FiringSquad: Home of the Hardcore Gamer - Games, Hardware, Reviews and NewsSubmit your own or view users' CPU overclocking results!

  
 Home   News   THE MATRIX   Deals   Hardware   Games   Features   Media   Products   Forums   FS China 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Home : Features : Articles : Dreamcast vs. PC Round 1
» Join the Greatest Gaming Community NOW! (It's free)

Already a member? Login
 



Random Gallery >> 
Click to view high-res Image!
Dishonored March 2012 Screenshots [13] (0)

Drink That S#!t Up! (14) by p4l1ndr0m3
2nd Entry for Crank That S#!t Up! (2) by CamoDaGreat
[Entry] Crank That S#!t Up Video Contest (5) by Animehero
Crank that s#!t up to 11!!! (14) by jarrodthome
CRANG That S#!T Up! (15) by ElwinRansom
Crank THIS sH!t up! - 3DforREAL (71) by nGAGE
Nvidia+Socom Cranks that $#%^ UP!!!!! (4) by mrinfinit3
Crank That S#!t Up! ENTRY :) (2) by CamoDaGreat
[FX] 3-Screen Effect - Guide (part-4) (0) by nGAGE
Crank That S#!t Up!!!! (6) by CamoDaGreat

More Blogs >>




Dreamcast vs. PC Round 1
December 31, 1999   Alexis Dang > [View My Other Articles]
Alan Dang > [View My Other Articles]
Product Info | User Reviews | Article Images(7) | Image Gallery | Comments | Forum Thread
Texturing those polygons

Rasterization

After all the triangle calculations have been made, the graphics chip needs to actually draw the triangles and paint the textures. To accomplish this, the Dreamcast uses an Imagination Technologies/NEC designed PowerVR Series2 chip with a raw-fillrate of 100 Mpixels/sec. The two PC graphics cards with the highest fillrate is either a GeForce 256 using DDR memory or an ATI Rage Fury Maxx which uses two chips in parallel both of which produce approximately 500Mpixels/sec. Is this a clear win for the PC? Actually no. The Dreamcast gets by with a little bit of engineering ingenuity and a little bit of "cheating."

Deferred Rendering Technology

Cover your eyes with your hand for a second. What did you see? Exactly, your hand. Unfortunately, PCs aren't very smart and if you had tried to create the same image in a 3D game, the graphics card would have to draw the whole room first and then draw your hand later which covers everything up. The processing time required for drawing the room-you-never-saw is wasted. This is called overdraw. The deferred rendering technology used in the PowerVR allows the graphics chip to ONLY draw what is visible. In that same situation, the Dreamcast would only draw the hand. This would make its "effective" fill-rate equal to 200Mpixels/sec because a traditional card with 200Mpixels/sec only spends 100 Mpixels/s of its power drawing the stuff you can see. If you had ten layers of images you couldn't see, then Dreamcast would have 1 gigapixel/sec of effective fill-rate. A clear win for the Dreamcast then? Not quite. For one, I've yet to see a game that involves drawing a room and then covering the scene with a hand. Based on the performance of the PowerVR counterpart on the PC, the Dreamcast is only about as fast a 250 Mpixel/sec graphics card, or half the speed of what a PC can currently do. Things still aren't that simple though…

"Cheating" the performance curve Although the PowerVR only perfoms like a 250 Mpixel/sec card in the PC environment, it is different on the Dreamcast. Most Dreamcast games are developed exclusively for the machine and so you will tend to find games that take advantage of the deferred rendering by having exceptionally complex scenes with more overdraw than you would see in a PC game.

Most PC gamers like to run their games at high-resolutions such as 1024x768. At higher resolutions, aliasing or "jaggies" are less obvious. Thanks to the NTSC standard of your TV, the Dreamcast only needs to produce images at 640x480. At about one third the number of pixels per layer, the Dreamcast obviously does not have to work as hard as a PC graphics accelerator. By now, you're probably asking why the Dreamcast doesn't have to worry about aliasing in the images in the same way the PC does. Again, the answer is the TV.

The TV automatically does anti-aliasing for you, but not in a way similar to 3dfx's T-Buffer anti-aliasing. On the TV, you will find it difficult, if not impossible to identify the pixels on a TV because of the larger dot-pitch resulting in more diffuse dots. The interlacing display of the TV also acts to remove the aliasing in the image. Besides all this, you typically sit further away from the TV too. Finally, whereas a next-gen graphics card can have you running Q3 at 100 fps, the TV is VSYNC limited to 60 fps and so there's less of the need for the higher fillrates. Basically, the fuzziness, persistence of phosphors, and general technical limitations of the TV end up helping consoles in a sort of twisted way. Just don't expect to be able to read very small text on a TV screen!

Back! Transform and Lighting: SH-4 v. GPU     More Graphics comparisons Next!
Blog + Share: Digg Del.icio.us Reddit SU furl • More: AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Send This Article to a Friend!  
Table of Contents
  Print Entire Article  

MATRIX CONTENT » RANDOM MEDIA BLOG More Blogs >>
No ratings yet
» Please rate this
Read this Media-Blog entry!» My Entry for the Crank that SH#!T Up Contest (12)
by TheGamesHD (12) Talk with this user on their Shout Box (My other blogs) Posted 34 months ago


 Latest Headlines
South Park: The Stick of Truth VGA gameplay trailer (0)
New Hawken cinematic trailer heralds an open beta (0)
BioShock: Infinite VGA 2012 gameplay trailer (0)
New SimCity trailer highlights Multi-City gameplay (0)
Tomb Raider reboot gets new gameplay trailer (0)
Today's News >>
Today's Siteseeing >>


 Table of Contents


 Quick Facts
The chronological millenium may start in 2001, but the cultural millennium is 2000 and that's when I'll be celebrating.


FiringSquad is powered by... Back to Top Site MapContact UsAdvertise With Us Privacy StatementAbout Us  
News RSSSiteseeing RSSArticle RSS   © 1998-2013 FS Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved