take a crack at starcraft 2's requirements

what do you guys think from the trailers seen so far, and from blizzards past history

i plan on getting a laptop in the commings weeks, probably about a 2ghz core2duo, 2gb ram, probably an 8600 or better, a 7950 go if i can find one - do you think that would run it fine?

from the looks of it minimum settings will probably be:

FX 5700 or greater

P4 2.0GHZ or greater

512mb RAM

Recommended

Geforce 7800 or greater

1gb RAM

P4 3.0 GHZ or any dual core CPU

will it be direct x 10?BobSacamento

Why in the world would they make it DX10? There is no advantage what so ever, infact they would alienate quite a few people.

MINIMUM

• Pentium 4 @ 2ghz
• 512MB RAM
• GeForce 6600 with 128MB RAM

RECOMMENDED

• Pentium 4 3.4Ghz
• 1GB RAM
• GeForce 7800

is the 8600M GT better than the 7800 desktop gpu?BobSacamento

The 8600GT is on par with a 7600GT. It's very possible that it's a bit slower due to it being the mobile version.

It will probly take a Sega Dreamcast to run it.19chevelle72

Did you know the dreamcast was a much more superior console to the PS2. Its true. Just the developers believed the hype Sony threw at them. Shame too.

But im guessing Blizzard will want to target as much people as possibly. So expect the requirements to be low.

I think it might have DX10 as it was stated to be run on windows xp and vista, I bet there will be a alternate patch for dx10 users to enable the special effects like soft shadows, richer explosions, minor things, etc. but will still support dx10 and dx9, and maybe even lower? StephenHu

Sense when has Blizzard been known to use the latest advancments in graphics? :roll:

[QUOTE="19chevelle72"]It will probly take a Sega Dreamcast to run it.DABhand_UK

Did you know the dreamcast was a much more superior console to the PS2. Its true. Just the developers believed the hype Sony threw at them. Shame too.

lol, it really wasn't.

[QUOTE="DABhand_UK"]

[QUOTE="19chevelle72"]It will probly take a Sega Dreamcast to run it.onemic

Did you know the dreamcast was a much more superior console to the PS2. Its true. Just the developers believed the hype Sony threw at them. Shame too.

lol, it really wasn't.

Tell me why it wasnt?

This is one of the biggest suprises to most. Although the DC CPU in terms of GFLOP/s was lower than the PS2's. It still out performed it.

You just have to remember the days of AMD processors outperforming higher spec Intel processors in terms of gaming. Its the same for the DC's SH-4 RISC CPU.

As is the GPU the DC used, although it used less Polygons per second, it had more hardware extras than its PS2 counterparts GPU, Alphablending, PixelShading, etc were all nice extras on the DC. And each of which helped boost performance and rendering in games.

Wonder why Shenmue looked impressive and played smoothly? When was the last time you had that type of real time rendering in a PS2 game?

Just me or did the graphics on those screen shots look like crap, purely from a graphic quality point of view, compared to say CoH or AOE3, maybe even C&C3? Blizzard claims its a brand new engine but man it looks like their only 5 years behind what is capable today. Its actually a shame, I mean its a really high profile game, it should set a bench for games to come in graphics, game play etc. Biggest disappointment is this game is prolly a year away, it looks dated today I don't even wanna think how it'll look when it comes out. And the nuke looks like crap, sorry but I'm not impressed what-so ever, C&C3 thats how a F*cking nuke is suppose to look like or World in Conflict, these are nukes.

Its requirements should be really low if thats how it looks.

Knowing Blizzard when it comes out you might actually find a comp in the dump that'll play it at these graphics :P

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="DABhand_UK"]

[QUOTE="19chevelle72"]It will probly take a Sega Dreamcast to run it.DABhand_UK

Did you know the dreamcast was a much more superior console to the PS2. Its true. Just the developers believed the hype Sony threw at them. Shame too.

lol, it really wasn't.

Tell me why it wasnt?

I liked The Dreamcast.. Hydro Thunder, Soul Calibur, Code Veronica, etc.. And I do notice a mild difference in graphical power from PS2 to Dreamcast.. but the lack of games for the Dreamcast is what killed it.

Much like the Atari Jaguar.. great console.. horrible marketing.

Yep your right. Another great console that died under Sony's desperate bid to woo developers to their side.

I heard Shenmue 3 is in development for the Xbox 360. Should be impressive :)

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="DABhand_UK"]

[QUOTE="19chevelle72"]It will probly take a Sega Dreamcast to run it.DABhand_UK

Did you know the dreamcast was a much more superior console to the PS2. Its true. Just the developers believed the hype Sony threw at them. Shame too.

lol, it really wasn't.

Tell me why it wasnt?

Do you really think the dreamcast could produce graphics like those seen in metal gear solid? Or god of war? I don't think so. Just look dreamcasts best looking games and look at PS2's games made in 2001. (Gran turismo and GTA3 to name a few) The dreamcast just can't keep up.

Not to say that the dreamcast sucks, it was a great system and it was very unfortunate that sega couldn't pull a profit, but to think that the dreamcast was technically better than the PS2 is laughable. It's like me trying to say that PS2 games look better than xbox games.

[QUOTE="DABhand_UK"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="DABhand_UK"]

[QUOTE="19chevelle72"]It will probly take a Sega Dreamcast to run it.onemic

Did you know the dreamcast was a much more superior console to the PS2. Its true. Just the developers believed the hype Sony threw at them. Shame too.

lol, it really wasn't.

Tell me why it wasnt?

Do you really think the dreamcast could produce graphics like those seen in metal gear solid? Or god of war? I don't think so. Just look dreamcasts best looking games and look at PS2's games made in 2001. (Gran turismo and GTA3 to name a few) The dreamcast just can't keep up.

Not to say that the dreamcast sucks, it was a great system and it was very unfortunate that sega couldn't pull a profit, but to think that the dreamcast was technically better than the PS2 is laughable. It's like me trying to say that PS2 games look better than xbox games.

You missed my point about shenmue. Everything in that game was real time rendered. Have you actually seen any movies or pictures of Shenmue running?

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="DABhand_UK"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="DABhand_UK"]

[QUOTE="19chevelle72"]It will probly take a Sega Dreamcast to run it.DABhand_UK

Did you know the dreamcast was a much more superior console to the PS2. Its true. Just the developers believed the hype Sony threw at them. Shame too.

lol, it really wasn't.

Tell me why it wasnt?

Do you really think the dreamcast could produce graphics like those seen in metal gear solid? Or god of war? I don't think so. Just look dreamcasts best looking games and look at PS2's games made in 2001. (Gran turismo and GTA3 to name a few) The dreamcast just can't keep up.

Not to say that the dreamcast sucks, it was a great system and it was very unfortunate that sega couldn't pull a profit, but to think that the dreamcast was technically better than the PS2 is laughable. It's like me trying to say that PS2 games look better than xbox games.

You missed my point about shenmue. Everything in that game was real time rendered. Have you actually seen any movies or pictures of Shenmue running?

Yes I have. Have you ever seen metal gear solid 3 pictures and videos or even metal gear solid 2? Shenmue can't touch it graphically.

Onemic.. the dreamcast just looked crisper is all... Take for example Code Veronica, Dreamcast vs PS2.. sure the PS2 had the game on one disk.. (due to DVD) but It just looked a tad crisper on the Dreamcast.. dunno.. maybe its just me. The PS2 may have had a better graphics processor.. (obviously, since Dreamcast was a full year behind it) but, at release.. the dreamcast had (for me) crisper looking graphics than the PS2.. Maybe its not true now.. but then it gave the PS2 a run for its money, just the lack of games killed the Dreamcast.. one year in and the amount of games paled in comparison with the PS2 (a year after release).

Also, the Dreamcast was still using a CD-ROM based medium.. so the PS2 seemed like a better buy due to the DVD movie playback feature. I know I used my PS2 for years as a DVD player.

Anyways.. You can say that the Atari Jaguar sux compared to the PS1.. but the point was that the Jaguar suffered from the same fate as the Dreamcast. The Jaguar was more powerful (64bit) .. but Sony (32bit) beat Atari.. through the amount of games available.

[QUOTE="BobSacamento"]will it be direct x 10?sSubZerOo

Why in the world would they make it DX10? There is no advantage what so ever, infact they would alienate quite a few people.

Blizzard actually said they are looking into adding DX 10 effects for those that can use them.

Onemic.. the dreamcast just looked crisper is all... Take for example Code Veronica, Dreamcast vs PS2.. sure the PS2 had the game on one disk.. (due to DVD) but It just looked a tad crisper on the Dreamcast.. dunno.. maybe its just me. The PS2 may have had a better graphics processor.. (obviously, since Dreamcast was a full year behind it) but, at release.. the dreamcast had (for me) crisper looking graphics than the PS2.. Maybe its not true now.. but then it gave the PS2 a run for its money, just the lack of games killed the Dreamcast.. one year in and the amount of games paled in comparison with the PS2 (a year after release).

Also, the Dreamcast was still using a CD-ROM based medium.. so the PS2 seemed like a better buy due to the DVD movie playback feature. I know I used my PS2 for years as a DVD player.

Anyways.. You can say that the Atari Jaguar sux compared to the PS1.. but the point was that the Jaguar suffered from the same fate as the Dreamcast. The Jaguar was more powerful (64bit) .. but Sony (32bit) beat Atari.. through the amount of games available.

Alkpaz

I 100% agree with you when at release games on dreamcast looked better on the ps2. No doubt about it. I'm just arguing against what one person said that the dreamcast just had better looking games than the ps2 during its time that it was alive which is untrue. Sure in 2000 dreamcast games looked better, but in 2001 devs finally got used to the ps2 and titles began looking better on the ps2 in comparison to the dreamcast from that year.

The PS2 did have superior hardware...but a good portion of DC games were made with native vga resolutions. Shenmue through a vga box on a nice 21" viewsonic pro CRT looked better than almost everything the ps2 released in its 1st 2 years. VGA soulcalibur was also one of those games that made it quite apparent what (back then) next gen was all about. I must admit that Zone of Enders (supposedly THE game that will show off ps2's hardware capabilities) did impress and looked like something the dreamcast coulld'nt possibly do... until shenmue proved otherwise. Sucks that shenmue contributed to SEGA's decline as they didn't see a much of a return on the 80mil budget injected into the game. The game besides having more complex geometry had much larger variety of textures and much larger playfield than Sons of Liberty.

Regarding SC2, like many have stated, it would be foolish to not make the game run on modest hardware and older machines. Why cater to the 400k (and thats probably a generous guesstimate) or so peeps with dx10 cards when you can sell it to 20mil+ with lower end to moderate spec'd pc's? That high end minority WILL STILL buy the game. Heck, they can watch their own @sses get comprehensively savaged by some korean kid with a 6600gt in glorious 2560x1600 :)

I bet the recommended specs for Dx9 would be as low as a 6600GT, even lower. I'm very sure the game will be scalable so many gamers can enjoy the game regardless of thier computer setups. Well, as long as you dont have a Pentium III CPU, Voodoo card, or 128 mb of ram.StephenHu

One thing is sure, the system requirements of SC2 will definitely be low compared to any other RTS. If you look at the screenshots you can already see that there is nothing graphically spectacular on them. My guess is that they want to make SC2 the "World of Warcraft" of RTS... So, they want to lure as many people as possible to the world of StarCraft and that means that the game will look and work fine even on low-end or budget systems...

I guess the game won't be in a DX10 version. Why? Well, I've read that they will be using ShaderModel 2.0 for the graphics, so if they aren't planing to use SM 3.0, why would they use DX10...

[QUOTE="BobSacamento"]will it be direct x 10?sSubZerOo

Why in the world would they make it DX10? There is no advantage what so ever, infact they would alienate quite a few people.

Joke is on you, it will be DX10.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="BobSacamento"]will it be direct x 10?GodLovesDead

Why in the world would they make it DX10? There is no advantage what so ever, infact they would alienate quite a few people.

Joke is on you, it will be DX10.

Doubt it. DX10 is Vista only (something few people have) and they will want to make it available to as many people as possible.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="BobSacamento"]will it be direct x 10?capthavic

Why in the world would they make it DX10? There is no advantage what so ever, infact they would alienate quite a few people.

Joke is on you, it will be DX10.

Doubt it. DX10 is Vista only (something few people have) and they will want to make it available to as many people as possible.

I agree. This definitely won't be a Microsoft game for Vista...

Pentium 4 2.0ghz / AMD Athalon 2000+ 256mb DDR RAM GeForce FX5200

Core2Duo err slowest / AMD X2 3600+ 1024mb DDR2 RAM Geforce 7600

min spec

1ghz pro

256mb ram

32mb video card

onboard sound

xp sp2 , vista.

I trust that blizzard will get good allround compatibilty even if it isnt stated on the box.

Recommended specs are a diff kettle of fish

Knowing Blizzard when it comes out you might actually find a comp in the dump that'll play it at these graphics :P

concord9

That's part of the reason why WoW has so many customers.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="BobSacamento"]will it be direct x 10?capthavic

Why in the world would they make it DX10? There is no advantage what so ever, infact they would alienate quite a few people.

Joke is on you, it will be DX10.

Doubt it. DX10 is Vista only (something few people have) and they will want to make it available to as many people as possible.

You do know that by making the game DX10 that can also put in support for DX9? That is what they said they're doing anyway.

Since when did everyone start thinking that if a game supports DX10 it's automatically vista only and no other OS can play it? Games won't be DX10 only for a very long time. Even now some games still put in support for DX8.(although since the release of BF2 support for DX8 has started to go down)

[QUOTE="capthavic"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="BobSacamento"]will it be direct x 10?onemic

Why in the world would they make it DX10? There is no advantage what so ever, infact they would alienate quite a few people.

Joke is on you, it will be DX10.

Doubt it. DX10 is Vista only (something few people have) and they will want to make it available to as many people as possible.

You do know that by making the game DX10 that can also put in support for DX9? That is what they said they're doing anyway.

Since when did everyone start thinking that if a game supports DX10 it's automatically vista only and no other OS can play it? Games won't be DX10 only for a very long time. Even now some games still put in support for DX8.(although since the release of BF2 support for DX8 has started to go down)

Just bcos a game is vista exclusive, it doesn't make the game DX10 exclusive. All games that'll be released for almost this entire console generation will support DX9.

[QUOTE="Alkpaz"]

Onemic.. the dreamcast just looked crisper is all... Take for example Code Veronica, Dreamcast vs PS2.. sure the PS2 had the game on one disk.. (due to DVD) but It just looked a tad crisper on the Dreamcast.. dunno.. maybe its just me. The PS2 may have had a better graphics processor.. (obviously, since Dreamcast was a full year behind it) but, at release.. the dreamcast had (for me) crisper looking graphics than the PS2.. Maybe its not true now.. but then it gave the PS2 a run for its money, just the lack of games killed the Dreamcast.. one year in and the amount of games paled in comparison with the PS2 (a year after release).

Also, the Dreamcast was still using a CD-ROM based medium.. so the PS2 seemed like a better buy due to the DVD movie playback feature. I know I used my PS2 for years as a DVD player.

Anyways.. You can say that the Atari Jaguar sux compared to the PS1.. but the point was that the Jaguar suffered from the same fate as the Dreamcast. The Jaguar was more powerful (64bit) .. but Sony (32bit) beat Atari.. through the amount of games available.

onemic

I 100% agree with you when at release games on dreamcast looked better on the ps2. No doubt about it. I'm just arguing against what one person said that the dreamcast just had better looking games than the ps2 during its time that it was alive which is untrue. Sure in 2000 dreamcast games looked better, but in 2001 devs finally got used to the ps2 and titles began looking better on the ps2 in comparison to the dreamcast from that year.

Perhaps if you stop arguing and read that I didnt say the DC had better looking games, it had some, Shenmue being an example. I said the DC was a better machine hardware wise.

I asked why you think that, and you gave an example of a game instead of hardware. So I returned in kind and mentioned Shenmue.

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Alkpaz"]

Onemic.. the dreamcast just looked crisper is all... Take for example Code Veronica, Dreamcast vs PS2.. sure the PS2 had the game on one disk.. (due to DVD) but It just looked a tad crisper on the Dreamcast.. dunno.. maybe its just me. The PS2 may have had a better graphics processor.. (obviously, since Dreamcast was a full year behind it) but, at release.. the dreamcast had (for me) crisper looking graphics than the PS2.. Maybe its not true now.. but then it gave the PS2 a run for its money, just the lack of games killed the Dreamcast.. one year in and the amount of games paled in comparison with the PS2 (a year after release).

Also, the Dreamcast was still using a CD-ROM based medium.. so the PS2 seemed like a better buy due to the DVD movie playback feature. I know I used my PS2 for years as a DVD player.

Anyways.. You can say that the Atari Jaguar sux compared to the PS1.. but the point was that the Jaguar suffered from the same fate as the Dreamcast. The Jaguar was more powerful (64bit) .. but Sony (32bit) beat Atari.. through the amount of games available.

DABhand_UK

I 100% agree with you when at release games on dreamcast looked better on the ps2. No doubt about it. I'm just arguing against what one person said that the dreamcast just had better looking games than the ps2 during its time that it was alive which is untrue. Sure in 2000 dreamcast games looked better, but in 2001 devs finally got used to the ps2 and titles began looking better on the ps2 in comparison to the dreamcast from that year.

Perhaps if you stop arguing and read that I didnt say the DC had better looking games, it had some, Shenmue being an example. I said the DC was a better machine hardware wise.

I asked why you think that, and you gave an example of a game instead of hardware. So I returned in kind and mentioned Shenmue.

And I'm saying hardware wise the dreamcast isn't as good. Go look at the specs of both of them and you'll see that the PS2's were better, in fact I'll give them to you right now:



PS2 Specs:



CPU: 128 Bit "Emotion Engine"
System Clock: 300 MHz
System Memory: 32 MB Direct Rambus
Memory Bus Bandwidth: 3.2 GB per second
Co-Processor: FPU (Floating Point Multiply Accumulator x 1, Floating Point Divider x 1)
Vector Units: VU0 and VU1 (Floating Point Multiply Accumulator x 9, Floating Point Divider x 1)
Floating Point Performance: 6.2 GFLOPS
Compressed Image Decoder: MPEG2

Graphics
Clock Frequency: 150MHz
DRAM Bus bandwidth: 48 GB Per Second
DRAM Bus width: 2560 bits
Pixel Configuration: RGB:Alpha:Z Buffer (24:8:32)
Maximum Polygon Rate: 75 Million Polygons Per Second
3D CG Geometric Transformation: 66 million Polygons Per Second

Audio
Number of voices: ADPCM: 48 channel on SPU2 plus definable by software
Sampling Frequency: 44.1 KHz or 48 KHz (selectable)

l/O
CPU Core: Current PlayStation CPU
Clock Frequency: 33.8 MHz or 37.5 MHz (selectable)
Sub Bus: 32 Bit
Interface Types: IEEE1394, Universal Serial Bus (USB)
Communication: via PC-Card PCMCIA
Disc Media: DVD-ROM (CD-ROM compatible)







Dreamcast specs:

CPU: Hitachi SH-4, 200MHz clock rate, 360 MIPS (millions of instructions per second), 1.4 GigaFLOPS (floating-point operations per second), 128-bit 3D calculations, 64-bit data bus, 800+ MBytes/second bus bandwidth

* Graphics Core: NEC PowerVRSG, 3 million polygons/second peak rendering rate, Perspective-Correct Texture Mapping, Point, Bilinear, Trilinear and Anisotropic Mip-map filtering, Gouraud shading 32-bit z-buffer, Colored light sourcing, Full scene anti-aliasing
Hardware-based Fog, Bump mapping, 24-bit color, Hardware-based texture compression, Shadow and Light volumes, Super sampling
* Memory: 16 MB main RAM, 8 MB video RAM, 2 MB sound RAM
* Resolution: 640x448.
* Colors: 16.7 million
* Sound: Yamaha Audio Core, 32-bit RISC CPU, DSP for real-time effects, 64 sound channels, ,Full 3D sound support, Hardware-based audio compression
* Dreamcast Control Pad: Digital and analog directional controls, Dual analog triggers, Virtual Memory System data save unit
* Expansion Options: Modem: 33.6kb per second transfer rate (56kb in U.S.) Upgradable
* Operating System: Customized Microsoft Windows CE and Sega operating system
* Media: GD-ROM (GigaByte Disk-ROM) Drive - Maximum speed 12X 1.2 GigaByte capacity
* Console Dimensions: 7 7/16" X 7 11/16" X 3" , 190 mm (W) x 195 mm (H) x 78 mm (D)
* Weight: 4.4 pounds, 2.0 kg
* Release Date: November 20, 1998 (Japan), September 1999 (USA)



Comparison link

Clearly the PS2 is more powerful. Not only in specs, but in the visual quality of its games as well. And ou're crazy to think that shenmue looks better than MGS2, let alone MGS3.

[QUOTE="DABhand_UK"][QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="Alkpaz"]

Onemic.. the dreamcast just looked crisper is all... Take for example Code Veronica, Dreamcast vs PS2.. sure the PS2 had the game on one disk.. (due to DVD) but It just looked a tad crisper on the Dreamcast.. dunno.. maybe its just me. The PS2 may have had a better graphics processor.. (obviously, since Dreamcast was a full year behind it) but, at release.. the dreamcast had (for me) crisper looking graphics than the PS2.. Maybe its not true now.. but then it gave the PS2 a run for its money, just the lack of games killed the Dreamcast.. one year in and the amount of games paled in comparison with the PS2 (a year after release).

Also, the Dreamcast was still using a CD-ROM based medium.. so the PS2 seemed like a better buy due to the DVD movie playback feature. I know I used my PS2 for years as a DVD player.

Anyways.. You can say that the Atari Jaguar sux compared to the PS1.. but the point was that the Jaguar suffered from the same fate as the Dreamcast. The Jaguar was more powerful (64bit) .. but Sony (32bit) beat Atari.. through the amount of games available.

onemic

I 100% agree with you when at release games on dreamcast looked better on the ps2. No doubt about it. I'm just arguing against what one person said that the dreamcast just had better looking games than the ps2 during its time that it was alive which is untrue. Sure in 2000 dreamcast games looked better, but in 2001 devs finally got used to the ps2 and titles began looking better on the ps2 in comparison to the dreamcast from that year.

Perhaps if you stop arguing and read that I didnt say the DC had better looking games, it had some, Shenmue being an example. I said the DC was a better machine hardware wise.

I asked why you think that, and you gave an example of a game instead of hardware. So I returned in kind and mentioned Shenmue.

And I'm saying hardware wise the dreamcast isn't as good. Go look at the specs of both of them and you'll see that the PS2's were better, in fact I'll give them to you right now:



PS2 Specs:



CPU: 128 Bit "Emotion Engine"
System Clock: 300 MHz
System Memory: 32 MB Direct Rambus
Memory Bus Bandwidth: 3.2 GB per second
Co-Processor: FPU (Floating Point Multiply Accumulator x 1, Floating Point Divider x 1)
Vector Units: VU0 and VU1 (Floating Point Multiply Accumulator x 9, Floating Point Divider x 1)
Floating Point Performance: 6.2 GFLOPS
Compressed Image Decoder: MPEG2

Graphics
Clock Frequency: 150MHz
DRAM Bus bandwidth: 48 GB Per Second
DRAM Bus width: 2560 bits
Pixel Configuration: RGB:Alpha:Z Buffer (24:8:32)
Maximum Polygon Rate: 75 Million Polygons Per Second
3D CG Geometric Transformation: 66 million Polygons Per Second

Audio
Number of voices: ADPCM: 48 channel on SPU2 plus definable by software
Sampling Frequency: 44.1 KHz or 48 KHz (selectable)

l/O
CPU Core: Current PlayStation CPU
Clock Frequency: 33.8 MHz or 37.5 MHz (selectable)
Sub Bus: 32 Bit
Interface Types: IEEE1394, Universal Serial Bus (USB)
Communication: via PC-Card PCMCIA
Disc Media: DVD-ROM (CD-ROM compatible)







Dreamcast specs:

CPU: Hitachi SH-4, 200MHz clock rate, 360 MIPS (millions of instructions per second), 1.4 GigaFLOPS (floating-point operations per second), 128-bit 3D calculations, 64-bit data bus, 800+ MBytes/second bus bandwidth

* Graphics Core: NEC PowerVRSG, 3 million polygons/second peak rendering rate, Perspective-Correct Texture Mapping, Point, Bilinear, Trilinear and Anisotropic Mip-map filtering, Gouraud shading 32-bit z-buffer, Colored light sourcing, Full scene anti-aliasing
Hardware-based Fog, Bump mapping, 24-bit color, Hardware-based texture compression, Shadow and Light volumes, Super sampling
* Memory: 16 MB main RAM, 8 MB video RAM, 2 MB sound RAM
* Resolution: 640x448.
* Colors: 16.7 million
* Sound: Yamaha Audio Core, 32-bit RISC CPU, DSP for real-time effects, 64 sound channels, ,Full 3D sound support, Hardware-based audio compression
* Dreamcast Control Pad: Digital and analog directional controls, Dual analog triggers, Virtual Memory System data save unit
* Expansion Options: Modem: 33.6kb per second transfer rate (56kb in U.S.) Upgradable
* Operating System: Customized Microsoft Windows CE and Sega operating system
* Media: GD-ROM (GigaByte Disk-ROM) Drive - Maximum speed 12X 1.2 GigaByte capacity
* Console Dimensions: 7 7/16" X 7 11/16" X 3" , 190 mm (W) x 195 mm (H) x 78 mm (D)
* Weight: 4.4 pounds, 2.0 kg
* Release Date: November 20, 1998 (Japan), September 1999 (USA)



Comparison link

Clearly the PS2 is more powerful. Not only in specs, but in the visual quality of its games as well. And ou're crazy to think that shenmue looks better than MGS2, let alone MGS3.

This forum isn't system wars.

MINIMUM

• Pentium 4 @ 2ghz
• 512MB RAM
• GeForce 6600 with 128MB RAM

RECOMMENDED

• Pentium 4 3.4Ghz
• 1GB RAM
• GeForce 7800

dbowman

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with this.