Ps2 vs psp specs

Which system is more powerful? The psp has a higher clock speed and can emulate the dreamcast if you are using the slim psp, so I am placing my bets on psp. The slim has the extra ram required to run null dc, and it has been ported over to the slim. Look it up.

 

Who on this green earth told you it could emulate Dreamcast hahaha? You are sadly mistaken and you have a huge misunderstanding of how powerful a machine needs to be to emulate something. The PSP and Dreamcast are closer in specs than you think minus the ram which the PSP has way more of.

Just looking at a comparison of the PS2 vs PSP 3000 they have a very similar clock speed.

https://versus.com/en/sony-playstation-2-vs-sony-psp-3000

Dreamcast has a 200mhz processor, PSP has 333mhz. How in the hell are you going to expect it to emulate by brute force when it is only 133mhz faster?

 

Wow, PS2 is region free?
I'm sure that PS2 is not region free.
I mean for example Europe (PAL) console will not play USA (NTSC U\C) game.
As for PSP:
UMD Games = region free.

 

I am sure they was a mistake on their part. But yeah it is widely known at least the PSP and PS3 were region free. I remember my friend next door to me once ordered a Japanese PS3 game online not knowing foreign games typically haven't historically been able to be played on other regions consoles. I was surprised it started right up and from that point on knew the console was region free.

 

Uh oh, not this again..

PS2 can produce better graphics. I won't go into why, because it won't sink in anyway.

 

The gameboy definitely has the faster clock speed.

 

The psp could in fact emulate dreamcast, at 1 fps, check it out by looking up nulldc for psp, you will find a video of it running at 1fps

 

Yeah, and the Dreamcast can emulate the N64 at 5fps. What is the point? If you call that usable emulation by any stretch I feel for you.

 

The ps2 is more powerful than the psp on most aspects.
The psp is a handheld device (released during the ps2 era) though so that's not too surprising.

 

I font call that playable by any stretch, that is not the point. Also, the psp can emulate the n64 at playable speeds, so it is more powerful than the dreamcast. A system has to be more powerful than a system to even emulate it, when the emulator is an interperater, and I doubt that the ps2 can emulate the dreamcast let alone even the n64 at all. My point was that the psp is so powerful that it could actually recreate the dreamcast in a software level, which the ps2 can't do.

 

Or, nobody attempted to, since it would not even be worth doing so.
There's no minimum system requirement for making something just work - even with 1FPS emulation.

Somebody has to correct me if I am wrong about this since I don't program the PSP (and hence will be biased)... but the PS2 will have an advantage over the PSP because it has the Emotion Engine, and even has 3 paths (VU0 & VU1 @ 150MHz each, plus the 295MHz EE) for filling the GS with polygons. It also has the IOP for offloading some processing (of the trivial tasks of communicating with peripherals), even though it's really weak.

The Emotion Engine is 64-bit (the PSP's MIPS32 is 32-bit) and is a dual-issue processor (with 2x integer pipelines), which should give it some advantage. The EE has MMI, which are 128-bit instructions. It appears that the PSP also has some vector coprocessor too, so it should have some similar 128-bit capabilities.

Even if we were to just compare clock speeds alone, 300MHz is only slightly faster than 295MHz. The PSP has a 333MHz option, but is it always used in practice (it's usually operating at 222MHz, isn't it)?

 

Very nice Also to note that almost of PSP's processing power was underclocked (initially) and given low-spec hardware to save on battery power.

 

The God of war games on psp run at full 333 mhz so therefore the gow games on psp look better than they do on ps2. Also every game released after 2007 uses the full 333mhz for cpu and 166mhz for gpu, this has been well documented check wikipedia not he psp hardware page.

 

So, you ask which console is more powerful, then fight anyone that doesn't give an answer you like...
What exactly are you looking to accomplish here?
As was mentioned, you can't compare two consoles/computers/devices based solely on their CPU speed and RAM (well, you can, but it's a useless comparison). Same with GPU.

 

Digital Foundry better hire this dude, he knows all about the megahertz

 

333MHz would only mean that it can make 38 cycles more than the EE can in 1 second. But that's clock cycles - without the actual work done.
So yes... it's faster in terms of the clock and perhaps you might also get away with better performance if you have the right sort of task for it. But no, it's not always going to be faster, especially if you were to compare polygon-drawing capabilities (which was what these consoles were meant for). The era of 2D gaming as a norm, already ended by then.

If you cannot grasp what we're trying to tell you, did you know what you could probably make any desktop PC made during the last 10 years support new games at full 60FPS, just by plugging a more powerful GPU in? But whether that worth it or not, is another thing.

This topic of performance is disceptively deep. There are so many ways to quantify performance. But it is not so simple as comparing the clock speed.
A few years back, considering the clock speed alone was also Intel's way of selling CPUs and I remember that was really how I once judged that one PC was better than another. Much simpler times, indeed.

 

38 million cycles per second, about 10% faster. But you're right, faster clock speeds don't always mean faster performance. Look at Intel Pentium 4 for proof of that.

Dreamcast emulation on ps2 or psp is pretty crazy. You'd want a dynamic recompiler and neither of them really has the ram for it.

 

To the OP: what is the point of this thread? You asked a question, but you've clearly already made up your mind, and won't accept anything to the contrary. Why not just have a conversation with yourself?

 

OP doesn't want to been seen playing with himself, I guess.

 

Oops. Yup, that is 38 million.

I read that the PSP's CPU has no MMU, so such a task will be biased towards the R5900 because it has a TLB - making page-swapping less costly with secondary storage (such as the HDD).