and the like. GPU refers to Graphics Processing Unit, informally a "Graphics Card" in the PC world. The GPU handles graphics, from textures to polygons. RAM is "random access memory", which is a fancy way of saying the memory of a computer where things are stored in a sort of "fast lane" for the programs to access.)
[Xbox]
CPU: 733MHz Pentium III based CPU
GPU: Nvidia NV2A, 233MHz
RAM: 64MB (unified, ie shared across the hardware)
[GameCube]
CPU: 485MHz PowerPC 750-based CPU
GPU: Custom ATI "Flipper" GPU, 162MHz
RAM: 24MB "main" RAM, 3MB VRAM, 16MB additional RAM for audio etc.
[PS2]
CPU: 294/299MHz MIPS III based CPU, 37/33MHz I/O processor^ (Literally the PS1 CPU, used for backwards compatibility as well as I/O functionality in PS2 games)
GPU: Custom "Graphics Synthesizer" GPU, 147MHz
RAM: 32MB main RAM, 4MB VRAM, 2MB I/O RAM, 2MB audio RAM
[Dreamcast]
CPU: 200MHz RISC CPU, 67MHz Yamaha AICA ARM7/RISC sound processor
GPU: 100MHz PowerVR2 GPU
RAM: 16MB main RAM, 8MB VRAM, 2MB audio RAM
[^Replaced with PowerPC-based "Deckard" chip with 4 MB RAM in later slim models.]
Based on these numbers, the obvious conclusion is what people will tell you: Xbox, followed by GameCube, followed by PS2, followed by Dreamcast. However, this isn't a fair comparison and has a few fallacies and overlooked pieces of info. What are they, you might ask? I'll get onto that.
I'll start by addressing the biggest issue here; this completely excludes both of the PS2's coprocessors. The PS2 had two "Vector Unit" coprocessors at 150MHz each, which were capable of crunching a lot of numbers at once. One of them in particular, VU1, was excellent at aiding the GPU and processing geometry. Ignoring the "VUs" is a big oversight when comparing the 6th gen consoles, which many people often do.
Another big issue I have is that people often simply compare clock speeds. However, as any seasoned hardware person will tell you, not all architectures are created equal. In fact, the Xbox's Pentium has the least efficient architecture - meaning that every MHz (or "clock"/"cycle") is more meaningful on the PowerPC GameCube or the MIPS PS2, both of which have more efficient per-clock architectures. Between GameCube and PS2, it's hard to say, but it's sufficient to say both of their architectures were more efficient than Xbox and they were probably quite close with each other. Dreamcast is an interesting case, since it was using a RISC processor (Reduced Instruction Set Computer). The reason why this is important is because this essentially means every cycle on the Dreamcast uses simpler instructions compared to its rivals. It's difficult to compare, but Sega boasted that it could perform 360 million instructions per second at the time (which is probably a bit disproportionate, given the fact that the PS2 could supposedly only do 30 million).
Next, this doesn't address the speed of the memory. So why is this important? Fast GPU memory (VRAM, or "video RAM"), is essential for high resolutions, post-processing effects (such as the well known evening effect in GTA: San Andreas) and more. It also ignores the "pixel/texture fill rate", which particles, postprocessing and high resolutions are all reliant on. So with that said, here are the fill rate and bandwidth (memory speed, in this case both GPU and "main" memory) peak stats for all 4 systems:
[Xbox]
- 6.4GB/s unified bandwidth
- 932Mpixels/s fillrate
[GameCube]
- 18GB/s GPU bandwidth
- 2.6GB/s main memory bandwidth
- 648Mpixels/s fill rate
[PS2]
- 48GB/s GPU bandwidth
- 3.6GB/s main memory bandwidth
- 2352Mpixels/s fill rate
[Dreamcast]
- 15GB/s GPU bandwidth
- 800MB/s main memory bandwidth
- 3200Mpixels/s fill rate (opaque pixels ONLY); 500Mpixels/s fill rate with transparency
Yes, these figures are correct (and no, 48GB/s isn't missing a decimal place). The reason why Xbox is so low is because, as I mentioned, it used unified or shared memory, so the bandwidth is much more spread out across all of the hardware. Fortunately, at 480p and with a whopping 64MB of memory (quantity over quality), it can suffice. GameCube has a respectable 18GB/s of bandwidth and a mediocre pixel fillrate. However, the PS2 actually does have 48GB/s bandwidth, with about 2.4Gpixels/sec fillrate. What this means, in layman's terms, is that the PS2 was a runaway winner in terms of particle effects and postprocessing - this is why games such as Zone of the Enders worked so well on PS2. However, the PS2 bandwidth is also how it was able to get away with such a paltry amount of memory. The developers of Metal Gear Solid 2 said that, by exploiting the PS2's fast bandwidth, they could have 10MB of on-screen textures every frame, with the seemingly small 4MB of VRAM. However, the Dreamcast with its 8MB of VRAM would seem to still be a good option, and that's true; some developers claim that, with the Dreamcast's built-in texture compression, the Dreamcast could have "essentially" about 20-60MB of textures (I don't like the use of the word "effectively" without proof, though).
However, it's not all happy days for the PS2. Many of you are probably wondering "But Iron, if the PS2 is actually better in those regards, why did Xbox and GameCube games look better?". And that's a good question.
There are a few factors in this. Firstly, the PS2's antialiasing was broken. Antialiasing is a technique that cleans up jagged, stair-stepping edges in 3D graphics, and the way the PS2 handled it made it almost prohibitively expensive (in terms of processing time) to do.
It didn't help that the PS2 GPU had another big issue; not only was it the slowest GPU in terms of clock speeds, and not only could it not properly antialias its graphics, but it had issues with being very sharp. Indeed, the PS2 is one of the poorest consoles you'll see in terms of video output; unless you get good cables to compensate, expect an oversharpened image. So this resulted in a really rough looking image.
As for performance, the same question arises; if the PS2 had all this potential power, why didn't it usually perform as well as the competition? The answer is simple; the hardware was unusual. Many studios essentially tried to copy and paste the code from other platforms to the PS2, and failed to utilise the vector units. Couple that with the mediocre main CPU and the GPU, and it's a recipe for poor multi-platform game performance. But it's not all wasted potential; as years went by and big companies developed PS2 exclusives, the hardware began to shine. Games like Metal Gear Solid 2/3, Gran Turismo and God of War are all beautiful showcases of the hardware. In fact, MGS3 just so happens to use almost all of the PS2's strong points; postprocessing is heavily used to give the jungle a vibrant look (as well as to give cutscenes a cinematic appearance with effects such as depth of field), geometry is heavily used as every single blade of grass is treated individually and the game used up more bandwidth than some PS3 launch titles! It's a great showpiece for the system in general. Shadow of the Colossus is also an incredible game with beautiful graphics, realistic fur simulation, an interesting fake HDR lighting system and very advanced physics; the PS4 remaster left a lot of the original game code intact because the developers said it was already good enough.
The Dreamcast was an excellent, polished piece of hardware as well. It had great support for antialiasing (such as Super Sampling AA which is still used in today's games) and was the first console to have built in support for texture compression, allowing it to store more textures than it should be able to. Compared to the PS2, the Dreamcast is more effective at textures and antialiasing, while the PS2 is more effective at polygon geometry, physics, particles, and lighting. The GameCube and Xbox are essentially more powerful in every way, though the Dreamcast has a few advantages - it is better at CPU-based geometry than Xbox(though this advantage is minimized by the fact the GC and Xbox can do this sort of geometry on the GPU, and faster) and has a better fill rate for opaque polygons than all 3 other systems, however it is the worst out of the 4 when including transparent polygons. Games like Shenmue 2 really show what the Dreamcast could do when the best developers had a shot at it, and it was one of the best looking games around when it launched (though the Xbox version of Shenmue 2 did improve the game graphically and eliminate slowdown).
It wouldn't be fair to not also give praise to the GameCube and Xbox. F-Zero GX was a lightning fast racer that supported 480p, widescreen and ran at an unwavering 60FPS with up to 29 AI racers! Metroid Prime 2 was another stunning 60FPS title for GameCube which rivalled many Wii games, with lush and beautiful environments all around and great action-adventure gameplay. Xbox also had the impressive DOOM 3 and the supposedly impossible Half Life 2 port, as well as games such as the impressive Halo and Forza.
So what's the verdict? The simple answer is there is no winner. While I apologise for the cop-out answer, it's true; all 4 of these systems had their strengths. While I spoke most about PS2 since it's the one people are most often misinformed about and it's the one I have the most experience with, it would be foolish to deny the other systems credit. Only Xbox could handle Half-Life 2, whereas only PS2 could handle MGS3, and it would be tough for any other system to handle F-Zero GX like GameCube. There is no winner here since all of them have strengths and weaknesses, and they all run their own great games to the best of their abilities. I think I should round this off by saying that all 4 of these systems should be enjoyed equally; they all have great experiences for players, and none of them are the same, so they all deserve their own appreciation.
Thanks for reading this very long blog post and I hope you learned something and enjoyed this!
Hey guys. Today I figured I'd try something new, since I like ranting about technical stuff and some people enjoy it for some reason. I'm starting a blog series called "Tech Talks" where I'll be talking about technically impressive stuff as well as trying to break down tech and hardware to a level where any reader can understand.
Also, before I go any further, I won't try and cover anything up; I'm a big fan of the PS2. It was my first system and remains one of my favourites. It is also the system I have the most experience working with. However, I also still play GameCube games on my Wii U and I've enjoyed a few Xbox titles as well, and I assure you that this blog post will have as little bias as possible - this is intended to be a neutral overview.
If you asked someone about the 6th generation console hardware hierarchy, the response would usually be Xbox, GameCube, then PS2 and Dreamcast. But today I'm going to try and break down what was really the most powerful console of that era.
The reason why people will tell you that Xbox was the most powerful is a combination of a few reasons. Firstly, multiplatform games generally looked and/or ran better on Xbox compared to its competitors. Secondly, people will have a quick glance at the specs and tell you an answer on paper without reading into it. Speaking of specs, I'll list the specs of all 4 systems (Xbox/GC/PS2/DC) from Wikipedia - don't get scared by the numbers, I will explain everything in a simplified form.
(A few key words for the less technically familiar readers; CPU refers to the Central Processing Unit. This is the brains of any hardware that does calculations and the like. GPU refers to Graphics Processing Unit, informally a "Graphics Card" in the PC world. The GPU handles graphics, from textures to polygons. RAM is "random access memory", which is a fancy way of saying the memory of a computer where things are stored in a sort of "fast lane" for the programs to access.)
[Xbox]
CPU: 733MHz Pentium III based CPU
GPU: Nvidia NV2A, 233MHz
RAM: 64MB (unified, ie shared across the hardware)
[GameCube]
CPU: 485MHz PowerPC 750-based CPU
GPU: Custom ATI "Flipper" GPU, 162MHz
RAM: 24MB "main" RAM, 3MB VRAM, 16MB additional RAM for audio etc.
[PS2]
CPU: 294/299MHz MIPS III based CPU, 37/33MHz I/O processor^ (Literally the PS1 CPU, used for backwards compatibility as well as I/O functionality in PS2 games)
GPU: Custom "Graphics Synthesizer" GPU, 147MHz
RAM: 32MB main RAM, 4MB VRAM, 2MB I/O RAM, 2MB audio RAM
[Dreamcast]
CPU: 200MHz RISC CPU, 67MHz Yamaha AICA ARM7/RISC sound processor
GPU: 100MHz PowerVR2 GPU
RAM: 16MB main RAM, 8MB VRAM, 2MB audio RAM
[^Replaced with PowerPC-based "Deckard" chip with 4 MB RAM in later slim models.]
Based on these numbers, the obvious conclusion is what people will tell you: Xbox, followed by GameCube, followed by PS2, followed by Dreamcast. However, this isn't a fair comparison and has a few fallacies and overlooked pieces of info. What are they, you might ask? I'll get onto that.
I'll start by addressing the biggest issue here; this completely excludes both of the PS2's coprocessors. The PS2 had two "Vector Unit" coprocessors at 150MHz each, which were capable of crunching a lot of numbers at once. One of them in particular, VU1, was excellent at aiding the GPU and processing geometry. Ignoring the "VUs" is a big oversight when comparing the 6th gen consoles, which many people often do.
Another big issue I have is that people often simply compare clock speeds. However, as any seasoned hardware person will tell you, not all architectures are created equal. In fact, the Xbox's Pentium has the least efficient architecture - meaning that every MHz (or "clock"/"cycle") is more meaningful on the PowerPC GameCube or the MIPS PS2, both of which have more efficient per-clock architectures. Between GameCube and PS2, it's hard to say, but it's sufficient to say both of their architectures were more efficient than Xbox and they were probably quite close with each other. Dreamcast is an interesting case, since it was using a RISC processor (Reduced Instruction Set Computer). The reason why this is important is because this essentially means every cycle on the Dreamcast uses simpler instructions compared to its rivals. It's difficult to compare, but Sega boasted that it could perform 360 million instructions per second at the time (which is probably a bit disproportionate, given the fact that the PS2 could supposedly only do 30 million).
Next, this doesn't address the speed of the memory. So why is this important? Fast GPU memory (VRAM, or "video RAM"), is essential for high resolutions, post-processing effects (such as the well known evening effect in GTA: San Andreas) and more. It also ignores the "pixel/texture fill rate", which particles, postprocessing and high resolutions are all reliant on. So with that said, here are the fill rate and bandwidth (memory speed, in this case both GPU and "main" memory) peak stats for all 4 systems:
[Xbox]
- 6.4GB/s unified bandwidth
- 932Mpixels/s fillrate
[GameCube]
- 18GB/s GPU bandwidth
- 2.6GB/s main memory bandwidth
- 648Mpixels/s fill rate
[PS2]
- 48GB/s GPU bandwidth
- 3.6GB/s main memory bandwidth
- 2352Mpixels/s fill rate
[Dreamcast]
- 15GB/s GPU bandwidth
- 800MB/s main memory bandwidth
- 3200Mpixels/s fill rate (opaque pixels ONLY); 500Mpixels/s fill rate with transparency
Yes, these figures are correct (and no, 48GB/s isn't missing a decimal place). The reason why Xbox is so low is because, as I mentioned, it used unified or shared memory, so the bandwidth is much more spread out across all of the hardware. Fortunately, at 480p and with a whopping 64MB of memory (quantity over quality), it can suffice. GameCube has a respectable 18GB/s of bandwidth and a mediocre pixel fillrate. However, the PS2 actually does have 48GB/s bandwidth, with about 2.4Gpixels/sec fillrate. What this means, in layman's terms, is that the PS2 was a runaway winner in terms of particle effects and postprocessing - this is why games such as Zone of the Enders worked so well on PS2. However, the PS2 bandwidth is also how it was able to get away with such a paltry amount of memory. The developers of Metal Gear Solid 2 said that, by exploiting the PS2's fast bandwidth, they could have 10MB of on-screen textures every frame, with the seemingly small 4MB of VRAM. However, the Dreamcast with its 8MB of VRAM would seem to still be a good option, and that's true; some developers claim that, with the Dreamcast's built-in texture compression, the Dreamcast could have "essentially" about 20-60MB of textures (I don't like the use of the word "effectively" without proof, though).
However, it's not all happy days for the PS2. Many of you are probably wondering "But Iron, if the PS2 is actually better in those regards, why did Xbox and GameCube games look better?". And that's a good question.
There are a few factors in this. Firstly, the PS2's antialiasing was broken. Antialiasing is a technique that cleans up jagged, stair-stepping edges in 3D graphics, and the way the PS2 handled it made it almost prohibitively expensive (in terms of processing time) to do.
It didn't help that the PS2 GPU had another big issue; not only was it the slowest GPU in terms of clock speeds, and not only could it not properly antialias its graphics, but it had issues with being very sharp. Indeed, the PS2 is one of the poorest consoles you'll see in terms of video output; unless you get good cables to compensate, expect an oversharpened image. So this resulted in a really rough looking image.
As for performance, the same question arises; if the PS2 had all this potential power, why didn't it usually perform as well as the competition? The answer is simple; the hardware was unusual. Many studios essentially tried to copy and paste the code from other platforms to the PS2, and failed to utilise the vector units. Couple that with the mediocre main CPU and the GPU, and it's a recipe for poor multi-platform game performance. But it's not all wasted potential; as years went by and big companies developed PS2 exclusives, the hardware began to shine. Games like Metal Gear Solid 2/3, Gran Turismo and God of War are all beautiful showcases of the hardware. In fact, MGS3 just so happens to use almost all of the PS2's strong points; postprocessing is heavily used to give the jungle a vibrant look (as well as to give cutscenes a cinematic appearance with effects such as depth of field), geometry is heavily used as every single blade of grass is treated individually and the game used up more bandwidth than some PS3 launch titles! It's a great showpiece for the system in general. Shadow of the Colossus is also an incredible game with beautiful graphics, realistic fur simulation, an interesting fake HDR lighting system and very advanced physics; the PS4 remaster left a lot of the original game code intact because the developers said it was already good enough.
The Dreamcast was an excellent, polished piece of hardware as well. It had great support for antialiasing (such as Super Sampling AA which is still used in today's games) and was the first console to have built in support for texture compression, allowing it to store more textures than it should be able to. Compared to the PS2, the Dreamcast is more effective at textures and antialiasing, while the PS2 is more effective at polygon geometry, physics, particles, and lighting. The GameCube and Xbox are essentially more powerful in every way, though the Dreamcast has a few advantages - it is better at CPU-based geometry than Xbox(though this advantage is minimized by the fact the GC and Xbox can do this sort of geometry on the GPU, and faster) and has a better fill rate for opaque polygons than all 3 other systems, however it is the worst out of the 4 when including transparent polygons. Games like Shenmue 2 really show what the Dreamcast could do when the best developers had a shot at it, and it was one of the best looking games around when it launched (though the Xbox version of Shenmue 2 did improve the game graphically and eliminate slowdown).
It wouldn't be fair to not also give praise to the GameCube and Xbox. F-Zero GX was a lightning fast racer that supported 480p, widescreen and ran at an unwavering 60FPS with up to 29 AI racers! Metroid Prime 2 was another stunning 60FPS title for GameCube which rivalled many Wii games, with lush and beautiful environments all around and great action-adventure gameplay. Xbox also had the impressive DOOM 3 and the supposedly impossible Half Life 2 port, as well as games such as the impressive Halo and Forza.
So what's the verdict? The simple answer is there is no winner. While I apologise for the cop-out answer, it's true; all 4 of these systems had their strengths. While I spoke most about PS2 since it's the one people are most often misinformed about and it's the one I have the most experience with, it would be foolish to deny the other systems credit. Only Xbox could handle Half-Life 2, whereas only PS2 could handle MGS3, and it would be tough for any other system to handle F-Zero GX like GameCube. There is no winner here since all of them have strengths and weaknesses, and they all run their own great games to the best of their abilities. I think I should round this off by saying that all 4 of these systems should be enjoyed equally; they all have great experiences for players, and none of them are the same, so they all deserve their own appreciation.
Thanks for reading this very long blog post and I hope you learned something and enjoyed this!
)
] zzzzzzzzzzzzzz