Is Nintendo 64 as powerful as PS2? I mean Kirby 64 looks better

File: bait-poster.jpg (79KB, 598x400px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 598x400px

>>384780153
>473 replies and 97 images omitted

Not even close.
Though some people say the Dreamcast was more powerful than the PS2. Though we never got to see the console's true graphical potential.

>>384780339
>Though some people say the Dreamcast was more powerful than the PS2
Those people are full of shit

>>384780153
No. Ps2 was 128 bit. After they people stopped counting it.

>>384780153
Compare gran turismo 3 with any racing game on the n64

>>384780153
there are lists that rate the console GPUs by FLOPs and N64 doesn't even break one gigaflop, whereas all sixth consoles were at least 1.4 gigaflops (that would be the Dreamcast).

>>384781010
http://kyokojap.myweb.hinet.net/gpu_gflops/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_gaming_platforms

I think some of these numbers take into account just the GPU, others combine its power with the CPU.

File: 1489585806146.png (180KB, 392x309px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 392x309px

>mfw people will reply to this
this is bait.

watch a teardown on youtube, n64 doesn't even have a fan

File: 4403163107_269e5e5c0b_b.jpg (789KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 1024x683px

>>384781258
What's wrong with trying to salvage a weak thread?

File: wdc2.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>384781001
World Driver Championship looks pretty boss though

>>384781175
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_gaming_platforms
Holy shit, Wikipedia is absolutely garbage. It says that the PS1 has 100+ MFLOPS even though the console is (infamously) completely incapable of floating point.

Into the goddamn trash

>>384781447
>PS1 has 100+ flops
This is nothing new.

>>384781321
>I mean kirby looks about as good as some ps2 games
this thread isn't weak its doing exactly what the creator intended. baiting autists.

PS2 has a MIPS 5900 CPU running at 300mhz
N64 has a MIPS 4300 CPU running at 93mhz

PS2 has two 128-bit vector units running at 300mhz
N64 has one 128-bit vector unit running at 62.5mhz

PS2 has sixteen pixel pipelines running at 147mhz (to be fair individually they would be inferior to N64s if running at the same clock)
N64 has one pixel pipeline running at 62.5mhz

PS2 has eight texture units running at 147mhz (also would be individually inferior to N64 if running at same clock)
N64 has one texture unit running at 62.5mhz

PS2 has 32 MB of RDRAM with 3200 MB/s bandwidth
N64 has 4 to 8 MB of RDRAM with 565 MB/s bandwidth

PS2 has 4MB of eDRAM (VRAM) with 48000 MB/s bandwidth
N64 doesn't even have VRAM

File: 1470606029216.png (9KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 500x501px

>>384780848
Sure showed me.

>>384780803
Depends. Dreamcast loses on raw number of polygons, but wins on textures (more VRAM and in built hardware compression) and shading. VGA output is better quality than composite, although perhaps on par with native 1080i.

>>384782475
>wins on textures (more VRAM and in built hardware compression)
Not really a problem for PS2, but dependent how quickly PS2's VRAM can be flushed with new textures, or textures read from main memory. PS2 has so much more texel fill and memory bandwidth than Dreamcast it's ridiculous but if programmers don't take advantage of it, then the Dreamcast wins texturing by default. That being said, when it comes to lighting textures or shit like that PS2 easily wins due to its advanced vertex throughput.

File: Sega Saturn guts.jpg (132KB, 1023x675px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1023x675px

Is Nintendo DS as powerful as PS1, Saturn or N64?

>>384782795
Dreamcast has also advanced vertex throughput, namely inbuilt gourad shading which is why at best the PS2 will tie with the dreamcast on shading. The difference in bandwith and clock speed is also misleading because the dreamcast is also more efficent; besides the bandwith being for compressed textures (rather than raw textures or compressed textures + decompression software), the Dreamcast uses a tile based rendering system that means it doesn't waste power on scenes that aren't visible on the screen.

>>384783127
It might be more "powerful" than PS1 because at least it can do perspective correction and z-buffer.

>>384783386
>namely inbuilt gourad shading which is why at best the PS2 will tie with the dreamcast on shading.
PS2 GPU also has extremely well developed Gouraud shading capabilities. Arguably, that is what the console is best at, actually. PS2 can only texture 8 pixels per clock, but it can Gouraud shade 16 pixels per clock, which is ridiculously fast. Certainly, much faster then Dreamcast which can Gouraud shade only 1 pixel per clock.

>The difference in bandwith and clock speed is also misleading because the dreamcast is also more efficent;
You're right that the tile based deferred rendering is more efficient (i.e. reduces needless overdraw) but PowerVR's own numbers indicated that overdraw was only 3x inefficient at worst in your "typical" 3D scene. The thing is that PS2 has much more than 3x pixel/texel fill rate than Dreamcast and much more than 3x memory bandwidth (particular in VRAM it has about 50x more memory bandwidth). Even if you factor in texture compression (8x advantage at best with VQ texture compression) with that 3x advantage, you only get 24x at most more efficiency on Dreamcast. If you factor in that PS2 has half the VRAM, then you're looking at about equal I guess.

>>384783859
All I understand from this post is
>The PS2 is awesome at drawing polygons asl ong as you don't want to texture them

>>384783941
Then you understand very little in that post.

>>384784030
Basically what I meant for misleading is that while apparently PS2 is in a completely differently category to the dreamcast, in practise they are about even until you get to the specialisations.

It's not that the PS2 can draw a lot of polygons as long as they are with simple textures; it can draw a lot of polygons with complex textures, but it has a problems using a lot of different textures in one scene, while the dreamcast bottlenecks on pure processing power and doesn't get much gain from simplifying textures.

It's a shame that every dreamcast wasn't sold with a vga cable though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeAlHP63w_Y

>>384785153
I was responding to >>384783941 btw.

>>384785153
The problem is everything you're saying is based on anecdote rather than technical facts

>>384780803
Some multiplats (DOA2, Resi Code Veronica) looked better on dreamcast.

>>384782169
And no sound chip.

>>384785316
Well you only get a complete objective evidence by actually trying to program for both systems and seing the results, which is something I haven't done. Notheless raw numbers is not the whole story in terms of technical facts, you have to get into how it works.

>>384785745
>Notheless raw numbers is not the whole story in terms of technical facts
It is if you know how to interpret them. There's no such thing as "Dreamcast magic".

File: Dreamcast-VMU.jpg (663KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 2048x1536px

>>384780803

Jealous of the vmu?

>>384785818
Nobody was claiming magic though? I'm not >>384780339, I think both consoles were fairly close, as for seeing the true graphical performance I think what it got in the end of it's life was pretty close to the limit.

You can even overclock consoles to see where they are struggling in games.

https://youtu.be/R5Gj9O3BHmU?t=379

>>384786819
I always love being able to overclock consoles, but I don't know shit about hardware mods so I only get the opportunity on updated consoles with software hacks like the 3DS/DSi for the DS or the Wii for the Gamecube

>>384786819
>as for seeing the true graphical performance I think what it got in the end of it's life was pretty close to the limit.
Not at all. Games like Burnout 3, God of War 2, Shadow of the Colossus, Gran Turismo 4, Jak 3, etc are so far ahead of what was done in Dreamcast's short life it's not even funny.

>>384780153
Majora's Mask also looks better.

In fact most 2000's games looks pretty neat.

>>384781336
>No driving lines
Racing games were pretty hardcore back in the day
yeah I know about the suggested "gray/dirty" line in the road

>>384780339
>>384780803

The Dreamcast had less horsepower than the PS2, by a large margin, however when it comes to VRAM (textures quality, filters) the Dreamcast had twice the amount available on PS2.

long story short, the Dreamcast could render better quality gfx on a smaller scale, while PS2 could render wider areas but with lower quality.
Of course the Dreamcast could work around that by segmenting areas between loading screens (like ShenMue) but a game like GTA3 would have take some effort to port on Dreamcast

>>384788843
>however when it comes to VRAM (textures quality, filters) the Dreamcast had twice the amount available on PS2.
Quantity isn't that important if you've got speed, since you can refresh PS2's RAM 100x in the time it takes to fill Dreamcast's VRAM.

>>384787131
Except they're not? They used nifty tricks like higher resolution models for closeups but in terms of in game graphics they are not that far off:

MSR (basically early project gothan racing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmgXTDT3cE

Headhunter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qWia_Xzew8

Rez
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHDZfWcbBY8

Xtreme sports
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80I__z9SENo


>>384788843
Not really? The main difficulty of the dreamcast would be to render many objects on one scene, meaning complex games would suffer from a lot of poppup. Shenmue had smaller areas because each area had a lot of detail to it (like working drawers and so).

>>384790615
>in terms of in game graphics they are not that far off:
You've really got your old man blinkers on if you believe this.

And what's up with linking Rez? You do know that the PS2 version runs at double the framerate of the Dreamcast version right? Not that it's a technically complex game either - just good art style.

>>384790859
Because you compared side by side? Ps2 runs at lower resolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTU8uMtNwVw

I tried to pick dreamcast games that hadn't been mentioned in the thread.

>>384786819
>>384790615
>>384791789
stop using question marks in statements please

>>384791789
>Ps2 runs at lower resolution:
Just because PS2 usually runs at a resolution marginally lower than 640x480, doesn't mean that by that very fact alone it is worse overall.

>>384792828
the PS2 was far and away the weakest of the 6th gen, anon. the software was fantastic but the hardware specs were trash. only advantage is that it was so weak that they were able to make the slim, which is the epitome of compact hardware design.

>>384792828
Yeah, i suppose 640X240 at 60 fps (480i) amounts to the same as 640X480 at 30 fps (480p) is terms of number of pixels rendered.

>>384793175
>i suppose 640X240 at 60 fps (480i) amounts to the same as 640X480 at 30 fps (480p)
That isn't how it works for 480i unless the game does field rendering. The most common PS2 resolution was something like 512x480.

No. The N64 wasn't as powerful as the PS1.

>>384795007
>No floats
>No z-buffer
>No perspective correction
whatever you say

>>384795007
>The N64 wasn't as powerful as the PS1.
get a load of this sonybro

>>384790859
I was really impressed by the weather effects for GT4.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlB8BDeKmlI

>>384794832
Well yeah, some PS2 games also ran on 1080i, most are meant for component. In the case of rez the vertical resolution is clearly lower than 480 though.

>>384796794
>some PS2 games also ran on 1080i
One game, and that was scaled.
There were a couple Xbox games that played at native 1080i and a few more at 720p.

>>384780803
>posted as my console struggles to run games interlaced, outputting 15 fps at best for most games

Nintendo always had the weakest console of every generation. PS1 was more powerful than N64.

>>384797518
SNES, N64 and Gamecube were all arguably more powerful than their primary competitors

>>384798021
>SNES
>arguably
It was a clear cut ahead of the PCE and Genesis.

>>384798861
The Genesis CPU was a lot faster, and the GPU could push a few more sprites at higher resolution. There was no way it could handle the complex effects of the SNES PPU without taking a serious hit to performance with software emulation.

>>384797518
>PS1 was more powerful than N64
You can keep repeating it but everybody knows it isn't true

>>384782475
PS2 had component cables. How does that compare to VGA?

>>384797416
PS2 had more 60 FPS games than Dreamcast did m8

>>384799584
On par, but few PS2 games supported progressive scan (480p, enabled by the Component cables) while the vast majority of Dreamcast games did (required by VGA cable)

>>384799649
PS2 had more games than the Dreamcast did.

How different would RE4 or FFXII look if they were ported to the Dreamcast?

>>384799721
How many games that weren't arcade ports ran at 60 FPS on Dreamcast? Heaps and heaps of PS2 games ran at 60 FPS.

MGS2, Devil May Cry series, Gran Turismo, Ratchet and Clank series, Jak series and so on and heaps more.

I'd argue even on average more games ran 60 FPS on PS2 than Dreamcast

N64 has the best texture filtering of any console. Ever.

>>384800264
Most games for the dreamcast were arcade ports though. Most of time 60 fps were just a bit of optimization away:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxMvmZI-yRo

>>384800264
>How many games that weren't [#1 reason to own a Dreamcast] ran at 60 FPS on Dreamcast

>I'd argue even on average more games ran 60 FPS on PS2 than Dreamcast
No shit, it had like 5 times more games in general.
Did Jak really run at 60? Definitely felt like 30 when I played it, and it dropped further when I tried to play it with progressive scan. Ratchet dropped a lot too.

>>384800332
My dick has the best texture filtering of any cocksole. Ever.

>>384800771
SA1 definitely wasn't designed for 60 FPS. Even Sonic Team admitted that. All the video shows is the game has been hacked to remove the frame cap.

>>384801056
Of course it wasn't, it was a launch title and they were trying to come to grips with the console still (not to mention 3D animation, which was hilarious bad). SA2, which is graphically similar, was 60fps.

Had the dreamcast kept going, the next step graphically would have probably been more depth of view smoothing and/or bloom shading, to mask the polygons. Shenmue II looks amazing with it at least:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxzszeMZhUc

>>384801665
It's unlikely. Because Dreamcast hardware was so easy to use (it was one of the only pieces of hardware ever that had completely order-independent transparency support which meant less work for programmers) its capabilities were probably maxed pretty early.

It's not like PS2 which was extremely complicated so developers barely scratched the surface early on. Shenmue 2 was probably pretty close to peak Dreamcast.

>>384801925
>Genesis can't do transparency
>Saturn can't do transparency
>Dreamcast goes all out on transparency
Sega were overcompensating

File: IMG_0710.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>384802604
>Saturn can't do transparency

>>384795007
I think the PS1 could handle larger textures, but that's it.

>>384797518
>My first console generation was 7

>>384802728
>VDP1 slows to a crawl and eats lower-layer sprites if you try to do it
Close enough

>>384802856
Are we ignoring VDP2 now?

>>384801925
Depends. Depth of view is almost trivial, motion blur was shown as far back as the first shenmue, they probably wouldn't have pulled off a good looking bloom since even the xbox didn't manage it though.

>>384803282
Most Saturn devs did.

>>384803357
That doesn't make both VDPs unable to do transparency.

>>384803350
Order independent transparency has nothing to do with what you wrote. It just means that the game engine programmers don't have to create a method of sorting the order of transparent objects. Basically it's just less work and one less place coders can fuck up.

On the other hand PS2 made developers work hard on everything to get good performance out of it.

>>384803864
Sucking at transparency effects is a well known fault of the Saturn, get over it.

>>384780153
Conker's bad fur day looks almost like a PS2 game

File: conk2.webm (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>384804147
This. How can PS1 even compete?

>>384804147
right down to running at 20fps

File: maxresdefault.jpg (55KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1280x720px

Friendly reminder that this was a 2001 PS2 game.

File: 1491254213450.gif (912KB, 240x176px) Image search: [Google]

912KB, 240x176px

People are idiots and think nintendo has always been the weakest hardware wise but it only has started since the wii.

Nes was pretty powerful compared to the competition, it wasn't until years after it released that the master system came out which looked better.

Snes was more powerful in most ways to the genesis, though the genesis had a few better qualities.

N64 was the best of the fifth gen for 3d, saturn was meant more for 2d and ps1 was just cheaper tech.

Gamecube actually was the second most powerful of sixth gen behind only the xbox. Most multiplats were better on gamecube then the ps2, look at resident evil 4.

>>384803969
Nobody is arguing that the Saturn didn't have limitations in doing transparency. The original argument was >Saturn can't do transparency, and that has been debunked to hell and back.

>>384804837
It was an exaggeration, chill.

>>384804775
Some games (mostly shit which needed heavy SIMD/vector support) would run far better on the PS2 than Gamecube. But you're right for the most part.

>>384786137
PS1 had a VMU equivalent (pocketstation), but only in Japan

File: 1473372644960.png (21KB, 144x133px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 144x133px

I would say that the various consoles (up until PS3/360) had distinct differences between each other.
This meant that some games looked better than others, and of course the best looking games were generally the exclusives that allowed for full time to work with the specific console's capabilities.

>>384805486
That's what makes it so fun to discuss.
It's even enjoyable to see what happened when developers really were able to tap into the power of the Cell.

>>384785397
Probably because they were made on the Dreamcast to begin with and were optimized for their hardware. DOA2 was a NAOMI game and Code: Veronica was co-developed by a Sega-owned developer.

>>384805623
This.
Say what you will about gameplay, but last of us looked amazing for a PS3 game.

File: dc0b3ee8-0c5a-4a12-9a0c-b71adec9b222.jpg (181KB, 1280x976px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1280x976px

What's the best looking game on each console?
Are they exclusives?

>>384795759
>>384795801
>>384802749
> defending 24 megabyte games when most games were well over 400 mb at that point

Nice Z buffer you've got there with a flaccid world without any notable texture art!

>>384804706
kek n64's entire cartridge's limited storage could not even run the first cutscene, let alone render the entire fucking boat of the introduction level

>>384785153
Are Dreamcast VGA cables expensive?

>>384806285
strip the CD-quality audio and FMV cutscenes out of a PS1 game and there isn't much difference left.

Wipeout isn't even 64MB without it's CD audio.

File: Code-Veronica-X.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

Since we're all here talking Dreamcast and PS2, does anyone know which version of RE: Code Veronica is best?

>>384806718
Wipeout actually had a n64 version

>>384806285
Can't even enjoy the PS1's textures, considering they're not even filtered and they wobble all over the place so much you spend more time puking than playing.

>>384807007
Thank go for emulation.

>>384806718
>>384806930

> without its cd audio
which COINCIDENTALLY is 50% of the game, doofus

N64 had horrible sound

>>384783465
and motherfucking Anti-Aliasing.
it also could render much more polygons at once.

N64 was really only held back by its laughably low texture cache size and the lack of storage space.

File: 18980.jpg (309KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 576x432px

>>384783859
>PS2 can only texture 8 pixels per clock, but it can Gouraud shade 16 pixels per clock, which is ridiculously fast. Certainly, much faster then Dreamcast which can Gouraud shade only 1 pixel per clock.
I guess that's the reason why FF XII looked so fucking awesome on comparatively ancient hardware when it came out. Or am I wrong?
I remember gaming mags making a big deal of how FF XII was able to use shaders on the PS2 whereas on PC they were actually first introduced with the GeForce 3 and Giants: Citizen Kabuto being the first PC game to use them.

>>384807185
if you're trying to evaluate power, it's much harder to synthesize audio at runtime than just stream it from a disc

storage has literally nothing to do with processing power, unless you think the Wii was on par with the 360

>>384806426
>let alone render the entire fucking boat of the introduction level

The PS2 couldn't either.

It had neither the memory or render power to actually do the full scene of that first cutscene, they had to cut it up into little chunks. Basically what "exists" changes from shot to shot. Not what is being rendered, what even exists. They may as well have pre-rendered the video for all the effort they had to go to to get the PS2 to come even close to rendering little piece of it in realtime.

>>384807185
>N64 had horrible sound

You sure about that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKPX4TZBG9w

>>384780153

Nowhere near, sorry. Even early PS2 games tend to look a lot better than late N64 games. They ran a hell of a lot better too.

>>384806764
Depends if you like the changes or not. Visually dreamcast might have the edge but emulators render this moot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igvgWRktEJs

>>384780153
Of course it is. It's got 64 bits while the ps3 only has 32 bits.

>>384807649
PS2 had 128 (4x32) bit vector processing.

>>384807685
I said ps3

File: old-man-shaking-his-head.gif (3MB, 640x387px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x387px

>>384780153
Have you even played Silent Hill 3

>>384807341
> f you're trying to evaluate power
No retard, I'm evaluating the quality of sound. You know, the thing the n64 didn't really have in abundance other than WAHOOO BING BING.

>>384807445
very true, but I meant in ways of textures. The N64 his cartridge was pure cancer for most developers and it resulted in a vaseline, smudged out look. GTA3? MGS2? FFX? etc etc Not possible.

>>384807319
>I remember gaming mags making a big deal of how FF XII was able to use shaders on the PS2 whereas on PC they were actually first introduced with the GeForce 3 and Giants: Citizen Kabuto being the first PC game to use them.

The PS2 had a programmable vertex shader but no pixel shader. The xbox had both a programmable vertex and pixel shader. I don't remember when it first came to PC but I'm pretty sure it was around the same time as the xbox release.

N64 games were ugly. That's the reason the system failed.

>>384807319
Those mags might have been confused since shaders were in use for a long time, and giants: citizen kabuto's visual effects had to be downgraded to run on PS2. Visually FF XII looks similar to shadow of colossus, which is high praise, but more of a result of careful optimization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYEqPr7ukHc

>>384806432
You can get one for $20, but you can get better custom made which might work better for your setup going up to $80 or so.

Most PS1 games that were ported to the N64 had to be downgraded. The PS1 was more powerful than the N64.

>>384807185
>N64 had horrible sound
N64 had decent sound capabilities. Just because the PS1 used CDs by no means implies that all games it had streamed their music from the CD.

>>384808625

Fixed function shaders had been around for a while, not programmable ones. Pretty sure they came in with DirectX 8.

>>384808772
Outside of cutscenes, RE2 was significantly improved.

>>384808828
That's true, but honestly it was pretty funny seeing the resi 2 port on n64. it was laughably bad.

>>384806764
The HD remaster.

>>384809146

No. Not only did the cutscenes suffer a terrible downgrade but so did the static backgrounds and the audio. They had to compress the shit out of everything and throw away some stuff too. The only that is improved is the models and that's not because they got an upgrade, it's because the N64 had better hardware for rendering than the PS1.

File: Scud Race (Arcade).jpg (199KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1440x1080px

>>384790615
Good games for sure, but they're nowhere near top-tier PS2 software. Heck, even earlier games like GT3: A-Spec (2001) look well above any Dreamcast racer. Dreamcast games have a very distinctive late 90s arcade look, similar to Model 3 games.

>>384804297
wow is this switch graphics?

>>384808619
They absolutely were not. Goddammit, first seeing those smooth, non-pixelated, blocky or warping shapes in Mario 64 back in 97 was one of the biggest NEXT GEN! -experiences I have ever experienced.

>>384809604
All that has nothing to do with "power", just storage space. The devs had to jam two 500mb CDs into ONE (1) 64 Megabyte cartridge. The fact that they actually succeeded, all while jamming in brand new features - some totally exclusive to N64, is still an amazing feat.

>>384809604
>so did the static backgrounds
If I remember correctly the Nintendo 64 rendered some parts of the game at the higher resolution of 480i.
>and the audio.
Dolby Surround Sound, that's all I have to say.

>>384807319
>>384808232
Shaders is sort of an amorphous concept. Anything that hardware accelerates vertex calculations is a vertex shader - if the underlying algorithms behind those calculations can be modified then you can call it a programmable vertex shader.

As for pixel shaders, it's basically anything that can modify pipeline output at a pixel level. If those modifications are versatile then you'd call it a programmable pixel shader.

N64 is a good example, since due to its microcode programmable vector unit, you could say it has a programmable vertex shader. Because the GPU has a color combiner unit, you could even argue that it has a pixel-shader, but it's not a programmable one since all it can do is take pipeline output and combine it with another color. It's fixed-staged.

PS2 has the programmable vector units like N64, but it has no color combiner. However, because it has such a crazy number of pixel pipelines, developers can manipulate them into acting like pseudo-pixel shaders. So yes, the PS2 is capable of pixel shader like effects. Hell, because it's a brute force approach it's even fairly programmable.

GameCube got the short end of the stick here. The vertex shader is no longer programmable, that got downgraded from N64. Gamecube has a color combiner though, it's like a super souped up version of the N64 one. 16 combine stages up from 1 stage on N64 I believe. Still fixed-function though, but GOOD fixed function. Definitely a lot better than GeForce 2's "register combiners".

>>384809815
>The fact that they actually succeeded

That's debatable, a lot of the game looks like fucking ass. At the very least, it's not "significantly improved".

>>384809924
> dolby surround with horrible audio compression is preferrable to stereo with 360 kb/s

I bet you think sony or phillips makes good sound installations too eh anon? Must suck having no ears.

>>384808772
>Most PS1 games that were ported to the N64 had to be downgraded
Except Rayman 2, Shadow Man, Space Station Silicon Valley, Vigilante 8, Glover, South Park, Gauntlet Legends, BattleTanx, Hexen, Hydro Thunder, San Francisco Rush, etc

Only ones off the top of my head that were truly fucked were Gex, Bug's Life and to some extent Mega Man 64. Some just had some cutbacks due to lack of storage space like THPS.

>>384809657
You seem to be confusing visual style with image quality though. Gt3 a spec looks worse than msr, similar quality car models but worse environments. Gt4 didn't have the rain effects that test drive le:mans >>384796794
had (and were removed from the PS2 port).

>>384809924
>If I remember correctly the Nintendo 64 rendered some parts of the game at the higher resolution of 480i.
That's the models only. And what resolution it renders at depends on what's on the screen. The static images and movies were actually lower resolution than the PS1 version and that was already pretty fucking low.

>Dolby Surround Sound, that's all I have to say.
Low quality audio in surround sound is still low quality audio.

>>384798021
Not really, the N64 was much more advanced on paper, but the hardware was hindered by the low texture cache, blurry image quality and overall shitty framerates. SNES only real advantage (ignoring gimmicks like Mode 7 or the very limited high-res) over the Genesis was palette and the GCN and PS2 were roughly comparable specs-wise.

Neo Geo >>>> SNES > PCE > Genesis
N64 >> PS1 > Saturn
Xbox >>> GCN > PS2 >> Dreamcast

>>384810672
To be fair some of those were originally made for N64 (shadow man, rayman 2, South Park)

>>384810672
Weren't most of those originally N64 games? I think it depends more on which console it was initially designed around more than anything.

>>384810750
>Not really
>Proceeds to make power rankings that agree with me
que?

>>384810750
>the hardware was hindered by the low texture cache
I find it mildly amusing when people keep parroting that the N64 has a small texture cache. The irony is that at the time of its release in 1996 it had the largest texture cache that was ever placed inside a GPU.

>>384811201
It was the bottleneck, that's why. Everything had to be textured out of that cache, main RAM couldn't be used.

>>384788431
Driving lines right now have always been an optional assist, like you know, every other assist right now and back then.

>>384811201
he doesn't know

File: ocarina of time unfiltered 2.png (376KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1280x960px

>>384811201

>>384811307
Technically that's wrong. Because you can refresh the texture cache as many times as you want per frame, that doesn't make the cache itself the bottleneck. The bottleneck would actually be the main RAM's ability to keep flushing new texture data into the texture cache, making the main RAM itself the bottleneck.

That makes plenty of sense, because the N64 has the dubious distinction of being, to my knowledge, the only game console ever released that had a single memory channel. Meaning the CPU and GPU can't access RAM at the same time. If you want your bottleneck - it's there. I don't know why people keep pointing fingers at the texture cache when there's a far more obvious bottleneck.

File: DH.png (222KB, 500x352px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 500x352px

>>384811729
Compare with Spyro 1.

>>384811938
I'd rather take a blurry texture than a warping texture.
DS___ had the best lowpoly 3D.

File: conker4.webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>384811938
Conker has better texturing than that. To my knowledge, no PS1 game can display as much texture detail PER FRAME as Conker.

Spyro deletes textures from anything more than a few meters away and replaces it with shaded colors.

>>384782169
It's like a new generation of hardware. What were we talking about again?

>>384809971
You obviously know your stuff mr. developer. I learned something new today, thanks.

File: spyro_tum.png (441KB, 640x450px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 640x450px

>>384811729
>>384811938
>shitty n64 emulation purposefully made even worse
nice try sonybro

wow such high res

>>384813319
It's more detailed than most N64 games desu.

File: spyro2.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>384813413
except when it's in motion and all of the detail starts popping out m8

>>384813551
It's rare that a N64 game would get that much detail in e.g. the stone path on the ground.

File: tooietextures.png (1MB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x768px

>>384813684
spyro looks good compared to poorly developed n64 games, but i can't give it more than that

File: Banjo-Tooie-banjo-kazooie-31352419-500-373.gif (270KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 500x373px

I'm so glad this thread is still goin. Healthy retro console discourse is my favorite

File: banjo-tooie-wallpaper.jpg (125KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1024x768px

>>384814061
It's not a game I like, but Tooie is pretty good lookin

File: oot-2.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>384811729
OoT wasn't about texture detail. It was about atmosphere, so the focus was on lighting effects and aerial perspective vertex fog (the good kind of fog).

>>384814791
it would have had texture detail if there wasn't such a small amount of mb's to work with.

But congrats to the developers being able to work with such a limited system.

File: clanker.png (610KB, 850x480px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 850x480px

>>384814989
I don't think it's really about cartridges. Just Nintendo not being able to texture for shit on N64. Other developers like Rare managed with the same storage room, but Nintendo never managed. Nintendo's textures still look shit to this day.

To be fair, aside from the usual suspects like Crash and Spyro, PS1 textures look like total garbage too and that's before you even get to the warping and unfiltered look.

>>384782795
>>384783859
>>384809971
Make a fucking trip you brilliant bastard, you know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>384815561
I just like retro consolewar faggotry

File: bk_texture.jpg (93KB, 512x378px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 512x378px

Reminder that Banjo-Kazooie's cartridge size was half that of OoT (16 MB vs 32 MB).

BK also ran at 25-30 FPS while OoT ran at 20 FPS.

reminder that the vita (and PSTV) are more powerfull than DC, PS2, GC or XBOX.

>>384820168
How come Ninja Gaiden Sigma Plus runs so much worse than Black?

>>384810229
>a lot of the game looks like fucking ass.
on the original TV hardware and cables of the time, the game's visuals ranged from identical to slightly better than PS1's, all thanks to AA, texture-filterings and all the wobble-removing tech N64 packed.

No one said it would be significantly better at any point, though there are improvements as well, such as the Dolby audio for music.

>>384820701
Because it's the Vita.

>>384824494
I thought the Vita was more powerful.