Confused about the difference between pc and console

[jahajazz]

First, I'm sorry if this is the wrong section for this kind of post but it’s kind of an odd question.

Ok Here's what I'm wondering the Sony PlayStation 2 has a mere 300Mhz CPU / 32 MB of memory / 4MB on the graphic's card here's (http://hardware.gamespot.com/Sony-PlayStation-2-9398-S-4-5) the detailed specs.

So if we take Star Wars: Battlefront II as an example (it is available on both pc and PS2) it requires a minimum of a 1.6Ghz Cpu / 256 MB or memory / and a graphics card with 64MB memory here (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/starwarsbattlefront2/tech_info.html) are the detailed specs.

So how could this game even run on a PlayStation 2 let alone on good graphics?

[saphalline]

Architectural differences.

The PS2's main CPU is called the "Emotion Engine" and is a customized RISC-based 128-bit CPU specifically made for gaming. It also has a relatively large amount of specialized caches for each execution core, and contains many functions in its core that would normally be found as the chipset in a PC. It's very complex and very powerful at what it does.

Compare this to a standard 32-bit PC processor, which runs generic x86 instructions in 32-bit, x87 FP instructions in 80-bit, and special SSE instructions at 128-bit. Not to mention not all PC processors are designed in the same way. Some of the sheer power of a PC's CPU is taken up by adjusting instruction executions on-the-fly.

The PS2 is able to survive on less RAM because its OS is very small, requiring only a ROM chip to store it, and a special on-chip cache memory location within the "Emotion Engine" for keeping the kernel resident. With a uniform amount of RAM, PS2 games are also able to run more efficiently, even if they have less room to work in.

PC's need 128MB of RAM just to keep WinXP alive. Another 128MB doesn't hurt, either. On top of keeping the OS alive, PC's also need to run drivers and API's in order to play games efficiently. Not to mention that some RAM is used by both the OS and the game engine just to keep track of how much RAM is available to use. :rolleyes: The status of the swap file and other memory maintenance also (ironically) eats up RAM. The variable architecture, upgradability, and inefficiency of the Windows OS means that PC's in general are RAM guzzlers. Fortunately, RAM for PC's is cheap.

Because of the streamlined architecture of consoles to be mainly gaming machines, very few hiccups occur. An off-shoot of this is that the loading of new textures and 3D matrices can be "hidden" from a performance perspective. Most games for the PS2 are actually using much more than 4MB of vid RAM, just not all at once. In a given second, 6-40MB may be used without the player(s) even noticing the difference. The RAM dedicated to the graphics engine of a console has a much higher bandwidth figure than PC vid cards of the same era.

Also, max resolutions need to be taken into account when comparing console hardware to PC hardware. PC's are able to support 3D games with a variety of resolutions, so a certain amount of video RAM is needed as a buffer. In addition, vid cards with more memory tend to be more modern and powerful enough to run a given game. At 640 x 480, Battlefront II might only require 32MB of RAM from a PC vid card, but a GeForce 6600 for instance doesn't come with less than 128MB. Not all of it gets used at that point. But if you increase the resolution to 1280 x 1024, then the game might need 128MB to run at a good frame rate.

The variable nature of PC's tends to require them to do more work on average than other computing platforms. On the other hand, PC's can do many many more things than a PS2 or even XBox 360. I can run lots of different OS's on my PC, even in a row with multi-booting. I can add and expand RAM and drives at will. I can add multiple monitors, output movies to a TV, and use multiple network devices to connect to multiple networks at once. There are a lot of things that PC's can do that consoles can't do. They are different computing devices.

Or more simply, compare a toaster to an oven. An oven can technically make toast, but not as easily or quickly as a toaster. Then again, a toaster can only make toast. You can't make a pizza or a cake in a toaster. Consoles are like toasters. PC's are like ovens. Although consoles and PC's are starting to develop towards eachother, they are still different beasts entirely.

[sassie05]

I learn new things daily.
Thanks Saphalline!

[jahajazz]

saph, which console do you think is better playstation 3 or xbox 360?
Here's (http://hardware.gamespot.com/Sony-PlayStation-3-C-15015-x-4-4) a quick comparison of the specs.

Also, do you know if its possible to play pc game on ps2 through emulation / a modchip?

[saphalline]

Based on pure specs, I'd have to give my vote to the XBox 360. The GPU design done by NVidia is just too good. Then again, there's a long technical story behind that one, so it's a case where M$ pulled out all the stops and gave NVidia a dream job come true. M$ put tons of R&D resources into its new console, so I'd almost say it's unfair to compare them! :p However, the PS3 is certainly not drastically far behind and can hold its own against the XBox 360, even if it can't beat it.

With all of that said, the proof is in the games. The history of technology is filled to the brim with stories of techically inferior products pulling ahead because of marketing, compatibility, ease-of-use... the list goes on and on. Some of my favorite stories are about the transistor, Intel's beginnings, VHS vs BETA, and Apple vs M$ - so if you're asking me which console will be more successful, I have no idea. Only time and the "fun factor" will show us for certain.

I don't keep up on console mods & emulation. I haven't heard of anything per se, but I have to believe that emulating a PC game on a console can't be all that great. The proprietary and limited basis of console architectures would have a difficult time emulating a fully programmable platform like the x86-based PC! Something like the PS2 would probably only be able to emulate old 2D/3D games like Doom 2 and StarCraft, and even then the resolution factor would come into play.

I daresay that in the future, we'll all be using the same hardware, and then we'll buy software emulations to turn our identical hardware into a specific platform that we want to use. Portable frameworks running on super-fast computers may be where all of this is going. Just a guess on my part, but it seems to me like it would be a good idea. Of course, I don't expect anything like this to happen before the year 2030, but it's fun to think about... ;)

[jahajazz]

you mean the card by ATI right? all that ive read says xbox 360 has ATI ps3 has Nvidia.

[saphalline]

Oh yeah. Sorry, my mistake. Got them mixed up there for a moment.