PSX vs Saturn - which one can churn more polys?

Chaniyth · Post by **Chaniyth** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:40 pm

Which system can churn out more polygons per second... Sega Saturn or PSX?

N64 - 160,000 polygons per second (Everyone turn and laugh!)
PSX - 360,000 Polygons per second (I still say PSX has better graphics than N64, reguardless of pixelation)
Saturn - ??? (I don't know...)

Someone please enlighten me on this, thanks.

clessoulis · Post by **clessoulis** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:47 pm

Umm I'm not sure but I'd say psx as saturn wasnt designed to be a 3d system.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:05 pm

kubyx wrote:PSX - 360,000 Polygons per second (I still say PSX has better graphics than N64, reguardless of pixelation)

What? I don't believe you can possibly think that! PSX graphics are chunky, have pixels on textures about the size of your head, no texture smoothing, low frame rate, and the vertexes wobble as they come close to the camera because the maths unit sucks. The only reason the N64 wasn't vastly superior to the PSX was the cartridge.

Veggita2099 · Post by **Veggita2099** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:33 pm

BlackAura wrote:
kubyx wrote:PSX - 360,000 Polygons per second (I still say PSX has better graphics than N64, reguardless of pixelation)

What? I don't believe you can possibly think that! PSX graphics are chunky, have pixels on textures about the size of your head, no texture smoothing, low frame rate, and the vertexes wobble as they come close to the camera because the maths unit sucks. The only reason the N64 wasn't vastly superior to the PSX was the cartridge.

Compare Tomb Raider (ps1) and Mario 64 for N64. Get up close to a wall and look at the pixels on tomb Raider. You can actually see each color in the wall on ps1 games, but on most N64 games they blend together much more even.

As for Saturn I don't know. But I remember when Mega Man 8 came out for both ps1 and Saturn about every magazine said the Saturn version was better graphics wise. But that wasn't a 3D game it was basically a 2d platformer.

butters · Post by **butters** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:36 pm

Any graphics on a N64 are gonna look much better than on PS1 b/c of anti-aliasing (yes, the same thing the Dreamcast has)

ventress · Post by **ventress** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:01 am

500,000.

more than psx. :shock:

ndr008 · Post by **ndr008** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:17 am

The N64 looks better in terms of textures, but the PS has cooler games, cooler grpahics, etc.

Have you ever seen a racing game on the N64 that doesn't make you laugh about it?

I am a PSX fanatic btw

, but I am also a DreamCast fanatic too, I feel it is dumb how such an advanced console available since 1999 didn't steal the market.

butters · Post by **butters** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:08 am

I never bought a Playstation because the specs were so pathetic even when it came out. Think about it. If the Playstation couldn't decode video and had to rely on its graphics like the N64 b/c of its limited storage capacity, it would not have survived very long.

BTW, this forum is Non-Dreamcast emulation Discussion, this belongs in off topic.

ndr008 · Post by **ndr008** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:13 am

Well I bought my PSX in late 1995, and anothr christmas 1996, and they were the best thing available. With graphics like those of wipeout1, and Battle arena toshiden1 were darn impressive at the time, and that was little of the PSX's power being used, so it was impressive, the N64 gave competition coz it had features that the PSX didn't have, but still was crap in other aspects near the PSX.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:27 am

The N64 was only 'crap' because it used cartridges. If it hadn't, and if they could have used videos to make the graphics seem far better than they actually could be, the N64 would have been far better than the PSX.

The later PSX games pushed the PSX hardware to rediculous extremes, but the fact is that the hardware is utter junk. Poor graphics chip, virtually no RAM, old CPU... The N64's hardware was only partially junk. It used later, faster components for everything. Just compare late PSX games like FF9 (but not the videos), and late N64 games like Perfect Dark, and you'd see how useless the PSX hardware was.

I still can't believe that people were buying a PSX over a DC! Morons! I would only buy a PSOne in order to pull it to pieces and convert it into a handheld.

redraider225 - It's called bilinear filtering, and all modern 3D systems have it, not just the DC. Bilinear filtering smooths out the colours on a textured surface, but antialiasing smoothes out the edges of those surfaces so that they blend better with the background and remove the sharp, jagged lines around the edges of objects.

ndr008 · Post by **ndr008** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:33 am

Yeah who buys a PSX over DC 2day is dumb, but on the other hand the PSone is small, and with the attachable monitor+battery pack it is cool.
That's all, i still most defenitly prefer the DC! Wish someone told me that it was this good before.

ndr008 · Post by **ndr008** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:35 am

sorry, this is empty coz accidentaly posted twice the same stuff.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:37 am

Hollywood Hasney has a good point. Never trust the numbers that Sony or Microsoft give you. They give stupid numbers designed to make everybody think that their systems are superior. Some people still actually believe that a PS2 is more powerful than a GC or an Xbox.

Sony's quotes on the PS2's polygon performance (like 60 million?) are stupid. That's for 60 million flat shaded, small, untextured polygons that are in the same place on the screen. Seeing as games use textures, shading and (astonishingly) like to draw polygons at different points on the screen, that figure will never happen. MS's Xbox numbers are just as stupid for the same reason. But, of course, people don't really understand what the numbers mean, and are impressed by the number of 0s.

ndr008 · Post by **ndr008** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:44 am

I totaly agree with you. People are influenced greatly by numbers.

No1 wants to believe me that PS2 sucks! aspecialy for its price!
The DC comes very close to PS2, and if anything, some1 should buy a GC or Xbox for today's standards rather then a PS2 - which as i said is crap design, DC is better concidering that it is older and cheaper.

Veggita2099 · Post by **Veggita2099** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 11:51 am

ndr008 wrote:I totaly agree with you. People are influenced greatly by numbers.

No1 wants to believe me that PS2 sucks! aspecialy for its price!
The DC comes very close to PS2, and if anything, some1 should buy a GC or Xbox for today's standards rather then a PS2 - which as i said is crap design, DC is better concidering that it is older and cheaper.

I know I have heard all this stuff about DC so close to the ps2. But I have never seen a game on DC come close to FFX. And Im not just talking about the cutscenes either. Same with GTA3 on ps2. I do agree the ps2 should be better due to its price and the fact it is newer though.

ndr008 · Post by **ndr008** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 12:18 pm

No offense but i played GTA3 on PS2, and the game is nice, but not technicaly the textures are not all that great, and it uses fog effect not to have to display too high graphs. Textures look crap on PS2. The PS2 realy sucks, I'ld defenitly buy a GC or X-boX

Heliophobe · Post by **Heliophobe** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 12:18 pm

The PS2 is considerably more powerful than the Dreamcast when used to its potential - although it took a few waves of PS2 games before anyone could tell.

I don't know about how many polys the Saturn can throw around (and that count is really not a good indicator anyway) - but I do think it has a higher fill rate than the PS1.

Vlad Tepes · Post by **Vlad Tepes** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 1:19 pm

ndr008 wrote:The N64 looks better in terms of textures, but the PS has cooler games, cooler grpahics, etc.

Have you ever seen a racing game on the N64 that doesn't make you laugh about it?

I thought FZeroX had really good graphics...didn't do any laughing at that game...
I dunno about poly-counts...but I THINK the Saturn was able to spit out more than the PSX. I remember when the Saturn was first released people said that it wasn't being used to its full potential and that in a few years it would far surpass the PSX in terms of graphics. Something about getting a handle on using its dual processors. Of course in "a few years" nobody would be developing for Saturn, but it was appearent by some of the later games released for it that it had much more potential than many people thought. I also remember many many people saying the Saturn was a far superior 2D system than the PSX. Too bad the Saturn died a premature death

AmadeusZull · Post by **AmadeusZull** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 4:24 pm

BlackAura wrote:The N64 was only 'crap' because it used cartridges. If it hadn't, and if they could have used videos to make the graphics seem far better than they actually could be, the N64 would have been far better than the PSX.

The later PSX games pushed the PSX hardware to rediculous extremes, but the fact is that the hardware is utter junk. Poor graphics chip, virtually no RAM, old CPU... The N64's hardware was only partially junk. It used later, faster components for everything. Just compare late PSX games like FF9 (but not the videos), and late N64 games like Perfect Dark, and you'd see how useless the PSX hardware was.

I still can't believe that people were buying a PSX over a DC! Morons! I would only buy a PSOne in order to pull it to pieces and convert it into a handheld.

redraider225 - It's called bilinear filtering, and all modern 3D systems have it, not just the DC. Bilinear filtering smooths out the colours on a textured surface, but antialiasing smoothes out the edges of those surfaces so that they blend better with the background and remove the sharp, jagged lines around the edges of objects.

there is no excuse it did suck and nintendo payed for that. but nintendo did manage to milk in money to the system they already sold. which sega did not accomplish. so nintendo did do good in some areas.

spaghetti · Post by **spaghetti** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:27 am

i don't think anybody really ever saw the saturn's full potential because it was painfully complex to develop for. i think the most "powerful" game on the saturn was burning rangers (from what i've read) and the screenshots for it didn't look very sweet.

btw... i saw the "nights level" in the nights pinpall machine in the casino on SA1... awesome!

it just isn't worth buying a saturn for though.