Post by: Bishman on July 26, 2003, 12:15:27 AM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on July 26, 2003, 01:45:22 AM
Post by: Plugabugz on July 26, 2003, 02:17:41 AM
Post by: VoodooMerlin on July 26, 2003, 02:23:08 AM
I just got rid of my XboX and came back to the Cube. I've always liked Nintendo for their balance in software variety and the XboX wasn't giving anything but shooters for the most part. I'm into RPGs and platformers....both of which Nintendo has more of. That and the fact that I miss playing PSO as an offline game. I also gave up on Mario Sunshine soon after it was released....and vowed that I would pick it up again and finish it if I ever got another Cube. I've already gotten further than last time.
Post by: Berto2K on July 26, 2003, 03:23:45 AM
Post by: Bartman3010 on July 26, 2003, 04:31:26 AM
Post by: rpglover on July 26, 2003, 04:48:31 AM
personally i dont care about graphics in my games as much as i do gameplay but reading this showed me what could be capable on the gc
Post by: Grey Ninja on July 26, 2003, 05:49:41 AM
Post by: VoodooMerlin on July 26, 2003, 11:52:01 AM
Some of the best lighting effects that I've ever seen are in Res Evil on the Cube. It does cell-shading nicely as shown in Zelda.
The Cube's no wimp. It's a powerhouse. And it's damned cute as well.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 26, 2003, 01:40:42 PM
Post by: Bishman on July 26, 2003, 02:18:12 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on July 26, 2003, 03:02:47 PM
It truly saddens me to see this all over the place. If anyone even thinks about saying something unfavorable about the Xbox, they get bashed. Is this the world we want to live in? Can't we just all co-exist without screaming "FANBOY" every two minutes? The guy stated valid points, and anyone who has experience with hardware would agree with him.
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 26, 2003, 03:10:17 PM
Post by: Shadow Link on July 26, 2003, 08:23:03 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 26, 2003, 10:54:55 PM
[The Real Shadow Fox] WTF are you talking about here?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm currently reading page 11 of that thread, but those lines had me laughin' my ass off!
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 26, 2003, 11:38:25 PM
"[idiot 2] << Contrary to popular belief; Brute Force is the only xbox game that currently uses Bump Mapping. >>
[The Real Shadow Fox] Oh my dear Lord. Have you NOT played Halo?"
ENTERTAINING and EDUCATIONAL!!
BANZAI!!
Post by: PIAC on July 26, 2003, 11:51:46 PM
Quote
"Zelda: The game you bought the GameCube for."
"Metroid: The game you bought the N64 for."
"Game Boy TV Thingy: Plays the exact same games as the Super Nintendo, but not as cheap. Buy new and go retro at the same time."
-SpaceGhost2k
yep i sure did enjoy metroid on my n64
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 27, 2003, 12:20:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PIAC
yep i sure did enjoy metroid on my n64
Right-on! Metroid... She was a great character in Super Smash Bros. *_*
I stopped reading at page 15, since the posts were getting longer and longer, and that one moron who said Brute Force was the first bumped-mapped xbox game (who idiotically posted BF screens that did't have bump-maps at all) wouldn't shut up.
The Real Shadow Fox, BANZAI!!
Post by: Twisted Halo on July 27, 2003, 02:25:17 AM
Remember, it's not always the bigger and more powerful that wins. Sometimes you gotta be smaller, more versatile, and cooler looking! But, of course, I am a big fan of XboX as well. ROCK-ON HALO!
Post by: Oblivious on July 27, 2003, 05:10:37 AM
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on July 27, 2003, 05:12:02 AM
find this debate rather sad. Its a sad reflection of what gaming has become.
Post by: mjbd on July 27, 2003, 08:19:01 AM
Post by: penfold on July 27, 2003, 09:39:14 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 27, 2003, 09:58:01 PM
Post by: egman on July 28, 2003, 04:33:04 AM
Surely there has to be more than a couple people out there who can still have fun without having to defend their choice of hardware and software?
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on July 28, 2003, 04:19:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: egman
Hemmorrhoid--So true. I can't help but scratch my head at 20 page threads about which game has the better bump-mapping.
Surely there has to be more than a couple people out there who can still have fun without having to defend their choice of hardware and software?
well eggman, maybe not now, but I promise that gaming will soon come to what it was once, the content and value of gameplay, not graphics, maybe nintendos new triumphant return?
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 28, 2003, 09:44:04 PM
Quote
While I am sure that the GCN is capable of what most of you say and also somewhat on par with Xbox, I still
find this debate rather sad. Its a sad reflection of what gaming has become.
If you're talking about intentionally twisting facts and specs to appear superior, then yes it is sad. Byut if you actually read the thread and Shadow Fox's responses, it's clear that he doesn't choose consoles or games based on graphics- he fully agrees with everyone that points out what really matter is gameplay. HIS point, though, is that he's tired of Sony and MS lying to make people think they're better while Nintendo, the only honest one, gets ignored. He realizes that the ponit to choosing which console to buy is what games it is has, not how good it's graphics are, but he's simply pointing out that despite all the hype and PR BS, the Gamecube is actually the one with the most potential, or at least he thinks so. It's just a discussion, which is what message boards were made for.
Post by: Twisted Halo on July 29, 2003, 03:28:30 AM
How about we settle it the easy way.
It's ALL about the GAMES!
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on July 29, 2003, 04:52:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker<br
If you're talking about intentionally twisting facts and specs to appear superior, then yes it is sad. Byut if you actually read the thread and Shadow Fox's responses, it's clear that he doesn't choose consoles or games based on graphics- he fully agrees with everyone that points out what really matter is gameplay. HIS point, though, is that he's tired of Sony and MS lying to make people think they're better while Nintendo, the only honest one, gets ignored. He realizes that the ponit to choosing which console to buy is what games it is has, not how good it's graphics are, but he's simply pointing out that despite all the hype and PR BS, the Gamecube is actually the one with the most potential, or at least he thinks so. It's just a discussion, which is what message boards were made for.
I realize and respect that a messageboard is about discussions, but that topic is very old, and the GCN amazing power that is somewhat on one level with Xbox, has been proven by professionals like Factor 5. What Im trying to say is that its really ridiculous what direction gaming (today) comes back to. Just think about the things Denis Dyack said, or Shiggy etc, soon only the gameplay will count, especially starting next Gen where photorealistic graphics can easily be pulled of on any of the systems and the difference in power will probably shrink to an indistinguishable freckle, thus only the contents counts.
Post by: Grey Ninja on July 29, 2003, 05:39:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: HemmorrhoidQuote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker<br
If you're talking about intentionally twisting facts and specs to appear superior, then yes it is sad. Byut if you actually read the thread and Shadow Fox's responses, it's clear that he doesn't choose consoles or games based on graphics- he fully agrees with everyone that points out what really matter is gameplay. HIS point, though, is that he's tired of Sony and MS lying to make people think they're better while Nintendo, the only honest one, gets ignored. He realizes that the ponit to choosing which console to buy is what games it is has, not how good it's graphics are, but he's simply pointing out that despite all the hype and PR BS, the Gamecube is actually the one with the most potential, or at least he thinks so. It's just a discussion, which is what message boards were made for.
I realize and respect that a messageboard is about discussions, but that topic is very old, and the GCN amazing power that is somewhat on one level with Xbox, has been proven by professionals like Factor 5. What Im trying to say is that its really ridiculous what direction gaming (today) comes back to. Just think about the things Denis Dyack said, or Shiggy etc, soon only the gameplay will count, especially starting next Gen where photorealistic graphics can easily be pulled of on any of the systems and the difference in power will probably shrink to an indistinguishable freckle, thus only the contents counts.
We are arguing because MS is claiming that the Xbox is vastly superior to the GameCube, and produces games that just aren't possible on GameCube, but common sense dictates otherwise. The average consumer is a bloody idiot, and see that the Xbox has more "M3gah4rtz", and is obviously better.
Hell, even in this thread, I see people claiming that the Xbox is more powerful but without a shred of proof to back themselves up.
Let me review it for you:
MS claims Xbox is CLEARLY the most powerful of the current consoles.
Nintendo produces higher polygon counts with more effects than Microsoft.
Nintendo produces lower load times
Nintendo produces near perfect ports of Xbox games.
Microsoft produces graphically inferior ports of GameCube games.
Use common sense here people.
We are arguing to say that MS is a bloody liar. I could really care less which console is more powerful. It just irritates me when people make a big deal out of a false statement.
Post by: Gup on July 29, 2003, 05:53:18 AM
NBA 2K3 - GC > Xbox
PSO - GC = Xbox
Timespitters - GC = Xbox
I still think Xbox is stronger than GC(look at Halo 2 & DOAXBV), but not by too much.
Post by: Grey Ninja on July 29, 2003, 06:01:18 AM
Quote
I still think Xbox is stronger than GC(look at Halo 2 & DOAXBV), but not by too much.
Those were discussed in the thread. (Halo 2 anyways)
Halo 2 has a much decreased polygon count from Halo 1 (which had fewer polys than Rogue Leader), but features bumpmapped surfaces on EVERYTHING, and runs at 30fps.
Rogue Leader has many bumpmapped surfaces, about double the poly count of Halo 2, and runs at 60fps.
Rebel Strike has bumpmapped surfaces on everything, more polys than Rogue Leader, and runs at 60fps.
Post by: Gup on July 29, 2003, 06:18:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
Halo 2 has a much decreased polygon count from Halo 1 (which had fewer polys than Rogue Leader), but features bumpmapped surfaces on EVERYTHING, and runs at 30fps.
Rogue Leader has many bumpmapped surfaces, about double the poly count of Halo 2, and runs at 60fps.
Rebel Strike has bumpmapped surfaces on everything, more polys than Rogue Leader, and runs at 60fps.
Those are tech numbers, what matters are the results and Halo 2 does look amazing as well as Rogue Leader.
Post by: Grey Ninja on July 29, 2003, 06:19:55 AM
But the point of this is that MS is lying through its teeth when they say Xbox is clearly more powerful. If it truly was more powerful, you would see higher poly counts and more effects in Xbox games.
Post by: Bishman on July 29, 2003, 08:48:11 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 29, 2003, 12:30:06 PM
Halo 2 does indeed look incredible, but, as Ninja pointed out, Bungie actually decreased the polygon count so they could bump map everything in the game. Comparably, if Metroid Prime had a decreased polygon count and full bump mapping, it would look just as good (and I hope Retro does this with Metroid Prime 2). Halo 2 is certainly nothing that can't be done on the Gamecube.
Post by: Gup on July 29, 2003, 01:52:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Halo 2 does indeed look incredible, but, as Ninja pointed out, Bungie actually decreased the polygon count so they could bump map everything in the game. Comparably, if Metroid Prime had a decreased polygon count and full bump mapping, it would look just as good (and I hope Retro does this with Metroid Prime 2). Halo 2 is certainly nothing that can't be done on the Gamecube.
Does it really matter if a developer uses less polygons? Not if the game can look that much better. You're giving no credit to those Bungie developers for using "bump map" which makes Halo 2 visually superior to it's prequel.
As for Metroid Prime, it's already out, "if" isn't an option anymore. Besides, I believe it looks just as good if not better than the Halo 2 video.
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 29, 2003, 02:44:04 PM
I personally think that Halo 2 looks just a little better, but not by much. That's a testament, I think, to how powerful the Gamecube realy is, when a game with very little bump mapping can look just as good if not better than game that has full bumb mapping.
Post by: Gup on July 29, 2003, 03:35:38 PM
Post by: cheers69 on July 29, 2003, 05:05:43 PM
Post by: Bishman on July 29, 2003, 11:22:31 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 30, 2003, 01:03:37 AM
Post by: egman on July 30, 2003, 08:05:57 AM
There is something about that style in Doom 3 and Halo 2 that comes off as rather plastic. For MP2, I'd rather see a compromise of slightly lower geometry and subtle use of bump-mapping.
IMO, the thing that would really put the game over the edge would be more dramtic lighting. Inspite of the massive jump in detail, I think the reason RS3 really stands out from RS2 is the lighting. Ign insiders should download the recent Bespin video with the Millenium Falcon to see just how a better lighting engine can yield almost photo realistic results on today's hardware. I think a new lighting engine more than anything else would improve the look of MP considerably.
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 30, 2003, 07:07:55 PM
Post by: manunited4eva22 on July 31, 2003, 06:28:11 AM
Post by: The All Knowing Lung on August 02, 2003, 04:34:26 PM
Post by: boggy b on August 03, 2003, 12:36:35 PM
I'm sorry to break it to you, but XBox is more powerful. The guy also makes several mistakes in his article.
Firstly, XBox does not implement bump-mapping via its pixel-shaders. Like GCN, XBox can perform bump-mapping in hardware, though they probably could be used to perform bump-mapping. It can also do environment mapping, and does a superior form to GCN - cubic environment maps. Ever wondered why the reflections in Mario Sunshine are so bad? It's because GCN isnt very good at environment mapping. XBox does indeed also have better textures - one look at Halo's righer resolution textures will tell you as much. This is because XBox has more RAM to store larger textures than GCN. HOWEVER, XBox does not have quite as good texture compression as GCN. This does cut both ways though. Increased texture compression means that the textures turn out worse. There is no way to compress a 1Mb texture down to 500Kb and keep a similar quality, sorry.
Also, the 'article' fails to mention that the integer performance of the XCPU makes the Gekko look like a lemon in comparison; 1980MIPS vs. 1125MIPS. Doesn't mean a lot, you say? Well MIPS are what make good physics. Which is always nice to have - good GFLOPS will get you nowhere.
Other advantages of the XBox over the GCN include higher GPU clockspeed (233MHz over 162MHz) and, of course, much much greater GFLOPS. The way that the nVidia chip does this is by not actually performing the calculations, but by looking them up in a table system. So powerful is the XGPU that it actually wastes cycles making mistakes, and STILL pumps out similar looking visuals.
Then, there's the actual, visual proof, and theres plenty of it around: Soul Calibur 2, Wreckless and Splinter Cell all look much better on XBox, often running at higher resolutions than the GCN counterpart and with more detailed models and textures. So much for 'no proof'. Halo 2 is much more visually impressive than Metroid Prime and is more technically advanced. XBox is also the only console to get cutting-edge PC games such as Half-Life 2, Deus Ex 2 and DOOM 3. John Carmack said that the only reason hes doing it for XBox and not the other consoles is simply that the XBox is the only console with enough power to play the game satisfactory.
The article also failed to mention sound performance, which is also an affecting factor. The XBox has a far superior sound card to the GCN.
Also, I HIGHLY doubt that Rebel Assault will have 10Million more polygons per second. That kind of increase isnt possible. RL slowed down quite a lot of the time, and thats with a claimed 15Million polygons per second (there's no proof of that though). 10Mil more will make it run like its bogged down in treacle.
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 03, 2003, 01:01:24 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on August 03, 2003, 02:01:34 PM
But let's remember that this is the guy who claimed that Raiden was a great addition to MGS2 because he made Snake look that much greater.
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 03, 2003, 02:22:59 PM
Post by: boggy b on August 03, 2003, 10:41:25 PM
Either way, XBox is more powerful. That is not to say that GCN is weak because it isnt - it far surpasses the sum of its parts. But you cannot hope to prove that it is more powerful than a console with more powerful parts.
I await your reply, GN.
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 04, 2003, 11:20:07 AM
Post by: getupkids on August 04, 2003, 12:00:22 PM
ot with n64 so i think they'll continue to show the best graphics.
Post by: boggy b on August 04, 2003, 01:01:42 PM
Oh, and mouse_clicker, the last post in that thread was a fortnight ago. I dont think they'd take kindly to me dragging up a dead topic.
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 04, 2003, 02:10:03 PM
I WOULD have dragged that thread up a long time ago myself, but it seems someone's using my email adress or something and I can't create an account. I've got a Yahoo email address I might try.If you don't want to revive the thread yourself would you mind me posting what you said here with the proper notation (I won't say anything bad about you)?
::EDIT:: I've got an account there now- seems someone else has posted in the thread today, though, so you wouldn't be dragging it up.
Post by: boggy b on August 05, 2003, 04:45:21 AM
Post by: egman on August 05, 2003, 04:50:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: boggy b
OOT wasnt that good looking. The textures were bland and there was some horrendous slowdown sometimes. And I never ever want to go back to the water temple in my life. Or fight Volvagia.
Oh, and mouse_clicker, the last post in that thread was a fortnight ago. I dont think they'd take kindly to me dragging up a dead topic.
I can say the same about the pixlated mess that showed up on the Playstation and Saturn. I don't think I was ever really impressed with 3d until I saw the Dreamcast running Sonic Adventure for the first time at Hollywood Video. Boy, wasn't that a sight for SORE eyes!
Post by: boggy b on August 05, 2003, 04:58:59 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 05, 2003, 08:35:07 AM
I personally don't see a better source than Factor 5- they're very reliable, and share Nintendo's philosophy in games. They're definitely not the people I'd expect to lie. Anyway, thanks for letting me post it. I'll let you know if anyone responds, or you can check it out yourself if you want.
::EDIT:: Bah, you posted it anyway.
Also, I just have to comment on this:
"Also, I HIGHLY doubt that Rebel Assault will have 10Million more polygons per second. That kind of increase isnt possible. RL slowed down quite a lot of the time, and thats with a claimed 15Million polygons per second (there's no proof of that though). 10Mil more will make it run like its bogged down in treacle."
First off, it's Rebel Strike- honest mistake. Second off, Factor 5 readily admitted that Rogue Leader pushed it's own engine to the limits, and thus Rebel Strike is not running on Rogue Leader's engine. Factor 5 through out every line of code from RL and built RS from the ground up, complete with a new engine. THAT'S how it would be able to push 10 million more polygons a second than Rogue Leader. And I never experience slow down in Rogue Leader, ever.
Post by: egman on August 05, 2003, 09:22:46 AM
Before the miss information goes overboad, let's look at the facts. RL was a launch game built in less than half of the normal development cycle. With barely anytime to experiment with the hardware or learn the best ways to optimize, RL managed pretty well. Slowdown doesn't mean you are pushing the maching to the limit. If that was the case, Halo maxed out the Xbox at launch, which we know is not true. Notice that Halo's development time was also truncated to get the title out the door. Slowdown is more often the result of poor optimzing or resource management, rarely does it mean that the machine is tapped out.
However, mouse_clicker is right about the engine thing. RL was built around the old Rogue Squadron code--RS3 had to be built from scratch. I think it may be quite possible that code built specifically around the Cube could squeeze out those results. Julian could be lying, but really how many people care about the number of polys in the game? What's the point of lying about a technical detail that only beyond3d visitors would debate?
In the end, the guy's post was really not about poly power. We can debate the number of polys forever, but the evidence about the amount of effects used in game is barely disputable. When I see Xbox games, I mostly impressed about the great textures, lighting, and nice quality effects. GC games that are built around its hardware knock me out because they are often layered with effects. Wind Waker is a prime example of this. I think most people make the mistake of thinking that Nintendo was not pushing the GC because of the simple visual style, which is not the case. Look at the game carefully-- on top of the cel-shading Nintendo took the time to add heat/wave effects, reflections, amazing particle effects, smoke (it's subtle, but in most of the dungeons and few other places there is a fog, smoke, mist effect layer), depth of field rendering (a lot people thought the game was overally soft, but objects in focus (telescope for example) are sharp), and plenty of play with moving local lights and ambient lighting. Nintendo gets accussed of not pushing their tech, but that's not the case, they just don't beat you over the head with "teh BuMp-maPPs!!1!" Wind Waker is doing a lot of stuff, running circles around JSRF, which has been aruged as the best cel-shaded game this gen.
From reading Shadow's post, I think that is the main difference people should be looking at. He wiselyl didn't say one was better than the other because they were designed to developers different types of freedom.
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 05, 2003, 11:57:05 AM
Quote
Whoa--hold on mouse_clicker! Are you sure you didn't have slowdown? Did you make it to the Strike at the Core level?
I've played every level in the game and while it has been a while, I don't remember any slowdown. The game did lock up on my once in the Hoth level, but that has nothing to do with the frame rate.
Quote
Before the miss information goes overboad, let's look at the facts. RL was a launch game built in less than half of the normal development cycle. With barely anytime to experiment with the hardware or learn the best ways to optimize, RL managed pretty well.
Pretty well is an understatement- to this day I can't think of a single console game that I think looks better. And Factor 5 had a lot of time to experiment with the hardware- while Rogue Leader itself was made in roughly 9 months, Factor 5 had development kits from the very beginning and you can bet they were doing all sorts of things to it. That's the real reason that Rogue Leader looks so incredible even today, despite it being a first generation game.
Quote
Notice that Halo's development time was also truncated to get the title out the door. Slowdown is more often the result of poor optimzing or resource management, rarely does it mean that the machine is tapped out.
Not quite true, either. Halo was in development for YEARS before MS bought out Bungie and moved development of Halo over to the XBox, and Halo was nearly done, too. Bungie had plenty of time to really make the best of what they had it really shows through in Halo, as well- in my opinion it's one of the best looking XBox games and it was also a launch title.
Post by: boggy b on August 05, 2003, 12:07:36 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 05, 2003, 12:26:59 PM
Post by: manunited4eva22 on August 05, 2003, 01:08:57 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on August 06, 2003, 02:18:07 AM
A noticeable effect on GC is the amount of distortion (not bad UV mapping, the effect!) going on. In SMS, the water (both level water and your fludd's beam) distorts what's behind it, MP uses heat distortion and the charge beam does some, PSO does it noticeable on telepipes and less noticeable on water (Cave 2, look at your feet, if you don't believe me!). Heat distortion is used in MANY GC games (and I bet the focus thing in WW uses the same effect). I've never played XB, does it use the same amount of distortion? PSO for XB certainly doesn't...
A thing to be considered: There's no difference whether 15mps are displayed at 60 or 30FPS, the latter just means the 15 million triangles are distributed over 30 frames instead of 60.
Also I'm not sure the XB doesn't do bumpmapping via it's shaders, as most shader cards use them for all the effects older cards could do via unprogrammable hardware (e.g. alpha transparency).
The MIPS (which BTW count different depending on the instructions known by the processor, where x86s generally suck) might be important for physics as well, but the FLOPS are critical here. See, a physics model works with floating points only and all transformations used here are floating point operations. FLOPs are what set AMD apart of Intel and where Intel traditionally lacked. You know why there was a separate math processor available for the 3x86? Because the x86 is incredibly bad at floating point operations. That point has bettered over the years, still Intel has a weakness in the FLOPS area.
I'm not sure about the importance of cubic envmaps for reflections, as you have to render the envmap for the reflection as well and this eats performance. Usually envmaps are static, with the scenery of the level prerendered into them. Serious Sam, for example, can convert a cube envmap into a spheric envmap which can be used with less advanced graphics cards.
Another point I'd like to address is the difference etween a normalmap and a bumpmap. Doom 3, Deus Ex 2 and Quake 1 Tenebrae use normalmaps, which, unlike bumpmaps, store normal orientation instead of some "height". Normalmapping is used when a highpoly model is converted to a "texture" for a lowpoly one (Doom 3 pushes up to 5000 polies per model). Bumpmaps (e.g. Halo 2) usually are hand drawn greyscale images which store the height of the texels, which lighting is then calculated from. Bumpmaps can be used in hardware displacement mapping (DX9 and higher) because they contain absolute positions for the pixels, instead of relative orientations like normalmaps do. Halo 2 style bumpmapping could be done on the GC as well, but I'm not sure about Doom 3 style normalmapping. But whether shader or not, Normalmapping is a serious impact on performance (play Tenebrae!) and very time consuming to use for models (you need two models each, most companies won't risk the aditional cost this causes).
Hm, hope I forgot nothing in this post...
Post by: Grey Ninja on August 06, 2003, 06:09:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: boggy b
I'm sorry to break it to you, but XBox is more powerful. The guy also makes several mistakes in his article.
Prove that the Xbox is more powerful. You can't just say something like that without backing it up.
Quote
Firstly, XBox does not implement bump-mapping via its pixel-shaders. Like GCN, XBox can perform bump-mapping in hardware, though they probably could be used to perform bump-mapping.
Most often, such effects are done with the shaders, as it's more efficient, and easier to code.
Quote
It can also do environment mapping, and does a superior form to GCN - cubic environment maps. Ever wondered why the reflections in Mario Sunshine are so bad? It's because GCN isnt very good at environment mapping. XBox does indeed also have better textures - one look at Halo's righer resolution textures will tell you as much.
Yes, the Xbox does have more texture memory. So am I supposed to bow down and say that the Xbox has better graphics because it has a few higher resolution textures? It's just one piece of the whole.
And saying the GameCube isn't very good at environment mapping is just bull. Look at the spec sheet. It clearly lists environment mapping as a feature of Flipper. This is half my problem with your arguments. You are backing up what you say with fantasies.
Just one more note about the water effects though.... Julian had this to say: "In Rogue Leader we used a simple texture, but this time we are simulating water physics and applying these in realtime with complex shaders."
Quote
HOWEVER, XBox does not have quite as good texture compression as GCN.
GameCube has 6:1 texture compression, as does Xbox. It amuses me actually that even the things that you are saying to support the GameCube are wrong.
Quote
There is no way to compress a 1Mb texture down to 500Kb and keep a similar quality, sorry.
Spoken like someone who has never written a compression algorithm. Go take a few computer science courses then come back and tell me that. I can compress a 1MB text file down to a few kilobytes, and restore the full text later. I am uncertain how that means that I lost some of my text? Maybe you can enlighten me?
Quote
Also, the 'article' fails to mention that the integer performance of the XCPU makes the Gekko look like a lemon in comparison; 1980MIPS vs. 1125MIPS. Doesn't mean a lot, you say? Well MIPS are what make good physics. Which is always nice to have - good GFLOPS will get you nowhere.
I am just curious. Do you know what those words mean, and do you know how they translate to games? I would like a full description of what they mean, in your own words.
Quote
Other advantages of the XBox over the GCN include higher GPU clockspeed (233MHz over 162MHz) and, of course, much much greater GFLOPS. The way that the nVidia chip does this is by not actually performing the calculations, but by looking them up in a table system. So powerful is the XGPU that it actually wastes cycles making mistakes, and STILL pumps out similar looking visuals.
I assure you that wasting CPU cycles will not make a system faster. And as far as LUTs (look up tables) are concerned, they are quite easy to code. There's absolutely nothing special about using one.
Quote
Then, there's the actual, visual proof, and theres plenty of it around: Soul Calibur 2, Wreckless and Splinter Cell all look much better on XBox, often running at higher resolutions than the GCN counterpart and with more detailed models and textures.
Soul Calibur II looks just as good on every system, according to every review I have seen.
Splinter Cell GCN was a port of the PS2 version. This makes it irrelevant when comparing hardware. Ubi Soft got lazy. Whoop de doo.
I have never played Wreckless, or have any interest in it, so I won't bother with that.
Quote
So much for 'no proof'. Halo 2 is much more visually impressive than Metroid Prime and is more technically advanced. XBox is also the only console to get cutting-edge PC games such as Half-Life 2, Deus Ex 2 and DOOM 3.
Last I heard, Deus Ex 2 was coming to PS2 as well. But think for a second. Might the reason for the Xbox getting PC ports be because it's using the same OS and API as a PC game, making a port a trivial matter?
Quote
John Carmack said that the only reason hes doing it for XBox and not the other consoles is simply that the XBox is the only console with enough power to play the game satisfactory.
Same as above. GameCube's architecture is different, making a port too time consuming to pull off. Factor 5 has gone on record saying that there is nothing that you can do on Xbox that you can't do on GameCube, and vice versa. Given that they have more experience with both systems than either you or John Carmack, I am prepared to take their word for it.
Quote
The article also failed to mention sound performance, which is also an affecting factor. The XBox has a far superior sound card to the GCN.
If you are talking about Dolby Digital 5.1, that was mentioned if you read far enough. The thing is that sound doesn't factor into graphics, which is what we are discussing here. Nevertheless, Dolby 5.1 is used in precious few Xbox games, while most GameCube games will make good use of Prologic II, to make a superior sound than Dolby Digital 2.1.
Quote
Also, I HIGHLY doubt that Rebel Assault will have 10Million more polygons per second. That kind of increase isnt possible. RL slowed down quite a lot of the time, and thats with a claimed 15Million polygons per second (there's no proof of that though).
Here is an interview with Factor 5 talking about the game. A Star Destroyer has 130,000 polygons, and each of the ship models has around 12,000 polys. If you can have 50 TIE fighters on the screen at one time... well, you do the math. There are also plenty more reviews that mention that the game handles quite a few polys. Such as here. Let's also remember that Factor 5 has always said from the beginning that Nintendo's claim of 6 - 12 Million polys was very conservative.
Quote
10Mil more will make it run like its bogged down in treacle.
I think you need to post some proof of that one, as it directly opposes common sense.
Post by: Shorty McNostril on August 06, 2003, 07:17:01 PM
Post by: boggy b on August 07, 2003, 05:11:48 AM
Quote
Prove that the Xbox is more powerful. You can't just say something like that without backing it up.
To name a few points where the XBox is more powerful:
Higher fillrate, higher clockspeeds (CPU and GPU), better GFLOPS performance, higher integer performance, more memory, faster overall memory bandwidth and pixel shaders, to name but a few. But wait, I forgot that the GCN is much more efficient. Egads, it must be more powerful.
Quote
Most often, such effects are done with the shaders, as it's more efficient, and easier to code.
Proof? Either way, what you're saying is that the XBox can do it without shaders, but it can use shaders to do it aswell. What point are you trying to make here?
Quote
Yes, the Xbox does have more texture memory. So am I supposed to bow down and say that the Xbox has better graphics because it has a few higher resolution textures? It's just one piece of the whole.
No, but the ability to display higher resolution textures is a sign of greater power.
Quote
And saying the GameCube isn't very good at environment mapping is just bull. Look at the spec sheet. It clearly lists environment mapping as a feature of Flipper. This is half my problem with your arguments. You are backing up what you say with fantasies.
No, if you read what I said again, you will find that what I said was that the XBox can do cubic environment mapping, which is better than the Spherical environment mapping that GCN can do. Why cant GCN do it? It needs more power than Spherical Environment mapping. It also gives better quality results.
Quote
Just one more note about the water effects though.... Julian had this to say: "In Rogue Leader we used a simple texture, but this time we are simulating water physics and applying these in realtime with complex shaders."
What point are you trying to make here, I'm confused by your arguement again? Are you saying that this guy is saying that GCN has shaders? If that's the case I'm just going to point out that shadows are very basic shader function that even PS2 can do.
Quote
If you are talking about Dolby Digital 5.1, that was mentioned if you read far enough. The thing is that sound doesn't factor into graphics, which is what we are discussing here. Nevertheless, Dolby 5.1 is used in precious few Xbox games, while most GameCube games will make good use of Prologic II, to make a superior sound than Dolby Digital 2.1.
While I agree that there aren't a huge number of XBox games that use 5.1, and it isn't related to graphics, it's still a sign of greater power since 5.1 requires more RAM among other things, to pull off. Pro-logic II is a system that Dolby developed for PS2, I believe, but which it subsequently marketed to other companies and systems.
Quote
Last I heard, Deus Ex 2 was coming to PS2 as well. But think for a second. Might the reason for the Xbox getting PC ports be because it's using the same OS and API as a PC game, making a port a trivial matter?
Actually, that's been cancelled since PS2 has nowhere near enough power to pull off Deus Ex 2 in any way that would resemble a playable game.
Quote
Same as above. GameCube's architecture is different, making a port too time consuming to pull off. Factor 5 has gone on record saying that there is nothing that you can do on Xbox that you can't do on GameCube, and vice versa. Given that they have more experience with both systems than either you or John Carmack, I am prepared to take their word for it.
Whee, Factor 5 said it so it must be true! Or not. Since any effect that GCN and Xbox perform in hardware even a Pentium Pro can perform in software (given time), that arguement holds little weight. Also, why do they have more experience with XBox than John Carmack? Since the XBox so closely resembles PC archtecture, I think it's pretty safe to assume that he has a better understanding of it than Factor 5.
Quote
I assure you that wasting CPU cycles will not make a system faster. And as far as LUTs (look up tables) are concerned, they are quite easy to code. There's absolutely nothing special about using one.
Wow, you completely missed the point here. What I was saying is that XBox uses LUT's to simulate true floating-point ops., but these can only be used to calculate vertices, nothing else. However, LUT's require less power to use, and so the XBox can calculate more vertices using LUT's than the GCN can using true floating-point ops.
Quote
I am just curious. Do you know what those words mean, and do you know how they translate to games? I would like a full description of what they mean, in your own words.
You mean you don't actually know? Integer calculations are calculations performed by a CPU (and only a CPU) that end up with a number, with no decimal points. Floating-point calculations end up with a number that has a decimal point somewhere along it (i.e. is not an integer), and in graphics-related computers these are often calculated by a GPU (to free up the main processor for other things). What this roughly translates to: floating-point calculations create things. Integer calculations tell things what to do. Example:
.___.
| |
|___|
Here is a box. Floating-point operations have defined the box. Now, there is an explosion inside the box.
./ \.
| |
|___|
The lid has blown off the box (!). If Mr Clever Programmer has written a set of algorithms to make the box lid blow off, then this is where integer calculations come into play. They say where the lid will go, based on these algorithms - and then the floating-point calculations will define the lid again so it can go back through the rendering process. Of course, all of this is done in 1/60th of a second (or however many frames per second it's being rendered at).
Another thing that integer calculations are used for is AI. Mr Clever Programmer can set a basic (or not very basic, depending upon how complex the AI is intended to be) system of 'choices' that the AI can take.
Now, how does this relate to graphics? Well, since the XBox has far greater integer performance, it means better AI and physics, which all help to create an immersive world.
Quote
Here is an interview with Factor 5 talking about the game. A Star Destroyer has 130,000 polygons, and each of the ship models has around 12,000 polys. If you can have 50 TIE fighters on the screen at one time... well, you do the math. There are also plenty more reviews that mention that the game handles quite a few polys. Such as here. Let's also remember that Factor 5 has always said from the beginning that Nintendo's claim of 6 - 12 Million polys was very conservative.
And guess who the reviewers are quoting? YES! Factor 5! Since Factor 5 is a second party developer, paid by Nintendo to show of the better parts of GCN and to speak its praise, do we think that they can be trusted? Hmmm, how about no.
Thanks for replying at last. I hope my explanation of types of calculation met your obviously rigorous standards (sorry if the pictures of the boxes look a little odd).
Post by: egman on August 07, 2003, 07:15:48 AM
These machines were designed with fundementally different philosophies, empowering the programmers in different ways. You guys are trying to argue about power by listing different features, but the problem is that some of us have a different opinion of how said feature makes the console more powerful. How can someone say having the memory for better textures makes the Xbox better, while someone else says that GC is better because it's TEV allows it to create effects that you won't find on the Xbox's more conventional pixel shader? What is the true measure of power when the results on screen are either too close or too different to call?
This goes for developers as well and that is why you see Factor 5 say they can pretty much match or defeat the latest Xbox graphical masterpiece, while Tecmo says that DOA cannot be done anywhere else except on the Xbox. Shoot, there's stuff the PS2 can do that can choke up the other systems because it's fillrate is unmathed. This is such a subjective matter that arguing over it is a waste time. The bottom line for the this whole discussion was that GC was far from being underpowered as the popular opinion has assumed.
Post by: Grey Ninja on August 07, 2003, 08:54:54 AM
Quote
To name a few points where the XBox is more powerful:
Higher fillrate, higher clockspeeds (CPU and GPU), better GFLOPS performance, higher integer performance, more memory, faster overall memory bandwidth and pixel shaders, to name but a few. But wait, I forgot that the GCN is much more efficient. Egads, it must be more powerful.
Aren't we Mr. Mathematician?
You really think that bigger numbers make a better product don't you?Higher fillrate
Theoretically, yes, the Xbox does have a better fill rate. But I think that you should remember that the PS2 has an even higher theoretical fill rate still.
Does that mean the PS2 is more powerful than the Xbox? The problem is that these are theoretical peaks, and they don't relate in the slightest bit to real world performance.But this is actually an example of where the GCN's efficiency comes into play. Nintendo remembered that they are creating a console hooked up to a TV rather than a PC attached to a monitor, and made some smart decisions. Flipper's 162MHz-clock rate aligns it perfectly to with the fill rate requirements at 640x480, since the resolution's fill rate, 9Mpixels/sec at 30fps, divides evenly into 162MHz, Flipper's clock rate.
Flipper could theoretically redraw every pixel on-screen 18 times per frame. But Flipper likely has at the very least two pixel pipes in order to be competitive with PS2 and Xbox, and with two pipes it could redraw every pixel on-screen 36 times per frame. A more likely scenario is that Flipper has 4 pixel pipes, and could theoretically draw every pixel on screen 72 times per frame.
higher clockspeeds (CPU and GPU)
It's a well known fact that a 400Mhz PowerPC will match a 700MHz Pentium 3. But the GameCube is clocked at 485MHz, and has special instruction sets that aid its ability to handle games. Meanwhile, the Xbox is missing half of its L2 cache, making it resemble a Celeron more than a Pentium 3. The argument of clock speed in this case is completely retarded. I'm sorry. It should be immediately obvious that the Xbox has the LEAST powerful CPU of this era's console, while I would have to give the trophy to the PS2 in terms of CPU performance. It's actually the reason that people still think MHz means something that AMD has taken to naming their CPUs in weird ways to mark how well their CPUs will perform against an equivalent Pentium 4. My CPU is clocked at 1.53 GHz, but it will outperform a Pentium 4 at 1.8GHz in just about every benchmark.
As far as the GPU is concerned, yes you are correct here. The increased clock speed on the GPU will increase performance. However, there are other factors that will affect overall system performance. There's nothing preventing you from putting a Radeon 9800 Pro in the same system as a Pentium 2 233 MHz CPU and 32MB of RAM, but your computer will still run games slow as mud.
GFLOPS performance
You would not believe how long I have been looking for data to back you up. I am going to need some proof of this outside of official press releases. By my figuring, a 64 bit PowerPC should WASTE a Pentium III in floating point performance. The closest I can find is this:
Pentium III 733: 2.9 GFLOPS
PowerPC 500MHz: 13.0 GFLOPS
Which would you say is more powerful at floating point operations? If you have data backing up your statement, then I would love to see it. The PowerPC was built around high floating point performance it seems.
integer performance
Integers aren't really used that much in 3D graphics. Besides, the systems are about equal in integer performance, from what I gather in the traditional P3 vs PowerPC debate.
more memory
It's unified memory. That means that EVERYTHING in the Xbox has to share the same memory and bandwidth. The GameCube has less memory overall, but it has lower latency, and the CPU and the GPU don't have to share the same bandwidth.
faster overall memory bandwidth
I was going to post a whole lot of complicated math and figures to show you, but in the end, I erased it all, because I figured it would go right over your head anyways, and it wouldn't do me any good. However, it all still exists if you want to see it.
Anyways, I would like to take this time to mention that the Xbox has one big chunk of memory. It's 64MB large, and is shared by all the parts of the system that need it, including the CPU, GPU, and SPU (which can't even talk to eachother at a fast rate). Do you know what else that means? It means that the bandwidth must be SHARED amongst those components, and there is no way in hell that any of them can meet the 6.4GB/s that is the theoretical peak data rate. Seamus Blackley even admitted that the Xbox is seriously bottlenecked by it's memory bandwidth, so I don't think that this is going to be a good place for you to try to show the Xbox's superior power. In fact, you will commonly see me referring to this very fact as a reason why the Xbox CANNOT live up to the potential of it's higher numbers in most respects.
But wait, I forgot that the GCN is much more efficient. Egads, it must be more powerful.
Well, where should I start? I just listed a bunch of reasons why the GCN's efficiency makes it more powerful than the Xbox. But let's think of some more shall we?
The GCN has a much shorter data pipeline than the Xbox, making it able to process information twice as fast per clock cycle...
The GCN has memory with MUCH lower latency meaning that less time is spent looking for the piece of data that you want, and more time transferring it. It has been described as being less like working with conventional forms of memory, and more like having a HUGE L3 cache.
Gecko has 4:1 inline compression (L1 and L2 cache). The Pentium 3 supports data compression in the GPU, it must be uncompressed before entering the CPU.
Continuation of above point: Basically what I am saying is that just about any form of data in the GCN can be compressed, making the bandwidth and space needed by operations much smaller.
The GCN has 64 bit RISC instructions, making code faster overall, and has a quite nice instruction set if I do say so myself.
GCN has seperate FIFO write gather pipe for bursts of graphics data to main memory while the bus is not busy.
As for raw power....
GCN has higher mathematical accuracy and performance.
GCN has twice the amount of L2 cache.
GCN has much higher texture reas bandwidth
GCN has a MUCH higher MIPS rating, due largely to the fact that it has 8X the number of General Purpose Registers than the Xbox.
GCN has a higher bus speed (168MHz), making memory bandwidth much less of a concern in most cases. (again, I can post some math if you want).
GCN has 3 seperate sections of main memory divided into logical sections:
Main Memory: very low latency, and a bus speed make getting data fast and easy. Speed critical things are placed here.
A-RAM: low speed memory used for items not requiring a lot of speed.
Video Memory: 3MB of SRAM, which is used for the Z-Buffer and Frame Buffers. This is on die, so needless to say, it's faster than anything on Xbox.
Quote
Proof? Either way, what you're saying is that the XBox can do it without shaders, but it can use shaders to do it aswell. What point are you trying to make here?
Proof is common sense among coders. Regardless, this was a stupid point to begin with. I was just correcting you.
Quote
No, but the ability to display higher resolution textures is a sign of greater power.
I could just as easily say that the ability to read that texture and move on to the next one in much less time, or being able to render twice as many texture layers per pass is a sign of greater power.
But you know what? This is merely an example in which the systems are DIFFERENT, and not necessarily faster or slower or better than the other in practice.
Quote
No, if you read what I said again, you will find that what I said was that the XBox can do cubic environment mapping, which is better than the Spherical environment mapping that GCN can do. Why cant GCN do it? It needs more power than Spherical Environment mapping. It also gives better quality results.
GCN doesn't do it by default in hardware. Regardless, this whole point is bothering to me. It's likely that if I posted two pictures side by side emphasizing the difference between the two, you likely wouldn't be able to pick which one was which anyways. Besides, it's very likely that Flipper could be programmed to do such effects.
Regardless, GCN seems to see a lot more bump mapping. Perhaps because the Xbox requires too much power for the effects?
(See how easy it is to say, but how hard it is to back up?)The fact of the matter is that unless you have a dev kit for both systems beside you, you don't know about this any better than I do.
Quote
What point are you trying to make here, I'm confused by your arguement again? Are you saying that this guy is saying that GCN has shaders? If that's the case I'm just going to point out that shadows are very basic shader function that even PS2 can do.
He was talking about water simulation, not shaders. My point was that your thinking implies that shaders are the end all means of producing pretty special effects, and only the Xbox has them. The same things done on Xbox by its shaders can be done just as easily on GameCube with different methods.
Quote
While I agree that there aren't a huge number of XBox games that use 5.1, and it isn't related to graphics, it's still a sign of greater power since 5.1 requires more RAM among other things, to pull off. Pro-logic II is a system that Dolby developed for PS2, I believe, but which it subsequently marketed to other companies and systems.
This kind of statement makes me want to bash my head into the wall for being dumb enough to fall for the bait and actually debate this with you.
First of all, I want to say that while most GameCube games support Prologic II, most Xbox games do not support surround. So much for the "greater power" idea.
Prologic technology dates WAAAAY back to 1987. Simply put, it's a way of producing surround sound from a stereo signal. Prologic II was a successor to it that included discrete left and right rear channels. It was a new thing around the time of the GameCube, and Factor 5 hassled Dolby into letting them use it in their game Rogue Leader. It was NOT developed for the PS2, but for home theatre. PS2 doesn't even freaking use Prologic.
GameCube has 16MB of A-RAM sitting around for whatever purpose the developer wants to use it for. A stands for Audio, as it was originally intended for Audio Buffering, but it's often used as a CD cache for better load times. At any rate, the GameCube can match the Xbox in most games as far as audio is concerned, so I don't really see the point of this whole argument.
Quote
Actually, that's been cancelled since PS2 has nowhere near enough power to pull off Deus Ex 2 in any way that would resemble a playable game.
Whatever. I could sling bullshit around all day just as easily as you, but I choose not to.
Quote
Whee, Factor 5 said it so it must be true! Or not. Since any effect that GCN and Xbox perform in hardware even a Pentium Pro can perform in software (given time), that arguement holds little weight. Also, why do they have more experience with XBox than John Carmack? Since the XBox so closely resembles PC archtecture, I think it's pretty safe to assume that he has a better understanding of it than Factor 5.
You seem to think that the Xbox can do anything because of its glorious pixel shaders, yet nothing on the GameCube can do those effects in hardware.
I think that since Factor 5 has programmed in ASM on both systems to create their DivX codecs for each system, and have actually created GAMES for GameCube, they would know a great deal more about how GameCube works than John Carmack. Carmack is a PC developer. He has never made a game for a console, and he probably doesn't even have a GameCube SDK. (just a guess though). He probably just doesn't want to port his entire game to a system which has a completely different architecture. The Xbox is perfect, as any ASM code would likely still run, and contains hardware that's very close to what he intended the game for.
Btw, I have never seen the article where John Carmack said that the Xbox was the only console capable of running Doom III, but have often heard of it. Can you link me please? I looked around, and I could not find one single article that stated that he said that Doom III was impossible on other consoles.
Quote
Wow, you completely missed the point here. What I was saying is that XBox uses LUT's to simulate true floating-point ops., but these can only be used to calculate vertices, nothing else. However, LUT's require less power to use, and so the XBox can calculate more vertices using LUT's than the GCN can using true floating-point ops.
Heh. Yeah, I checked into this, and you are right. But I gather that nVidia was trying to make up for their bandwidth limited GPU by scrapping some things such as accurate math. It's common knowledge that nVidia cards are mainly memory bottlenecked, and on the Xbox, that bottleneck can choke the life right out of an nVidia GPU.
It's a daring attempt at etching some more power out of the GPU, and I dare say it works to a degree, but GCN's compressed vertices, and the much higher floating point performance on the CPU can take quite a load off of Flipper. That's the real key to understanding the GCN hardware. The CPU and the GPU are meant to talk to eachother and divide the work. There's some seriously high bandwidth between Flipper and Gecko.
Quote
You mean you don't actually know? Integer calculations are calculations performed by a CPU (and only a CPU) that end up with a number, with no decimal points. Floating-point calculations end up with a number that has a decimal point somewhere along it (i.e. is not an integer), and in graphics-related computers these are often calculated by a GPU (to free up the main processor for other things). What this roughly translates to: floating-point calculations create things. Integer calculations tell things what to do. Example:
No, I knew what they meant. I was just curious if you knew, as it seemed to me like you didn't, and were just using big words that you thought would sound convincing. Since you never actually defined them, I can't prove this...
But I gather that you think that MIPS means "Millions of Integers Per Second" or something like that, given all that talk about integers. MIPS actually means "Millions of Instructions Per Second", or commonly among some circles as "Meaningless Indication of Processor Speed". An instruction is the basic operation of a CPU, and involves changing data around. I don't really feel like a long winded explanation, as I am sure I would be wasting my time. Learn some ASM, and you will know all about operations in a short time. I will just say that these numbers are very difficult to compare, and are essentially meaningless in the real world anyways. Yes, integers are manipulated via one operation, but there are more operations than just those involving integers.
All that niceness about places using integers for stuff was very nice, but I don't think that the ability to do 20 gazillion operations per second is really important when deciding whether the box is blown up or not, or whether the character wants to move or not. Things like that are usually only done once per vblank anyways. (1/60th of a second).
The thing is that floating point numbers are used for a lot of the things you mentioned. 3D movements need to be SMOOTH, and if your physics modelling is based on integer arithmetic, you are going to be really screwed when the game is running. For example, if you fall off a bridge and the world is expressed in integers, you won't fall in a smooth way. In the first moment, you will be falling at 1m/s, and then it will keep incrementing in 1/ms intervals. There won't be a transition between the two, it will be abrupt, and you will fall at a constant rate between the shifts. This is why you need to track object positions in floating point numbers. Positions of objects need to be tracked with sub-pixel accuracy.
As for FLOPS, it means "Floating Point Operations Per Second", and is a hell of a lot more related to real world performance. I think you actually got the definition right on that one. All those nice 3D Models you see on the screen are likely composed of 32 bit floating point numbers. (possibly 64 bit on GameCube).
I have no idea whether the XGPU or Flipper has a better floating point unit, but I think I will give the nod to the XGPU. It's just too bad that the GameCube's CPU has a FLOP rating of about 4X that of the poor Intel CPU.
Quote
And guess who the reviewers are quoting? YES! Factor 5! Since Factor 5 is a second party developer, paid by Nintendo to show of the better parts of GCN and to speak its praise, do we think that they can be trusted? Hmmm, how about no.
Thanks for replying at last. I hope my explanation of types of calculation met your obviously rigorous standards (sorry if the pictures of the boxes look a little odd).
Factor 5 is a 3rd party. They have made things on all 3 systems.
As for thanking me for a reply, don't do that just yet. Odds are that I simply won't feel like replying to anything further in this thread, as I simply DO NOT feel like it. This post took me a really long time to write, and I don't feel that I have gained anything. The fact still remains that in the real world, GameCube games seem to boast a higher polygon count, faster load times, and more effects than Xbox games, in spite of the higher numbers on the Xbox side.
The thing I was trying to point out is that the Xbox has a lot of high numbers, but they are only there for marketting purposes. People seem to think that more "MHz" means more power, and ignorant though it might be, I can't really blame them if they don't know better. The problem I have is that when I actually do enlighten people that maybe the Xbox isn't all it's cracked up to be, they ignore me and tell me I'm wrong, when they have considerably less practical computer knowledge than myself. Just because I am a Nintendo fan doesn't mean I am blind. Just because the Xbox's CPU has more "MHz" doesn't mean that it's faster in any way.
Anyways, I'm done. I am going to go do something. Anything.
Post by: boggy b on August 07, 2003, 10:01:26 AM
Oh, and just to quantify: the Emotion Engine is not the PS2's CPU. The actual CPU of PS2 is pretty weak in every field. What makes the Emotion Engine is the CPU + the VU0 and VU1 (math coprocessors).
And Gekko has a MIPS performance of 1200 vs. XBox's 1900. And 1.9GLOPS vs. XCPUs 2.3.
Post by: Grey Ninja on August 07, 2003, 10:08:19 AM
I will say this one last(?) thing.
Quote
Suffice to say, XBox is more powerful, but GCn is still greater than the sum of its parts.
I think what the whole point of this thread was asking for a way to prove #1 there. You have done no such thing, and the Xbox has not deserved that title. It's shown a lower polygon count, and an equivalent number of effects. All talk aside from that is irrelevant. I was just trying to show that it's very possible for the GameCube to be equivalent, or even more powerful. Unless you have access to a devkit and can benchmark both systems, nobody knows which is more powerful. And if you do have access to that information, both Nintendo and MS make you sign NDAs that forbid you from telling anyone which is more powerful.
Factor 5 is a very hardware oriented developer with access to all 3 systems, and they claim that there's nothing that can be done on one that can't be done on another. I will take their word for that.
It just bothers the hell out of me when people jump up and down and say the Xbox is better because it has 3X the numbers of the GameCube, when no evidence has ever been shown that the Xbox is even the equal of the GameCube.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on August 08, 2003, 07:42:10 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on August 09, 2003, 02:28:45 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on August 10, 2003, 11:18:04 AM
manunited, I really don't know the answer to your question, but my GUESS is that the latency is around 20 - 40 ns.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on August 11, 2003, 11:55:21 AM
Strongbad voice:...THE UGLY ONE\end
Post by: Grey Ninja on August 11, 2003, 08:23:08 PM
