Author Topic: Gamecubes Graphics (Read 11267 times)

Renny · « **Reply #50 on:** December 24, 2003, 09:53:05 PM »

Xbox. Those translucent green jackets are the super-cool.

ThePerm · « **Reply #51 on:** December 25, 2003, 07:13:40 PM »

my penis is more beautiful then any graphics on any console. Of course this is all a matter of opinion

thUnd3Rm0nk3y · « **Reply #52 on:** December 27, 2003, 10:35:17 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja

GameCube has no shaders, but the CPU is powerful enough to do such effects in software.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the TEV confirmed to be a color combiner? And a pixel-shader is just a cute name for a color combiner.

There was a thread at the Beyond3d forums about the GCN's TEV with a dev getting pretty close to breaking some NDA's and revealing some sexy info about the GCN.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1603&highlight=tev

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #53 on:** December 27, 2003, 10:42:37 AM »

I don't have time to explain CELL and all, but I could spend a few hours. Just understand this. Take about 32 Gamecube processors, shrink them down and make them onto one chip. That is CELL in a nutshell. The problem with it is the compiler has to be nothing short of excellent to allow all of those cores to be doing something at one time.

As for the Athlon 64 mess and all, There is proof, as well as intel stating, that they have an x86-64 variant already ready (it's built into the next Processor, Prescott, which is due in Feb) so if Intel wasn't involved in the delay with microsoft and windows xp 64 bit edition, then microsoft is unusually slow, even for themselves.

KatanaBladeX · « **Reply #54 on:** December 27, 2003, 11:19:11 AM »

Gamecube excels most in small load times. It also has considerable more image quality than PS2.

However, PS2 can mass more polygons (see ratchet and clank) and Xbox has superior sound (Dolby 5.1 in game).

But just play the games.

kirby_killer_dedede · « **Reply #55 on:** December 27, 2003, 02:57:06 PM »

Hola. Anyone seen Elf? Damn, that's annoyingly funny. BACK TO THE SUBJECT...

I agree with Grey Ninja. Specs tend to be...misleading. I mean, truly, PS2's graphics engine is the worst, but I don't think I'm the only one who's checked out FFX. It exceeds anything I've seen on the GC (no offense, Ninty, ur still my fave), and matches up with Xbox's beautiful Ninja Gaiden. Think about it. Good programmers can turn a sucky console into an okay console. It averages out. Of course, bad programmers can turn a sucky console into a suckiER console, but let's not get into that.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #56 on:** December 27, 2003, 07:54:49 PM »

Why are the character models in FFX kinda... shaky, or twitchy? Not incredibly fluid like those in Silent Hill 3 or the RE Remake.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #57 on:** December 27, 2003, 08:01:16 PM »

In my opinion, Resident Evil 4 blows everything else at out the water. And technically speaking, Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike do, too. FFX looked great at the time, but it's been surpassed. Halo looked very comparable and in my opinion Metroid Prime looked better. Ninja Gaiden certainly looks great, but I think Halo 2 looks better, and that's using less polygons than Halo. Like I said, though, Resident Evil 4 is just leagues ahead of everything else- it looks much better than REmake or RE:0, in my opinion, and it's all realtime.

Shadow Fox · « **Reply #58 on:** December 27, 2003, 09:10:41 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
In my opinion, Resident Evil 4 blows everything else at out the water. And technically speaking, Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike do, too. FFX looked great at the time, but it's been surpassed. Halo looked very comparable and in my opinion Metroid Prime looked better. Ninja Gaiden certainly looks great, but I think Halo 2 looks better, and that's using less polygons. Like I said, though, Resident Evil 4 is just leagues ahead of everything else- it looks much better than REmake or RE:0, in my opinion, and it's all realtime.

Super-ditto.

And to KitanaBladeX, PS2 cannot push more polys than GCN, as it's theoretical peak is 66 million polys per second with no light and gouraud shading. GCN's LSI is capable of 90 million polys per second with 1 light and gourald.

Plus, Ratchet and Clank MAY surpass 10 million polys/sec, while a GCN game surpassed this AT LAUNCH- often at 60 frames per second, to-boot.

Let's just put it this way: PS2 and GCN/Xbox are leagues apart- if not for the major inclusion of a GPU in the newer consoles as opposed to Sony, along with many other effects (hardware multitexturing/lighting/shadowing/etc).

It's kind of hard to say a non-T&L graphics engine melded into a CPU is in any way superior to a true GPU with loosely fixed and programmable T&L engines.

The PS2 does have the best realworld fillrate, but what's 1Gtexel/sec if you're only running the core at RISC 297mhz and downright laughable texture-read bandwidth?

In my own way, I kinda wish PS2 had flopped, so developers wouldn't be wasting more time fighting the damn thing with code, and instead produce more quality games on Xbox/GCN.

Just think...how many titles could Capcom have completed in the time it took to complete Onimusha, or Square with FFX?

-Official Ninja of PGC

Uglydot · « **Reply #59 on:** December 28, 2003, 03:20:32 AM »

I like playing my cube, and the grafics are pretty. I will spend my time worrying about my pc grafics cards etc, given any game you will pick for your gcn will work, and look at least decent. Don't really care who has slightly better grafics or not.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #60 on:** December 28, 2003, 12:25:38 PM »

My graphics card has 16mb of memory. It chokes while playing Ghost Recon.

BUT IT CAPTURES HI-REZ VIDEO LIKE REBECCA CHAMBERS HAS *NICE* SHORTS.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #61 on:** December 29, 2003, 09:15:23 AM »

What bothers me is the Cell. It's supposed to be massive multiprocessing, right? Now, that means you have quite a lot of cores of the same design. However, chips don't come cheap and if they want a competitive price they'll have to use either slow chips or few cores. It sounds great to have the processing power of a Cray in a gams console, but if it was that easy to just put 64 CPUs in a case and sell that for 200 bucks, why didn't people do that before? Why are multiprocessor systems still limited to areas where the cost doesn't matter much? I have my doubts that this Cell-thingie will really be 10k times more powerful than the PS2 (as promised by Sony), at least at any reasonable price. BTW, that "helping other consoles via internet" stuff is pure BS, the bandwidth and latency is insufficient for game usage (unless you can wait a second for the frame to arrive) and the other PS2s connected to that network will have enough to do on their own already and no time to spare for somebody else's realtime FF cutscenes.

Saturn2888 · « **Reply #62 on:** January 19, 2004, 07:42:15 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I'm not sure, but I think both the XB and GC are based on OGL1.x GPUs. The GF3/4 can only go up to OGL1.3, while ATI's r200 can do OGL1.4 (I think those are the PC equivalents of the XB's and GC's GPUs). Although I've heard the opposite I'm quite confident the GC can do pixel shaders (up to PS1.4), as the water in Super Mario Sunshine seems to use refraction shaders (looks a lot like the corresponding benchmark in 3DMark 2001). The XBox has slightly more RAM, which could equal more texture detail. Still not enough for the likes of UT2003, though.

Umm...

ATi didn't dev. the GCN hardware, it was ArtX who got cornered by ATi and bought out. Dude, the R200 is probably not on the GCN hardware and if u didn't know, GCN prob. doesn't use OGL either and Microsoft would use DirectX8.1 on the XBox not OpenGL bc Microsoft wants more money for their DX8.1 API which is widely avalible comparing to DX9

KDR_11k · « **Reply #63 on:** January 19, 2004, 08:09:39 AM »

Thanks, but that was cleared up like half a year ago. Your sentences are barely readable, you should try writing english instead of abbrev. spk..

Chode2234 · « **Reply #64 on:** January 19, 2004, 08:11:59 AM »

I can't believe these threads still get so much attention and mindless debate. Does it really matter or worth debate?

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #65 on:** January 19, 2004, 11:30:45 AM »

Shame on you and me for keeping this thread alive by posting in it.

Shadow Fox · « **Reply #66 on:** January 20, 2004, 01:52:57 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Saturn2888
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I'm not sure, but I think both the XB and GC are based on OGL1.x GPUs. The GF3/4 can only go up to OGL1.3, while ATI's r200 can do OGL1.4 (I think those are the PC equivalents of the XB's and GC's GPUs). Although I've heard the opposite I'm quite confident the GC can do pixel shaders (up to PS1.4), as the water in Super Mario Sunshine seems to use refraction shaders (looks a lot like the corresponding benchmark in 3DMark 2001). The XBox has slightly more RAM, which could equal more texture detail. Still not enough for the likes of UT2003, though.

Umm... ATi didn't dev. the GCN hardware, it was ArtX who got cornered by ATi and bought out. Dude, the R200 is probably not on the GCN hardware and if u didn't know, GCN prob. doesn't use OGL either and Microsoft would use DirectX8.1 on the XBox not OpenGL bc Microsoft wants more money for their DX8.1 API which is widely avalible comparing to DX9

Both GCN and Xbox readily have DX8 AND OpenGL sdk's, and they are primarily used during third-party frontends for importing dynamic models and such.

GCN's DirectX8 support stems from its Codewarrior ISA and several programmable features herein, and OpenGL 1.1 and later can directly manipulate the Xbox programmble T&L units.

-Official Ninja of PGC

AMac2002 · « **Reply #67 on:** January 20, 2004, 12:04:14 PM »

Answers from someone who owns a(n)...

Xbox: Xbox is best, then Gamecube, then Ps2
Gamecube: PS2 is worst, then Gamecube, then Xbox, but the difference isn't noticeable between those two
PS2: Graphics dont matter

VoodooMerlin · « **Reply #68 on:** January 20, 2004, 01:31:10 PM »

If you took an informal poll, most people would agree that the PS2 is the weakest system. Sure.......check out Jak n Daxter or FF10. Not so weak after all.

There are game developers out there that can't do jack with the most powerful hardware and then there are developers that can work magic with less powerful hardware. It all comes down to the skill of the individual developer.

I like the PS2 answer "graphics don't matter". To a certain point, okay, but how many times have I heard THAT over the years? I've played a lot of video games and while I appreciate a good story as much as the next guy, even after playing 12 hours a day every day, I'm still a graphics whore.

Renny · « **Reply #69 on:** January 20, 2004, 02:25:25 PM »

And you don't give two __ about gameplay? ;¬]

SearanoX · « **Reply #70 on:** January 20, 2004, 02:28:27 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: VoodooMerlin
If you took an informal poll, most people would agree that the PS2 is the weakest system. Sure.......check out Jak n Daxter or FF10. Not so weak after all.

Funny thing...Final Fantasy games use uberly high-poly models for all of the up-close in-game cinematics. The gameplay stuff isn't anywhere near as good as that - characters have mitten-hands and relatively low-res textures. Sure it's stressing the limits of the system, but if it weren't for the effects that Squeenix has amazing control over, it would be little more than average.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #71 on:** January 20, 2004, 04:21:05 PM »

There's a difference between "weakest" and just plain "weak"- while the PS2 may not be quite as powerful as the Gamecube or XBox, it's still very powerful in it's own right- look at Ico. That doesn't mean there are more graphically advanced games on the PS2's competitors.

News:

Author Topic: Gamecubes Graphics (Read 11267 times)