pouët.net

Go to bottom

How does PS1 CPU compare with old PC hardware ?

category: general [glöplog]
What is the roughly equivalent of a PS1 CPU (which is R3000A @ 3.33MHZ ) vs old PC hardware ?

I will roughly say that PS1 CPU is basically a "low end" 486 CPU (with a 3D card) but maybe i'm wrong.

Note that i'm comparing only CPU part, not the GPU. I know that PS1 have a hardware accelerated 3D.

On this wikipedia page they say a 80486@50 mhz can deliver 50 MIPS, while a PSONE give 33 MIPS. One if CISC, the other is RISC, not sure if its important.

Also: to my surprise the PSONE lacks FPU but this is pretty the same for 486, which have a FPU (for some) but perform quite badly (on wikipedia they explain this is one of the reason 486 died at beginning of 3D accelerators card age and that most PC gamers moved to pentium). Why would Sony choose a CPU that lacks FPU for 3D games ?
added on the 2014-02-10 23:32:58 by Tigrou Tigrou
oh it's 33.3 MHZ not 3MHZ off course. an "edit" button would be nice sometimes.
added on the 2014-02-10 23:35:05 by Tigrou Tigrou
you're a few years late with that one aren't you?
added on the 2014-02-10 23:59:23 by psenough psenough
You shouldnt´even try to compare shoes with handshoes!
You are a programmer AND you have access to emulators, simply said: HAVE A GO and try it yourself! Not worth all the action tho, as Consoles always lacked behind Computers after the video game crash!
The ps1 is the last piece of shit i´d code on! It sucks for many reasons, especially if you want to do demoscene-stuff! ;)
@harDy.:
I am surprised, since the PS1 SDK seemed to me quite firendly.
Some programmers I was reading the pages of (in the early y2k) had a quite different opinion about PS1 programming too.
AfaIr, Andreas Tadic of Team17 too (the author of Project X 2 - No relief).

BTW. Nice post time, dude =).
added on the 2014-02-11 00:15:28 by sim sim
I remember the 3Dfx with pod game, with a Pentium 166/200, MMX was there too, and many started to overclock on the socket 7. A year later the riva TNT... So I don't get why it killed the 486, there were the Pentium 60,66,75,90,etc
sim: sure, gameWise it delivered what coders wanted/needed! ;)
But you cant do good demos on that, repitition of geometry for example is a thing you dont want to hassle with on ps1 ;) The RAM in general is a bitch to handle!
Time: time to zero it all out! ;)
I'm interpreting this as a need to release something (lame) for psx at the incoming datastorm. ;))
added on the 2014-02-11 08:40:08 by bonefish bonefish
Quote:
I remember the 3Dfx with pod game, with a Pentium 166/200, MMX was there too, and many started to overclock on the socket 7. A year later the riva TNT... So I don't get why it killed the 486, there were the Pentium 60,66,75,90,etc

So many memories. Like sand thru the hourglass....
added on the 2014-02-11 09:17:15 by ringofyre ringofyre
Quote:
Why would Sony choose a CPU that lacks FPU for 3D games ?


I think this was because of cost effectiveness?
added on the 2014-02-11 09:34:34 by leGend leGend
Quote:
Quote:
Why would Sony choose a CPU that lacks FPU for 3D games ?


I think this was because of cost effectiveness?


or because it was slow? or unnecessary? it had the gte.
added on the 2014-02-11 10:20:09 by yumeji yumeji
dudes, the psx had a fixed-point geometry transfer engine that did object transformation (matrix calculations etc.) in HW (similar to what vertex shaders do), so no need for a FPU.
added on the 2014-02-11 10:26:04 by spike spike
Quote:
Why would Sony choose a CPU that lacks FPU for 3D games ?

Because it had hardware support for fixed point transformations, and the FPUs of that time weren't exactly blazing fast either.
added on the 2014-02-11 11:50:27 by Preacher Preacher
Was it the fixed point geometry engine that was the main reason for distorted near-field textures?
i think the gpu doesn't do z-buffering, so you need a lot of polys to minimize the effect. that's what i heard!
added on the 2014-02-11 13:49:00 by linde linde
1.) the fact that the gpu doesn't do z-buffering meant that you had to insert your objects/faces into so-called ordering tables which were then sorted in hardware
2.) the distorted textures however are a consequence of the fact that the rasterizer did not support perspective correction (which is unrelated to z-buffering vs. sorting)
added on the 2014-02-11 13:57:05 by spike spike
check, thanks for sorting that out!
added on the 2014-02-11 13:57:55 by linde linde
wasn't that called texture perpective correction? and it wasn't there. neither was z-buffering. right.
added on the 2014-02-11 14:02:59 by yumeji yumeji
oops. that was a slow ninja. :D
added on the 2014-02-11 14:04:14 by yumeji yumeji
What, no z buffer and no perspective correction? Next you're going to say that it doesnt even have fragment shaders, right?! Oh the horror. How can anyone make demos for something like that.
added on the 2014-02-11 16:09:13 by yzi yzi
Well, they didn't..
added on the 2014-02-11 16:13:07 by Gargaj Gargaj
Well, they did (just not a whole lot of them).
added on the 2014-02-11 16:20:26 by mic mic
Ok! That must be why the demo scene was invented only after directx 8 where making demos was easy enough. We in the demo scene require that tools and technologies are top notch and the programming api comes with a decent amount of easy to use spikeball objects and mp3 files with trip hop so you dont have to do any really hard stuff.
added on the 2014-02-11 16:24:07 by yzi yzi
Like scrollers.
added on the 2014-02-11 16:29:37 by Gargaj Gargaj
Some PS1 engines did adaptive tesselation on the CPU to alleviate the artifacts from the missing z-buffer and perspective correction. I eg. used it for a few racing games because the road polys were pretty giant and looked like crap when tilted, plus it was hard to put eg. lantern poles on the road because the sorting was so off. A dot product and a few adds/shifts later this was solved :)
added on the 2014-02-11 16:54:50 by kb_ kb_

login

Go to top