It’s me, live with it

So, a friend of mine came up with this question:

What is the graphics card that will give me comparable image quality with a PS2?*

*It is actually longer than that, but I need to simplify it.

Now, before we look at card specifications and compare, we need to see what the PS2 has under its hood.

From the very informative Wikipedia page we can see that the PS2 uses “Graphics Synthesizer” as its, uh, graphics processor.

Then we need to find out what the hell that is, since the Graphics Synthesizer isn’t available to pc and there’s no way to compare how it performs against PC video cards.

If it helps, the top-end graphics card released on the same year as PS2 is Geforce 256. But I don’t think they can be compared either.

The only way to compare them is to compare the games. After all, that’s what my friend is looking for. But the same game played on PS2 and PC will look different.

For example, EA released Need for Speed: Most Wanted for the PS2 and PC. When I played it on my PC, the graphics was amazing. Plaing the same game on my cousin’s PS2, my reaction was “huh?”. The graphics in PS2 is less exciting, not to mention frequent loading that annoys you, especially if it comes during a race.

Forget it then, I’ll just dig the system requirements for a soon-to-be-released PS2 game, Tomb Raider Underworld. It says that the minimum requirement cards are Geforce 6800GT/Radeon X1300XT, and the recommended cards are Geforce 9800GTX/Radeon 4800.

Ouch.

I played the previous Tomb Raider Anniversary smoothly with my 8600GT, so I think the card has no problem running it maxed. And I’m right.

Now, the 8600GT seems to be holding itself nicely until now, so I’d recommend it if you are tight on budget. However, shell out a little more cash if you can, and get a 9600GSO or a 4670.

So, those processors from AMD are out, and I am very excited.

I just read the reviews from Guru3d and Techreport. And I need to say that they live up to my expectations. They are not faster than their competitor, but they are competitive enough.

And what makes them more interesting is that they are a cheaper solution than Intel’s i7.

The cost of the CPU itself is not that different, but an i7 system also need an X58 Motherboard (320 USD), triple channel DDR3 memory (159 USD for 3GB), and the processor itself (340 USD for an i7 920). For a grand total of 819 dollars.

For a Phenom X2 system, you will need a 780/790GX motherboard (230 USD), DDR2 memory (130 USD for 4GB), and the processor (around 330 USD for a Phenom 2 x4 940). Totaling 690 dollars. You need DDR3 memory for AM3 boards, but they aren’t out yet.

The difference is not that big, but it is considerable. For 129 USD, you can get yourself a perfectly nice Geforce 9600GSO, plus some change.

So, this marks AMD’s return to competition, just like Radeon 3800. It doesn’t perform greatly, but it does deliver for it price. Now we’ll have to wait and see whether they can pull something like the Radeon 4800.

EDIT: Anandtech compares the price of full i7 , Phenom II, and Q9400 here. That’s American price, though.

Also, I compare Phenom II exclusively with Intel’s i7, though they are priced around Intel’s earlier Core 2 Quads. Now that intel’s rumored to drop their Core 2 Quad lineup, things will be more interesting. After price cut, Phenom II 940 will face Q9550. At that point, the recommendation will go back to Intel.