PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: seven on November 25, 2001, 01:02:58 PM
-
Apparently, the CPU that the Xbox uses is not as everywhere estimated a Pentium III, but none other than a slightly modified Celeron Processor at 733 MHz. Thought this might be some interesting news for a few of you guys, so I thought I let you know.
Source: Some PC magazine. I\'ll be back when I find an article on the web confirming this.
-
who cares, as long as it plays game
-
lol, celeron = budget
tsk tsk
-
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Not a Celeron!!!!
XB0X 15 d00m3D!11!!1!!!!!!!!
-
n000!
just HAX0r it
^^^ s0 l337
-
I too will say who cares? It does the job nicely. And besides, it\'s as much a P3 as it is a celeron; it\'s a modified celeron which puts it nicely between the two. But again who cares?
-
sony fanboys care. It make them sleep better at night.
Eric Jacob
-
Originally posted by AlteredBeast
sony fanboys care. It make them sleep better at night.
Eric Jacob
I think you mean.. "Xbox fanboys don\'t care, it makes them cry in their sleep at night"
Nah.. JK...:D
-
"The CPU that powers the Xbox is a Coppermine based Pentium III with only 128KB L2 cache. While this would make many think that the processor is indeed a Celeron, one of the key performance factors of the Pentium III that is lost in the Celeron core was left intact for this core."
Source. (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561&p=2)
/ dm /
-
Again, not that it matters to anyone besides PS2 fanboys, it is neither a celeron or P3. That\'s a good article. I read that quite a while ago.
-
11144 00 4011 61145 7493 71153 7415...? 74053 486151176 60035 8123 111817178 986312 600035!!
hahaha...
People who own a pager like myself should be able to read that. :)
-
Originally posted by serrano007
11144 00 4011 61145 7493 71153 7415...? 74053 486151176 60035 8123 111817178 986312 600035!!
hahaha...
People who own a pager like myself should be able to read that. :)
..........care to explain?
-
yea well im lost with all the numbers
and this is one of those ever so popping up things
its been established that it has less cache then a P3 but is in fact a P3 - or something like that
heck i just know its a P3 and that it makes nice graphics
-
Originally posted by datamage
"The CPU that powers the Xbox is a Coppermine based Pentium III with only 128KB L2 cache. While this would make many think that the processor is indeed a Celeron, one of the key performance factors of the Pentium III that is lost in the Celeron core was left intact for this core."
Source. (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561&p=2)
/ dm /
The X-Box CPU is just...the X-CPU !
...but...if you like...you could say it\'s a Coppermine based Pentium III with only 128KB L2 cache......The Coppermine core was left with an 8-way set associative L2 cache instead of the 4-way set associative cache of the Celeron.....
heck i just know its a P3 and that it makes nice graphics
The P3 can\'t do nice graphics :) ...but the X-Box...can do mindblowing graphics...
For the last time...X-Box is a 3 processors machine,the X-CPU,the X-GPU and the MCPX and we have to look at the performace of the whole console...not a single chip...though the X-CPU is very very powerful in regard to the tasks it has to do !
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
I too will say who cares? It does the job nicely...
Nope...nope nicely...it does a great job...consider that it\'s very powerful in MIPS...and MIPS are so important for AI for example...
-
well my P3 makes great graphics when coupled with my GeForce3 :p
and i was talking about xbox having a p3 and that xbox makes nice graphics
just replaced xbox with "it"
just saying that since im bored
-
1.................. :surprised: 3................ :surprised: ..................5 :surprised: .................6 :surprised: .................7 :surprised: . AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NO ITS A BEEPER CONSPIRACY! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
-
PEOPLE PEOPLE can\'t we all just get along?
er, wrong board :laughing:
It is not a P3, nor is it a Celeron, that\'s because it is a reject chip from the dumpsters in the back of any ol\' Intel plant. :D
You See, instead of using these reject chips for key-chains, they pack them into an XBox :nerd:
-
Yes, I think toxical is on to something here.
-
Originally posted by Sublimesjg
well my P3 makes great graphics when coupled with my GeForce3 :p
and i was talking about xbox having a p3 and that xbox makes nice graphics
just replaced xbox with "it"
just saying that since im bored
Nope ! :) ...
Your PC and the X-Box are two different things for some reasons...I hope this helps you...
""Instead of relying on resolution to try and make crap look better, console developers are focusing their attention on upping polygon counts giving things a more natural appearance, using things like pixel shaders, vertex shaders or environmental effects on everything they can. They are putting significantly more effort into giving animations a more natural appearance by utilizing skeletal animation and skinning techniques to help move them closer to CGI quality. DOA3 on the XBox puts anything on the PC to shame, easily. That really can\'t come close to summarizing the gap however as almost all titles available for the XBox or GameCube do the same, they just do it in a way that we aren\'t used to seeing in the PC space.
So, the real bandwith strain on consoles is more focused around vertex data and texture handling but here consoles actually have a big edge over PCs. You may have a graphics card with 64MB of RAM on it, but data doesn\'t suddenly land there, it has to move over the AGP bus. Of course, this can\'t take place until after it is written to system RAM. So you have your CPU taking time writing data to system RAM, then moving it over the AGP bus, then the graphics chip can take advantage of it. On any UMA architecture, it is immediately available as soon as it is loaded. Memory redundancy issues are eliminated with a UMA making it far more powerful then its raw specs would indicate. Since our framebuffer can\'t use that much bandwith(less then 1.4MB used for 480p for the back buffer), and the NV2A doesn\'t take a fill hit from MSAA(not that it would matter) the bandwith problems that are present on the PC are really quite meaningless on the XBox.
This goes for the entire system. The sound chip has direct access to all data, no need to write to system RAM then move it across the PCI bus, it is all right there for immediate useage. The reality is that the XBox in comparitive terms for real world useage is an absolute bandwith monster compared to PCs. That is one of the reasons you shouldn\'t expect perfect ports anytime soon, nor should we expect PC games to look as good as XBox games for a while yet. nForce has the potential to put us a lot closer if they can get it working as it should, but that has yet to be demonstrated and even if it does hit its theoretical edge over current PC hardware, it still will fall short of what the XBox can do because of the limitations of the PCI and AGP bus...""
PC games look like crap !
Future X-Box games will look beautiful !;)
-
PC games look like crap !
i dont believe he just said that!
:eek:
/me shakes head in disgust
stop using mom\'s gateway PC to play games, its only good for checking email, and looking at pr0n
-
Overall PC games look like CRAP !
-
I do agree that the Xbox has a more advanced architecture than PC\'s, but a UMA also has its problems. As I stated before (but wasn\'t able to back that up), I can finally put my whole concerns into words.
Imagine the memory within a UMA as a big bucket that can store 64 MB. While 6.4 GB/s does seem lika a lot of bandwidth, don\'t forget that CPU, GPU and Sound-Processor all have to get their data via that same bus. While the Sound-Processor does not take all that much of data, CPU and GPU do. All the bandwidth is needed when CPU processes the images and stores any changes into the "bucket" (RAM) again. So lets check what kind of data we have travelling over the 6.4 GB/s bus:
1. Textures that are read by the CPU -> out of the RAM
2. Changes made to the textures -> back into the RAM
3. Sound data that are read by the SP -> out of the RAM
4. Any executable code, read by the CPU -> out of the RAM
5. Changes and data that is saved -> back into the RAM
I am sure there are heaps more data that is required to be shuffled out of the RAM and into the RAM again. So, question: is 6.4 GB/s still a lot of bandwidth? And getting back to textures capabilities of the Xbox:
Any image that is presented on screen has to be processed and changed to the view that you will see that texture from on screen. Example: If you have a cube that is standing straight infront of you, one texture filling one side will be in a square-form and unchanged. However, if you turn the cube just slightly in any direction, that texture will stretch or turn depending on how the object is now standing. This means, that the texture just can\'t be read, it needs to be processed and turned into that new image that fits the object perfectly. Where is this data stored in a UMA? Of course, in the only place, the one and only RAM. This means, data needs to be stored again in the RAM, needs to travel through the bus twice (unprocessed out of the RAM, back into the RAM processed). Again, I will note that the Xbox only has a bandwidth of 6.4 GB/s, where as PS2 has a 48GB/s bus to do stuff like this. Note that I am not critisizing the Xbox in anyway, but just getting back to my last statement, why UMA is causing some problems to developers. Above are probably the main reasons why. Of course, Xbox still has an edge over the PC architecture, but so does PS2 too.
My conclusion is simple: UMA is great to give developers lots of freedom, but it also requires high bandwidth. I have high doubts that 6.4 GB/s are enough (above are the reasons why), plus memory efficiancy isn\'t that high (original and processed textures are both within the memory) as with say PS2.
-
Originally posted by mm
i dont believe he just said that!
:eek:
/me shakes head in disgust
stop using mom\'s gateway PC to play games, its only good for checking email, and looking at pr0n
How did you know that\'s exactly what I use my Gateway PC for?
:eek: :eek: :eek:
-
My conclusion is simple: UMA is great to give developers lots of freedom, but it also requires high bandwidth. I have high doubts that 6.4 GB/s are enough (above are the reasons why), plus memory efficiancy isn\'t that high (original and processed textures are both within the memory) as with say PS2.
I know,from what I read,that 6.4 GB/s is more than enough...X-Box has hardware-compressions and then enough bandwidth to process even 50-60 mpps in game...
stop using mom\'s gateway PC to play games, its only good for checking email, and looking at pr0n
I use my PC(AMD 1.4 Giga,GeForce2 PRO 64 Mega,512 Mega of system RAM,etc,etc) for checking e-mail,looking at pr0n,preview and review of PS2,GC and X-Box games,Odigo,Flight Simulators like(Fly,Fly 2k,Fly2,PS1,Flight Simulator 2000,etc - because I\'m an airplane pilot,waiting for job) but NEVER FOR PLAYING THE CRAPPY PC GAMES !!! :D :D :D
-
Seven, you just don\'t give up with your tech lessons. The xbox\'s bandwidth is more than enough because of the low resolution it has to display. It doesn\'t get any simpler than that.
Show me one established developer that is having problems with the UMA?
Show me an article that gives meaning to your very thin prose.
I\'ve said it before, you sound a little like some one with some technical knowledge, but once you cut out your mixed metaphors (that prove nothing BTW: a bucket of water has nothing to do bandwidth! You are drawing faulty parallelisms.) and technobabble there is nothign there. You\'ve certainly read more articles than anyone should and pulled them all together in one incoherent post after another.
Sure the xbox hardware has limitations, but after everything is considered it is a more powerful piece of hardware than the PS2. Give up this crusade to discredit the xbox hardware because for one most people here don\'t care--they can see the results for themselves and two, it just exposes your deep-seeded bias against the PS2\'s biggest competitor. Go post your "xbox\'s CPU is really a celeron!" topic on the IGN PS2 boards, they\'ll love you there.
-
If you read my previous post concerning the UMA \'problem\' (Thread Xbox like a PC), you will know that I wasn\'t able to back that up back then. I am just catching up on that, now that I have studied and gathered some more information on this topic. While it may not interest you, it might others.
Also note, that I never used the term IS, but PROBABLY, which basically means that my whole post is assuming where the problem could[/b] lie, since I was not the one to raise these concerns. And please, speak for yourself while saying that it doesn\'t interest anybody else. Where\'s the fun about having a discussion about some technical aspects now days? Why do you always have to drag this into a debate? It isn\'t Watchdog, I am just pointing out my concern and you can be pretty damn well sure that I know that a good game doesn\'t come from just having a great architecture, so what is your point? I also never stated that PS2 is more powerful, neither did I imply anything like that.
But before you send me to another PS2 board, why don\'t you go to a Xbox board? I think you\'ll have more fun there among other fanboys that seem to have the same level of ignorance like you have.
For once Watchdog, either prove me wrong, write something intelligent or just leave it, but criticising my post won\'t bring you any further.
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
I know,from what I read,that 6.4 GB/s is more than enough...X-Box has hardware-compressions and then enough bandwidth to process even 50-60 mpps in game...
Okay, true. But the bandwidth is just half the point... memory efficiancy is the other. If you take PS2 for a example, you\'ve got a stream-lined architecture (all data flows in one direction). With Xbox, since it uses a UMA, you need to shuffle data back and forth because you only have one memory to save data. So you are actually taking up bandwidth taking data out of the RAM, but also while putting it back into the RAM when changes are applied. But I guess that\'s where the texture compression comes in handy, although I am still not sure if this really makes up for it...
-
Read my posts on other threads. I shut down fanboys of any affiliation. But you, oh glorious you, have done nothing but attack the xbox. You sir start obvious trolling threads like this one to talk about stuff that you do not know anything about--not first hand knowledge anyway. Your "knowledge and theories" are nothing but a smattering of tech docs that you have scoured for unknown hours.
____________
If you read my previous post concerning the UMA \'problem\' (Thread Xbox like a PC), you will know that I wasn\'t able to back that up back then. I am just catching up on that, now that I have studied and gathered some more information on this topic. While it may not interest you, it might others.
____________
Oh yes, and the forum responce to that thread was unprecidented! If I remember correctly, only three people were actively responding to that thread (couting the both of us). It is good that you are holding this torch so very high for all your followers and supporters.
_______________
Also note, that I never used the term IS, but PROBABLY, which basically means that my whole post is assuming where the problem could[/b] lie,
_______________
Given the above, this means nothing. There is no problem. You are the only person who is spewing crap like this. I don\'t care what your analysis is, because you are not an expert, you are a fanboy trying to defend his PS2. Tell me this: how do you type while hugging your PS2 as tightly as you do?
And I have proven you wrong--there is no problem with the bandwidth. With resolutions as low as they are for TVs, the xbox has bandwidth to spare. And all this garbage about the UMA--it is a high point of the archetecture, devs and people who know anything have praised the decision. You better do a little more research; I am astonished that someone with such technical acumen could make such ignorant statements. Surely they are typos or lapses in thought, because you surely know what I say to be true.
No, you never implied that the PS2 is more powerful, but you are picking on the best piece of hardware of this generation while blindly ignoring the faults of the PS2. If you were a not a fanboy you could see that the xbox\'s "bottlenecks" are not where at the level of the PS2\'s. While you are taking little pot shots at the xbox, you extoll the virtues of the PS2. Give it a rest. People with far more knowledge than you have done this already.
-
why are you attacking me? The thing you fail to realise is, that there are actually people on this board (at least I like to think so) that enjoy talking about this and that technical aspect of a console, without feeling the need to bash eachother. This is not bashing another console in anyway, just talking about it in clear language. And if I have bashed the Xbox in anyway, please point it out. I\'d gladdly take it back since this is not my intension at all.
But it seems to me you\'re the only one who always feels the need to protect your precious Xbox from the "evil" fanboys, even in posts that aren\'t intended as an attack.
why can\'t we all just get along?
-
Oh my gosh. I can\'t believe this (but actually, I can)
First of all, Seven, there is no point in debating with Watchdog. I learned this a few months ago while me and him were debating. Most of the time his arguments are nothing but "You are wrong" without showing why I was wrong. He is the most unfun person to debate with because he never has anything to back up what he is saying. If I were you, I would just put him on your ignore list or something.
Seven posted:
why are you attacking me? The thing you fail to realise is, that there are actually people on this board (at least I like to think so) that enjoy talking about this and that technical aspect of a console,
I am one of those people Watchdog. Not everyone here likes the slogan, "let the games do the talking." Some of us care about more than just the games. We actually want to understand and learn more about the architecture of each system -- both strengths and weaknesses. I want to have a carreer in Computer Programming when I get older, so these technical debates are very important to me.
And something I find rather funny -- If you don\'t like these technical debates, then why are you always getting involved in them?
Watchdog posted:
And I have proven you wrong--there is no problem with the bandwidth. With resolutions as low as they are for TVs, the xbox has bandwidth to spare.
Woh woh woh, you have proven Seven wrong by saying "The xbox\'s bandwidth is more than enough because of the low resolution it has to display. It doesn\'t get any simpler than that"? That\'s like me saying, "Watchdog is an Xbox fanboy because he is always defending the Xbox without any good argument. It doesn\'t get any simpler than that." There you have it Watchdog. You have been "proven" to be an Xbox fanboy. :rolleyes:
I find it kind of strange that an Xbox supporter like you completely forgot that the Xbox was the ONLY next gen console to support HDTVs and high resolutions. That is one of the biggest weapons Xbox fanboys use against other systems: "The PS2 can\'t do super high resolutions like the Xbox can." So in reality, that bandwidth problem is a big one if developers for the Xbox ever want to make games that blow PS2 games out of the water, and in turn, give the Xbox have a chance to survive this generation. It\'s going to take a lot more than slightly better textures to surpass the PS2s userbase.
No, you never implied that the PS2 is more powerful, but you are picking on the best piece of hardware of this generation while blindly ignoring the faults of the PS2. If you were a not a fanboy you could see that the xbox\'s "bottlenecks" are not where at the level of the PS2\'s. While you are taking little pot shots at the xbox, you extoll the virtues of the PS2. Give it a rest. People with far more knowledge than you have done this already.
Oh come on Watchdog. Those anti PS2 debates were over 8 months ago. Jaggies, Textures, difficulty to develope for, etc. It\'s all been done to death. The Xbox is the newcomer now, and it\'s time to pick apart the flaws with that console. Does that mean we don\'t like the Xbox and all the power it has? Of course not. All it means is that we are interested in understanding what the Xbox is capable of and how it really compares to other consoles.
-
Ok, a couple things. I am not that motivated a person that will go out and find articles (that I have read) to back up a claim. I do not make things up. When I write something it either comes from my computer science degree or an article I have read. There isn\'t a bandwidth problem with the xbox. The article below also addresses the HDTV question. Sure you can look at the xbox hardware (the most powerful on the market) and pick it apart, but my only question is why? Why not GC? Because people like Seven are threatened by the xbox and feel the need to discredit it.
Iron Fist all that crap you said about me is just that, crap. Anyone can say that about someone else\'s argument. I find it odd that in the posts where we agree, my arguments suddenly have substance.
Ok, but now I have quotes to back up my claims.
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/xboxtech/page7.asp
__________________
Calculating the actual bandwidth required for a scene is somewhat tricky since we cannot know what the cache efficiency will be, or how much bandwidth is required for the vertex shaders, and so on. Fortunately, we should still be able to make educated guesses and approximate.
Since the primary display for the Xbox is an NTSC TV rather than a monitor or HDTV, most games will stay around 640x480. This also limits the refresh rate to 60 Hz. These two constraints will significantly reduce the amount of bandwidth required. Now let\'s be specific and say that we want 32-bit color, 32-bit Z-buffer, 4 textures per pixel, and trilinear filtering. Finally, let us assume a depth complexity (overdraw) of 4 and a multiplier of 1.2 for the z-buffer operations.
The framebuffer will require
640 * 480 * 60 * (8 bytes per pixel) * 4 * 1.2 = 707.8 MB/sec.
For RAMDAC to display 60Hz, we need to add
640 * 480 * 60 * 4 bytes per pixel = 73.7 MB/sec.
With four textures per pixel, 8 texels for a trilinear filter and 31% cache efficiency you\'ll need:
640 * 480 * 4 bytes per pixel * 4 depth complexity * 4 textures * 8 texels * 31% = 2.9GB/sec
This makes the grand total 3.7 GB/sec. Not too bad. There\'s even enough bandwidth left over for 16-sample anisotropic filterng (total of 4.55 GB/sec; 20% cache efficiency). If you wanted HRAA then your bandwidth requirement would be multiplied by 4. You would need to drop the framerate to 30 fps, and perhaps only use two textures per pixel. (5.5GB/sec).
What are we missing?
We haven\'t accounted for features such as early Z-checking or lossless Z-buffer compression which significantly reduce bandwidth requirements. Early Z-checking combined with good developer foresight could easily reduce the overdraw to somewhere between 2 and 3 rather than our more extreme example of 4. If the overdraw was 2, for example, you\'d be able to get HRAA with two textures per pixel at 60fps.
Lossless Z-buffer compression will help somewhat as it will reduce the Z-buffer size by a factor of 4. Lastly, it\'s possible that developers may choose to ignore HRAA or use bilinear filtering instead. There are many more variables to consider, but the math will work out something like that.
The Xbox won\'t be able to compete with the GeForce3 at higher resolutions, but it doesn\'t have to play on that high-resolution field. Staying at lower resolutions makes a big difference in the bandwidth requirement. What about HDTV gaming? A 1280x720 resolution will require less bandwidth than a HRAA\'d 640x480.
_________________
This pretty much squashes the bandwidth question, but I have more.
Here\'s one about the CPU:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561&p=2
______________
The CPU itself runs at 733MHz which would make you think that Microsoft could have done much better with a solution from AMD. However if AMD had supplied a 200MHz FSB processor with a L2 cache similar in size to the Duron, then the performance of an equivalently clocked solution from AMD wouldn\'t have outshined this Coppermine-derived processor too much. The other thing to take into consideration is heat and power supply requirements. In order for the Xbox to be taken seriously as a gaming console and not just a PC in a black case it would have to be no louder than a DVD player and put out no more heat than an A/V receiver. It is a widely known fact that the Coppermine core runs significantly cooler and with lower current requirements than the Athlon/Duron cores.
So although on the surface it seems as if Microsoft may have made the wrong decision with the Xbox\'s CPU (we even thought so at first), if you think about it, the decision isn\'t all that bad.
________________
Here\'s one about the UMA:
http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=882/ddj0008a/0008a.htm
_________________
UMA has a significant advantage in that it allows the CPU, DVD and disk controllers, and GPU to access common data without copying; for example, models and textures can be streamed off the DVD into memory and used directly by the GPU. However, the history of UMA is spotty; witness IBM\'s PCjr UMA, which stopped the CPU virtually dead in its tracks by allotting two out of every three memory cycles to graphics. Not surprisingly, this is the aspect of Xbox that has aroused the greatest degree of public skepticism, so the accompanying text box entitled "Xbox Memory Bandwidth" discusses Xbox\'s memory bandwidth in high-end scenarios. The short version of the bandwidth story is that while there are scenarios in which Xbox could run out of bandwidth, there should be more than enough for most cases, particularly those that leverage the GPU\'s programmable pipeline. Under virtually any set of assumptions, Xbox has adequate memory bandwidth to handle 50 Mtris/sec. in real-world use, and usually plenty to hit the pipeline limits of the chip.
____________________
Here\'s another one of Seven\'s favourite xbox gripes that I\'m throwing in just for fun: xbox won\'t get much better becasue it\'s so esay to program for that the devs have already figured it out.
http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=882/ddj0008a/0008a.htm
_______________
The best thing about Xbox is that it won\'t change. Ever. Judging by other consoles, Xbox should have a four or five year run, and wonderful as the profusion of constantly evolving PC technology is, I love the idea of being able to spend years working with a high-powered, fixed platform -- figuring out how to apply all that programmability, understanding the performance quirks, getting things right.
It\'s a long way from hunching over a dot-matrix printer. Still, there\'s a key similarity. Twenty years ago, I loved the feeling of having all that computer power at my command, and the part that really rocked was figuring out how to use it -- all of which goes double for Xbox.
_________________
Here\'s even more about the UMA and a bit about the higher resolution question:
http://www.epinions.com/content_21513080452
______________
In Xbox\'s Unified Memory Architecture (UMA), the GPU and memory controller are integrated into a single chip. This means that in order for the CPU to access the memory, it must go through the GPU chip. This may sound like a bad thing, but with the huge amount of memory bandwidth required for fast and texture-rich graphics, it allows for super-fast communication between the GPU and memory.
Furthermore, UMA allows game developers to choose how they want to allocate memory. They can choose to use 48 MB for graphics, 4 MB for audio and 4 MB for game logic (for use by the CPU); or they can choose to use 16 MB for graphics, 16 MB for audio, and 32 MB for game logic.
A non-unified architecture would require the developers to limit themselves in each type of memory, such as 32 MB for graphics, 8 MB for audio, and 24 MB for logic. While limitations like this are acceptable for output to a standard TV, UMA will allow developers to optimize their games for display in either low resolutions (TV) or high resolutions (HDTV or possibly a computer monitor). Whichever option the developers choose, it will have a direct impact on how much memory they need to dedicate to graphics.
_______________
More on the UMA:
http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,apn%253D3%2526s%253D1749%2526a%253D12561%2526app%253D1%2526ap%253D2,00.asp
___________
One of the ironies to be found with the 830G or 845G is that their UMA architecture, if done right, can deliver solid performance. SGI pioneered architectures where the graphics subsystem and the CPU shared a single pool of very fast memory for its legendary workstations. Xbox will be UMA, and promises to pack a lot of performance wallop into a $300 game console, and nForce will use a unified memory architecture and could well blow the doors off of any other integrated graphics currently on the market. In other words, UMA doesn\'t have to suck.
_____________
OK ok ok, I went overboard on purpose. I hate digging up quotes. I just want to talk about games and systems. And I don\'t mind if we take a console to task, but Seven has done nothing but, and his knowledge isn\'t broad enough to really talk about it. He brings up these theories of his that make no real sense. I see what he is saying about the UMA, but those problems are from years ago and any designer worth their salt will know how to manage it. The xbox engineers did a good job with the xbox, looking for performance bottlenecks when (relatively speaking) there are none seems odd to me. Bottlenecks are much easier to spot on the GC and PS2.
If we were talking about the fastest car and made comments like "Yeah, but look at that engine, it can\'t go 400 mph!" Of course it can\'t, and none of its competitors can either. This is really my only point.
-
Dang, that was a lot to read! :) Anyway, I won\'t reply to that tech article because I honestly don\'t have the time to get into one big debate again and Firingssquads review is among the better Xbox analyses I\'ve read anyway.
I also wanted to thank you IronFist for your input. I guess I\'ll be spending some time reading the EE/GS manuals (I am guessing you have them aswell?) and trying to understand the complexity of the hardware even better. Sounds like fun! :)
BTW Watchdog; not that it really matters, but I do have quite a lot of knowledge in the field of programming and hardware. I am currently programming assembler code on various mikroprocessor chipsets.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
When I write something it either comes from my computer science degree or an article I have read.
So, the truth finally comes out. You know if you would have told me that earlier, you would have been a lot more of a credible source in our previous debates. :)
Sure you can look at the xbox hardware (the most powerful on the market) and pick it apart, but my only question is why? Why not GC? Because people like Seven are threatened by the xbox and feel the need to discredit it.
I don\'t see anything wrong with picking only on the Xbox. IMO, the NGC is outclassed once again this generation -- and will eventually be surpassed by even the PS2. The Xbox, however, is undenyably a freaking powerhouse. Finding faults with the NGC is not nearly as fun as finding faults with the Xbox because, yes, the Xbox IMO is a bigger contender this generation (power wise at least).
Iron Fist all that crap you said about me is just that, crap. Anyone can say that about someone else\'s argument.
But what I said was true, and you even admitted that earlier in the post. I said, "Most of the time his arguments are nothing but "You are wrong" without showing why I was wrong. He is the most unfun person to debate with because he never has anything to back up what he is saying."
And you just baraly said, "I am not that motivated a person that will go out and find articles (that I have read) to back up a claim."
Do you blaim me for saying that? It was not crap, it was just the truth. I just didn\'t want to let you get away with pulling another "T-shirts" move. You know, where you don\'t really back up anything you say, and then you proclaim yourself the winner without really doing anything. I hate it when people do that.
I find it odd that in the posts where we agree, my arguments suddenly have substance.
Of course when I agree with you your arguments "have substance." That is how the human mind works. If you say something I agree with, then my mind will say, "hey, yeah, I agree with that. No need to debate here." If I agree with you, than is there really a need to back it up with proof? But when you say something I disagree with, I want to see proof showing me why I am wrong and you are right.
And now onto the bulk of your post:
Bravo Watchdog. I didn\'t think you had it in you. I\'ll probably read through those articles, and look for other articles and try to counter attack, but I think you may have put this debate to rest. We will see though. Some articles are biased and stretch the truth, and I need to make sure those articles above don\'t do that. :)
Seven:
I also wanted to thank you IronFist for your input. I guess I\'ll be spending some time reading the EE/GS manuals (I am guessing you have them aswell?) and trying to understand the complexity of the hardware even better. Sounds like fun!
Heck yeah I have them. :D They are pretty interesting to read. Just about all the PS2 info I could ever want is in those documents.
BTW Watchdog; not that it really matters, but I do have quite a lot of knowledge in the field of programming and hardware. I am currently programming assembler code on various mikroprocessor chipsets.
And not that it matters Watchdog, but I have some knowledge in the field of programming. Not nearly as much as Seven though. Right now I am working on making a 3d engine just so I can understand more about how to program in 3d. It\'s going to be an unoptomized peice of crap, but at least I\'ll learn something from it. :)
-
I\'ll probably read through those articles, and look for other articles and try to counter attack, but I think you may have put this debate to rest. We will see though. Some articles are biased and stretch the truth, and I need to make sure those articles above don\'t do that.
...well...yes...some articles are biased,some other are unbiased...but when I see DOA3,Halo and PG at launch...I\'m inclined to think these articles are reliable ! ;)
-
Heck yeah I have them. They are pretty interesting to read. Just about all the PS2 info I could ever want is in those documents.
I must say, I totally flipped when I read through those posts by Archie. I am quite a regular visitor to the ArsTechnica site (especially for hardware analyses), but didn\'t really pay attention to that board.. damn, still can\'t believe what I just downloaded last night.... the official manuels, the linux kernel as it seems... the stuff is breathtaking and will take heaps of time to read through...
boy, my mind is made up. Once that PS2 Linux set shippes, I\'ll be one to buy one on the spot. No matter how much it costs...
And not that it matters Watchdog, but I have some knowledge in the field of programming. Not nearly as much as Seven though. Right now I am working on making a 3d engine just so I can understand more about how to program in 3d. It\'s going to be an unoptomized peice of crap, but at least I\'ll learn something from it.
Finally the time comes to give credits where they are due: IronFist, congrats on Sumasshu! I downloaded the game quite a while ago and still enjoy playing it, although I still haven\'t quite figuered out how it works (guess it\'s just intended as a multiplayer game, right?), but it\'s still heaps of fun watching the little fat man run like crazy on your screen. :) Very impressed.
Unfortunately I don\'t have the knowledge to really program a 3d engine yet. I\'ve done some 3d programming but less for gaming, but more for 3 dimensional object viewing. The assembler stuff we\'re doing is very interesting, but very dry as well. You really got to know your stuff and how it works or else you\'re lost. And I\'ve only programmed easy stuff as of yet.
Getting back to the thread though, I really just wanted to say that I have nothing against sites that prase the hardware of the xbox. I think it\'s one fine peace of hardware, even if nothing spectacular. I just get annoyed when people claim that xbox is so much more powerful than PS2 even without understanding how it works and therefore are not able to make an objective comparasment of the two. I think that a lot of sites (mainly xbox prasing ones) underestimate the PS2 hardware by a lot in their comparasments - Archie of ArsTechnica did a fine job on the ArsTechnica boards pointing out a few flaws of some comparasments that also claim that xbox is so much better while the PS2 suffers from sever bottlenecks and even proving them wrong.
Anyway, have a nice day guys
-
Originally posted by seven
Finally the time comes to give credits where they are due: IronFist, congrats on Sumasshu! I downloaded the game quite a while ago and still enjoy playing it, although I still haven\'t quite figuered out how it works (guess it\'s just intended as a multiplayer game, right?), but it\'s still heaps of fun watching the little fat man run like crazy on your screen. :) Very impressed.
Well I eventually just got sick of making it, so I quit. So yeah, all it is is a single computer, multiplayer game. I did have AI in it, but it sucked so bad all the computer characters did was run around jumping -- not really knowing what they were jumping for. They couldn\'t climb ladders, and even when a star was right above them they often missed it. :) It was kind of funny seeing 30+ computer controlled characters running around aimlessly though. :D
I was also working on implimenting network play to make it a real multiplayer game, but because of the difficulty of network programming, I got stuck. I think I could do it now, but I really have no desire to go back to that game.
I wanted to add some more powerups, sound (in a newer version of the game, there\'s sound. But That version is unreleased because I screwed up the collision detection trying to come up with a better way to impliment it.;))
But anyways, I think it was a good game for my first try. Thanks for the compliments.
I don\'t know a whole lot about 3D either. That\'s why I\'m making a 3d engine. ;) The way I learn best is to just jump into a topic and learn about it until I can actually do it. I\'ve been wanting to learn 3d ever since I started programming, and I figure I\'ve waited long enough.
BizioEE, I\'m not saying they\'re biased. But I do want to make sure they are 100% acurrate. :)
-
I didn\'t mention it because it\'s up to you to believe me firstly and secondly, it wouldn\'t have made a difference anyway, I don\'t think.
Like I said, I don\'t want to have to go out and find articles and back up my points--I did that already, I have a Masters in English also. I just want to talk about games and have discussions and debates and not get into an arms race and post as many articles as possible to overwhelm the reader.
It\'s not fun or interesting and it takes way too damn long--I was late for work this morning because of it!
I have been accused of being a fanboy more times than I can count (not just on this board) and that too gets tiresome. I pick my fights and I only pick them when I feel strongly about the subject or when the post is unfair or ridiculous. So when someone says the graphics of DOA3 aren\'t good; the DC is just as powerful as the PS2; all games on the PS2 suck; the xbox is a mini PC or something along those lines I react, and I don\'t budge because those "opinions" are either rooted in bias or are uninformed.
-
I don\'t want to bring up my old arguement again, but I found this in some other forum, where someone (actually biased towards the Xbox) says this about the bandwidth issue on Xbox:
Yes, I do believe that bandwidth is going to be an issue on the Xbox... given that it has a theoretical max of 6.4GB/sec that is shared, there will be limitations to what the Xbox is capable of doing... like 720p resolution w/ AA or 1080i resolutions.
At 640x480, which is what the Xbox runs at natively, it has a significant smaller bandwidth footprint than the higher resolutions that PC gaming cards are required to run at. 1600x1200 is used now as an official resolution of sorts on the PC end, thus requiring 1,612,800 more pixels than an Xbox game running at 640x480.
So one would think that bandwidth issues are gone with the Xbox since it needs so much less than a PC card.. but of course.. this is not the case.. And the jaggies are here to prove it. Given the ease that enabling AA on the Xbox is, it is a wonder that next to none of the launch titles are supporting AA. This is likely because of the significant bandwidth requirements that enabling AA will chew up. Until developers can figure out ways to squeeze the most out of the Xbox memory bandwidth, AA will likely take a back seat except for those games that have an exceptionally low bandwidth requirement and AA doesn\'t add much more to it.
So in short.. although the Xbox needs far less bandwidth than a PC video card because of the lower inherent resolution.. there will still be bandwidth issues because the Xbox has even less than 6.4GB/sec available.. (more like 6.4 - 1.08 (CPU) - ~.4 (MCPX) = 4.92GB/sec .. assuming maximum CPU utilization) and AA still chews up tons of bandwidth.. so for now.. enjoy the jaggies..
Watchdog, before you get on my back again - I am just backing up what I initally said about bandwidth on the Xbox. It\'s not a bash and I am not trying to prove that console \'x\' is better than Xbox, rather then trying to prove my point that Xbox\'s hardware is not superiour and has its bottlenecks just like any other console on the market. Maybe this makes it clear what I was trying to explain all along. :)
-
I\'m not a "hardware genius" and I can\'t debate when discussions become too technical...and like everyone here...I\'m not an unbiased talented developer who has spent a lot of time on both X-Box and PS2...and so we cannot be as sure as eggs when it comes to arguments "complex" like Bandwidth...for example...
...but,at least, we should try to be coherent...I mean...the X-Box is friendly to develop for but again developers haven\'t touch its power with the launch games,it\'s not possible(even the simple PSX needed 4 years to be fully pushed) and we cannot expect they use all the X-Box features,tricks,bandwidth optimizations,etc,etc at launch...and we cannot say X-Box is not superior because its launch games don\'t look 3 times better than second generation of PS2 games...
...and we "can\'t complain" about AA in Halo and DOA3(which look great) and say..."X-Box has bottlenecks"...it has no sense...developers at first,both because they have no enough time,and because the hardware is new,have to come to a compromise...and first games can\'t show what new hardwares are capable of...and they(the games),inevitably,have some limitations...
If we had to judge DC and PS2 form their japanese launch games ? ...what we should say ?
...personally I\'m judging PS2 for games like MGS2,J&D,Ico,GT3,etc...and I wanna do the same with GC and X-Box...I have to wait...
-
You can\'t quote some guy from a forum. My gawd, that\'s back up?
-
BizioEE, you have some good points but at the same time are making some claims that have no solid backing to be accepted as completely accurate and true. I think one of our sore points as fans is we mix together our own hype and assumptions with public relation statements of manufactures and developers. We pick and choose as we please and ignore or forget what doesn\'t quite fit, regardless of the source.
Saying developers have not touched the power of the xbox with launch titles is in direct opposition to a big mouthed developer from Tecmo early on claiming xbox offers 4 to 5 times more power than PS2 right at their fingertips and an MS goal with xbox of providing a powerful platform for developers without a steep learning curve by designing it to be programed with an already well established library of familiar tools. Yes the xbox should still have room for improvement. IMO the first hurdle to go over will be getting the games to look as good running as they had been pictured in some of those early screen shots.
We fans have no authority to divide generations of games past the first one for any given console based solely on when they are released or how good they look. A square employee claims J&D is the only second generation title so far because its engine alone begins to optimize the EE as it was designed to be used. Are we supposed to go by a poll of other gamers to decide which games are first, second, or third generation games? I don\'t think so. While on the surface the graphics of J&D clearly don\'t blow away other titles, there are features unique to the game that do.
My main gripe is the word superior being misused when talking about the differences between these three powerful consoles, especially after seeing they are all capable of doing great things. If the mastermind behind MGS2 says there are only slight differences between the three consoles power, who are we to argue? Wait and see is the right attitude and it applies to all three consoles.
*************************************
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Originally posted by Watchdog
My gawd, that\'s back up?
Funny, that was the same reaction I had after reading the quotes Watchdog provided. I see in essence what most of them boil down to is; so in theory the CPU/UMA may not suck quite so much as they appear to at first glance. Doesn\'t quite prove performance in the real world does it? Nice work Dawg :rolleyes:
-
My sources are vetted and are paid for their opinions not some kid that lives down the street. At the very least these guys are on respected websites, not some random forum, some random guy. Hell, that could be Seven for all we know (I\'m pretty certain that it isn\'t but you know what I\'m getting at). At least, I presenting my case on a foundation of authority.
My point is also that no one with a shred of professional experience is behind what Seven says, that too is a damning fact against his argument.
-
Originally posted by Heretic
BizioEE, you have some good points but at the same time are making some claims that have no solid backing to be accepted as completely accurate and true.
I think one of our sore points as fans is we mix together our own hype and assumptions with public relation statements of manufactures and developers. We pick and choose as we please and ignore or forget what doesn\'t quite fit, regardless of the source.
Saying developers have not touched the power of the xbox with launch titles is in direct opposition to a big mouthed developer from Tecmo early on claiming xbox offers 4 to 5 times more power than PS2 right at their fingertips and an MS goal with xbox of providing a powerful platform for developers without a steep learning curve by designing it to be programed with an already well established library of familiar tools.
Don\'t weigh my words :)...I meant that no one can use all the
power and features of new hardwares at launch...and I do not need to give solid backing to my claims...it\'s obvious !...final X-Box hardware was released few months ago (...and the fact that PS2 has a "much higher" step learning curve((I don\'t know how much)) doesn\'t mean X-Box has not a learning curve...each hardware has a learning curve and X-Box is not the exception to the rule) and developers need more and more time to push this console...
Yes...the X-Box is friendly to develop for,developers use a library of familiar tools,but as you\'ve said,there\'re still rooms for improvements...no doubt about it...and the only point I made is that we can\'t complain about "little" limitations in the Lauch Games and say...for example..."UMA has bottlenecks"..or...6.4 G/s of bandwidth is not enough...without a solid argument...only this...
We have to wait...and see...for example...what developers like Sega,etc,with extra time,will be able to achieve with the X-Box !
...and another thing...
I think one of our sore points as fans is we mix together our own hype and assumptions with public relation statements of manufactures and developers. We pick and choose as we please and ignore or forget what doesn\'t quite fit, regardless of the source.
It\'s true in general...and it\'s the reason why I\'ve stopped to believe developers\'s interviews...
...Tecmo said X-Box right now is 4/5 times more powerful than PS2...Jason Rubin said that X-Box can\'t be a leap over PS2 because "we can do by far better than the P3 of the X-Box using 50% of the power of the Main CPU and 10% of both Vu0 and Vu1"...when he knew nothing about the X-Box architecture...
If the mastermind behind MGS2 says there are only slight differences between the three consoles power, who are we to argue?
He said the same about DC and PS2..."PS2 and DC are more or less the same in processing power...from His Point of View...from his vision...(but I can\'t find the Link:( )...and we all know it\'s not true from a technical point of view !
I\'ve changed my ways...I wanna believe only what I see !
...and DOA3 and Halo look Great at Launch ! It\'s my only point !
We fans have no authority to divide generations of games past the first one for any given console based solely on when they are released or how good they look. A square employee claims J&D is the only second generation title so far because its engine alone begins to optimize the EE as it was designed to be used. Are we supposed to go by a poll of other gamers to decide which games are first, second, or third generation games? I don\'t think so. While on the surface the graphics of J&D clearly don\'t blow away other titles, there are features unique to the game that do.
Agreed !...but I meant to say another thing...some developers(Naughty Dog,etc,) have spent a lot more time on PS2 compared to all the X-Box developers...and I think(it\'s only my opinion) that J&D is using a higher percentage of the PS2 power compared to what Halo and DOA3 are using of the X-Box...
...but it\'s only an opinion...I could be wrong...
...but saying X-Box is not superior because Launch Games don\'t look much better than MGS2,Ico,GT3,J&D is as superficial as saying X-Box is 4-5 times more powerful or...X-Box and PS2 are comparable because X-Box has not a learning curve...etc...it\'s too early to deliver any judgements !
That\'s what I meant !