As a hardware designer, I will try to explain what caches are and what they are used for in the case of a CPU without being too technical. Caches are small-capacity memories (usually a few KB to a few tens of MB) located as close as possible to the execution unit of the CPU (or GPU). This physical closeness enables far greater bandwith and far lower latency than the external memory (the RAM for a CPU). Caches are used as a middle man between the main memory (the RAM) and the execution units registers. The idea is to store frequently used data in the cache closer to the execution unit rather than reading (or writing) it from (or to) the far slower main memory. The system will work without any caches, but the memory read and write operations will usually be far slower. For example, reading a 32 bit value from cache could take a few CPU clock cycles, but reading the same value from RAM could take tens (to a few hundreds) of cycles (during which the CPU is doing nothing, waiting for the requested data to be fetched from memory). As for the levels of caches (L1, L2, L3) they refer to how close (and defacto how fast) they are relative to the execution unit or the other memories. L1 cache is smaller but has faster access time than L2 cache, which is smaller but faster than L3 cache, which in turn is slower but faster than RAM (which is smaller but faster than SDDs, HDDs, Cartridges, Optical Discs, etc...). So the memory hierarchy, from the fastest memory to the slowest, is : Registers (less than a KB) -> L1 cache (a few KBs to a few tens of KBs) -> L2 cache (hundreds of KBs or a few MBs) -> L3 cache (a few tens of MBs) -> RAM (hundreds of MBs or a few GBs) -> non-volatile storage mediums like SSDs or HDDs (hundreds of GBs). L1 cache has been added in consummer CPUs in the late 80s (Intel 486), L2 Cache in the late 90s (Pentium II and AMD K6-2+) and L3 cache in end of the 2000s. PC CPUs went from having no cache at all, to having L1 cache only, to having both L1 and L2 caches, and now L1, L2 and L3 caches. All in all, caches are fast, but they are also expensive. The first couple of CPU generations tend to differentiate higher-end models from lower-end models by the size of cache memory used. For example, the Pentium IIs have 512KB of L2 cache, whereas the cheaper Celerons have less cache (128KB) or no L2 cache at all (for the first models released) and of course a tad slower frequency. I hope the explanation is clear, I could have talked about the different types of cache policies (write-through/write-back) but I want to keep it short 😄
Again, with good well-thought-out MMU module, like in the DEC StrongArm (1996) and Direct Memory Access, the absence of cache can be avoided with small losses in performance. And for example, Hitachi does not need fast cache memory at all, because all RISC commands for SH2 are 16-bit. Like thumb instructions in ARM7T. Cache is more important when you are dealing with large CISC commands
This port was to the PCs advantage thanks to it being built on WINCE. By no means does SR2 looks like it’s pushing the DC hardware to it’s limits, but it is known that better performance is attainable via Sega OS for DC. Getting the game to 60fps, even not looking exactly like the arcade would have been a huge win for the early days of DC, as nice as this game can run from your PC demonstration. Thank you for that.
@@tomianz-1242 I’m well aware, I used to play it only with that code not realizing what it was doing to achieve that. My point is that the DC is capable of handing the full arcade experience without compromising anything, but this game was not optimized to take advantage of the DC to achieve that without a cheat code.
I actually think the Japanese version was better with running at 60fps at all times, even if it drops a lot I still think it's overall better than the 30fps mode on the US\EU versions.
Also the controller for the Dreamcast suits the game way better due to analog stick and analog triggers. I had a Pentium 3 500mhz pc with Riva TNT at the time and it ran the game great however the best controller I could get at the time was a Microsoft Sidewinder which was a pure digital gameport controller.
most people would use joysticks, like those single crane like ones used often for aircraft games or fighting games I have an old book manual from a racing sim called GPL where they mention most use a single joystick with it the game itself is already hard with a steering wheel ahaha
A versão Dreamcast é muita mais estável graficamente que a versão PC, ou seja, Dreamcast vence essa disputa, e olha que é contra o PC da sua Época...gostei muito da comparação, justa e correta, colocando Hardware da mesma Época frente a frente, comparação justa!
@DrTech XX os únicos voodoo da 3DFX da época do DC são os voodoo2,3 e ambos são inferiores ao Power vr 2 do SEGA Dreamcast,o Dreamcast era mais forte que os PCs de sua época, De sua época.
@DrTech XX Ola nobre! Não só conheço, como sei o motivo da Voodoo 3DFX não ter entrado no projeto Katana, que se tornou o Dreamcast... Vamos aos fatos, te darei Três... Fato Primeiro: A GPU Voodoo 3DFX, ja era considerada ultrapassada para o projeto Katana, motivo não possuai cores de 24 Bits, rodava apenas Cores de 16 bits, com Texturas máximas de 256x256, além de ser melhor compatível, com arquitetura X84 ou X86 de PC em CPUs Pentium 2 e 3... Fato Segundo: A CPU SH-4 HITACHI, processador do Dreamcast, possuía melhor performance com a GPU POWER VR 2, Uma vez que ela, conseguia reproduzir cores de 24 Bits mais 8bits, alta capacidade de preenchimento de textura 2048x2048, além de possuir Maior Poder de compactação de Texturas, e não precisar de fazer Over Draws... Fato Terceiro: Mesmo que a GPU 3DFX tivesse aparentemente 16mb de memória contra 8mb da GPU Power VR 2 CLX do Dreamcast, a 3DFX não foi pensada para trabalhar com uma CPU de Baixa rotação de relógio como o SH-4 HITACHI, que foi pensado para baixo consumo de energia e feito para lidar justamente com Windows CE e Katana OS, pensados para dispositivos Embarcados, a 3DFX Voodoo, foi feita para lidar com CPUs de alta rotação de relógio e gasto de energia, justamente para Windows de "Mesa", onde a GPU, dependia totalmente de altas taxas de giros de relógio, para apresentar melhor desempenho... Então quando for falar de algo, entenda pelo menos uma coisa, que o Dreamcast foi feito para ser algo totalmente inovador, como um console de mesa, porém com toda tecnologia de dispositivos móveis embarcados, onde se valoriza a compactação e otimização dos códigos, ao invés das tecnologias mais antigas de mercado, que baseava tudo em processamento mais brutos e sem otimização dos códigos, simples assim!!!
@@mouratecOs arcades naquela época eram a primeira e última palavra em tecnologia, PCs no geral só entregavam alta performance bruta. Dreamcast reunia tudo o que os arcades tinham de melhor, com alto poder de hardware que qualquer PC da sua época, com otimização para uma máquina mais portátil (console) esse PC que você descreve já nem é da geração do dreamcast, seja como for dreamcast wins.
Y yo sin saber que tenias las descripciones subtituladas en español... Ahora disfruto más de los videos. Yo jugué a Sega Rally 2 en un Pentium 2 350mhz con una Bodoo Banshee en Windows 98. Recuerdo que iba genial, aunque no lo disfrutaba controlandolo con el teclado. Gran video y gran juego en todas sus versiones. Saludos desde Barcelona España
Yo lo jugué en un Pentium III 500 mhz y tampoco recuerdo esos errores de la niebla (desgraciadamente no recuerdo que grafica usaba, ya que el ordenador era de mi hermano mayor), me imagino que es debido a la tarjeta grafica que esta usando ahí
@@IgnacioCalvo87 Sinceramente, a mi tampoco me alcanza la memoria con fidelidad para recordar lo de la niebla. Recuerdo que iba como un tiro, era un gustazo ver aquellos graficazos en la época. Lo único que guardo de aquel pc es precisamente la tarjeta gráfica, la tengo en una caja como si de una consola más se tratase jeje. Saludos
There's something to be said for horizon fog/desaturation gradients, DC seems to have a slight edge if only for that even if it's slightly sharper on PC (maybe not?) - Edit: Didn't realize you were going for a contemporary PC setup as well, that's a nice touch. While you can't compare PC and console prices directly since you could do much more on a PC besides playing games, 199 was an excellent price for the DC.
framerate drops? Just use a power powerful PC, not a Celeron without cache! i never experienced framerate drop for this game, on a Pentium 3 700Mhz+, even at 60fps and 800x600
You made the point of explanation just right. In order to compete the hardware, you have to see the year of releasing, and here's why in general I prefer playing in a console rather than PC, not only because of exclusives (not the case for this game) but also for right balance of price, powerful and revolution concepts in gaming. Dreamcast was so ahead of its time, it was revolutionary within antialiasing filters and impressive graphics within technics like an evoluted and second to anyone HSR that makes scenes of the games even more accurate without too much struggle of resources... Anyway, this must be the Pal version of Sega Rally 2, but could have probably improved even better than ever with the Japanese version of the Dreamcast?
I'm curious to know how SEGA Rally 2 fairs on modern PCs with enhancements. Also, for whatever reason, computer monitors don't usually go beyond 2K as of now. And 2K monitors are a bit on the pricey side, which is why the majority of PC gamers play at full HD at 1080p, assuming they're using a 16/9 display.
The only negative thing that I see about the PC version is the popping, unfortunately the fog doesn't do its job well in this version, for everything else the PC version is superior
The Fog and pop up are much better in that level on the DC, but the lighting is much better on PC. The car has headlights which makes some things really pop, such as passing under the checkpoints. The rain is comparable on both.
What graphic card is used by this PC? If I remember correctly, you could activate Direct3D mode to use bilinear filtering etc. with 3DFX or RivaTNT cards from that time...
Press Up, A, Down, Down, Left, Right, B, B, Up at the Press Start Button screen to lock framerate to 30fps (a tone confirms correct entry). That's different to the 60fps code that reduces visuals and still can't maintain 60fps much more than the vanilla default setting. This makes gameplay 100% stable and perfectly playable with no issues so you can enjoy the substantial additional content over the arcade version. Where the arcade has 4 tracks, the home version offers the first three as track themes with 3 courses each, plus two all new themes on top with the same amount of courses for each, plus weather and time of day variations of all of these through the 10 year championship campaign. So, while it's a technically challenged port, its gameplay & new content (against Sega's usual barebones efforts) make it more than worthwhile. Of course it's also much higher resolution, Model 3 pushed just 62% the pixels (or Dreamcast pushes 161,29% the pixels), so something had to give for such an early port from such completely different architecture and programming methods, given they also added some effects/lighting. That's also part of why imo Daytona USA (2001) is nothing to scoff at next to Daytona USA 2 as that too is higher resolution with flawless performance and draw distance, it just aped the original game more than the sequel in style, theme and even gameplay and did so very successfully, it's ace!
Oh No!!! Oh No!!! Wow that draw distance on the PC version is profound. As for playability I would choose the Dreamcast version. Unless I had a steering device or gamepad I find racing games on the PC kind awkward. Plus I think the Dreamcast version sounds better. Navigator sounds a little clearer.
PC version doubles DC version framerate (which means DOUBLE polygons per second)....this proves how POORLY "optimized" was WindowsCE DC version (PC got x86 CPU, DC got dual SH4 RISC CPU with PowerVr2 "GPU", both probably not targeted correctly at low level by that OS), a real MESS. Again, DC version was "developed" in 3 months, for PC version they got more time to optimize on documented & supported x86 CPUs
En esos tiempos,como adoraba mi Sega dreamcast 😁😃. No me importaba tanto la resolución ni fps, éramos felices así, ahora tengo series X y es verdad q exigimos más resolución q fps 😅, creo se deberían de quedar como base los 1440p q se ven geniales y los 60 fps, pero las consolas creo no dan para más y no son estables los 60 fps 😅.
why a celeron and not a 1998 pentuim2 450 pc? a pentuim450 runs the game at 60fps i believe and max draw distance,no idea what gpu is needed for ful60fps 800x600 resolution.
Se volessi mettere un pc dentro il cab sega rally e metterci l emulatore sega model per farci girare sega rally1/2 in versione arcade basta un i5 di dieci anni fa con gpu integrata ?
Si, un i5 del 2004 è sufficiente. Certo vorrei vedere come fai a collegare tutto l'hardware idraulico del cabinato. E non parlo di collegamento hardware, mi riferisco al software (i drivers prima di tutto)...
@@mich722 There are actually some scenes where the DC and some scenes where the PC has better draw distance. But is not a very good PC, even for the time.
not really mate ,,,,,,,, consoles are also excellent value . ive got a capable pc with an 3090 an honestly its better than a console as you would expect ,,,,, but all in , not 2000 pound better than a series x ,,,,, everything on pc can be native an much more stable , but you got to pay silly money . plus theres millions an billions who are afraid to use a pc . consoles are there for a purpose. an thats gaming . an consoles as a platform did it before any pc ..... look at windows games before windows 95 .................
@@alanharrison2726 I like trying to find games that were for Windows 3.11fw, as in they NEEDED windows to run, they weren't MS-DOS games. But also they didn't need Windows 95. I mean most games for PC were targeted for MS-DOS until about 1997
As a hardware designer, I will try to explain what caches are and what they are used for in the case of a CPU without being too technical.
Caches are small-capacity memories (usually a few KB to a few tens of MB) located as close as possible to the execution unit of the CPU (or GPU). This physical closeness enables far greater bandwith and far lower latency than the external memory (the RAM for a CPU).
Caches are used as a middle man between the main memory (the RAM) and the execution units registers. The idea is to store frequently used data in the cache closer to the execution unit rather than reading (or writing) it from (or to) the far slower main memory. The system will work without any caches, but the memory read and write operations will usually be far slower. For example, reading a 32 bit value from cache could take a few CPU clock cycles, but reading the same value from RAM could take tens (to a few hundreds) of cycles (during which the CPU is doing nothing, waiting for the requested data to be fetched from memory).
As for the levels of caches (L1, L2, L3) they refer to how close (and defacto how fast) they are relative to the execution unit or the other memories. L1 cache is smaller but has faster access time than L2 cache, which is smaller but faster than L3 cache, which in turn is slower but faster than RAM (which is smaller but faster than SDDs, HDDs, Cartridges, Optical Discs, etc...). So the memory hierarchy, from the fastest memory to the slowest, is : Registers (less than a KB) -> L1 cache (a few KBs to a few tens of KBs) -> L2 cache (hundreds of KBs or a few MBs) -> L3 cache (a few tens of MBs) -> RAM (hundreds of MBs or a few GBs) -> non-volatile storage mediums like SSDs or HDDs (hundreds of GBs).
L1 cache has been added in consummer CPUs in the late 80s (Intel 486), L2 Cache in the late 90s (Pentium II and AMD K6-2+) and L3 cache in end of the 2000s. PC CPUs went from having no cache at all, to having L1 cache only, to having both L1 and L2 caches, and now L1, L2 and L3 caches.
All in all, caches are fast, but they are also expensive. The first couple of CPU generations tend to differentiate higher-end models from lower-end models by the size of cache memory used. For example, the Pentium IIs have 512KB of L2 cache, whereas the cheaper Celerons have less cache (128KB) or no L2 cache at all (for the first models released) and of course a tad slower frequency. I hope the explanation is clear, I could have talked about the different types of cache policies (write-through/write-back) but I want to keep it short 😄
Just a bit more and you could publish a novel.
Again, with good well-thought-out MMU module, like in the DEC StrongArm (1996) and Direct Memory Access, the absence of cache can be avoided with small losses in performance. And for example, Hitachi does not need fast cache memory at all, because all RISC commands for SH2 are 16-bit. Like thumb instructions in ARM7T. Cache is more important when you are dealing with large CISC commands
60fps (PC version) vs. 30fps (DC version), which is a huge difference for a racing game, I would say.
PC has noticeably worse draw distance and pop up though.
@@mich722 Those popping errors are possibly due to the graphics card he is using, as I don't recall it looking that way on PC.
The Japanese version runs at 60fps at all times, albeit unstable.
This port was to the PCs advantage thanks to it being built on WINCE. By no means does SR2 looks like it’s pushing the DC hardware to it’s limits, but it is known that better performance is attainable via Sega OS for DC. Getting the game to 60fps, even not looking exactly like the arcade would have been a huge win for the early days of DC, as nice as this game can run from your PC demonstration. Thank you for that.
You can activate a cheat code to run 60fps (unstable) with less visual details
@@tomianz-1242 I’m well aware, I used to play it only with that code not realizing what it was doing to achieve that. My point is that the DC is capable of handing the full arcade experience without compromising anything, but this game was not optimized to take advantage of the DC to achieve that without a cheat code.
I actually think the Japanese version was better with running at 60fps at all times, even if it drops a lot I still think it's overall better than the 30fps mode on the US\EU versions.
@@PerOlsen-dn6kk it’s actually just an unlocked framerate, it’s very unstable. Such a shame :/
Also the controller for the Dreamcast suits the game way better due to analog stick and analog triggers.
I had a Pentium 3 500mhz pc with Riva TNT at the time and it ran the game great however the best controller I could get at the time was
a Microsoft Sidewinder which was a pure digital gameport controller.
I use a netbook which is awful for gaming but it can still run this game pretty well. Retro pc games are it's main job right now 🤣.
most people would use joysticks, like those single crane like ones used often for aircraft games or fighting games
I have an old book manual from a racing sim called GPL where they mention most use a single joystick with it
the game itself is already hard with a steering wheel ahaha
Projection at its worst
It is amazing how well the PC does in this case with only a 266Mhz Celeron and only 4MB of VRAM. O_O
A versão Dreamcast é muita mais estável graficamente que a versão PC, ou seja, Dreamcast vence essa disputa, e olha que é contra o PC da sua Época...gostei muito da comparação, justa e correta, colocando Hardware da mesma Época frente a frente, comparação justa!
@DrTech XX os únicos voodoo da 3DFX da época do DC são os voodoo2,3 e ambos são inferiores ao Power vr 2 do SEGA Dreamcast,o Dreamcast era mais forte que os PCs de sua época, De sua época.
@DrTech XX Ola nobre! Não só conheço, como sei o motivo da Voodoo 3DFX não ter entrado no projeto Katana, que se tornou o Dreamcast...
Vamos aos fatos, te darei Três...
Fato Primeiro: A GPU Voodoo 3DFX, ja era considerada ultrapassada para o projeto Katana, motivo não possuai cores de 24 Bits, rodava apenas Cores de 16 bits, com Texturas máximas de 256x256, além de ser melhor compatível, com arquitetura X84 ou X86 de PC em CPUs Pentium 2 e 3...
Fato Segundo: A CPU SH-4 HITACHI, processador do Dreamcast, possuía melhor performance com a GPU POWER VR 2, Uma vez que ela, conseguia reproduzir cores de 24 Bits mais 8bits, alta capacidade de preenchimento de textura 2048x2048, além de possuir Maior Poder de compactação de Texturas, e não precisar de fazer Over Draws...
Fato Terceiro: Mesmo que a GPU 3DFX tivesse aparentemente 16mb de memória contra 8mb da GPU Power VR 2 CLX do Dreamcast, a 3DFX não foi pensada para trabalhar com uma CPU de Baixa rotação de relógio como o SH-4 HITACHI, que foi pensado para baixo consumo de energia e feito para lidar justamente com Windows CE e Katana OS, pensados para dispositivos Embarcados, a 3DFX Voodoo, foi feita para lidar com CPUs de alta rotação de relógio e gasto de energia, justamente para Windows de "Mesa", onde a GPU, dependia totalmente de altas taxas de giros de relógio, para apresentar melhor desempenho...
Então quando for falar de algo, entenda pelo menos uma coisa, que o Dreamcast foi feito para ser algo totalmente inovador, como um console de mesa, porém com toda tecnologia de dispositivos móveis embarcados, onde se valoriza a compactação e otimização dos códigos, ao invés das tecnologias mais antigas de mercado, que baseava tudo em processamento mais brutos e sem otimização dos códigos, simples assim!!!
@@mouratecOs arcades naquela época eram a primeira e última palavra em tecnologia, PCs no geral só entregavam alta performance bruta. Dreamcast reunia tudo o que os arcades tinham de melhor, com alto poder de hardware que qualquer PC da sua época, com otimização para uma máquina mais portátil (console) esse PC que você descreve já nem é da geração do dreamcast, seja como for dreamcast wins.
Y yo sin saber que tenias las descripciones subtituladas en español...
Ahora disfruto más de los videos.
Yo jugué a Sega Rally 2 en un Pentium 2 350mhz con una Bodoo Banshee en Windows 98. Recuerdo que iba genial, aunque no lo disfrutaba controlandolo con el teclado.
Gran video y gran juego en todas sus versiones.
Saludos desde Barcelona España
Yo lo jugué en un Pentium III 500 mhz y tampoco recuerdo esos errores de la niebla (desgraciadamente no recuerdo que grafica usaba, ya que el ordenador era de mi hermano mayor), me imagino que es debido a la tarjeta grafica que esta usando ahí
@@IgnacioCalvo87 Sinceramente, a mi tampoco me alcanza la memoria con fidelidad para recordar lo de la niebla. Recuerdo que iba como un tiro, era un gustazo ver aquellos graficazos en la época.
Lo único que guardo de aquel pc es precisamente la tarjeta gráfica, la tengo en una caja como si de una consola más se tratase jeje.
Saludos
Thanks for doing your best at running this game on a retro PC
There's something to be said for horizon fog/desaturation gradients, DC seems to have a slight edge if only for that even if it's slightly sharper on PC (maybe not?) - Edit: Didn't realize you were going for a contemporary PC setup as well, that's a nice touch.
While you can't compare PC and console prices directly since you could do much more on a PC besides playing games, 199 was an excellent price for the DC.
framerate drops? Just use a power powerful PC, not a Celeron without cache! i never experienced framerate drop for this game, on a Pentium 3 700Mhz+, even at 60fps and 800x600
You made the point of explanation just right.
In order to compete the hardware, you have to see the year of releasing, and here's why in general I prefer playing in a console rather than PC, not only because of exclusives (not the case for this game) but also for right balance of price, powerful and revolution concepts in gaming.
Dreamcast was so ahead of its time, it was revolutionary within antialiasing filters and impressive graphics within technics like an evoluted and second to anyone HSR that makes scenes of the games even more accurate without too much struggle of resources...
Anyway, this must be the Pal version of Sega Rally 2, but could have probably improved even better than ever with the Japanese version of the Dreamcast?
I had the japanese Version... and it still had those ugly framrate-problems. No consistant steering possible in corners.
The DC was such good value.
I'm curious to know how SEGA Rally 2 fairs on modern PCs with enhancements. Also, for whatever reason, computer monitors don't usually go beyond 2K as of now. And 2K monitors are a bit on the pricey side, which is why the majority of PC gamers play at full HD at 1080p, assuming they're using a 16/9 display.
The only negative thing that I see about the PC version is the popping, unfortunately the fog doesn't do its job well in this version, for everything else the PC version is superior
Wow! Good comparison vid. It was quite interesting.👍
I prefer Dreamcast version, more colorful and better playable for a cheap Price 🥰
Also less pop up and better draw distance.
Riviera Stage looks so much better on the Dreamcast.
The Fog and pop up are much better in that level on the DC, but the lighting is much better on PC. The car has headlights which makes some things really pop, such as passing under the checkpoints. The rain is comparable on both.
What graphic card is used by this PC? If I remember correctly, you could activate Direct3D mode to use bilinear filtering etc. with 3DFX or RivaTNT cards from that time...
WIndows CE is what ruined Sega Rally 2, and it shows.
Press Up, A, Down, Down, Left, Right, B, B, Up at the Press Start Button screen to lock framerate to 30fps (a tone confirms correct entry).
That's different to the 60fps code that reduces visuals and still can't maintain 60fps much more than the vanilla default setting. This makes gameplay 100% stable and perfectly playable with no issues so you can enjoy the substantial additional content over the arcade version.
Where the arcade has 4 tracks, the home version offers the first three as track themes with 3 courses each, plus two all new themes on top with the same amount of courses for each, plus weather and time of day variations of all of these through the 10 year championship campaign.
So, while it's a technically challenged port, its gameplay & new content (against Sega's usual barebones efforts) make it more than worthwhile.
Of course it's also much higher resolution, Model 3 pushed just 62% the pixels (or Dreamcast pushes 161,29% the pixels), so something had to give for such an early port from such completely different architecture and programming methods, given they also added some effects/lighting. That's also part of why imo Daytona USA (2001) is nothing to scoff at next to Daytona USA 2 as that too is higher resolution with flawless performance and draw distance, it just aped the original game more than the sequel in style, theme and even gameplay and did so very successfully, it's ace!
This is not sega rally 2
Oh No!!! Oh No!!! Wow that draw distance on the PC version is profound. As for playability I would choose the Dreamcast version. Unless I had a steering device or gamepad I find racing games on the PC kind awkward. Plus I think the Dreamcast version sounds better. Navigator sounds a little clearer.
PC version doubles DC version framerate (which means DOUBLE polygons per second)....this proves how POORLY "optimized" was WindowsCE DC version (PC got x86 CPU, DC got dual SH4 RISC CPU with PowerVr2 "GPU", both probably not targeted correctly at low level by that OS), a real MESS. Again, DC version was "developed" in 3 months, for PC version they got more time to optimize on documented & supported x86 CPUs
DC has only one SH4.
It's a cardinal sin what happened with this dc port. Sub-60fps frame drops ruin the the precision timing for those powerslides/corner hugging.
En esos tiempos,como adoraba mi Sega dreamcast 😁😃. No me importaba tanto la resolución ni fps, éramos felices así, ahora tengo series X y es verdad q exigimos más resolución q fps 😅, creo se deberían de quedar como base los 1440p q se ven geniales y los 60 fps, pero las consolas creo no dan para más y no son estables los 60 fps 😅.
Poxa curtia mais quando você fazia os vídeos para nós BR hein...
o video oferece opção de legenda em pt-br.
Nice work. Almost the same graphics...
why a celeron and not a 1998 pentuim2 450 pc? a pentuim450 runs the game at 60fps i believe and max draw distance,no idea what gpu is needed for ful60fps 800x600 resolution.
That Pentium II PC would have cost many more times the price of a Dreamcast, thus this comparison is more relevant for the period.
En PC tiene una ligera mejor distancia de dibujado. No lo habría imaginado. Claro que donde estuviera el mando de la DC...
Se volessi mettere un pc dentro il cab sega rally e metterci l emulatore sega model per farci girare sega rally1/2 in versione arcade basta un i5 di dieci anni fa con gpu integrata ?
Si, un i5 del 2004 è sufficiente. Certo vorrei vedere come fai a collegare tutto l'hardware idraulico del cabinato. E non parlo di collegamento hardware, mi riferisco al software (i drivers prima di tutto)...
Steam Deck perfectly runs both Sega Rally 1 and 2 on Model 2 and 3 emulators.
DC version looks like I'd imagine it would look like on the PS1
It would look much worse on PS1
PC ???
ドリキャス版はかなり出来が悪いバージョン
30fpsだけでテクスチャの質も駄目、
Model3と比べて遜色で、ドリキャスの宣伝に対して、
逆に悪いと思う
Draw distance and pop up is worse on the PC version.
ВС version is better in my opinion.
O Dreamcast tem o gráfico bem próximo da versão de PC mas o PC ganha com folga no desempenho (FPS)
To bad
Só isso.
Notavel que a versao de pc é melhor ...
Gráficos ficaram piores no pc porque a Sega não fez direito.
Dreamcast looks a lot better.
Oh Jesus! Watch again. The Dreamcast version has the framerate and Draw Distance worse than the PC version.
@@Pedro_5859 draw distance is worse on PC. Look at the subtitles on the video. But overall PC port is better
@@Pedro_5859 Draw distance is noticeably worse on PC. I'd take the 30 fps instead of all that constant pop up.
@@mich722 There are actually some scenes where the DC and some scenes where the PC has better draw distance.
But is not a very good PC, even for the time.
Consoles are just cheap alternative for a gaming PC.
not really mate ,,,,,,,, consoles are also excellent value . ive got a capable pc with an 3090 an honestly its better than a console as you would expect ,,,,, but all in , not 2000 pound better than a series x ,,,,, everything on pc can be native an much more stable , but you got to pay silly money . plus theres millions an billions who are afraid to use a pc . consoles are there for a purpose. an thats gaming . an consoles as a platform did it before any pc ..... look at windows games before windows 95 .................
@@teamdoa , Can you 3d print or use production software on console ? No , so stop trying to be smart , !
@@alanharrison2726 I like trying to find games that were for Windows 3.11fw, as in they NEEDED windows to run, they weren't MS-DOS games. But also they didn't need Windows 95. I mean most games for PC were targeted for MS-DOS until about 1997
No es el Sega rally 2, es el 1
Es el 2
The Dreamcast ports where Bad looking, and Sega wondering why the System is not selling