| shams said: I don't agree with this. The PS1 could push more "raw" polys than the N64. The N64 had much nicer polys, perspective correction, antialising and a bunch of other funky things. But Ninty never did release the proper specs for the GPU, making it impossible to get a lot out of. The N64 texture cache killed the machine - then there were rumours (I heard this directly from guys developing on the N64) that some/all of the units were actually running at half-speed (16Mhz instead of 32Mhz). The PS1 had a bunch of other chips that could be use in conjunction with the CPU - and most importantly - had access to heaps of cheap data on that CD drive. The PS1 was a lot easier to optimise, and there were a bunch of tricks you could use to squeeze more performance and gfx from the machine. There was a lot less for the N64. Ultimately (some) PS1 games looked better, and ran better - and it killed the N64.
|
What PS1 games are you talking about? And the fact that it could push more "raw" polys is just the same marketing tactic Sony used with the PS2 when it quoted huge fillrate numbers (with no texturing). You said it yourself, the N64 did antialiasing, perspective correct texture mapping, and trilinear filtering. Point-sampled non-perspective-corrected texture sampling hasn't been used since Quake's software renderer (actually Quake probably did perspective correction, but I can't remember). The N64 also had twice the RAM and a 3x faster CPU with 8x the cache.
There really is no comparison. There were any number of things that "killed" the N64, but graphics wasn't one of them.
