Playstation 2 Specs?

[rentose]

What specs on a PC, in terms of cpu, graphics card and memory, would match a PS2 in terms of smooth gameplay? I have an xp2000 with 256mb Ram and a Radeon 9200. The good news is I am getting an xp2500 which I will overclock to match an xp3000, and 512 mb ddr400. All this on an Asus A7N8X motherboard. I realise my Radeon 9200 isnt the greatest, but surely the above setup will match a PS2 for performance?

I hate the fact that every time you want to play a game you practically have to become a geek and check out all the specs, tweak this, download that, buy this. With a ps2 you just stick it in and it works. I played a demo of fifa 2004 on my pc and it was jerking in places.

Any advice out there?

[OverClocka]

Your PC will much, much more powerful than a PS2, if you just upgrade the graphics card to about a 9500 or 9600.


In terms of smoothness of gameplay, it depends on the resolution you play on.

[RamonGTP]

You really can't compare the two... If you do some research on the PS2 you will find that the way it processes information is WAAYYY different than anything ever used before. The PS2's main processor is 128bit 300MHz CPU. Many lazy developers address only this main processor when writing PS2 games. However, the processor also has 2 VPU's (Vector Processing Units) When developers take advantage of the VPU's as well as the main processor, you've got yourself a pretty powerfull little black box. The way it processes graphics is also way different. Instead of having an ungodly amount of video memory to store all the textures, it only has a mere 4MB (it may be 2MB, i don't remember) to use as cache. Although a very small amount of memory exists, the PS2 has bandwidth galore and constantly streams all its textures.

Basically what i'm saying is that its very hard to compare the two. While the CPU only runs at 300mhz, which may look very modest to what PC's are doing, you also need to take into consideration that it also has 2 VPU's (VU0 & VU1) VU0 being every bit as powerfull as the main processor, and VU1 a little less so. Combine that with 128-bit addressing, compared with 99.99% of PC's using 32-bit.

Yet another reason they're so hard to compare is the way games are written. Console games are written WAY WAY WAY more efficiently than PC games are. Console developers know that they have very specific hardware that they're working with that isnt going to change until the next generation console becomes available which takes 2-5 years. The only way for them to get smoother and better looking games is to optimize the code. PC developers have more powerfull processors and video cards coming out every few months, combine that with several hundred megabytes of RAM for their bloated code and you've got a huge difference just in the way games are written.

Not saying that the PS2 is more powerfull by any means, but its archetecture is definatly more advanced and vastly different. Then you need to remember that the PS2 is dedicated and the PC has to keep track of a whole lot of other stuff when you're playing a game.

[rentose]

Thanks Ramon, that was a well thought out reply, and brings me closer to understanding the difference.
Cheers!

[RamonGTP]

no problem, i wish I could give you an answer to your question, as I know a lot of people wonder the same thing. Despite the differences in hardware, I would say the main problem in trying to give a "PC equivilent" answer is actually the programming differences.

For example, when the PS2 was released and the best looking game for it was RidgeRacer, u could say thats equivilent to a GeForce 256 and a 1GHz processor. Then games like GT3, MGS2, and Jakk & Daxter come out and we say, oh... thats equivilent to a Geforce 2 Pro and a 1.2-1.5 ghz cpu. And soon there will be GT4 and other games, and the comparisons will change yet again.

Obviously the PS2 hardware didn't suddenly get more powerfull over time. The programming is what got better, where as the programming for PC games tends to stay the same, or get worse.

[rentose]

so herein lies the rub...Do i just buy a PS2, when it feels stupid to with the PC rig I have. Where can I get some info on the best settings to run my games in, I mean I've looked at the options tab on my Radeon and it makes my head spin. Do have to change the bloody settings every time I get a new game?. Are there any programs out there that test your setup and tell you what the best way is to run a game? How about the following: if you have 2 partitions on a drive, say c: and d:, with windows on c: drive, would the game run better if installed on c:, or run the same either way? I dont like the idea of installing to c: all the time and then uninstalling as I'm worried about fragmentation and messy bits left behind. And what about resolution, does the game not set the resolution itself when it starts? if not, what resolution is best to run in.

Lots of questions, sorry about that. Thanks for the help!

[rentose]

One more thing Ramon,

This serial ATA drive thing, is it that much better than normal IDE or will my games run fine with normal IDE drive. ?

My setup of XP2500 running at 3200, with 512 of DDR 400, and a Radeon 9200: should that run most games fine? I am specifically interested in running Pro Evolution 3 (soccer) on my system. I know my gfx card aint great, but is there a real need to change it?

Do you know of the best motherboard settings to run the above specs with on an A7N8X (non deluxe). I'm not sure if there's a glaringly obvious setting I've left out on the bios, like maybe the agp frequency or something? Are there any A7N8X users out there that can reccommend the best way for me to set my pc up.Thanks a lot!

[Rugor]

All games set the resolution themselves when they start, either to one set of defaults, or to whatever their autodetect script indicates is best for your hardware.

Serial ATA does have slightly higher performance than standard IDE, but that only really comes into play with burst transfers to and from the HD cache. Sustained transfers are more limited by the rotational speed of the platters, and that's pretty much the same for either.

Not to harp on it, but there aren't really any upgrades you could do from that, except the video card that would really make a significant difference in game performance. It's not that it's a bad card, but in your case it is definitely the system bottleneck. In almost any case I can think of you're going to be video-card limited, so you won't see improvements from other components.

[RamonGTP]

The biggest difference you'll notice with SATA over regular IDE is when loading the game or loading levels. Even then, it probably won't be a significant difference. Once the game loads and you're playing, I highly doub't you'd see any improvement at all since most of the information has already been loaded into memory. As far as settings on your ATI display properties, for your card I would leave AA and AF set to off or "application prefrance" turn vsync off and leave everything else the way it is. As for your in-game settings, when you first start up any game, it will have its own default values set, but those are usually very low. Or as Rugor poitned out, some have autodetection features and set themselves up for the best combination of graphics/performance. If not though, set them to the maximum levels you can while still maintaining good performance. Each game has different requirments, so you may have to have different settings for different games. But the good news is that you'll only have to tinker with it once for each game and it should retain those settings next time you load that particular game up.

As far as getting a PS2 or not, really the only reason to get a PS2 is if there are games on the PS2 that you really want. I have a pretty good PC, a PS2 and a Nintendo Gamecube. I got the PS2 for games like the GranTurismo Series and Metal Gear which is far better on the PS2 than it is on the PC IMO. I got the Gamecube for games like F-Zero GX and all the exclusive mario titles that the PC will never have. Also, if you're into sprots games, than consoles are definatly the way to go. However, if you're mainly interested in shooters, stratigy, or flight simulators, than the PC is the hands down winner... Both platforms have decent racing games, however I think the PS2 has a slight edge over the PC in that genre. It all depends on what you want out of it.

Oh, almost forgot, you won't notice a difference if you load the game from a different partition. Doing so to avoid fragmentation on your C drive isn't a bad idea though.