Saturn polygon power??
Martin Kilduff
polygons per second? The Sega brochure claims that it is capable of 300k of
textured-mapped polygons p/s (WOW), and 500k of flat polygons. However, in
the latest EGM, there is an Electronic Arts flyer that says the Saturn is only
capable of 90k textured-mapped and 150k flat. There's a huge difference!
I don't see how EA can be right, because I'm pretty sure games like Virtua
Fighter Remix are faster than 90k textured-mapped a second. If EA is wrong,
then they've really damaged Saturn's image. They deserve to be sued!
David Aldridge
It's already been said, but EA screwed up the stats bigtime. It's common
knowledge that the Saturn has a definate edge in 2D, but EA said that the
PlayStation is 3 times more powerful in 2D games.
Gamedude
>It's already been said, but EA screwed up the stats bigtime. It's
common
>knowledge that the Saturn has a definate edge in 2D, but EA said that
the
>PlayStation is 3 times more powerful in 2D games.
Does Aimee know about this EA crap? Ask her opinion. I think that SEGA
should definitely do something to correct EA.
Ludmila D Pavlina
> Could someone tell me what the real stats are for the Saturn in terms of
> polygons per second? The Sega brochure claims that it is capable of 300k of
> textured-mapped polygons p/s (WOW), and 500k of flat polygons. However, in
> the latest EGM, there is an Electronic Arts flyer that says the Saturn is only
> capable of 90k textured-mapped and 150k flat. There's a huge difference!
> I don't see how EA can be right, because I'm pretty sure games like Virtua
> Fighter Remix are faster than 90k textured-mapped a second. If EA is wrong,
> then they've really damaged Saturn's image. They deserve to be sued!
>
EA must be a bunch of Sony ass kissers! The Saturn version of VF2 runs
at 180 texture mapped polys/sec at 60 fps!!! That's a fucking fact. EA
can kiss my ass!
-Ken Oshigawa
Brian Badger
> EA must be a bunch of Sony ass kissers! The Saturn version of VF2 runs
>at 180 texture mapped polys/sec at 60 fps!!! That's a fucking fact. EA
>can kiss my ass!
> -Ken Oshigawa
Hmm... That works out to... (whir whir whir, grind... *PING*) 3 polygons
on screen. One for each opponent and one for the floor?
Uh, calm down before you post, eh???
--
Brian Badger (aka bba...@mcimail.com) Do not send perishables or cash.
Author of RFC 13459:
Practical Considerations of Implementing The Proposed Remote Mind
Administration Protocol (RMAP); Recovering from Fatal Cortical Faults,
with Special Considerations towards Cleaning Up All That Goo That
Squirts Out of Their Heads.
Matthew Peckham
Second, this whole polygon thing is a mystery anyway because it
doesn't necessarily mean anything--it's a benchmark of mass polygon
computational power, not real time application.
Third, from the very beginning way back last year, everyone _except_
Sega has held the Saturn to this whole 90K textured, 150-200K flat
shaded. Sega claims otherwise, having likely run their OWN benchmark
tests on the system.
Look, when over 95% of the developers out there come forward in over
95% of the gaming mags and flat out rank the Sony PSX as definately
superior to the Saturn in overall power, you have to stop and think.
You guys remember what I'm talking about, too. You read about it all
summer in Next Gen, Game Player, EGM, DieHard, even Computer Gaming
Strategy Plus for chrissake. Not only did the computer mag editors
tend to favor the PSX, but all the software/hardware guys favor it.
If Peter Molyneux of Bullfrog game, whose games are singlehandedly
redefining the ENTIRE electronic entertainment medium, doesn't
convince you when he says the Saturn just doesn't have it, and PSX
does, what're you going to do? Yeah, yeah, buck the ride and
disagree *or flame and disregard posts like this* just because you
dropped your money on Saturn and don't want to listen to anyone
telling YOU, YOUR system that YOU dropped over $400.00 on is slightly
inferior to Sony's gaming machine (god forbid...Sony's just such a
shitty company, they've NEVER put out a successful product...sheesh).
What I've seen since the PSX has been released is a lot of "fox and
the sour grapes" attitude from Saturn owners, and a lot of "you
must've been really stupid to buy Saturn" power-tripping from Sony
owners (okay, so I was even participating in it at first just because
I really couldn't understand how or why anyone would want a Saturn
given its architecture, titles, and developer anguish).
It's undeniable--Sega's already scarred track record just got
worse--the general public feel (which is most certainly NOT
represented by the handful of people in here) is really truly
weighted with Sony (just learned this at our managerial conference).
The public wants the best next-gen system, and right or wrong, their
tastes are far and away with Sony for now. More power to Sega if
they can get the public support back.
-M
Michael Franz
>on screen. One for each opponent and one for the floor?
>
>Uh, calm down before you post, eh???
Umm, YOU ARE A FUCKEN IDIOT!!! 1 characer does not equal 1 polygon! ARE
YOU REALLY THAT DUMB?
ed giangrande
polygons and 500,000 flat shaded polygons, and that's that! No one
has ever dis agreed with Sega that the Saturn can produce 200,000
textured polygons on screen, the arguement was over the polygons on
PS-X since PS-X has never once stated 360,000 TEXTURED polygons, they
just say 360,000 polygons per second. Sega recently claimed that the
360,000 polygons were FLAT not textured, and that the PS-X can only
display 180,000 textured polygons. Are they lying? Possible, but why
risk it?
Matthew Peckham
comes to mind) rates the Saturn at 80,000 textured, 150,000
flat-shaded (very rough, mind you). More importantly, NextGen and
just about everyone else rates the PSX as overall well superior in
just plain 3D power--not by a litte bit, by a lot. I really think
this is evident with the PSX's superior initial batch release. But
again, we're coming into opinion territory again--and much as you
might say mine's not right, so anyone one of us can say that about
the other.
-M
ed giangrande
that they made a mistake. I have yet to read a magazine that
originally had not bashed the Saturn that suddenly reverted as if
nothing happened. As I recall the issue was one with the Title "Sega
Saturn You've seen the ads, now see the truth"... in it Next
Generation claimed that Saturn was 200,000 textured polygons, 500,000
flat polygons, however they also stated that the PS-X was 360,000
TEXTURED polygons. This was one of the main reasons most magazines
favored the PS-X, it's polygon power though they said that the
difference was minimal between the two. However, all of the sudden
Sega releases a pamphlet which states PS-X is 180,000 Textured
polygons and there is an uproar... PS-X never said 360,000 textured
polygons, they just stated 360,000 polygons per second. There is a
difference as you well know. All of the sudden if this is true, tons
of people who origionally favored the PS-X now really are confused.
Was Sony tryingto trick ppeople or is it Sega just misusing the
actual facts that PS-X may be able to produce more polygons, but it
can't display more. Besides Saturn can produce more than 90,000
textured polygons or else how is VF2 BEING MADE???? They are using
180,000 flat polygons!!??!! Yeah sure! It's textured polygons and
anyone with a brain would see this, they would also know that TSD is
using more than 90,000 textured polygons on Saturn too.... Oh that
would explain how EA didn't! Well EA has already stated they favor
the PS-X numerous times anyway so they are about as bias as they
come....
terrell gibbs
Peckham) wrote:
:Every gaming mag I've read (NextGen's Saturn issue--about two back
:comes to mind) rates the Saturn at 80,000 textured, 150,000
:flat-shaded (very rough, mind you).
It's funny how these distortions get started. The figure of 80,000 derives
not from specs or from any actual benchmark--it was just an early guess,
based upon the performance of Daytona, and assuming that Daytona
represents the maximum performance of which the Saturn is capable. It is
now clear that that assumption was wrong, but some people are still
repeating the figure as gospel. Since that time, Sega has released a new
graphics library, which provides more than double that level of
performance.
: More importantly, NextGen and
:just about everyone else rates the PSX as overall well superior in
:just plain 3D power--not by a litte bit, by a lot. I really think
:this is evident with the PSX's superior initial batch release.
There is no doubt that the PSX's initial batch of games had better
graphics. Even though it was widely recognized that the Saturn had a more
complex architecture, a few people made the mistake of attempting to
compare the 3D power of the systems based upon the initial releases. But
while PSX games have stayed pretty much the same in terms of graphics,
Saturn games have improved dramatically. Compare VF to VF Remix to VF2.
Or Daytona to Cyber Speedway to Sega Rally. Or Clockwork Knight to CK2. At
this point, it seems to be generally accepted that the Saturn and PSX are
roughly comparable in 3D graphics (remember that due to publication
delays, the magazines are typically 3 months behind the times), although
it appears that the PSX can *calculate* more polygons--it just doesn't
have the power to actually *display* them faster. It may be that this will
be an advantage for certain types of applications.
: But
Umair Yousufi
Matthew Peckham <The_Dar...@msn.com> wrote:
>First of all, VF Remix uses well under the Saturn's maximum 90K polygons/sec.
Where do you get the number?
>Second, this whole polygon thing is a mystery anyway because it
>doesn't necessarily mean anything--it's a benchmark of mass polygon
>computational power, not real time application.
Ok. So, polygon counts are irrelevant, right?
>Third, from the very beginning way back last year, everyone _except_
>Sega has held the Saturn to this whole 90K textured, 150-200K flat
>shaded. Sega claims otherwise, having likely run their OWN benchmark
>tests on the system.
But wait, didn't you just say polygon counts are irrelevant? In three
paragraphs you've managed to contradict your whole argument. Someone call
Guiness, that may be a record.
Anyway, you say, "from the very beginning way back last year." Hmm.
Okay, so today is October 7th. Boys and girls, can you tell me if over a
span of 9 months you can recall any major developments in the Saturn's
history. Like, you know, say a new SEGA GRAPHICS LIBRARY? Could that be
why Sega conducts their own tests?
>Look, when over 95% of the developers out there come forward in over
>95% of the gaming mags and flat out rank the Sony PSX as definately
>superior to the Saturn in overall power, you have to stop and think.
Name the 95%. I want to see a comprehensive list of all the developers
who have said this, and all those who disagree. Give me direct quotes
from the developers. Not just a spokespeople, but programmers.
Otherwise, I'll assume you're just spewing out made up facts.
>You guys remember what I'm talking about, too. You read about it all
>summer in Next Gen, Game Player, EGM, DieHard, even Computer Gaming
>Strategy Plus for chrissake.
Nope, I don't remember. Only Next Gen. ran an old article about that.
Since then, the new SGL has come out so I guess all of your quotes and
mags (look at him, he's using EGM as a reference, and he left out
IGonline), are very simply _outdated_.
>Not only did the computer mag editors
>tend to favor the PSX, but all the software/hardware guys favor it.
Names, places, refs? Or don't you have any?
>If Peter Molyneux of Bullfrog game, whose games are singlehandedly
>redefining the ENTIRE electronic entertainment medium, doesn't
>convince you when he says the Saturn just doesn't have it, and PSX
>does, what're you going to do?
One person in one development company "singlehandedly redefining the
entire entertainment medium" ??? Uh. No. Sorry. I would have a much
harder time placing that title on anybody than you just did. And what
exactly do you mean when you say, "the Saturn just doesn't have it" ???
Why don't you quote? Did you take his remarks out of context? Use a
slanted interpetation? I, for one, am sure he didn't say, "the Saturn
just doesn't have it." Bring on your quotes.
>Yeah, yeah, buck the ride and
>disagree *or flame and disregard posts like this* just because you
>dropped your money on Saturn and don't want to listen to anyone
>telling YOU, YOUR system that YOU dropped over $400.00 on is slightly
>inferior to Sony's gaming machine (god forbid...Sony's just such a
>shitty company, they've NEVER put out a successful product...sheesh).
Arguably one of the most incoherent and rambling sentences I have had the
misfortune to come across. What are you trying to say?? All I could see
is some lame straw man argument (Are you talking to me when you say,
"you" ?? I don't even have a Saturn).
>What I've seen since the PSX has been released is a lot of "fox and
>the sour grapes" attitude from Saturn owners, and a lot of "you
>must've been really stupid to buy Saturn" power-tripping from Sony
>owners (okay, so I was even participating in it at first just because
>I really couldn't understand how or why anyone would want a Saturn
>given its architecture, titles, and developer anguish).
Oh great video gaming guru, please expound on us more of your uniformed,
sweeping generalizations.
>It's undeniable--Sega's already scarred track record just got
>worse--the general public feel (which is most certainly NOT
>represented by the handful of people in here) is really truly
>weighted with Sony (just learned this at our managerial conference).
What are you trying to say? What's "undeniable"? Whatever you feel is
undeniable, I could probably refute. "Scarred track record" ?? What are
you talking about? Do buzzwords enhance your argument? Are you saying
you have tapped the general public's psyche and now know--like some
demi-god--exactly what they want? What about the people at rvg.sega?
They count as your "general public," don't they? Yet they don't fall in
your sweeping generalizations, do they? How do you account for the sales
of Saturn across the country? Are Saturn sales the result of a "general
public" that is dissatified with Sega?
>The public wants the best next-gen system, and right or wrong, their
>tastes are far and away with Sony for now.
Mr. Gallup speaks again. How exactly can you say the publics tastes lie
with Sony? Did your "managerial conference" give you telepathic
abilities? How can you tell me my (and others) tastes, without even
knowing me?
>More power to Sega if they can get the public support back.
If it was ever gone... If you have any, bring some real arguments next
time.
--
uY
|"If you don't get a goodnight kiss, you get Kafka dreams."|
| -Hobbes, _The Indispensable Calvin and Hobbes_ |
terrell gibbs
:First of all, VF Remix uses well under the Saturn's maximum 90K polygons/sec.
:
:Second, this whole polygon thing is a mystery anyway because it
:doesn't necessarily mean anything--it's a benchmark of mass polygon
:computational power, not real time application.
:
This is certainly true, especially when we have not been provided with
details on how these benchmarks were conducted.
:Third, from the very beginning way back last year, everyone _except_
:Sega has held the Saturn to this whole 90K textured, 150-200K flat
:shaded. Sega claims otherwise, having likely run their OWN benchmark
:tests on the system.
Although in fact, NOBODY who has cited this 90K figure has provided a
source, much less claimed to have actually performed a benchmark. However,
the number seems to correspond roughly to the performance of Daytona. So
what seems likely is that somebody took this number as representative of
the Saturn's maximum performance, and then other magazines simply repeated
the same number. Of course, it is hardly fair to compare actual game
performance of the Saturn to Sony's idealized benchmark (which presumably
reflects what the Playstation can do when it is not trying to do anything
*else* besides just blasting polygons randomly onto the screen). In fact,
polygon estimates for actual Playstation games don't come anywhere close
to Sony's benchmark stats.
Anyway, we now know that Daytona was programmed before Sega optimized the
Saturn's graphics library, and that the Saturn is capable of much greater
performance.
:
:Look, when over 95% of the developers out there come forward in over
:95% of the gaming mags and flat out rank the Sony PSX as definately
:superior to the Saturn in overall power, you have to stop and think.
Wow! 95% of developers! That's a very impressive statistic. To get a
number like that, you would have to interview at least 20 developers.
Quite a survey. Funny I haven't seen it anywhere. And every developer who
has posted here has indicated that the two systems are pretty equal.
:
:You guys remember what I'm talking about, too. You read about it all
:summer in Next Gen, Game Player, EGM, DieHard, even Computer Gaming
:Strategy Plus for chrissake.
And you still haven't realized that all these mags copy from one another?
:Not only did the computer mag editors
:tend to favor the PSX, but all the software/hardware guys favor it.
:If Peter Molyneux of Bullfrog game, whose games are singlehandedly
:redefining the ENTIRE electronic entertainment medium, doesn't
:convince you when he says the Saturn just doesn't have it, and PSX
:does, what're you going to do?
Please cite the interview in which he says that Saturn "just doesn't have
it." I must have missed it.
:Yeah, yeah, buck the ride and
:disagree *or flame and disregard posts like this* just because you
:dropped your money on Saturn and don't want to listen to anyone
:telling YOU, YOUR system that YOU dropped over $400.00 on is slightly
:inferior to Sony's gaming machine (god forbid...Sony's just such a
:shitty company, they've NEVER put out a successful product...sheesh).
Well, I thought the beta VCR was pretty successful technically. Sony had a
real technological lead (do you know where I can rent tapes for my beta,
BTW?)
:
:What I've seen since the PSX has been released is a lot of "fox and
:the sour grapes" attitude from Saturn owners, and a lot of "you
:must've been really stupid to buy Saturn" power-tripping from Sony
:owners (okay, so I was even participating in it at first just because
:I really couldn't understand how or why anyone would want a Saturn
:given its architecture, titles, and developer anguish).
:
:It's undeniable--Sega's already scarred track record just got
:worse--the general public feel (which is most certainly NOT
:represented by the handful of people in here) is really truly
:weighted with Sony (just learned this at our managerial conference).
:The public wants the best next-gen system, and right or wrong, their
:tastes are far and away with Sony for now. More power to Sega if
:they can get the public support back.
:
:-M
Jay Swartzfeger
you...@ucsub.colorado.edu (Umair Yousufi) wrote:
>>Look, when over 95% of the developers out there come forward in over
>>95% of the gaming mags and flat out rank the Sony PSX as definately
>>superior to the Saturn in overall power, you have to stop and think.
>
>Name the 95%. I want to see a comprehensive list of all the developers
>who have said this, and all those who disagree. Give me direct quotes
>from the developers. Not just a spokespeople, but programmers.
>Otherwise, I'll assume you're just spewing out made up facts.
June '95 Gamepro had an interview with Erick Dyke, one of the key
developers of Sega's arcade game DESERT TANK. He now is part of n-SPACE, a
third party developer.
Gamepro asked him why they are developing exclusively for the Playstation
and he said [paraphrasing, of course] that the Saturn could never handle a
game like Desert Tank, and the Playstation would have no problem. Since
this was the June issue, the interview was probably done in the spring,
which means n-SPACE probably didn't have a chance to tinker with SEGA's
SGL.
Since I loved Desert Tank, that pretty much destroyed the 'SEGA advantage'
for me. That's why I've held off on a Saturn, at least for now.
I know this is only one example of a 3rd party developer, but an important
one.
MATTHEW L. JENSEN
It was sarchasm, Beavis.
Dustin Cushman
Where did you hear that? Just curious
> :Second, this whole polygon thing is a mystery anyway because it
> :doesn't necessarily mean anything--it's a benchmark of mass polygon
> :computational power, not real time application.
> :
>
> This is certainly true, especially when we have not been provided with
> details on how these benchmarks were conducted.
>
> :Third, from the very beginning way back last year, everyone _except_
> :Sega has held the Saturn to this whole 90K textured, 150-200K flat
> :shaded. Sega claims otherwise, having likely run their OWN benchmark
> :tests on the system.
>
> Although in fact, NOBODY who has cited this 90K figure has provided a
> source, much less claimed to have actually performed a benchmark. However,
> the number seems to correspond roughly to the performance of Daytona. So
> what seems likely is that somebody took this number as representative of
> the Saturn's maximum performance, and then other magazines simply repeated
> the same number. Of course, it is hardly fair to compare actual game
> performance of the Saturn to Sony's idealized benchmark (which presumably
> reflects what the Playstation can do when it is not trying to do anything
> *else* besides just blasting polygons randomly onto the screen). In fact,
> polygon estimates for actual Playstation games don't come anywhere close
> to Sony's benchmark stats.
A Few months back Gamefan stated the max the Saturn could do was 60,000
texturemapped polygons a second at 30 fps.
I just talked with someone from Sony about the playstation. All I could ever
find about the Playstation was that it can due up to 360,000 polygons a second.
I was told today by somone from Sony that the playstation does 360,000
flat shaded polygons, and 180,000 texture mapped polygons. Now why didn't Sony
or any of the magazines ever come forward with this figure? Sega of America
was honest with their specs from the start.
> :Look, when over 95% of the developers out there come forward in over
> :95% of the gaming mags and flat out rank the Sony PSX as definately
> :superior to the Saturn in overall power, you have to stop and think.
>
> :You guys remember what I'm talking about, too. You read about it all
> :summer in Next Gen, Game Player, EGM, DieHard, even Computer Gaming
> :Strategy Plus for chrissake.
Yeah, I remember it. And know I laugh at what fools those magazines were when
they said the saturn was a pile of shit. I've seen the pics of VF2, VC,
and the demo of Sega Rally. I'd say my pile of shit just made those magazines
look like a bunch of asses.
Dustin--
Dustin Cushman Dustin's Home Page
rcus...@vms1.gmu.edu http://osf1.gmu.edu/~rcushman
George Mason University Sega Saturn & Days of Our Lives Pages
Evil
>A Few months back Gamefan stated the max the Saturn could do was 60,000
>texturemapped polygons a second at 30 fps.
Isn't Akira made of ~1200 polygons? Doesn't that mean that in even
the original VF, we've already seen over 72,000pps/30fps?
Later,
-Evil-
Master Young
writes:
>rcus...@vms1.gmu.edu (Dustin Cushman) wrote:
>>A Few months back Gamefan stated the max the Saturn could do was
60,000
>>texturemapped polygons a second at 30 fps.
nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
not this again!
i know exactly what article that statement originated from. it was
back when daytona was still 20% and it was running at 2000 polygons, 30
frames per second. gamefan had a "system blowout" section that was
supposed to compare all the new systems. well, when they got to the
saturn polygon section, they said "sega has not released information
about the saturn poly capabilities, but it is known that daytona runs
at 2000 polygons at 30 fps. that means the max is probably around
60,000 polys per sec." (not exact wording).
this is where the stupid rumors about saturn and 60,000 polys per
second came around. i like gf and all, but please, this is obviously a
stupid statement. i mean, you can't base a systems specs on the
performance of one game. that was a very ignorant assumption, and it
took a while for all the rumors to be put to rest. i believe the true
max is somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 texture mapped polys per
sec. (ballpark figure) :)
bye!
master young
fay...@ix.netcom.com
Dustin Cushman
> flat polygons, however they also stated that the PS-X was 360,000
> TEXTURED polygons. This was one of the main reasons most magazines
> favored the PS-X, it's polygon power though they said that the
> difference was minimal between the two. However, all of the sudden
> Sega releases a pamphlet which states PS-X is 180,000 Textured
> polygons and there is an uproar... PS-X never said 360,000 textured
> polygons, they just stated 360,000 polygons per second. There is a
> difference as you well know. All of the sudden if this is true, tons
> of people who origionally favored the PS-X now really are confused.
> Was Sony tryingto trick ppeople or is it Sega just misusing the
> actual facts that PS-X may be able to produce more polygons, but it
> can't display more.
I e-mailed Sony about this, because I also wanted the truth on the Playstation
Specs, other than the usual "The Playstation can display up to 360,000 polygons
a second". The Reply I got from sony was that the official spec listed
360,000 flat shaded polygons a second, 180,000 texture mapped polygons a
second. I would guess that if Sony had put this on the box, it would have hurt
them because their texture mapped specs were very close to Saturns. No one will
really tell the difference between 20,000 polygons. I think Sony thought they
could get by without revealing this because everyone thought the Saturn could
only do 60,000 texture mapped polygons a second, and that the average player
would only see the difference of the 2 systems graphics wise,
without knowing the technological differences. Question is, now that a few
magazines have printed the 180,000 spec, when will sony admit to theese specs
publicly.
terrell gibbs
Cushman) wrote:
:A Few months back Gamefan stated the max the Saturn could do was 60,000
:texturemapped polygons a second at 30 fps.
However, they provided no source for this figure. Clearly, they didn't do
their own benchmark, and the number is much smaller than Sega's benchmark.
So WHO did the alleged benchmark? Or is it just the guess of some guy on
the DHGF staff?
trung p nguyen
Please email me your response and thanks for replying.
David Aldridge
terrell gibbs (tgi...@bu.edu) writes:
> :A Few months back Gamefan stated the max the Saturn could do was 60,000
> :texturemapped polygons a second at 30 fps.
>
> However, they provided no source for this figure. Clearly, they didn't do
> their own benchmark, and the number is much smaller than Sega's benchmark.
> So WHO did the alleged benchmark? Or is it just the guess of some guy on
> the DHGF staff?
This is the same mag which stated that the Ultra 64 was 1,000 times more
powerful than the Saturn. Benchmarks? More like uneducated opinions
overinfluenced by excessive hype.
A.S.J.Welsh
: >Look, when over 95% of the developers out there come forward in over
: >superior to the Saturn in overall power, you have to stop and think.
: Name the 95%. I want to see a comprehensive list of all the developers
: who have said this, and all those who disagree. Give me direct quotes
: from the developers. Not just a spokespeople, but programmers.
: Otherwise, I'll assume you're just spewing out made up facts.
: >You guys remember what I'm talking about, too. You read about it all
: >summer in Next Gen, Game Player, EGM, DieHard, even Computer Gaming
: >Strategy Plus for chrissake.
: >Not only did the computer mag editors
: >tend to favor the PSX, but all the software/hardware guys favor it.
: >If Peter Molyneux of Bullfrog game, whose games are singlehandedly
: >redefining the ENTIRE electronic entertainment medium, doesn't
: >convince you when he says the Saturn just doesn't have it, and PSX
: >does, what're you going to do?
O.K so i've cut a lot of rubbish from this post but i think most ppl are
getting a bit woulnd up over nothing! Peter Molyneux actually thinks the
Saturn has more RAW processing power than the PS, however he went on to
say that if was a lot more difficult and messy to get at. The PS has the
edge at the moment because its easier for the programmers to program
and it has Z buffering which doesn't need as much processing to do
3D graphics right? The Saturns main problem is its dual processor
architecture that is all.....
Well thats my lot agree or disagree but don't talk rubbish, pleaasseeeee :)
--
\ Every thing is my own opinion......but if you don't like what i say
\flame away coz i couldn't really give a damn :)
Dustin Cushman
> In article <1995Oct1...@vms1.gmu.edu>, rcus...@vms1.gmu.edu (Dustin
> Cushman) wrote:
>
> :texturemapped polygons a second at 30 fps.
>
> However, they provided no source for this figure. Clearly, they didn't do
> their own benchmark, and the number is much smaller than Sega's benchmark.
> So WHO did the alleged benchmark? Or is it just the guess of some guy on
> the DHGF staff?
They took a calculator and divided the # polygons the game was made up of by
the frame rate, Walla, 60,000 texture mapped polygons a second.
Pretty clever huh? But, after the saw the Remix back in
August they said that the Saturns power was judged to quickly. So, I think they
can be forgiven, considering they're the only mag to admit to doing this.
Jason
<snip>
>August they said that the Saturns power was judged to quickly. So, I think [Lamefan]
>can be forgiven, considering they're the only mag to admit to doing this.
Forgiven? It would take alot more than 1 admision of a mistake for
forgiveness. Add about 70% of the mistakes they made to this one,
plus thumping Nick in the head 'couple of times would come close to
doing it for me.
-- Jason
--
In another world.. in a time to come;| "But Sir! It's impossible!"
maybe Ultima will return. | "Don't try and confuse me
Prismatic Dragon | with facts Jetson! Just do it!"
-=[UDIC]=- | -- Spacely to George
Working Designs Info and Stuff --> http://www.primenet.com/~jhill/wd