Difference between revisions of "Sega Dreamcast/Hardware comparison"

From Sega Retro
Line 133: Line 133:
 
| 4.7 million (flat), <br> 2.3 million (textured)
 
| 4.7 million (flat), <br> 2.3 million (textured)
 
|-
 
|-
−
! colspan="2" | Hardware [[wikipedia:Texture compression|texture compression]]
+
! colspan="2" | [[wikipedia:Texture compression|Texture compression]] ratio
 
| 7.98:1 ([[wikipedia:Vector quantization|VQ]])
 
| 7.98:1 ([[wikipedia:Vector quantization|VQ]])
 
| 3:1 ([[palette]]){{ref|[http://www.3dgaming.com/editorials/maxtexprint.html Texture Limitations (Version 1.5 - Nov. 23, 1998)]}}
 
| 3:1 ([[palette]]){{ref|[http://www.3dgaming.com/editorials/maxtexprint.html Texture Limitations (Version 1.5 - Nov. 23, 1998)]}}

Revision as of 23:26, 27 November 2016

Cleanup.svg
 This article needs cleanup.
This article needs to be edited to conform to a higher standard of article quality. After the article has been cleaned up, you may remove this message. For help, see the How to Edit a Page article.

Vs. PC

The Sega Dreamcast's PowerVR CLX2 GPU was the basis for the PowerVR PMX1, a PC GPU released with the Neon 250 graphics card in 1999. However, the Neon 250 lacks many of the tiled rendering features of the CLX2: the tile size is halved (halving the fillrate), it lacks the CLX2's internal Z-buffering and alpha test capability with hardware front-to-back translucency sorting (further reducing the fillrate and performance, as well as requiring the Neon 250 to render a Z-buffer externally), and the tiling is partially handled by software (the CLX2 handles the tiling entirely in hardware). The Neon 250 also lacks the CLX2's latency buffering and palettized texture support while VQ texture compression performance is halved, and it has bus contention due to having a single data bus (whereas the CLX2 has two data buses). The PowerVR2 was also optimized for the Hitachi SH-4's geometry processing capabilities (rather than for a Pentium II or III), while PC drivers and software were not optimized for the Neon 250's tiled rendering architecture (compared to Dreamcast games which were optimized for the CLX2's tiled rendering architecture). The Neon 250 thus had only a fraction of the Dreamcast CLX2's fillrate and rendering performance. The reduction in performance from the Dreamacst's CLX2 to the Neon 250 was comparable to the reduction in performance from the Sega Model 3's Real3D Pro-1000 to the Intel740.

The Dreamcast was generally the most powerful home system during 1998–1999, outperforming high-end PC hardware at the time.[1] The Dreamcast's Hitachi SH-4 CPU calculates 3D graphics four times faster than a Pentium II from 1998,[1] and faster than a Pentium III and NVIDIA GeForce 256 from 1999. The Dreamcast's PowerVR CLX2 GPU, due to its tiled rendering architecture, also has has a higher fillrate and faster polygon rendering throughput than a Voodoo3 and GeForce 256 from 1999.

The Dreamcast's CPU–GPU transmission bus is faster than the Voodoo3 and has a higher effective bandwidth than the GeForce 256 due to the Dreamcast's efficient bandwidth usage, including its lack of CPU overhead from the operating system and the CLX2's tiled rendering architecture: textures loaded directly to VRAM (freeing up CPU–GPU transmission bus for polygons), higher texture compression, on-chip tile buffer with internal Z-buffering, and deferred rendering (no need to draw, shade or texture overdrawn polygons). The CLX2 is also capable of order-independent transparency (which the Voodoo3 and GeForce 256 lacked) and Dot3 normal mapping (which the Voodoo3 lacked).[2]

In terms of game engine performance, the CLX2 peaks at 5 million polygons/s,[3] compared to the GeForce 256 which peaks at 2.9 million polygons/s.[4] Dreamcast game engines rendered 50,000–166,666 polygons per scene (3–5 million polygons/s),[3] while PC game engines of 1999 rendered up to 10,000 polygons per scene[5][6] (1–1.6 million polygons/s).[7] Character models in particular were significantly more detailed in Dreamcast games than in PC games during 1998–1999.[8]

Vs. PlayStation 2

Compared to the rival PlayStation 2, the Dreamcast is better at textures, anti-aliasing, and image quality, while the PS2 is better at polygon geometry, particles, and lighting. The PS2 has a more powerful CPU geometry engine, higher translucent fillrate, and more main RAM (32 MB, compared to Dreamcast's 16 MB), while the DC has more VRAM (8 MB, compared to PS2's 4 MB), higher opaque fillrate, and more GPU hardware features, with CLX2 capabilities like tiled rendering, super-sample anti-aliasing, Dot3 normal mapping, order-independent transparency, and texture compression, which the PS2's GPU lacks.

With larger VRAM and tiled rendering, the DC can render a larger framebuffer at higher native resolution (with an on-chip Z-buffer), and with texture compression, it can compress around 20–60 MB of texture data in its VRAM. Because the PS2 has only 4 MB VRAM, it relies on the main RAM to store textures. While the PS2's CPU–GPU transmission bus for transferring polygons and textures is 50% faster than the Dreamcast's CPU–GPU transmission bus, the DC has textures loaded directly to VRAM (freeing up the CPU–GPU transmission bus for polygons) and texture compression gives it higher effective texture bandwidth.

Dreamcast games were effectively using 20–30 MB of texture data[9] (compressed to around 5–6 MB),[10] while PS2 games up until 2003 peaked at 5.5 MB of texture data (average 1.5 MB). PS2 games up until 2003 rendered up to 7.5 million polygons/s (145,000 polygons per scene), with most rendering 2–5 million polygons/s (average 52,000 polygons per scene);[11] in comparison, Dreamcast game engines rendered up to 5 million polygons/s (166,666 polygons per scene), with most games rendering 2–4 million polygons/s (average 50,000 polygons per scene).[3]

The Dreamcast is more user-friendly for developers, making it easier to develop for, while the PS2 is more difficult to develop for; this is the reverse of the 32-bit era, when the PlayStation was more user-friendly, and the Saturn more difficult, for developers.

Vs. GameCube and Xbox

The Xbox and GameCube were both more powerful than the Dreamcast, but the Dreamcast had several hardware advantages. The Dreamcast has a higher opaque fillrate than the GameCube and Xbox (both under 1 GPixels/s). The Dreamcast's opaque/translucent fillrate was comparable to the Xbox's practical fillrate (250-700 MPixels/s), but lower than the GameCube's fillrate (648-800 MPixels/s).[12] The Dreamcast's SH-4 CPU has a faster floating-point performance than the Xbox's PIII-based CPU (733 MFLOPS), but lower than the GameCube CPU's floating-point performance (1.9 GFLOPS). However, the GameCube and Xbox have T&L GPU with floating-point capabilities, giving both faster floating-point performance than the Dreamcast.

Graphics comparison

See Sega Dreamcast technical specifications for more technical details on Dreamcast hardware
System Sega Dreamcast (1998) PC (1998) PC (1999) PlayStation 2 (2000)
Geometry processors Hitachi SH-4 (200 MHz) Intel Pentium II
(450 MHz) 		Intel Pentium III 800EB (800 MHz),
NVIDIA GeForce 256 (120 MHz) 		Emotion Engine
(294.912 MHz)
Matrix
transformation
[n 1] 		FLOPS 1400 MFLOPS[n 2] 230 MFLOPS[n 3] 720 MFLOPS[n 4] 6200 MFLOPS[21]
MAC operations 800 million MACs/s[n 5] 100 million MACs/s[n 6] 300 million MACs/s[n 7] 2300 million MACs/s[n 8]
Vertices 50 million vertices/s[n 9] 8.4 million vertices/s[n 10] 25 million vertices/s[n 11] 140 million vertices/s[n 12]
Transformation
/ Lighting 		Projection 16 million vertices/s 2.6 million vertices/s[n 13] 9.3 million vertices/s[n 14] 66 million vertices/s
1 light source 14 million polygons/s 2 million polygons/s[n 15] 7.2 million polygons/s[n 16] 39 million polygons/s[n 17]
4 light sources 6.8 million polygons/s 1.1 million polygons/s[n 18] 5.8 million polygons/s[n 19] 9.8 million polygons/s[n 20]
Rendering processor NEC-VideoLogic CLX2
(100 MHz) 		Voodoo Banshee
(100 MHz) 		Neon 250
(125 MHz) 		Voodoo3 3500 SE
(200 MHz)[n 21] 		GeForce 256
(120 MHz) 		Graphics Synthesizer
(147.456 MHz)
Tiled
rendering 		Tiling FPU 200 MFLOPS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tile size 32×32 pixels N/A 32×16 pixels
Rendering
fillrate 		Pixel
rendering 		3200 MPixels/s (opaque),
500 MPixels/s (opaque/translucent) 		100 MPixels/s 500 MPixels/s 200 MPixels/s 480 MPixels/s 2300 MPixels/s[n 22]
Texture
mapping 		3200 MTexels/s (opaque),
500 MTexels/s (opaque/translucent) 		100 MTexels/s 500 MTexels/s 400 MTexels/s 480 MTexels/s 1200 MTexels/s
Rendering
throughput 		100-pixel
polygons/sec 		7.1 million (opaque),
5 million (opaque/translucent) 		1 million 4 million[29] 2 million 4.8 million 23 million (flat),
11 million (textured)
500-pixel
polygons/sec 		6.4 million (opaque),
1 million (opaque/translucent) 		200,000 1 million 400,000 960,000 4.7 million (flat),
2.3 million (textured)
Texture compression ratio 7.98:1 (VQ) 3:1 (palette)[30] 4:1 (VQ) 4:1 (FXT1) 6:1 (S3TC) 3:1 (palette)[30]
Video RAM Memory 24 MB 16 MB 32 MB 16 MB 32 MB 36 MB
Textures 190 MB 48 MB 120 MB 64 MB 190 MB 108 MB
CPU–GPU
transmission
bus 		Bandwidth 800 MB/s[14] 260 MB/s[n 23] 530 MB/s[n 24] 530 MB/s[n 25] 1000 MB/s[n 26] 1200 MB/s[28]
Textures 6.3 GB/s 800 MB/s 2.1 GB/s 2.1 GB/s 6 GB/s 3.6 GB/s

Notes

  1. ↑ [4×4 matrix × 4×1 vector: 28 computations (16 multiplies, 12 adds)[13] 4×4 matrix × 4×1 vector: 28 computations (16 multiplies, 12 adds)[13]]
  2. ↑ [1.4 GFLOPS,[14][15] 7 floating-point operations per cycle (28 computations per 4 cycles)[16][17] 1.4 GFLOPS,[14][15] 7 floating-point operations per cycle (28 computations per 4 cycles)[16][17]] (Wayback Machine: 2000-08-23 20:47)
  3. ↑ [28 floating-point operations per 53 cycles[18] 28 floating-point operations per 53 cycles[18]] (Wayback Machine: 2001-06-12 02:48)
  4. ↑ [Pentium III: 28 floating-point operations per 31 cycles[19]
    GeForce 256: T&L unit outperformed by Pentium III (742 MHz)[20] Pentium III: 28 floating-point operations per 31 cycles[19]
    GeForce 256: T&L unit outperformed by Pentium III (742 MHz)[20]]
  5. ↑ [4 MAC operations per cycle[17] 4 MAC operations per cycle[17]]
  6. ↑ [3.3125 cycles per MAC operation: 53 cycles per 12 MACs[18] 3.3125 cycles per MAC operation: 53 cycles per 12 MACs[18]] (Wayback Machine: 2001-06-12 02:48)
  7. ↑ [31 cycles per 12 MAC operations[19] 31 cycles per 12 MAC operations[19]] (Wayback Machine: 2001-06-12 02:48)
  8. ↑ [8 MAC operations per cycle (4 MAC operations per VU)[21] 8 MAC operations per cycle (4 MAC operations per VU)[21]]
  9. ↑ [4 cycles per matrix transformation[22] 4 cycles per matrix transformation[22]]
  10. ↑ [53 cycles per matrix transformation[18] 53 cycles per matrix transformation[18]] (Wayback Machine: 2001-06-12 02:48)
  11. ↑ [31 cycles per matrix transformation[18] 31 cycles per matrix transformation[18]] (Wayback Machine: 2001-06-12 02:48)
  12. ↑ [2 matrix transformations (1 transformation per VU) per 4 cycles[23] 2 matrix transformations (1 transformation per VU) per 4 cycles[23]]
  13. ↑ [170 cycles per perspective transformation: 53 cycles matrix transformation, 117 cycles projection (2 multiplies, 2 adds, 3 divides)[24] (2 cycles per multiply, 1 cycle per add, 37 cycles per divide)[25] 170 cycles per perspective transformation: 53 cycles matrix transformation, 117 cycles projection (2 multiplies, 2 adds, 3 divides)[24] (2 cycles per multiply, 1 cycle per add, 37 cycles per divide)[25]]
  14. ↑ [86 cycles per perspective transformation: 31 cycles matrix transformation, 55 cycles projection (2 multiplies, 2 adds, 3 divides)[24] (1 cycle per multiply, 1 cycle per add, 17 cycles per divide)[26] 86 cycles per perspective transformation: 31 cycles matrix transformation, 55 cycles projection (2 multiplies, 2 adds, 3 divides)[24] (1 cycle per multiply, 1 cycle per add, 17 cycles per divide)[26]]
  15. ↑ [223 cycles per vertex: 170 cycles perspective transformation, 53 cycles lighting (21 multiplies, 11 adds),[24] 2 cycles per multiply, 1 cycle per add, 37 cycles per divide[25] 223 cycles per vertex: 170 cycles perspective transformation, 53 cycles lighting (21 multiplies, 11 adds),[24] 2 cycles per multiply, 1 cycle per add, 37 cycles per divide[25]]
  16. ↑ [Pentium III (742 MHz) calculates 6,752,000 triangle strips per second, faster than GeForce 256's T&L unit[20] Pentium III (742 MHz) calculates 6,752,000 triangle strips per second, faster than GeForce 256's T&L unit[20]]
  17. ↑ [15 cycles/vertex[27] per VU 15 cycles/vertex[27] per VU]
  18. ↑ [382 cycles per vertex: 170 cycles perspective transformation, 212 cycles lighting (84 multiplies, 44 adds),[24] 2 cycles per multiply, 1 cycle per add, 37 cycles per divide 382 cycles per vertex: 170 cycles perspective transformation, 212 cycles lighting (84 multiplies, 44 adds),[24] 2 cycles per multiply, 1 cycle per add, 37 cycles per divide]
  19. ↑ [Pentium III (742 MHz) calculates 5,453,000 triangle strips per second, with 4 lights[20] Pentium III (742 MHz) calculates 5,453,000 triangle strips per second, with 4 lights[20]]
  20. ↑ [60 cycles/vertex per VU: 4 light sources,[28] 15 cycles/vertex per light source[27] 60 cycles/vertex per VU: 4 light sources,[28] 15 cycles/vertex per light source[27]]
  21. ↑ [Falcon Voodoo3 3500 TV Special Edition Falcon Voodoo3 3500 TV Special Edition]
  22. ↑ [16 pixel pipelines 16 pixel pipelines]
  23. ↑ [1x AGP bus[31] 1x AGP bus[31]]
  24. ↑ [2x AGP bus[29][31] 2x AGP bus[29][31]]
  25. ↑ [2x AGP bus[31] 2x AGP bus[31]]
  26. ↑ [Transmission bus from Pentium III 800EB (133 MHz FSB, 1 GB/s) to GeForce 256 (4x AGP)[31] Transmission bus from Pentium III 800EB (133 MHz FSB, 1 GB/s) to GeForce 256 (4x AGP)[31]]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 File:GamersRepublic US 03.pdf, page 29
  2. ↑ [PC Magazine, December 1999, page 193 PC Magazine, December 1999, page 193]
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Test Drive: Le Mans (IGN)
  4. ↑ Actual HW T&L perfomance of NVIDIA GeForce/GeForce2 chips (IXBT Labs)
  5. ↑ [PC Magazine, December 1999, page 203 PC Magazine, December 1999, page 203]
  6. ↑ Unreal Modeling Guide (Unreal Developer Network)
  7. ↑ '95-'99 PC Comparisons
  8. ↑ DF Retro: Shenmue - A Game Ahead Of Its Time (Digital Foundry)
  9. ↑ Hideki Sato Sega Interview (Edge)
  10. ↑ How Many Polygons Can the Dreamcast Render?
  11. ↑ File:HowFarHaveWeGot.pdf
  12. ↑ Graphics Processor Specifications (IGN) (Wayback Machine: 2001-03-31 05:05)
  13. ↑ Design of Digital Systems and Devices (page 95)
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Sega Dreamcast: Implementation (IEEE) (Wayback Machine: 2000-08-23 20:47)
  15. ↑ File:SH-4 Next-Generation DSP Architecture.pdf, page 5
  16. ↑ File:Entertainment Systems and High-Performance Processor SH-4.pdf, page 4
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 File:SH-4 Next-Generation DSP Architecture.pdf, page 31
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 Streaming SIMD Extensions: Matrix Multiplication (page 7) (Intel) (Wayback Machine: 2001-06-12 02:48)
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Streaming SIMD Extensions: Matrix Multiplication (page 7) (Intel) (Wayback Machine: 2001-06-12 02:48)
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Benchmarking T&L in 3DMark 2000
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 File:ThePowerOfPS2.pdf, page 6
  22. ↑ File:SH-4 Next-Generation DSP Architecture.pdf, page 12
  23. ↑ File:ThePowerOfPS2.pdf, page 12
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 Design of Digital Systems and Devices (pages 95-97)
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Instruction tables (page 107)
  26. ↑ Instruction tables (page 110)
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Procedural Rendering on Playstation 2 (page 4) (Gamasutra)
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 File:ThePowerOfPS2.pdf, page 4
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Neon 250 Specs & Features (Wayback Machine: 2007-08-07 15:12)
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Texture Limitations (Version 1.5 - Nov. 23, 1998)
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 AGP Peak Speeds


Sega Dreamcast
Topics Technical specifications (Hardware comparison) | History (Development | Release | Decline and legacy | Internet) | List of games | Magazine articles | Promotional material | Merchandise
Hardware Japan (Special) | Western Europe | Eastern Europe | North America | Asia | South America | Australasia | Africa
Add-ons Dreamcast Karaoke | Dreameye
Controllers Controller | Arcade Stick | Fishing Controller | Gun (Dream Blaster) | Race Controller | Maracas Controller (Third-party) | Twin Stick | Keyboard | Mouse | Third-party
Controller Add-ons Jump Pack (Third-party) | Microphone | VMU (4x Memory Card | Third-party)
Development Hardware Dev.Box | Controller Box | Controller Function Checker | Sound Box | GD-Writer | C1/C2 Checker | Dev.Cas | GD-ROM Duplicator
Online Services/Add-ons Dreamarena | SegaNet | WebTV for Dreamcast | Modem | Modular Cable | Modular Extension Cable | Broadband Adapter | Dreamphone
Connector Cables Onsei Setsuzoku Cable | RF Adapter | Scart Cable | S Tanshi Cable | Stereo AV Cable | VGA Box

Dreamcast MIDI Interface Cable | Neo Geo Pocket/Dreamcast Setsuzoku Cable | Taisen Cable

Misc. Hardware Action Replay CDX | Code Breaker | Kiosk | MP3 DC | MP3 DC Audio Player | Official Case | Treamcast
Third-party accessories Controllers | Controller converters | Miscellaneous
Unreleased Accessories DVD Player | Zip Drive | Swatch Access for Dreamcast | VMU MP3 Player
Arcade Variants NAOMI | Atomiswave | Sega Aurora
Retrieved from "https://segaretro.org/index.php?title=Sega_Dreamcast/Hardware_comparison&oldid=359933"