|
Originally Posted by Tala
|
I also assume, that the PSP is plaqued by the same poor design choices made with the PS2. Out of the 2MB VRAM less than 1MB can be used for (uncompressed) textures, which makes constant swapping /streaming necessary. There is possibly no multi texturing support either (like PS2)
It seems to me, that similar to the PS2, the PSP is a brute force approach, where the pure numbers suggest a much better real live performance than it really has.
Still while looking at the numbers, the PSP seems to be about half as fast as the PS2 regarding fillrate and polygon throughput. The 2700G is comparable to a DC, possibly little slower.
|
Okay, well I'll have to take your word for it, this is beyond what I know =). Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on what I've read, I also get the hint that almost all memory regions on in the PSP (32 megabytes of main eDRAM, 2 megabytes eDRAM on the PSP Media Engine, and VRAM) all run at 2.6 GB/sec. This could make swapping quite a bit less painful.
Anyway, I think you'd still agree with my original argument though, that the PSP is simply a far better gaming machine than the X50V could be, both in terms of 3D graphics and the media-intensive games enabled by the huge 1.8GB media.