PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Kituka on December 29, 2000, 12:58:28 PM
-
READ IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://cube.ign.com/news/29465.htm
Some highlights:
IGNcube: Your GameCube Star Wars Rogue Squadron "technology demo" --How long did it take to put the demo together and how tough was it to get everything to run on the system?
Julian: Well we had done a lot of theoretical work. There has been this magical number of 19 days floating around, but that\'s not totally true. On the real hardware, yes it was only 19 days, but we had been working with the prototype development kits that just simulated the system for almost half a year at that point. We tried to really stick to everything so that when the real development kit came around everything only took a couple of days to get up and running on it.
IGNcube: What effects did you not have implemented in the demo that the GameCube could easily do?
Julian: Tons. Tons. I mean, in the demo you don\'t see any bump-mapping, for example. GameCube and Xbox could do all of these effects and a lot more. The demo is really base level. Of course all of the lasers you see are real-time lights, but the surface of the Death Star is just lit by one directional light and that\'s about it. Real games for the system will look a lot better.
IGNcube: What advantages does GameCube have over Xbox and vice-versa?
Julian: Well, with Xbox, quite realistically there still isn\'t any final hardware so it\'s kind of an unfair comparison. But let\'s say most of it pans out as Microsoft says it will. At that point GameCube has more texturing abilities plus most probably a higher fill-rate and Xbox has the hard drive on the other hand. Quite frankly, when it really comes to the looks of games, our prediction is that if Microsoft delivers what it promises, you almost won\'t be able to tell the difference between the two machines.
IGNcube: What about GameCube and Xbox versus PS2?
Julian: They will look significantly better. Things like bump-mapping and several texture stages, which you can do, make both Xbox and GameCube extremely strong versus PS2. Because with PS2 you always have to use multi-pass rendering and that is a big problem. It has a very basic graphics chip. The system can pump out enormous amounts of polygons if fed right by the Vector Units, but on the other hand can do that too. PS2 has a very high fill-rate, which GameCube also has and Xbox hopefully will have. But it doesn\'t have the multi-texturing or texture compression and that\'s going to make a big difference.
GameCube and Xbox will also look very similar because they both have the same texture compression on chip -- they both use S3TC.
IGNcube: What\'s the biggest misconception about GameCube that you\'d like to clear up?
Julian: Well, first of all that there aren\'t any development kits because by now, magically enough, there are plenty of development kits.
Secondly, I really hope that it\'s not going to turn into a kid\'s machine. But rather that, in fact, it\'s going to bring back Nintendo into the mainstream, but that\'s really in Nintendo\'s hands. I\'ve read EA\'s statements, of course, that they are thinking that Nintendo will survive and probably prosper. The question is will they prosper as a company catering to all ages or as one capitalizing on a niche, and I really don\'t hope that the second one happens.
-
I really hope that it\'s not going to turn into a kid\'s machine
oops, too late. it already is
mm
-
Heh, already there is hostility. Do yourself a favor and don\'t limit yourself to one console. There are bound to be great games on each one. I know you\'re a diehard Sony fan, but please try to agree with that statement.
-
Gamecube, Gamecube, PS2, PS2, Gamecube, Gamecube, PS2, PS2....
Thank god Gamecube and X-Box are alomst identical, do we see a rematch on our hands.......
PS2 vs. Nintendo
-
Ha! mm is one of the b iggest GAME fans on this board. I have often heard him say that he is a Sega fan, too. :)
Don\'t judge before you know who you are talking to. :) The system is looks like it is making great gains towards a more mature audience.
Eric Jacob
BTW the new icon thingies, G-A-Y! Don\'t try to be like other boards, Bjorn, it was great the way it was!
-
Oh, sorry for the judging. I myself am a Nintendo fan and love their games. I bet I will be waiting in line for the GC just as I did for the PS2.
-
Dreamcast and Gamecube would look dumb as hell sitting next to all the electronics in my entertainment center. Hopefully, for Microsoft\'s sake, they won\'t have a crappy, kid-like design for their home game-console...:sconf:
-
dont mind me THX, i may hate nintendo for thier tactics, but i still buy thier products. its a love/hate thing.
yeah, i hate icons, they are lame
mm
-
you almost won\'t be able to tell the difference between the two machines.
There goes the X-Box\'s biggest advantage.Everyone thought it was going to look by far the best,well according to Factor5(great developer),it won\'t.:p Looks like a rematch is lurking around the corner with N vs Sony again like the game said...
PS-these icons are queer,stupid,weird,unordinary,and every other negative comment possible to use against them.They suck.:)
-
i hate lunchcube as you obviously can see. (read my quote below.) its just me. I think they sell overprice craps and most of its are kiddyish. A $50 kiddyish Zelda cartridge with limited space its just too expensive! about mini-dvd. i am not sure if they are going the right track. only 1.5 gig...hmmmm...to be honest i prefer ps2 4.7 gig (12 cm disc as opposed to 8 cm from nin). why? It can easily play both 8 cm and 12 cm dvd video, vcd, audio cds. that means if developers liked, they can used 8cm dvd or cd and program games into it. more options. so i am telling ya, it can played both 8 and 12 cm discs. this is a fact. (hahahahhha!) while lunchcube can only played 8cm dvd and only 8 cm videogames. and anyway, how many music/movies use 8cm? so i am saying gamecube is a present computer while ps2 is the future. seriously, gamecube may have high texture but that\'s easy to add for a hardware? while ps2 have more polygons counts. I think that is harder to do than adding more video ram. you may ask, you point is? i may answer, nintendo isn\'t as powerful as ps2 its just only the texturing makes it look good. and giving it a year after ps2, low polygons count make nintendo slow. i am not saying you shouldn\'t buy it. I just wanted to point out some things i like people to knows.
-
i hate lunchcube as you obviously can see. (read my quote below.) its just me. I think they sell overprice craps and most of its are kiddyish. A $50 kiddyish Zelda cartridge with limited space its just too expensive! about mini-dvd. i am not sure if they are going the right track. only 1.5 gig...hmmmm...to be honest i prefer ps2 4.7 gig (12 cm disc as opposed to 8 cm from nin). why? It can easily play both 8 cm and 12 cm dvd video, vcd, audio cds. that means if developers liked, they can used 8cm dvd or cd and program games into it. more options. so i am telling ya, it can played both 8 and 12 cm discs. this is a fact. (hahahahhha!) while lunchcube can only played 8cm dvd and only 8 cm videogames. and anyway, how many music/movies use 8cm?
I\'ll ignore most of that and mention one thing from that part.
Nintendo uses the Optimal Disks so there won\'t be any piracy,developers love this factor.There is no way you can pirate NGC games unless you crack the code,and if those mini-disk become mainstream(which they probably won\'t).PLus,they have texture compression in them,like the catridges did.
1.5GB is more than enough.PS2 developers arn\'t even using the DVD format yet,plus have you ever heard of multiple disks?\'Nuff said.
so i am saying gamecube is a present computer while ps2 is the future.
NGC is a game console only.PS2 more of a computer than GameCube is.Ask any idiot on that.
seriously, gamecube may have high texture but that\'s easy to add for a hardware? while ps2 have more polygons counts. I think that is harder to do than adding more video ram. you may ask, you point is? i may answer, nintendo isn\'t as powerful as ps2 its just only the texturing makes it look good. and giving it a year after ps2, low polygons count make nintendo slow.
WTF???NGC\'s raw polygon number is around 90 million,while PS2 is only at 67 million.GameCube can push more polygons per second in game with all effects than PS2.FACT. Even if PS2 could push more(which it can\'t),NGC\'s graphics will still look better,noticeably better.:)Factor 5 pointed that out.
-
Originally posted by Kituka
IGNcube: Your GameCube Star Wars Rogue Squadron "technology demo" --How long did it take to put the demo together and how tough was it to get everything to run on the system?
Julian: Well we had done a lot of theoretical work. There has been this magical number of 19 days floating around, but that\'s not totally true. On the real hardware, yes it was only 19 days, but we had been working with the prototype development kits that just simulated the system for almost half a year at that point. We tried to really stick to everything so that when the real development kit came around everything only took a couple of days to get up and running on it.
Hmmm... So they didn\'t make the demo in a few days... They actually used almost 6 months on it! That\'s what I\'ve been saying all along. :)
Ha! mm is one of the biggest GAME fans on this board. I have often heard him say that he is a Sega fan, too
Lol, are we doing a bit of a$$-kissing here, eh? :laughing:
-
:D :D 19 days?? this is false I think... in 19 days with new kits and hardware is impossible.
-
Originally posted by AlteredBeast
BTW the new icon thingies, G-A-Y! Don\'t try to be like other boards, Bjorn, it was great the way it was!
[/B]
Yet u use Smilies which are ICONS. LOL. Dood it wasn\'t bjorn, It was me whom added them. No one has complained YET.
But you do. hmmmmmmmmmm If you don\'t like them man don\'t use them simple. Let everyone else enjoy them and stop whining.
Here is a example why i added them.. Straight away you know i\'m angry, or Pissed off. Just by seeing the ICON in which i have added too this post. (i\'m not pissed) :D
[Edited by §ôµÏG®ïñD on 12-30-2000 at 06:38 AM]
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
you almost won\'t be able to tell the difference between the two machines.
There goes the X-Box\'s biggest advantage.Everyone thought it was going to look by far the best,well according to Factor5(great developer),it won\'t.:p Looks like a rematch is lurking around the corner with N vs Sony again like the game said...
[/B]
Don\'t see how you reach that conclusion.
Given that Factor5 are 100% Nintendo supporters and have been rather negative towards other systems in the past, their recent comments on the XBox is actually high praise indeed.
Julian has simply confirmed what most already knew, that the graphical difference between the XBox and GC would not be as great as the difference between the GC and PS2.
Both those consoles will provide significantly better graphics than the PS2, however we\'ll have to wait until we see games running on final hardware before we can judge for ourselves.
Given that XBox and PS2 are targetting the same gaming audience (with GC focussed on the younger market), the real battle is between the Microsoft and Sony.
-
to jumpman,
give me a site that confirmed lunchcube can runs at 90 million polygon per sec! and, i know multiple discs. yes, ff7 and ff8 comes to mind...but wouldn\'t be easier and more convenient to play the game and not have to move your butt and switch the disc. if ff7 are in cartridge format. then there probably about 60 cartridges. that would makes it expensive and i don\'t want to change cart every five minutes!
-
Originally posted by know-it-all-wanna-be
to jumpman,
give me a site that confirmed lunchcube can runs at 90 million polygon per sec
I think that is about right. I cannot remember where but some dev with a NDK had said it could push around 87 raw.
-
give me a site that confirmed lunchcube can runs at 90 million polygon per sec!
I said it can run at 90mpps with no effects-RAW.Just like the 66 million number from Sony.
No,I can\'t find that exact sentence.Its in the IGNcube q/a section,somewhere in the archives.I spent a good 15 minutes searching for it but could not find it in the long run.Take my word for it,I saw it,I read it.I wouldn\'t say it could do thing without knowing for sure. BUT I SAW IT.Ask any Nintendo supporter who visits IGNCube daily,its there in questions and anwsers, somewhere.
and, i know multiple discs. yes, ff7 and ff8 comes to mind...but wouldn\'t be easier and more convenient to play the game and not have to move your butt and switch the disc. if ff7 are in cartridge format. then there probably about 60 cartridges. that would makes it expensive and i don\'t want to change cart every five minutes!
WTF?Catridges?There mini-disks,they hold 1.5 gb,which is more than enough to make a long and great game.They would only need 1 extra disk if a developer decided to use more space,I don\'t hear you complaining about FFVII?So don\'t complain about NGC\'s disks.Plus it has texture compression.I have no idea what this is but apparantly it can make games use less space,something like that.Ask UnderWhelmingForce,he understands what that is and what it does.
Bottom line-there is no space problem with the NGC disks.
-
jumpmanWTF?Catridges?There mini-disks,they hold 1.5 gb,which is more than enough to make a long and great game.They would only need 1 extra disk if a developer decided to use more space,I don\'t hear you complaining about FFVII?So don\'t complain about NGC\'s disks.Plus it has texture compression.I have no idea what this is but apparantly it can make games use less space,something like that.Ask UnderWhelmingForce,he understands what that is and what it does.
Bottom line-there is no space problem with the NGC disks.
,
but wouldn\'t it easier and more convienient with only one disc? a;sp. mp space problem with ngc mini dvd? well, looks ffx is using 2 dvd discs. if they also use dual layers and single sided, that would be 16 gig of information....ummm, mr. jumpman, how many lunchbox, i mean lunchcube, opps. again, i mean gamecube mini discs does it needed it then? i believe there will be at least 6 mini discs or higher. maybe up to 10 minidiscs? why minidisc is still isn\'t enough? fmv! mpeg2 with 5.1 dd uses alots of spaces. i still say mini disc is still not enough. hence, even dreamcast gd rom disc hold up to 1.1 gig and minidisc only hold .4 gig more?
-
The GameCube texture compression runs at a 6:1 ratio.
So, if a developer wants 50 megs of textures.
It will only cost 8 megs.
(From IGN).
Basically, this means those mini disc won\'t use much space for textures.
-
what about polygon counts? let me guess.. no where near ps2? they got good texture, but low polygons? I think polygons is more important that texture.
-
Originally posted by know-it-all-wanna-be
jumpmanWTF?Catridges?There mini-disks,they hold 1.5 gb,which is more than enough to make a long and great game.They would only need 1 extra disk if a developer decided to use more space,I don\'t hear you complaining about FFVII?So don\'t complain about NGC\'s disks.Plus it has texture compression.I have no idea what this is but apparantly it can make games use less space,something like that.Ask UnderWhelmingForce,he understands what that is and what it does.
Bottom line-there is no space problem with the NGC disks.
,
but wouldn\'t it easier and more convienient with only one disc? a;sp. mp space problem with ngc mini dvd? well, looks ffx is using 2 dvd discs. if they also use dual layers and single sided, that would be 16 gig of information....ummm, mr. jumpman, how many lunchbox, i mean lunchcube, opps. again, i mean gamecube mini discs does it needed it then? i believe there will be at least 6 mini discs or higher. maybe up to 10 minidiscs? why minidisc is still isn\'t enough? fmv! mpeg2 with 5.1 dd uses alots of spaces. i still say mini disc is still not enough. hence, even dreamcast gd rom disc hold up to 1.1 gig and minidisc only hold .4 gig more? [/B]
No.Look at Living-In-Clip\'s post.They don\'t need any more space.They can just compact it.A 4.7gb PS2 game can easily turn into a 1.5GB NGC game.(plus,NGC disk can use the dual side technique too).Those disks are great.There is no reason for you to keep trying to find fault in them cause there is nothing wrong with them.
what about polygon counts? let me guess.. no where near ps2?
No.EA Canada already push over 17mpps,PS2 can\'t do anything over 10mpps. PS2 is no where near NGC graphics.
they got good texture, but low polygons? I think polygons is more important that texture.
LOL!I don\'t know where you came up with that conclusion but its all wrong.A 10mpps NGC game with 8 hardware lights would look a lot better than a 17mpps PS2 game with 1 hardware light.Textures are more important,look at the N64 and PSX.The PSX could push twice as more polygons than the N64 could,but the N64 still looked better due to its textures.I hope that example helped.:)
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
Textures are more important,look at the N64 and PSX.The PSX could push twice as more polygons than the N64 could,but the N64 still looked better due to its textures.I hope that example helped.:)
I just wanna correct u here. The N64 didn\'t look better because of the textures. If anything the N64 textures are WORSE Then psx. They are very blury and bland.
Its the FLITERING and alpha blending that makes the graphics look better.
-
Damn Soulgrind beat me to it.
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
LOL!I don\'t know where you came up with that conclusion but its all wrong.A 10mpps NGC game with 8 hardware lights would look a lot better than a 17mpps PS2 game with 1 hardware light.
Another thing wrong.
Gamecube development hardware running with eight texture effect layers + all other effects on: Approximately five million polygons per second
Gamecube development hardware running with four texture effect layers + all other effects on: Approximately 14 million polygons per second
8 lights = 5 million polys.. not ten dood.
read it here. http://cube.ign.com/news/28713.html
straight from EA ;)
-
8 lights = 5 million polys.. not ten dood.
read it here. http://cube.ign.com/news/28713.html
straight from EA
You got me once but you won\'t get me twice.:)
Polygon Power
Gamecube: 6 to 12 million polygons per second (conservative, but realistic estimate)
Yes remember the 6-12mpps number that was always buzzing around?That is with all effects and with eight hardware lights on.EA Canada\'s test were done fairly quick,with a little more time and effort I\'m sure they could of done around 8 or 10mpps with eight hardware lights.NGC CAN do 10mpps with eight hardware lights.
[Edited by Jumpman on 01-01-2001 at 05:14 PM]
-
Uhm.. Jumpman..
Over at cube Ign they says this.
Gamecube development hardware running with eight texture effect layers + all other effects on: Approximately five million polygons per second
Gamecube development hardware running with four texture effect layers + all other effects on: Approximately 14 million polygons per second
Only 5mpps?? Thats bad isent it???
Anyways here\'s the link to the site.
http://cube.ign.com/news/28713.html
/FASTson
-
What does this mean §ôµÏG®ïñD??
Is the PS2 more powerful?
-
Originally posted by ChocoboSquared
What does this mean §ôµÏG®ïñD??
Is the PS2 more powerful?
no.. the ps2 does 1 light with 15-25 million polys a sec.
the GC does four lights with all effects on rendering around 14 million pps. So they gamecube is more powerful..
Really its up and down. The ps2 does more polygons with full effects..
But the Gamecube does more effects with less polygons.
Jumpman.. Your not a developer. This game from EA themselfs.. You can\'t denie it.
Gamecube development hardware running with eight texture effect layers + all other effects on: Approximately five million polygons per second.
Gamecube development hardware running with four texture effect layers + all other effects on: Approximately 14 million polygons per second.
-
I\'m not denying anything.I\'m just saying NGC CAN do 6-12 mpps with 8 hardware lights.That is the official number from Nintendo themselves.10mmps with eight hardware lights can and will be done.
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
I\'m not denying anything.I\'m just saying NGC CAN do 6-12 mpps with 8 hardware lights.That is the official number from Nintendo themselves.10mmps with eight hardware lights can and will be done.
JM man.. You should know that FIRST party developers always hype there SPECS UP MAN. Its REAL WORLD rendering that tells us what a system can do.
I don\'t believe what sony, MS, Nintendo or sega say that there systems can render anymore. I believe the DEVELOPERS that make the games on it. 3rd partie not first.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
Originally posted by Jumpman
I\'m not denying anything.I\'m just saying NGC CAN do 6-12 mpps with 8 hardware lights.That is the official number from Nintendo themselves.10mmps with eight hardware lights can and will be done.
JM man.. You should know that FIRST party developers always hype there SPECS UP MAN. Its REAL WORLD rendering that tells us what a system can do.
I don\'t believe what sony, MS, Nintendo or sega say that there systems can render anymore. I believe the DEVELOPERS that make the games on it. 3rd partie not first. [/B]
Why?Just because Sony and Microsoft hyped up their systems doesn\'t mean Nintendo is lying about their specs.Sure its possible but why would they lie about the 6-12 million number?They even said they wern\'t gonna give bogus, unrealistic numbers like Microsoft and Sony(300 and 66million...).I don\'t believe everything Nintendo says but "the car demo" at spaceworld pushed 9mpps with all effects.Look at the REBIRTH demo too,most beautiful realtime movie I ever saw.It went well over 5mpps with eight hardware lights.Nintendo isn\'t hyping their system at all.If they were then we would actually know what games were coming out for it...
-
thats what nintendo says...
-
I\'ll be getting a PS2, as I\'ve said in my previous posts. I\'ll also be getting a NGC. I go all over the net, to forums, chats, etc. and somewhere in that mess I heard that Factor 5 is already pushing 25 million polygons in-game (HW x4)- perhaps with Thornado? Couldn\'t tell you where I heard it under threat of death, but I did.
Folks, for me, it really doesn\'t matter. Like I\'ve said, do we REALLY NEED better graphics than MGS2\'s? With physics (for the rain, the human bodies, the guns, etc.) so good, and with graphics only thought a dream a couple years ago, I don\'t need it any better than that.
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
I\'m not denying anything.I\'m just saying NGC CAN do 6-12 mpps with 8 hardware lights.That is the official number from Nintendo themselves.10mmps with eight hardware lights can and will be done.
actually it says this on the nintendo site:
Actual Display Capability -
6 million to 12 million polygons/second (Display capability assuming actual game with complexity model, texture, etc.)
so get your facts straight.
but, in all honesty, those EA benches were with 8 lights. It doesn\'t specify it spefically, but if you read the article you will see that later on they show a spec with 4 lights, and it is higher. So it\'s just assumed that "all other effects" was using 8 lights.
here\'s what it said later in the article:
Gamecube development hardware running at least four hardware lights and other effects with impressive results of approximately 17 million polygons per second.
of course, they are being a bit misleading. The way they word that makes it sound as gc can do 17 mpps with 4 lights and 8 textures/pixel. But, if you read the forum post that ign got their info from you will see that this isn\'t the case:
All effects on: (everything) slightly above 5 million polygons.
4 effects on texture + all other effects on: 14 million.
4 effects + 4 HWlights + all other effects:
Between 16 and 17 million, closer to 17 million
but I also don\'t agree with the wording of those benchmarks. I hate the term "all effects".
Here\'s a little post I wrote in a different forum about the term "all effects", as applied to gamecube.
here\'s the list of gc effects (well, some are effects).
Fog - I know this is simple. Can\'t possibly affect performance very much.
Subpixel Anti-aliasing - xbox can do AA with little or no hit, i doubt this affects performance very much.
HW Light x8 - Ok, this is an obvious performance killer.
Alpha Blending - I could be wrong, but I\'m pretty sure this is fairly simple and won\'t hinder performance.
Virtual Texture Design - Just a way of streaming textures or something, right? Can\'t possibly negatively affect performance
Multi-texture Mapping - This one could obviously hinder performance, as we see in the drop going from 4 to 8 textures in the EA specs.
Bump/Environment Mapping - I don\'t know a whole lot about these, but I\'m pretty sure they could also be pretty hard on performance.
MIPMAP - this is just AA for textures, no biggie right?
Bilinear Filtering - so is this.
Real-time Texture Decompression (S3TC), etc. - This obviously can\'t hurt performance.
ok, so out of that big list we are left with 4 things that could seriously affect performance. We have the obvious ones: hardware lights and multi-texturing, which are finitely given in the EA specs (well the lights aren\'t, but I guess we are going to assume they are local). So that leaves us with bump and environment mapping, which also leaves us with a question.
how much?
I mean, were all of the surfaces bump mapped? or what?
aren\'t there also different kinds and ways of doing bump and environment mapping? wouldn\'t that also make a difference?
so how are we to know how these effects would\'ve affected the performance of the EA benchs?
all effects turns into 4 effects that actually matter....kinda interesting...goes to show how subjective things can be...
ok, moving on......
factor 5.
They are Nintendo\'s *****es, nothing but.
Do any others in here remember Julian saying he would eat a broom if xbox could do the gc rs2 demo that factor 5 made?
He also said that demo only used about 50% of gc\'s power.
So, at that time he was saying xbox was less than 50% as powerful as gc.
our prediction is that if Microsoft delivers what it promises, you almost won\'t be able to tell the difference between the two machines.
well lookie here, he seems to have changed his tune.
He was obviously bull****ting before; he admits that (essentially). So why should we believe him now?
Then there is the little fact that factor 5 is developing the sound tools for gamecube...and seems to only develop games for nintendo...I\'d say that makes them just a tiny bit biased toward gc.
It\'s obvious now that Nintendo isn\'t going to release any finite numbers that actually allow you to contrive the performance of flipper, so I guess we\'re all going to have to wait till e3, at which point we will storm the nintendo booth and beat peter main over the head with a baseball bat while screaming "GIMME SOME ****ING VERTEX THROUGHPUT NUMBERS YOU STUPID BASTARD!".
-
Originally posted by drcrumble
of course, they are being a bit misleading. The way they word that makes it sound as gc can do 17 mpps with 4 lights and 8 textures/pixel. But, if you read the forum post that ign got their info from you will see that this isn\'t the case:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All effects on: (everything) slightly above 5 million polygons.
4 effects on texture + all other effects on: 14 million.
4 effects + 4 HWlights + all other effects:
Between 16 and 17 million, closer to 17 million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the hell are you on about crumble, EA have simple recieved dev tools and benchmarked Gamecube immediatly, with no time at all to optimise the program code and these are the numbers, pretty fu[/i]cking good i\'d say. The 10 Million PPS figure for all effects comes from close 2nd party developers for Nintendo, those figures are achieved with optimised code, I trust you know what that is.
Originally posted by drcrumble
ok, moving on......
factor 5.
They are Nintendo\'s *****es, nothing but.
Do any others in here remember Julian saying he would eat a broom if xbox could do the gc rs2 demo that factor 5 made?
He also said that demo only used about 50% of gc\'s power.
So, at that time he was saying xbox was less than 50% as powerful as gc.
At the time (as well as now) XDK\'s consisted of a Pentium 3 733 and a GeForce 2 GTS, RS2 ran at 60 frames per second on Gamecube and ran at 12 frames per second on the XDK, much more then 50% more powerful. Julian never once said Gamecube was 50% more powerful then X-Box but in his \'eat broom\' comment he indicated he would be suprised if XBox could match the RS2 demo, his comment still stands.
Originally posted by drcrumble
well lookie here, he seems to have changed his tune.
He was obviously bull****ting before; he admits that (essentially). So why should we believe him now?
He was speaking on a german message board before in which his posts were deleted soon afterwards, his latest comments were offical comments made to IGN, quite a difference.
Originally posted by drcrumble
It\'s obvious now that Nintendo isn\'t going to release any finite numbers that actually allow you to contrive the performance of flipper, so I guess we\'re all going to have to wait till e3, at which point we will storm the nintendo booth and beat peter main over the head with a baseball bat while screaming "GIMME SOME ****ING VERTEX THROUGHPUT NUMBERS YOU STUPID BASTARD!".
Useless throughput polygon numbers that you love so much are around 90 Million, this has been confirmed by Matt Cassamina (sp.) numerous times.
I suggest you get a capable argument next time drcrumble, i\'ve rebutted tripe like this plenty of times in the past and im sure i\'ll find myself doing it again in the future, the one thing that always beats me is pure ignorance, I hope your last ignorant post isn\'t indicative of your attitude. Ignorance simply flows like wine here in PSX2Central.
-
"The ps2 does more polygons with full effects.. "-soulgrind
This is invalid point to use against gcn\'s. First off, the psx2 has less effects, only 1 hardware light(i think), while the gcn does 8 hardware light(psx2 can\'t do that), much more effects. So, if the psx2 could do all the effects the gcn can, i believe the the polygons would be really low, much lower than gcn.
Lets say the gcn doesn\'t want to do 8 hardware light ect, instead only 1 hardware light and full effects, it would double psx2 in terms of polygons.
-
Originally posted by raitl
"The ps2 does more polygons with full effects.. "-soulgrind
This is invalid point to use against gcn\'s. First off, the psx2 has less effects, only 1 hardware light(i think), while the gcn does 8 hardware light(psx2 can\'t do that), much more effects. So, if the psx2 could do all the effects the gcn can, i believe the the polygons would be really low, much lower than gcn.
Lets say the gcn doesn\'t want to do 8 hardware light ect, instead only 1 hardware light and full effects, it would double psx2 in terms of polygons.
uh raitl, soulgrind did mention that when I asked him.
-
Umm Trin you pointed out the XDK had a GF.2 GTS well that is an NV.15 chip we have yet to see the NV.20 and the X-Box will contain an NV.25 chip.
So the GPU on the X-Box will be far more powerful than the NGC\'s GPU.
-
oic
-
Originally posted by Soulgrind
The ps2 does more polygons with full effects
That\'s why GT3 and Ridge Racer 5 push no more then 3 Million PPS, ok sure :rolleyes:
Originally posted by nO-One
Umm Trin you pointed out the XDK had a GF.2 GTS well that is an NV.15 chip we have yet to see the NV.20 and the X-Box will contain an NV.25 chip.
So the GPU on the X-Box will be far more powerful than the NGC\'s GPU.
Firstly the X-Box contains the NV2A which is simply an enhanced version of the NV20, secondly are you suggesting the NV2A is going to be 5 times more powerful then the NV15 aka GeForce 2 which it will need to be to even compete with \'Flipper\'.
Your \'X-Box will be far more powerful than the NGC\'s GPU\' is absolutly bullsh[/i]it\', by all means ask me why when I could be bothered explaining it to a 12 year old.
-
What the hell are you on about crumble, EA have simple recieved dev tools and benchmarked Gamecube immediatly, with no time at all to optimise the program code and these are the numbers, pretty ****ing good i\'d say. The 10 Million PPS figure for all effects comes from close 2nd party developers for Nintendo, those figures are achieved with optimised code, I trust you know what that is.
lol.
what 10 mpps figure? Oh yes, the one you just pulled out of your ass.
I trust you know what portable code is.
In all likelihood the benchmark EA was using was a simple one (probably something like this: http://www.nvidia.com/Marketing/Developer/DevRel.nsf/pages/6D06759A6B04E7008825691C0071B29D), and they probably already had the source code to the benchmark in GLUT opengl format.
That gives them around a week to optimize the code (pretty easy assuming they know opengl, which every 3d graphics programmer has probably learned at some point), then bench it.
actual time with the console is less of an issue when you consider that this a benchmark (not a game), and that they probably already had the source for it.
At the time (as well as now) XDK\'s consisted of a Pentium 3 733 and a GeForce 2 GTS, RS2 ran at 60 frames per second on Gamecube and ran at 12 frames per second on the XDK, much more then 50% more powerful. Julian never once said Gamecube was 50% more powerful then X-Box but in his \'eat broom\' comment he indicated he would be suprised if XBox could match the RS2 demo, his comment still stands.
lol, listen.
he said this:
Both [ demos ] run in real time on the gamecube and uses approx. 50% of the hardware
then he said this
if the Xbox can create that, I will eat a broom.
put two and two together....
he says the demo uses 50% of the gc hardware, and says xbox isn\'t capable of it, so therefore ::drumroll:: he is saying xbox is less than 50% as powerful as gamecube.
aparently you agree with him...lol
He was speaking on a german message board before in which his posts were deleted soon afterwards, his latest comments were offical comments made to IGN, quite a difference.
There is some truth to that, but I doubt he would hold back saying gc is better if he really wanted to. In a recent interview with igncube a member of factor 5 proclaimed gc\'s audio as better than xbox\'s, so I see no reason for Julian not to proclaim gc\'s graphics as superior.
His posts were deleted because he got into trouble with Nintendo. I doubt he is going to get into trouble with Nintendo if he says gc has better graphics than xbox.
You would think he may be worried about getting in trouble with microsoft, but that hasn\'t stopped him from constanty hinting toward gc superior in the past, and that didn\'t stop factor 5 director of technology Thomas Engel from proclaiming gc sound superior to xbox\'s, and that doesn\'t stop Julian from constantly putting a pro-gc spin on everything he discusses.
case in point - ram:
Yes. Absolutely. We can\'t really complain about any aspect. Oh yeah, of course we could complain that the RAM could be bigger, but you can complain about that on any and every machine under the sun. I mean, a good example would be, if you compared it to Xbox which has a little more RAM, Xbox\'s audio format, on the other hand, is much more memory intensive than GameCube\'s so in the end they pretty much even out once again. So far all of these systems you can always complain about the memory.
lol, a little more. He\'s kidding, right?
gamecube - 43mb
xbox - 64mb
counting the A-ram, which is really just buffer for the dvd drive, gc has 21 mb less ram than xbox. It\'s absurd to say that\'s "a little more ram"; It\'s nearly the size of gc\'s entire main ram.
Then, lol, he says xbox\'s audio format is memory intensive, so that makes up fot it. I\'m not exactly sure if that\'s true (I doubt it), but I kinda doubt the xbox is going to use 21mb for sound. Like I just said, that\'s the size of all of gc\'s main memory.
That\'s just one of the many examples of Julian spinning every situation in favor of gc.
I really doubt he would hold back saying the gc has much better graphics, unless of course he knew he was going to be proven wrong very soon.
[Edited by drcrumble on 01-02-2001 at 12:18 AM]
-
just put it this way, the gamecube is like a modern pc ( i am talking about porformance here) while ps2 power is 2 years ahead of any top of the line pc graphic chips. the ps2 emotion engine is capable of doing things which i doubt that gc can do (maybe for software only) like heat, realistic hair flow, and you know metal gear solid 2 show you everything. +when bullets hit, newspaper flying and leaves fall down from trees. Very, very detail. gamecube is a texture munching and they use compression...which have it pros and cons...who says texture is better than polygons is eating too much crap. looks, if texture is harder to done, then how much most high end graphic chips for pc have a lots of vram. likes 32 mb of vram or 64 mb of vram...while ps2 have only 4. but they high end graphic chips still couldn\'t beat ps2 in polygons. nintendo pleaded for help by asking ibm and ibm only makes texture compression for them i believe and 16 meg of s3t thing whatever it is. polygons count means detail. soulgrind is right, alpha blending is what makes it colorful and eye candy while texture just blur the things out. if the ps2 have more vram, say 16 mb. then it will outperform the lunchcube. it easy to added more ram like add on while polygons is harder to make on a small chip that can calculate so high. see, most graphic chips have high meg of ram for texture and high resolution while ps2 have low vram but high polygon counts. so far, no graphic chips have outperform ps2 polygons count but only outperform mb of vram...meaning its harder to makes more polygons than adding more vram. in fact, ps2 is so powerful, calculating 75 millions pps, that Iraq bought 4000 units of it and only 12-15 ps2 togethers can make a pilotless aircraft.
-
just put it this way, the gamecube is like a modern pc ( i am talking about porformance here) while ps2 power is 2 years ahead of any top of the line pc graphic chips.
Its the other way around here.You cannot keep denying the fact that GameCube is more powerful than PS2.
the ps2 emotion engine is capable of doing things which i doubt that gc can do (maybe for software only) like heat, realistic hair flow, and you know metal gear solid 2 show you everything. +when bullets hit, newspaper flying and leaves fall down from trees. Very, very detail.
ROLFMAO!NGC can do everything the PS2 can do,and do things that the PS2 can\'t do.Leaves?Check out the Rebirth demo. You\'ll see what I\'m talking about.Lighting,realistic rain forest movements...gorgeous.:) GameCube is capable of better graphics,its already been proven with EA\'s test. 17mmpps with 4 hardware lights?Look a SG post,even he can admit it.
who says texture is better than polygons is eating too much crap. looks, if texture is harder to done, then how much most high end graphic chips for pc have a lots of vram. likes 32 mb of vram or 64 mb of vram...while ps2 have only 4. but they high end graphic chips still couldn\'t beat ps2 in polygons. nintendo pleaded for help by asking ibm and ibm only makes texture compression for them i believe and 16 meg of s3t thing whatever it is. polygons count means detail. soulgrind is right, alpha blending is what makes it colorful and eye candy while texture just blur the things out. if the ps2 have more vram, say 16 mb. then it will outperform the lunchcube. it easy to added more ram like add on while polygons is harder to make on a small chip that can calculate so high. see, most graphic chips have high meg of ram for texture and high resolution while ps2 have low vram but high polygon counts. so far, no graphic chips have outperform ps2 polygons count but only outperform mb of vram...meaning its harder to makes more polygons than adding more vram. in fact, ps2 is so powerful, calculating 75 millions pps, that Iraq bought 4000 units of it and only 12-15 ps2 togethers can make a pilotless aircraft
What a bunch of garbage.You have no evidence that PS2 is more powerful than GameCube.NOTHING.I suggest you try harder to try and find some but there really isn\'t any out there.
-
I\'ve never had too quote myself. But for the BLIND people like trin and raitl.
This is what i SAID.
no.. the ps2 does 1 light with 15-25 million polys a sec
the GC does four lights with all effects on rendering around 14 million pps. So the gamecube is more powerful..
Really its up and down. The ps2 does more polygons with full effects..
But the Gamecube does more effects with less polygons.
Please READ my words probley. i said Ps2 renders 1 light full effects at 15-25 mpps.
the gamecube renders. 4 LIGHTS, Full effects at 14mpps.
But it renders LESS polygons when it uses more lights.
Do u UNDERSTAND That trin and raitl
-
Does it really matter how many polygons each one can push? Most of you guys said you were getting both anyway so why argue.
BTW, If you are just getting one console consider yourself a fanboy. I don\'t care how much money you have. A hardcore gamer will find a way to have all of the best games.[/mini rant]
-
I have a DC. Getting a ps2, Sadly in may. :( and maybe a xbox some years down the track.
-
Originally posted by know-it-all-wanna-be
i hate lunchcube as you obviously can see. (read my quote below.) its just me.
You hate something that hasn\'t even come out, yet.
You don\'t know what it offers, you don\'t know what games are coming for it, and you don\'t have many reasons for not liking it.
Do you hate it because its made by Nintendo? Do you hate it because the way it looks? Do you hate it because it has no DVD playback? Can\'t play CD\'s? The media format?
Hate it because its more powerful than the ps2 in many ways?
Hardware... Hardware... Hardware...
Whats important is the Software. Nintendo makes some of the best games around. They also have some of the most talented 2nd parties.
I think they sell overprice craps and most of its are kiddyish. A $50 kiddyish Zelda cartridge with limited space its just too expensive!
The only reason Nintendo 64 games are expensive is because it uses cartridges. They are expensive ($20 - 30 to manufacture, compared to pennies for cd\'s) and have limited space.
1. The NGC doesn\'t use cartridges.
2. NGC games won\'t cost as much.
3. The games will no longer be overpriced.
Maybe Nintendo does develop some kiddy games. However, I do not think that Zelda is one of them. You may not like their games (their==Nintendo@co), but that doesn\'t mean its crap. Is Zelda crap? 1080? Waverace? Mario 64? Mario Kart?
about mini-dvd. i am not sure if they are going the right track. only 1.5 gig...hmmmm...to be honest i prefer ps2 4.7 gig (12 cm disc as opposed to 8 cm from nin). why? It can easily play both 8 cm and 12 cm dvd video, vcd, audio cds. that means if developers liked, they can used 8cm dvd or cd and program games into it. more options. so i am telling ya, it can played both 8 and 12 cm discs. this is a fact. (hahahahhha!) while lunchcube can only played 8cm dvd and only 8 cm videogames. and anyway, how many music/movies use 8cm?
I think Nintendo is doing fine - Their propeity format has many advantages [and some disadvantages, of course].
Advantages over cartridges
- Costs a LOT less to manufacture (pennies)
- A lot larger (holds ~1.6GB)
- Smaller, lighter
Advantages over DVD
- Great anti-piracy
- Smaller, lighter
- Less loading times (I\'m not sure whether its in the main hardware that this comes from or from the media format)
Disadvantages
- Doesn\'t hold as much
- [NGC] can\'t play DVD/VCD movies or play music CD\'s
Also, the smaller discs might be part of the fact that the NGC will have fast load times.
Also, I don\'t think swapping discs will be a problem. The psx had many multiple disc games.
I don\'t see it as a problem. In fact, I see it as a plus.
so i am saying gamecube is a present computer while ps2 is the future.
.....I lost you.
seriously, gamecube may have high texture but that\'s easy to add for a hardware?
?
I think you\'re downplaying the NGC\'s texture abilities. Textures and effects are a major part of the "game". Also, the NGC\'s polygon count isn\'t small.
...while ps2 have more polygons counts. I think that is harder to do than adding more video ram. you may ask, you point is? i may answer, nintendo isn\'t as powerful as ps2 its just only the texturing makes it look good.
... Greater texturing abilites, more effects, etc... how is it not as powerful? You\'re measuring the power in polygons.
...and giving it a year after ps2, low polygons count make nintendo slow. i am not saying you shouldn\'t buy it. I just wanted to point out some things i like people to knows. [/B]
Where does Nintendo have "low polygons"?
The ps2 does more polygons with full effects
Maybe it does, but I think thats quite deceiving. The NGC has more effects, more lights, etc...
just put it this way, the gamecube is like a modern pc ( i am talking about porformance here) while ps2 power is 2 years ahead of any top of the line pc graphic chips.
Okay, this is basically a crap analogy.
the ps2 emotion engine is capable of doing things which i doubt that gc can do (maybe for software only) like heat, realistic hair flow, and you know metal gear solid 2 show you everything. +when bullets hit, newspaper flying and leaves fall down from trees. Very, very detail.
Those things you mention aren\'t "loyal" to the ps2.
gamecube is a texture munching and they use compression...which have it pros and cons...
What are the cons for S3? 6:1 compression ratio w/ no/little loss in quality.
who says texture is better than polygons is eating too much crap.
Textures and polygons... their importance is mixed - both are very important.
looks, if texture is harder to done, then how much most high end graphic chips for pc have a lots of vram. likes 32 mb of vram or 64 mb of vram...while ps2 have only 4. but they high end graphic chips still couldn\'t beat ps2 in polygons.
...You really can\'t compare consoles to pc graphic cards - apples and oranges.
Both the ps2 and the NGC smoke pc cards.
nintendo pleaded for help by asking ibm and ibm only makes texture compression for them i believe and 16 meg of s3t thing whatever it is.
1. Nintendo certainly didn\'t "plead" for help.
2. IBM made the gekko (the cpu)
polygons count means detail. soulgrind is right, alpha blending is what makes it colorful and eye candy while texture just blur the things out.
No...No...No. True, polygons do mean more detail, but your whole texture thing... is just wrong. The N64\'s textures were blurry because it was underpowered (in whatever aspects).
I can\'t explain.
if the ps2 have more vram, say 16 mb. then it will outperform the lunchcube.
You can\'t just add more RAM and... walah - it doesn\'t work like that. Anyways, it doesn\'t have 16MB of RAM, so...
it easy to added more ram like add on while polygons is harder to make on a small chip that can calculate so high. see, most graphic chips have high meg of ram for texture and high resolution while ps2 have low vram but high polygon counts.
I don\'t see what you\'re getting at.
so far, no graphic chips have outperform ps2 polygons count but only outperform mb of vram...meaning its harder to makes more polygons than adding more vram. in fact, ps2 is so powerful, calculating 75 millions pps, that Iraq bought 4000 units of it and only 12-15 ps2 togethers can make a pilotless aircraft.
.....
..................
-
Originally posted by drcrumble
lol.
what 10 mpps figure? Oh yes, the one you just pulled out of your ass.
I trust you know what portable code is.
In all likelihood the benchmark EA was using was a simple one (probably something like this: http://www.nvidia.com/Marketing/Developer/DevRel.nsf/pages/6D06759A6B04E7008825691C0071B29D), and they probably already had the source code to the benchmark in GLUT opengl format.
That gives them around a week to optimize the code (pretty easy assuming they know opengl, which every 3d graphics programmer has probably learned at some point), then bench it.
actual time with the console is less of an issue when you consider that this a benchmark (not a game), and that they probably already had the source for it.
So you\'re assuming EA already had the source code for the benchmark program specifically designed to run on Gamecube Hardware before they even recieved dev kits, I don\'t think so. What you\'re also saying is EA Canada has recieved, learned, understood and maxed out Gamecube Hardware in a week. Lets look at this realistically, the source for say a benchmark program would not nearly take as long as a game too optimise for a specific Hardware platform but there is no way in hell it would take only a week to fully optimise benchmark source code for a very foreign and unknown platform, not to mention using a PC based benchmark program as your suggesting isn\'t going to exactly give top performance, it is crazy to suggest EA maxed out Gamecube in a week, absolutly crazy.
Also OpenGL is the Gamecube API yes, but that does not mean games must be coded in OpenGL to run, im sure Nintendo has included it\'s own custom API tools with Gamecube for better performance and less overhead. OpenGL is simply a nice alternative, that suits PC developers porting projects to Gamecube.
Originally posted by drcrumble
lol, listen.
he said this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both [ demos ] run in real time on the gamecube and uses approx. 50% of the hardware
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then he said this
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if the Xbox can create that, I will eat a broom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
put two and two together....
he says the demo uses 50% of the gc hardware, and says xbox isn\'t capable of it, so therefore ::drumroll:: he is saying xbox is less than 50% as powerful as gamecube.
aparently you agree with him...lol
Stop making up rubbish to suit your own argument, he NEVER said X-Box wasn\'t capable of the RS2 demo\'s but as I said he indicated that he would be very suprised if XBox could do it with his "eat a broom" comment. He says RS2 uses 50% of the hardware so where\'s the fault in saying that, if you had done your homework properly you would know he also said he was waiting for the final XBox Hardware before he made any final judgements. On the German message board he was comparing the finalized Gamecube Hardware to the current XDK (Pentium 3 733, GeForce 2 GTS) which the Gamecube Hardware understandably destroyed (i.e - 5 times faster framerate at 50% of it\'s full power capacity).
Originally posted by drcrumble
His posts were deleted because he got into trouble with Nintendo. I doubt he is going to get into trouble with Nintendo if he says gc has better graphics than xbox.
His posts were delted because Nintendo caught wind of his activities, clearly there are plenty of things Nintendo is trying to keep secret with Gamecube and they weren\'t about to let their NDA protected tech specs become public knowledge on a German message board.
Originally posted by drcrumble
case in point - ram:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Absolutely. We can\'t really complain about any aspect. Oh yeah, of course we could complain that the RAM could be bigger, but you can complain about that on any and every machine under the sun. I mean, a good example would be, if you compared it to Xbox which has a little more RAM, Xbox\'s audio format, on the other hand, is much more memory intensive than GameCube\'s so in the end they pretty much even out once again. So far all of these systems you can always complain about the memory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol, a little more. He\'s kidding, right?
gamecube - 43mb
xbox - 64mb
counting the A-ram, which is really just buffer for the dvd drive, gc has 21 mb less ram than xbox. It\'s absurd to say that\'s "a little more ram"; It\'s nearly the size of gc\'s entire main ram.
Well how about we discuss how the NV2A is severly Bandwidth limited how it has no embedded RAM like PS2 and NGC, how it\'s CPU has half the on chip cache of Gekko and how it\'s raw fillrate is less then half that of the Playstation 2\'s GS.
Originally posted by drcrumble[/b]
I really doubt he would hold back saying the gc has much better graphics, unless of course he knew he was going to be proven wrong very soon.
Thats ok Michael Abrash has already proved him right
- XBox = 8 Million PPS with 8 local lights and 2 texture effect layers.
- Gamecube = 14 million PPS with four texture effect layers + all other effects on.
All other effects for Gamecube does include 8 local lights, notice - "all other effects".
Also i\'ve seen the XBox 3 minute demo reel on TV, I couldn\'t help laughing at what looked like a bunch of Playstation 2 games with FSAA. The preceeding realtime Gamecube demo\'s seriously killed it. Oh but of course you\'ll bring up the Raven, Butterfly and Ping Pong pre rendered demo\'s im sure :rolleyes:
-
too me.. Demos mean S@#T all. I judge games on the REAL games. Not tech demos. But thats just what i\'m like. I know Xbox and NGC are more powerful then Ps2. Coming out 1 year after. They better be.
But really, How many people DO care for specs. The normal gamer probley wouldn\'t know what a polygon is. They really just care for games. When i got my psx. I didn\'t bother with specs or anything like that. I brought the system because i wanted too play games.
I\'m trying too say this. What are consoles about? GAMES i believe is the anwser. Not specs, In the end it\'s about what games people want. Not what system can do the most effects or polygons, Even so. If it did come down to specs, It would then be more about What developer could use them the best.
but for most people its simple. Consoles are about games. Specs are good to debate about, Because u can learn a lot from it. But in the end. It\'s games i\'m looking for not specs. That\'s why i have a DC, That\'s why i\'m getting a ps2.
-
Ordinary people will know nothing about specs, but they\'ll recognize the Sony and Nintendo brands as being \'popular consoles\'. Microsoft don\'t have that image yet, but I\'m sure they\'ll do their best with marketing the Xbox.
Casual gamers want games, not specs. I guess we\'ll just have to wait and see which console will sell the most. IMO they\'ll all sell \'almost\' equally. :)
-
I disagree a little bit, specs do mean something to the casual gamer in a marketing sense. Case in point - for Nintendo to market the Nintendo 64 as 64 bit compared to Playstation\'s 32 Bit gave people the knowledge that a higher number is better and thus more powerful. You think Microsoft wont flaunt large useless numbers to the general public to try and convince everyone they have the more powerful machine, of course they will, just look at the stupid comparison on their website. Of course I certainly know otherwise tech wise, still in the end it is irrelevant as it\'s games that matter, people wont give two fu[/i]cks about XBox when they have a new Mario game to play on new Nintendo Hardware and i\'ll bet anything on that.
-
Originally posted by Trintius
I disagree a little bit, specs do mean something to the casual gamer in a marketing sense. Case in point - for Nintendo to market the Nintendo 64 as 64 bit compared to Playstation\'s 32 Bit gave people the knowledge that a higher number is better and thus more powerful.
Agreed!
You think Microsoft wont flaunt large useless numbers to the general public to try and convince everyone they have the more powerful machine, of course they will, just look at the stupid comparison on their website.
[/B]
Yep, but then again, they will have the more powerful machine. :)
Of course I certainly know otherwise tech wise, still in the end it is irrelevant as it\'s games that matter
[/B]
No tech wise the XBox is the most powerful, but as you said, it\'s the games that matter.
people wont give two fu[/i]cks about XBox when they have a new Mario game to play on new Nintendo Hardware and i\'ll bet anything on that.[/B]
Hmmm, that was the same arguement used to suggest the N64 would kill the Playstation back in 1995/96 (together with quality over quantity)! Didn\'t quite work out that way. :)
Yes it\'s the games that matter, and Nintendo/Rare have created some of the greatest console games in the past, but that didn\'t stop the massive success of the Playstion.
Therefore I doubt the GC would have much effect on either the XBox or PS2.
[Edited by Dr Yassam on 01-02-2001 at 06:29 AM]
-
Oops...double post!
-
Hmmm, that was the same arguement used to suggest the N64 would kill the Playstation back in 1995/96 (together with quality over quantity)! Didn\'t quite work out that way.
The Mario game was amazing (especially at the time), but it couldn\'t stand out there by itself and fight the psx alone. It did do that to the people for a time, but... the rest is history.
The Quality over Quantity thing... I think that was more of Nintendo\'s excuse for the N64\'s lack of games after it was in its life a little ways...
Yes it\'s the games that matter, and Nintendo/Rare have created some of the greatest console games in the past, but that didn\'t stop the massive success of the Playstion.
Therefore I doubt the GC would have much effect on either the XBox or PS2.
I think that reasoning is wrong.
Yes, its true that Nintendo&co have created some of the greatest console games, and its true that the psx had massive success. BUT - it doesn\'t work the way you put it. Nintendo&co\'s great games were the only thing that kept the N64 from failing.
The real reason it didn\'t stop the massive success of the psx was because the 3rd parties didn\'t support it (along with the N64\'s numerous hardware problems - cartridges, expensiveness,etc..). (you also have to count in the fact that the ps2 has great competition this time (dc, NGC, xbox - as opposed to the dead saturn and the crippled N64)
The NGC has fixed basically all of the N64\'s problems (cartridges, hard & costly to develop for, etc...) and made the system very easy to develop for.
They\'ve added new faces to their 2nd party lineup (more games, more variety), and they\'re broadening their gaming scope. (Look at some of the games for NGC:
Perfect Dark 2 (for launch)
Resident Evil Zero (Launch/close)
Too Human (launch/close)
Metroid (Close after)
SSX:SE ?
Madden 2001 ?
Waverace ?
Mario (launch)
....
Then, count in the fact that the NGC will actually be more powerful than the ps2 (not like N64<->psx) and its the NGC thats developer friendly (as opposed to N64<->psx) this time...
Also, you have to remember all of Nintendo\'s franchises and exclusive games... Mario WILL be a huge force when it comes out, but this time it will have games behind it.
I think that they will be good competition and will effect the Xbox and Ps2.
I think this next gaming \'era\' is mostly unpredictable.
-
Originally posted by know-it-all-wanna-be
while ps2 power is 2 years ahead of any top of the line pc graphic chips.....
but they high end graphic chips still couldn\'t beat ps2 in polygons.....
see, most graphic chips have high meg of ram for texture and high resolution while ps2 have low vram but high polygon counts.....
so far, no graphic chips have outperform ps2 polygons count but only outperform mb of vram...meaning its harder to makes more polygons than adding more vram.....
I beg to differ. Read this:
Introducing the game accelerator that breaks the one billion pixel per second barrier - the 3D Blaster® Annihilator™ 2 Ultra. Powered by the GeForce2 Ultra™, this incredible accelerator delivers massive fill rates of up to one billion pixels and two billion texels per second. Featuring the NVIDIA Shading Rasterizer (NSR), the 3D Blaster Annihilator 2 Ultra includes advanced per-pixel shading capabilities for realistic visual effects. Plus 2nd-generation Transform and Lighting (T&L) engines render more than 31 million sustained triangles per second. And with 64MB of ultra-high-speed Double Data Rate (DDR) memory effectively operating at 460MHz with 7.36 GB/sec of dedicated graphics memory bandwidth, you have the power you need for the next-generation of 3D games! Best of all, the 3D Blaster Annihilator 2 Ultra includes everything you\'d expect from a cutting-edge 3D accelerator: 256-bit graphics architecture, AGP 4X with Fast Writes support, true color 32-bit 3D rendering, 32-bit Z/stencil buffer, DXTC and S3TC texture compression for Direct3D® and OpenGL® and superior video capabilities including MPEG1 and MPEG2 playback.
Taken from Buy.com (http://www.us.buy.com/retail/computers/product.asp?sku=10261287&loc=220)
What was that you were saying about high-end graphics cards? Never say that a console is better than PC graphics cards let alone high-end graphics cards. That is unless you want to face the wrath of the PC Gaming 1337
-
Originally posted by thy_toothpick
Also, you have to remember all of Nintendo\'s franchises and exclusive games... Mario WILL be a huge force when it comes out, but this time it will have games behind it.
I think that they will be good competition and will effect the Xbox and Ps2.
Actually, my post was far more dismissive of Nintendo and the GC than I meant it to be, thanks for your input.
My aim wasn\'t to suggest the GC would be ignored by gamers who are swept away by the more attractive XBox and PS2, but to counter the arguement that gamers will simply ignore the XBox because of some great Nintendo games on the GC as suggested by Trintius.
The GC will be a great success I\'m sure, but I do feel it would lag behind the XBox and PS2 much like the N64 did against the Playstation (but probably by not as large a margin this time). We\'ll see. :)
[Edited by Dr Yassam on 01-02-2001 at 06:30 PM]
-
Stop making up rubbish to suit your own argument, he NEVER said X-Box wasn\'t capable of the RS2 demo\'s but as I said he indicated that he would be very suprised if XBox could do it with his "eat a broom" comment. He says RS2 uses 50% of the hardware so where\'s the fault in saying that, if you had done your homework properly you would know he also said he was waiting for the final XBox Hardware before he made any final judgements. On the German message board he was comparing the finalized Gamecube Hardware to the current XDK (Pentium 3 733, GeForce 2 GTS) which the Gamecube Hardware understandably destroyed (i.e - 5 times faster framerate at 50% of it\'s full power capacity).
lol, this is getting quite annoying.
he said he would eat a broom if xbox could do something that only utilizes 50% of gc\'s power. That is the same as saying xbox is less than 50% as powerful as gc (unless he likes eating brooms...).
he did not say "I will eat a broom if a geforce 2 can do our demo", he said "I will eat a broom if xbox can do our demo"
"if you had done your homework properly you would know he also said he was waiting for the final XBox Hardware before he made any final judgements."
lol, he didn\'t even wait till the end of his post to make a judgement! he said he would eat a damn broom if xbox could do it! I\'d call that a judgement.
and if he was judging xbox based on what a geforce 2 can do, then he is just being ignorant and shortsighted, which gives us a window into his character.
So you\'re assuming EA already had the source code for the benchmark program specifically designed to run on Gamecube Hardware before they even recieved dev kits, I don\'t think so.
no, not a benchmark designed specifically for gc, a simple opengl benchmark.
What you\'re also saying is EA Canada has recieved, learned, understood and maxed out Gamecube Hardware in a week.
I love how complicated you make it sound.
as long as they know opengl, all they would have to learn are a few gamecube specific opengl functions. Couldn\'t take more than a day to learn (assuming they are experienced programmers, as they should be working for EA), and a week to implement into a simple benchmark.
As much as you would like to think developers are actually going to code in assembly (does the term "spaghetti code" ring a bell?) to get the most power out of any platform, it just isn\'t going to happen, so it doesn\'t require eons to "max out" a system (realistically, anyway).
Lets look at this realistically, the source for say a benchmark program would not nearly take as long as a game too optimise for a specific Hardware platform but there is no way in hell it would take only a week to fully optimise benchmark source code for a very foreign and unknown platform, not to mention using a PC based benchmark program as your suggesting isn\'t going to exactly give top performance, it is crazy to suggest EA maxed out Gamecube in a week, absolutly crazy.
Not a very foreign and unknown platform. A new platform that uses opengl and has a few platform-specific functions to take advantage of its few unique features.
oh yeah, not a "pc benchmark", either. An opengl benchmark.
Also OpenGL is the Gamecube API yes, but that does not mean games must be coded in OpenGL to run, im sure Nintendo has included it\'s own custom API tools with Gamecube for better performance and less overhead. OpenGL is simply a nice alternative, that suits PC developers porting projects to Gamecube.
Unless developers are going to code in assembly (suuuuuurrre), there is no alternative to opengl. It is gamecube\'s API.
His posts were delted because Nintendo caught wind of his activities, clearly there are plenty of things Nintendo is trying to keep secret with Gamecube and they weren\'t about to let their NDA protected tech specs become public knowledge on a German message board.
that doesnt have any bearing on the argument.
in other words...that doesn\'t mean Nintendo would be pissed at him if he did an interview and said gc had better graphics than xbox.
Well how about we discuss how the NV2A is severly Bandwidth limited how it has no embedded RAM like PS2 and NGC
severly bandwidth limited?
thats what vertex, texture, and Z compression are for.
If you can handle the truth I suggest you check out this article:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/2000/0008/0008a/0008as1.htm
in which abrash explains how xbox has sufficient bandwidth to handle 100 mpps...
...even while the cpu is using its full bandwidth allocation (1gb/sec), bandwidth is reduced by 1.3 gb/sec to account for the natural innefficiencies or memory, 4x anti-aliasing is used.
He also didn\'t take into HSR, nor did he take into account vertex compression (which he explains at then end of the article could\'ve freed up more than 1 gb/sec of bandwidth).
You can do your own calculations if you want to check his work....
I hope that clears up the whole bandwidth issue :)
how it\'s CPU has half the on chip cache of Gekko
ahh, the cache issue. Well, first remember how little the CPUs in these consoles will actually do, I will then remind you how little cache size means in dynamic applications...but I\'ll argue with you anyway.
Do you remember the orginal athlon processor? It had 512k of cache, but it that cache ran at half the speed of the core.
Then AMD made the thunderbird, which had half the cache of athlon, but that cache ran at full speed.
The thunderbird was much faster than the athlon, and the world rejoiced in its glory :)
anyway...point is, size isn\'t always the biggest issue. In a static app like a word processor, where operations are performed on the same data repeatedly...possibly...but games are dynamic apps, and cache speed is much more of an issue.
bottom line:
Despite the fact that the p3 in xbox will have half the cache of gekko, if gekko\'s cache is running slower than the core, or is inferior in other ways (say 4 way associative as opposed to 8 way associative), it could still be slower! size doesn\'t matter!
and how it\'s raw fillrate is less then half that of the Playstation 2\'s GS.
it\'s really more or less equal....
here\'s an unfair comparison. Keep in mind that the ps2\'s effective fillrate will decrese whenever polys are less than 16 pixels in size. But, I am assuming that xbox\'s memory bandwidth will limit it to 350 mp/sec (conservative), but the Z compression and HSR will bring it back up to 700 mp/sec (also conservative IMO). BTW, I know you will probably banter something like "now we see the problems with xbox\'s UMA", but if you know anything you will know that. Oh yes, you may have also seen a figure of 2.4 gb/sec for ps2, but that\'s with no texture.
xbox ps2
1 texture: 700 mp/sec 1.2 gp/sec
2 textures: 700 mp/sec 600 mp/sec
3 textures: 350 mp/sec 300 mp/sec
4 textures: 350 mp/sec 150 mp/sec
this really gives xbox the advantage. Yes, ps2 has a substantial lead when only texture is used, but at 640X480 all of that extra fillrate just goes to waste. There would have to be more than 50x overdraw to actually put all of that extra fillrate to use. The main thing to look at is that xbox could handle 4 textures, while GS would probably be fillrate limited.
Thats ok Michael Abrash has already proved him right
- XBox = 8 Million PPS with 8 local lights and 2 texture effect layers.
- Gamecube = 14 million PPS with four texture effect layers + all other effects on.
All other effects for Gamecube does include 8 local lights, notice - "all other effects".
hehe...
care to explain how EA got gc to use 8 local lights with only 4 light maps...that\'s kind of ummm....impossible...
and oh yeah, that xbox spec is with 8 texture effect layers...unless xbox can use 8 local lights with only 2 light maps...yes, that\'s impossible too.
Also i\'ve seen the XBox 3 minute demo reel on TV, I couldn\'t help laughing at what looked like a bunch of Playstation 2 games with FSAA. The preceeding realtime Gamecube demo\'s seriously killed it. Oh but of course you\'ll bring up the Raven, Butterfly and Ping Pong pre rendered demo\'s im sure
lol...
not only were the ping pong and butterfly demos not pre-rendered, they were running on a geforce 2! hahahhhahahahah!!
about the raven demo, it depends on which you are talking about. There were pre-rendered and real-time versions. The real-time one of course looked worse, but it was also running on a geforce 2.
oh yeah, if you can find some high quality vids of the toys on desk demo I suggest you check them out. It looked amazingly real, and it too was only running on a geforce 2.
I would expect the gamecube demos to destroy the xbox one\'s at this point. They are running on a geforce 2...get over it...
oh yeah, not to mention that they were made by pipeworks software, a small, new dev house made up of about 20 guys, in a very short amount of time.
Who know\'s how long Nintendo\'s massive, legendary dev house EAD had been perfecting those gc demos, and Julian recently confimed that rs2 demo took factor 5 more like 6 months than two weeks to make.
oh well...
The wait won\'t be long now. The console and controller are going to be shown at CES on jan 6-9, and actual games are going to be shown at microsoft\'s gamestock, which will be sometime around feb/mar, then of course there\'s GDC and E3....
[Edited by drcrumble on 01-02-2001 at 09:48 PM]
-
My aim wasn\'t to suggest the GC would be ignored by gamers who are swept away by the more attractive XBox and PS2, but to counter the arguement that gamers will simply ignore the XBox because of some great Nintendo games on the GC as suggested by Trintius.
The GC will be a great success I\'m sure, but I do feel it would lag behind the XBox and PS2 much like the N64 did against the Playstation (but probably by not as large a margin this time). We\'ll see.
LOL,so you think the X-Box will do better than GameCube? I beg to differ,take these points into consideration:
1.X-Box will come out last.Giving NGC an early head start. Head starts are an advantage,look at the Genesis vs SNES scenario.
2.Its graphics won\'t be much better than GameCube,if not at all better.So why would people chose a new name over a veteran company if they have the same graphics?
3.X-Box is aimed at the older generation,right?Doesn\'t Sony already own those people?Again,PSX sold over 75 million units,most of those people are over 18,that is a proven fact.Most of those people are casual gamers,they already know what console there gonna buy-PS2.The\'ll have their console by the time X-Box comes out,what makes you think they will buy X-Box too?
4.PEOPLE DON\'T LIKE MICROSOFT, this will effect them.The casual gamer doesn\'t care about specs or what developers MS has because most gamers don\'t like Microsoft(except the nerdy PC crowd).Go to videogames sites,most of them usually have polls on which system you\'ll eventually buy,X-Box always comes last wth PS2 coming first and DC or NGC coming in third.X-Box-dead last,every poll I\'ve seen.If the hardcore gamer isn\'t interested in XB then why will the casual gamer be?
5.N64 sold over 35 million units,most of those people will be coming back.NGC will sell somewhere near or over that mark I imagine,MS doesn\'t have a userbase like NIntendo does, they don\'t have one at all for that matter.
6.Price.X-Box will have the largest price by the time it is released.NGC will be a 179(or less),PS2 some where around 240(or most likely under),DC at 100 at this rate,and X-Box around 300.Who would want to buy the highest costing console?Not me,especially when I could get two other consoles who have been out much longer with already a very good amount of high quality games(DC and PS2).
7.Not as many exclusives games as NGC and PS2.X-Box is getting a lot of ports,thats why some people call it the port-box.:)Why would someone want one game if they already have it on another system?
So in conclusion,I don\'t see how it is possible for NGC to lag behind X-Box.It just wouldn\'t make sense to me, unless you can show me other wise then my opinion on this stands.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
too me.. Demos mean S@#T all. I judge games on the REAL games. Not tech demos. But thats just what i\'m like. I know Xbox and NGC are more powerful then Ps2. Coming out 1 year after. They better be.
It would be funny if the Gamecube and the Xbox were less powerful than the PS2. Especially since they\'re gonna have a whole extra year to improve upon their systems and probably learn from some of the PS2\'s mistake :D:D
[Edited by ChocoboSquared on 01-02-2001 at 11:01 PM]
-
Reality check, EA did some benchmark test. These are not game situations and they are not fully optimized for the systemm, thats like saying they can maximize the system in a week even though it takes the most skilled developers years. When EA got 5 million polygons that was with 8 light sources on every polygon. In an actual game very few polygons are going to have more than one or two light sources acting on them, even if there are 8 or more lights in a sceene. So when Ea got 5 million thats pretty good, considering thats full supported effects with unrealisticly high light sources effecting all polygons on unoptimized code.
-
I really don\'t give a crap anymore. I\'ll say it.
Gamecube & Xbox both beat the PS2 in the graphics department. But thats only half the battle.
Nintendo needs to get some major 3rd party support. I\'m talking big exclusives, kind of like Resident Evil 0. Those kind of big exclusives. So far, we only know that Konami & Capcom are supporting Gamecube.
Xbox, it has the games, the hardware, and strong 3rd party support, but not the image like Sony and Nintendo. Thats where the 500million marketing comes in. Hopefully that will boost their image.
Everybody needs to face the fact that PS2 is not more powerful then Xbox or Gamecube. But, they also should realize that so far PS2 has the hype, popularity, and somewhat descent games thats making it #1 right now.
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
LOL,so you think the X-Box will do better than GameCube?
Yes, myself, most gamers and most game developers including EA (who believe the real battle is between XBox and PS2).
I beg to differ,take these points into consideration:
1.X-Box will come out last.Giving NGC an early head start. Head starts are an advantage,look at the Genesis vs SNES scenario.[/B]
Head starts are an advantage, but they are NOT a guarentee of success (look at the Dreamcast, despite some superb games). The battle betweeen these consoles will rage on until atleast 2005 Jumpman! Yes head starts help, but within a couple of years, such a start wouldn\'t matter anymore.
2.Its graphics won\'t be much better than GameCube,if not at all better.So why would people chose a new name over a veteran company if they have the same graphics?[/B]
Oh come on, that same arguement was used when Sony announced the PSX, yet gamers choose Sony over both Sega and Nintendo!
3.X-Box is aimed at the older generation,right?Doesn\'t Sony already own those people?[/B]
They once \'owned\' the developers who targetted the older generation, but not anymore. The XBox will be host to games from developers who once only targetted the Playstation/PS2. Gamers go where the games are!!!
Most of those people are casual gamers,they already know what console there gonna buy-PS2.The\'ll have their console by the time X-Box comes out,what makes you think they will buy X-Box too?
[/b]
Prior to the Playstation, most casual gamers knew they were going to buy a new console from Nintendo or Sega. What did they know about Sony?
And as I said before, this battle will rage on until atleast 2005 (when we should see a new generation of consoles). Do you really believe gamers who have purchased a PS2 now have no intention of purchasing a new console for the next 4 years!!!
4.PEOPLE DON\'T LIKE MICROSOFT, this will effect them.[/B]
When rumours first suggested Microsoft had intentions to enter the console market, you couldn\'t find a console developer who had anything good or positive to say about Microsoft and their console\'s chances of success. Well look how times have changed, these same developers are now falling over each other to develope games on the XBox (Square may be next!). Most now expect it to be a great machine and feel that MS are doing a great job.
5.N64 sold over 35 million units,most of those people will be coming back.NGC will sell somewhere near or over that mark I imagine,MS doesn\'t have a userbase like NIntendo does, they don\'t have one at all for that matter.[/B]
Neither did Sony before the Playstation, yet look at them today! So your point is?
6.Price.X-Box will have the largest price by the time it is released...[/B]
We\'ll have to wait and see first!
7.Not as many exclusives games as NGC and PS2.X-Box is getting a lot of ports,thats why some people call it the port-box.:)[/B]
Only people like yourself. Less biased gamers are able to use reason as realise that we have only know a fraction of the games to appear on the XBox. Even with the PS2, we only know a fraction of the games currently in developement.
Why would someone want one game if they already have it on another system?
Ports of the best games exists on EVERY system, including the PS2, and gamers want to play them.
So in conclusion,I don\'t see how it is possible for NGC to lag behind X-Box.It just wouldn\'t make sense to me, unless you can show me other wise then my opinion on this stands. [/B]
It doesn\'t make sense to you, but it makes sence for most others!
I\'ve read numerous interviews where developers (such as EA) expect the XBox and PS2 to be the leading consoles. I\'m sure with a bit of searching I can find these links, however I doubt you could find many who would say the same about the GC (except GC only developers that is :))!
[Edited by Dr Yassam on 01-03-2001 at 07:36 AM]
-
Yes, myself, most gamers and most game developers including EA (who believe the real battle is between XBox and PS2).
The casual gamer doesn\'t even know what the X-Box is yet, and when did EA state this?I think they meant X-Box will be PS2 biggest competition since there both aimed at a mature audience.
Head starts are an advantage, but they are NOT a guarentee of success (look at the Dreamcast, despite some superb games). The battle betweeen these consoles will rage on until atleast 2005 Jumpman! Yes head starts help, but within a couple of years, such a start wouldn\'t matter anymore.
A NGC headstart will still be an advantage.People these days have no patience,they won\'t wait for very long.( Since PS2 wasn\'t at stores this holiday season some people bought DC instead,that was the case here.)
Oh come on, that same arguement was used when Sony announced the PSX, yet gamers choose Sony over both Sega and Nintendo!
This isn\'t the same argument.What does X-Box have over other consoles?NOTHING.HD-big deal,a built in modem would of been better.
They once \'owned\' the developers who targetted the older generation, but not anymore. The XBox will be host to games from developers who once only targetted the Playstation/PS2. Gamers go where the games are!!!
And you know this,how?Gamers tend to stand by their system, Micorsoft doesn\'t have any of those gamers.Gamers are fools they don\'t see what the other console has to offer, how many Sony and NIntendo fans would fall into that catagorie? A lot.They won\'t just see the X-Box and buy it,no.
Do you really believe gamers who have purchased a PS2 now have no intention of purchasing a new console for the next 4 years!!!
HELL YEAH!Like I said,those gamers are idiots,they stand by their console,they don\'t want anything else.Plus,why would people want X-Box when they are already satisfied with their system?
When rumours first suggested Microsoft had intentions to enter the console market, you couldn\'t find a console developer who had anything good or positive to say about Microsoft and their console\'s chances of success. Well look how times have changed, these same developers are now falling over each other to develope games on the XBox (Square may be next!). Most now expect it to be a great machine and feel that MS are doing a great job.
Yeah but developers and gamers have totally different views.Also,you didn\'t bother to quote the rest of that paragraph,why?It just explains how it seems that peope don\'t want an X-Box.
Neither did Sony before the Playstation, yet look at them today! So your point is?
Oh shut up.You and I perfectly know that that was a completly different scenario.Sony had it easy,MS doesn\'t, they have their work cut out for them as you can see.
We\'ll have to wait and see first!
No we don\'t,its a common fact.The lowest price objects sell better.
Only people like yourself.
Fool.I call it the Glitch-Box because it operates under Windows.I NEVER CALLED IT PORT-BOX you gimp.
Less biased gamers are able to use reason as realise that we have only know a fraction of the games to appear on the XBox. Even with the PS2, we only know a fraction of the games currently in developement.
LOL,they don\'t get any less biased than me.
Ports of the best games exists on EVERY system, including the PS2, and gamers want to play them.
Whats your point?PS2 has the big developers,they make games on PS2 before they do on X-Box.If people already have them on one system then why the **** would they want them on another system?
It doesn\'t make sense to you, but it makes sence for most others!
No just to you.:)
I\'ve read numerous interviews where developers (such as EA) expect the XBox and PS2 to be the leading consoles. I\'m sure with a bit of searching I can find these links, however I doubt you could find many who would say the same about the GC (except GC only developers that is )!
Go ahead,find where they say PS2 and X-Box will be the leading consoles.I doubt that would be true anyway.
-
Originally posted by drcrumble
lol, this is getting quite annoying.
he said he would eat a broom if xbox could do something that only utilizes 50% of gc\'s power. That is the same as saying xbox is less than 50% as powerful as gc (unless he likes eating brooms...).
he did not say "I will eat a broom if a geforce 2 can do our demo", he said "I will eat a broom if xbox can do our demo"
So what! Let me say it AGAIN, he indicated he would be surprised if XBox (yes final hardware) could do the Rouge Squadron 2 demo, he done this with his \'eat a broom\' comment. He never once said XBox couldn\'t do it, but he indicated he would be surprised if it could, does it sink in now, sheeeesh.
Originally posted by drcrumble
lol, he didn\'t even wait till the end of his post to make a judgment! he said he would eat a damn broom if xbox could do it! I\'d call that a judgment.
I\'d call that opinion, BTW do you even know what the comment is supposed to mean?
Originally posted by drcrumble
and if he was judging xbox based on what a geforce 2 can do, then he is just being ignorant and shortsighted, which gives us a window into his character.
He used the GeForce 2 GTS equipped XDK as an EXAMPLE to make a preliminary comparison between the two consoles, however he said he was waiting for final XBox Hardware to make a final judgment.
Originally posted by drcrumble
I love how complicated you make it sound.
as long as they know opengl, all they would have to learn are a few gamecube specific opengl functions. Couldn\'t take more than a day to learn (assuming they are experienced programmers, as they should be working for EA), and a week to implement into a simple benchmark.
I love how you say simple benchmark, you’ve proved my point entirely. Why do you assume it would only take a week to, as I said, "receive, learn, understand and max out the Gamecube Hardware", that is exactly what you\'re assuming. I agree that some minor optimizations can be made in a short period of time to such a benchmark for increased performance. However pushing the console to it\'s absolute limits in a week (which is barely time to understand how the hardware works) is absolutely idiotic. It may only a simple Benchmark program but given more time with the Hardware means more of an understanding and improved optimizations can be made to the benchmark source code. The fact that the Gamecube uses the OpenGL API, doesn\'t mean sh[/i]it, the Hardware is still completely new and foreign, getting max performance in a week is preposterous.
Originally posted by drcrumble[/b]
Not a very foreign and unknown platform. A new platform that uses opengl and has a few platform-specific functions to take advantage of its few unique features.
oh yeah, not a "pc benchmark", either. An opengl benchmark.
You think Gamecube (with a very different and unusual architecture) can be maxed out in a week because you can port then optimize (PC Based, i.e - designed to run on PC Hardware) OpenGL benchmark programs on the console. Furthermore to suggest Gamecube has \'a few platform-specific functions\' is ridiculous, just look at it\'s architectural design while simple it is nothing like a PC.
BTW, what\'s OpenGL anyway...by golly a PC API.
Originally posted by drcrumble
Unless developers are going to code in assembly (suuuuuurrre), there is no alternative to opengl. It is gamecube\'s API.
No I said a custom API designed specifically for the Hardware, whether this is based upon OpenGL or not who knows.
Originally posted by drcrumble
severely bandwidth limited?
thats what vertex, texture, and Z compression are for.
If you can handle the truth I suggest you check out this article:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/2000/0008/0008a/0008as1.htm
in which abrash explains how xbox has sufficient bandwidth to handle 100 mpps...
...even while the cpu is using its full bandwidth allocation (1gb/sec), bandwidth is reduced by 1.3 gb/sec to account for the natural innefficiencies or memory, 4x anti-aliasing is used.
He also didn\'t take into HSR, nor did he take into account vertex compression (which he explains at then end of the article could\'ve freed up more than 1 gb/sec of bandwidth).
You can do your own calculations if you want to check his work....
I hope that clears up the whole bandwidth issue
So what about the requirement to store Frame Buffers/Z-Buffer in Main memory, what about memory latency issues with the CPU, GPU, MPU accessing the same bank of memory at the same time or how about the bandwidth required for the media processor (sound).
Also vertex data is not very Bandwidth consuming so the 100 MPPS is meaningless when discussing Bandwidth.
Originally posted by drcrumble
bottom line:
Despite the fact that the p3 in xbox will have half the cache of gekko, if gekko\'s cache is running slower than the core, or is inferior in other ways (say 4 way associative as opposed to 8 way associative), it could still be slower! size doesn\'t matter!
Size does matter, in the XBox\'s case more CPU Cache is extremely important due to the consoles UMA architecture, therefore the less it has to access Main RAM for data the better. More Cache simply means less Cache misses and since Cache is obviously embedded Cache Hits means more workload for the CPU, grabbing data from Main RAM is much slower and is more likely if you have less Cache. The severe lack of Cache is why the EE and it\'s Vector units in Playstation 2 will not and can not ever be fully maxed out.
BTW Common sense suggests that the CPU Cache speed in Gamecube would be equal to the CPU core speed.
Originally posted by drcrumble
it\'s really more or less equal....
here\'s an unfair comparison. Keep in mind that the ps2\'s effective fillrate will decrese whenever polys are less than 16 pixels in size. But, I am assuming that xbox\'s memory bandwidth will limit it to 350 mp/sec (conservative), but the Z compression and HSR will bring it back up to 700 mp/sec (also conservative IMO). BTW, I know you will probably banter something like "now we see the problems with xbox\'s UMA", but if you know anything you will know that. Oh yes, you may have also seen a figure of 2.4 gb/sec for ps2, but that\'s with no texture.
XBox Playstation 2
1 texture: 700 mp/sec 1.2 gp/sec
2 textures: 700 mp/sec 600 mp/sec
3 textures: 350 mp/sec 300 mp/sec
4 textures: 350 mp/sec 150 mp/sec
this really gives xbox the advantage. Yes, ps2 has a substantial lead when only texture is used, but at 640X480 all of that extra fillrate just goes to waste. There would have to be more than 50x overdraw to actually put all of that extra fillrate to use. The main thing to look at is that xbox could handle 4 textures, while GS would probably be fillrate limited.
It\'s irrelevant whether Playstation 2 uses 16 pixels per poly or 1, a 640 x 480 resolution will always require the same fill rate. Playstation 2\'s raw fill rate is 2.4 Gigapixels per second compared to XBox\'s 1 Gigapixel per second. Now since the NV2A has 4 TMU\'s per pixel pipeline it can apply 2 texture maps per pixel in one cycle (or 4 textures per pixel through each geometry pass), so if a polygon consists of 10 pixels the first TMU can use the first 10 pixels for the first texture map, and the second TMU can apply the second 10 pixel texture map all with no hit in fill rate. Playstation 2\'s fill rate is cut in half for every successive texture map applied so 1 texture map is 1.2 Gigapixels, 2 texture maps is 600 Megapixels and so on. XBox takes a hit if applying more then two textures per pixel, so for 3 or 4 textures per pixel XBox would require two cycles and take a 50% fill rate hit whereas Gamecube can do 4 textures per pixel without a fill rate hit.
Vertex compression (Z-Compression) has nothing to do with fill rates and HSR is certainly not true HSR in the Power VR sense, it could simply use an early Z-Check algorithm like Gamecube for all we know.
My initial point though was that Playstation 2\'s raw 2.4 Gigapixel fill rate is more then twice as high as XBox\'s 1 Gigapixel fill rate, that was not meant to be implied as in real world situations, we both know XBox kills Playstation 2 there.
Originally posted by drcrumble
hehe...
care to explain how EA got gc to use 8 local lights with only 4 light maps...that\'s kind of ummm....impossible...
and oh yeah, that xbox spec is with 8 texture effect layers...unless xbox can use 8 local lights with only 2 light maps...yes, that\'s impossible too.
What are you talking about, I said "14 million PPS with four texture effect layers + all other effects on", texture effect layers (such as gloss, bump, environment) have nothing to do with hardware lights, where you got light maps from or why you even brought them up is anybody’s guess.
Originally posted by drcrumble
lol...
not only were the ping pong and butterfly demos not pre-rendered, they were running on a geforce 2! hahahhhahahahah!!
about the raven demo, it depends on which you are talking about. There were pre-rendered and real-time versions. The real-time one of course looked worse, but it was also running on a geforce 2.
That\'s funny, why do the EGM released XBox pics (running on a GeForce 2 GTS equipped XDK) look nothing like those demos.
Originally posted by drcrumble
I would expect the gamecube demos to destroy the xbox one\'s at this point. They are running on a geforce 2...get over it...
Speaking of GeForce 2 GTS, well I can\'t help but bring this point up -
First look at this picture. -
http://www.geocities.com/drcruzumble/xboxhi2.jpg
Notice the fine print in the top right hand corner (next to the X), it basically says that any picture marked with an X is an actual XBox screen shot running off of the current XDK (1st gen XBox dev kit), the final product will look 50% better.
If im not mistaken a 1st generation XBox dev kit consists of a GeForce 2 GTS, does this mean that NV2A is only twice as powerful as these folowing in game pics -
http://www.geocities.com/drcruzumble/xboxhi1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/drcruzumble/xboxhi3.jpg
A picture does speak 1000 words, and if that\'s not proof that Microsoft will have their work cut out for them in competing with Gamecube then I don\'t know what is.
Oh BTW, wasn\'t the Raven Demo only using 5% of XBox\'s power, compared to the pictures of the games I know what looks better.
Originally posted by drcrumble
oh yeah, not to mention that they were made by pipeworks software, a small, new dev house made up of about 20 guys, in a very short amount of time.
Who know\'s how long Nintendo\'s massive, legendary dev house EAD had been perfecting those gc demos, and Julian recently confimed that rs2 demo took factor 5 more like 6 months than two weeks to make.
19 days using actual Hardware yes, projects like the Rouge Squadron 2 Demo (that will become a fully fledged game) need preparation time, how do we know for sure Pipeworks didn\'t take months in developing the XBox demo\'s, it\'s exactly the same scenario from both angles so don\'t be a hypocrite.
Originally posted by drcrumble
The wait won\'t be long now. The console and controller are going to be shown at CES on jan 6-9, and actual games are going to be shown at microsoft\'s gamestock, which will be sometime around feb/mar, then of course there\'s GDC and E3....
From what i\'ve seen so far im far from impressed, maybe it\'s just me but an overhyped hybrid Saturn/3DO with a hybrid Dreamcast/Gamecube controller with crappy looking games and multitudes of potential PC ports doesn\'t exactly appeal to me, maybe my standards are too high, then again maybe yours are too low. I suggest the later.
[Edited by Trintius on 01-03-2001 at 11:30 PM]
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
The casual gamer doesn\'t even know what the X-Box is yet, and when did EA state this?I think they meant X-Box will be PS2 biggest competition since there both aimed at a mature audience.
I think casual gamers are more aware than you give them credit for, and after MS\'s marketing campaign kicks in this year, everyone will know about the XBox whether they want to or not. :)
And yes, I think the EA comments were along those lines, including reference to the fact that Nintendo targets a different (i.e. younger) audience. Because of this, he expected the GC to be very successful, but NOT as successful as the PS2 or XBox, which he believes will be fighting for first and second place.
Now I know this all sounds a bit vague without the link, but it was from an interview I read on a website or a magazine. However, since EA announced their XBox support less than a month ago, it shouldn\'t take me long to find that interview.
A NGC headstart will still be an advantage.People these days have no patience, they won\'t wait for very long.( Since PS2 wasn\'t at stores this holiday season some people bought DC instead,that was the case here.)[/B]
Yes JM, they bought a DC, but do you now expect none of them to buy a PS2? Those who bought a DC will enjoy the games it has to offer, but as more and more games are realised on the PS2, and as the price drops, together with the arrival of the GC and XBox, many of these gamers will eventually buy a new console.
Hence I\'m not saying gamers will not buy a PS2 because they\'re waiting on the XBox (although some will). What I\'m saying is that gamers buy consoles for games, and if a console has the games they want to play and mindblowing graphics, then they will want to buy it EVEN if they already own a console.
This isn\'t the same argument.What does X-Box have over other consoles?NOTHING.HD-big deal,a built in modem would of been better.
[/b]
A built in 33k/56k modem compared to a built in broadband adapter (ethernet) and HD? :D :) :D
Yeh, that modem sure made the Dreamcast a massive success didn\'t it?
And you know this,how?Gamers tend to stand by their system, Micorsoft doesn\'t have any of those gamers.Gamers are fools they don\'t see what the other console has to offer, how many Sony and NIntendo fans would fall into that catagorie? A lot.They won\'t just see the X-Box and buy it,no.[/b]
Ms doesn\'t have many of those gamers YET, but as I said, gamers go where the games are. Sure, many gamers stand by their systems and are often dismissive of exclusive titles on other systems, but this loyality only lasts as long as their chosen console provides the games they want to play.
MS are not stupid, they know they have a tough battle ahead against the likes of Sony and Nintendo, therefore they recognise the need for having the BEST developers creating the BEST games. So far, they appear to have done everything right, and if Square confirm they\'re supporting the XBox also, then better still.
HELL YEAH!Like I said,those gamers are idiots,they stand by their console,they don\'t want anything else.Plus,why would people want X-Box when they are already satisfied with their system?[/b]
Your arguement seems to be based on the premise that most gamers are fools. I don\'t share your views.
And as for your XBox question. Well why would a DC owner want a PS2 when he\'s already satisfied with his system? The DC has had some awesome games this year, and continues to do so, yet there are numerous DC gamers who have NOW purchased a PS2!
Yeah but developers and gamers have totally different views.Also,you didn\'t bother to quote the rest of that paragraph,why?It just explains how it seems that peope don\'t want an X-Box.[/b]
Developers create the games we want to play (or didn\'t you realise that! :)). So even if you have objections against a certain console, your views WILL change as you see more and more of the games you want to play appear on that machine.
Gamers views are NOT fixed. Even the most biased gamer may switch allegence if he feels another console is getting the games he wants to play. Just look at some of the posts in this forum following the EA XBox announcement, and look for the same to happen again if Square announce XBox support too.
As for the rest of that paragraph on polls. It explains nothing, most polls are laughable as best and are easily mis-interpreted.
Sony\'s PSX had the SAME rating amounst gamers when compared to Nintendo and Sega prior to 1995 (since MOST console gamers had either a SNES or a MegaDrive). However, the closer we got to the PSX launch, the more we learnt about the console and it\'s games, such that gamers soon had no doubt that the PSX would be an awesome machine.
Therefore the polls we see today show an XBox rating MUCH improved compared to just 9 months ago when MS offically announced the machine. So expect that rating to increase as the year progresses!
Oh shut up.You and I perfectly know that that was a completly different scenario.Sony had it easy,MS doesn\'t, they have their work cut out for them as you can see.
That\'s nonsence based on nothing more than hindsight. It amuses me how people like yourself can now look back and say Sony had it easy when at the time neither you or I could have predicted it!. Sure, Sega and Nintendo made big mistakes which gave Sony the opportunity, however if the PSX was not a great machine, then Sony would not have been able to take advantage of their mistakes!
IMO, saying Sony had it easy does a GREAT disservice to the brilliance of their efforts towards making the PSX a success. Sony turned gaming from being viewed by many as an activity for kids and geeks, to being cool and accepatable. Hence Sony won fair and square, they EARNED their success, it was NOT given to them on a plate!
As I\'ve said already, I\'m not saying it\'s going to be easy for the XBox, of course it isn\'t, but looking at what MS have done so far, they have done almost everything right so far. Like Sony before them, MS will also have to earn their success in the console market.
Fool.I call it the Glitch-Box because it operates under Windows.I NEVER CALLED IT PORT-BOX you gimp.
[/b]
Stop playing with words JM. You made the \'some call it the port-box\' reference and immediately followed that comment by asking why anyone would want to play ports! Therefore you support that \'port-box\' claim, even if you didn\'t directly say it.
And why do you feel the need to get personal?
Whats your point?PS2 has the big developers,they make games on PS2 before they do on X-Box.[/b]
The PS2 is OUT NOW, so of course many games are going to appear on the PS2 first. However, many games in developement now which are destined for both PS2 and XBox are being developed for BOTH PS2 and XBox simulataneously. Therefore, once the XBox is launched, you will start to see games which appear on the XBox first, followed by the PS2 version (and vice-versa). So will you ignore an awesome game on the PS2 just because it\'s a port of the XBox version? I doubt it.
As the years go on, each format will have it\'s fair share of exclusive games and ports.
Go ahead,find where they say PS2 and X-Box will be the leading consoles.I doubt that would be true anyway.
[/B]
See my reply a the beginning. :)
[Edited by Dr Yassam on 01-04-2001 at 01:11 PM]
-
soulgrind
"Really its up and down. The ps2 does more polygons with full effects..
But the Gamecube does more effects with less polygons."
what does this mean? First, you said the gcn is more powerful with 4 hwd lights ect producing 14 pps then you said " the ps2 does more polygons with full effects.. but the gamecube does more effects with less polygons."
Tell me if i\'m wrong, r you trying to say that ps2 does less effects than gamecube but produces more polygons? that the gcn does more effects but produces less polygons?
As far as benchmarking from ea, the 14pps with 4 hwd light and rendering, that\'s quite alot of pps. Could you say the same thing to ps2?
-
So what! Let me say it AGAIN, he indicated he would be surprised if XBox (yes final hardware) could do the Rouge Squadron 2 demo, he done this with his \'eat a broom\' comment. He never once said XBox couldn\'t do it, but he indicated he would be surprised if it could, does it sink in now, sheeeesh.
he said he would be surprised if xbox could do something that he himself said only requires around 50% of gc\'s power. Wouldn\'t you call that bad judgement, especially considering now he has changed his tune and is saying they are equal to each other (which we have no reason to believe, considering how obviously off he was on his previous comment).
Are we going in circles, or is it just me?
Just admit that he made a bad call on the power of the xbox before, and that there is no reason he couldn\'t have done it again in this ign cube interview.
I\'d call that opinion, BTW do you even know what the comment is supposed to mean?
opinion? sorry, but he is not talking about why he likes flowers, or why his favorite color is green, he is talking about a very finite fact.
Whether or not the xbox will be able to do the star wars demo. He says no.
Yes, I know what that expression means. It means you are so damn sure of something that if it ends up not being so you will "eat a broom" (usually a hat here in the states).
Aparently he was very sure that xbox would not be able to do the star wars demo, and aparently he now realizes he was very wrong.
he better get to work on that broom...
He used the GeForce 2 GTS equipped XDK as an EXAMPLE to make a preliminary comparison between the two consoles, however he said he was waiting for final XBox Hardware to make a final judgment.
he made his judgement, he was wrong. Now he makes another judgement, in which he essentially states xbox is twice as powerful as he used to think it was.
the man doesnt seem to be the best judge of things....
ok, moving on
I\'m not even going to bother with the stuff about "maxing out" gc. It\'s obvious you don\'t understand the concept of portable code, or will ever admit that gc is only unique enough to only have a few unique opengl functions, or will ever realize that developers don\'t have to completely understand hardware unless they are programming in assembly (which will never happen), so it\'s not worth my time.
No I said a custom API designed specifically for the Hardware, whether this is based upon OpenGL or not who knows.
It does have something of a custom API. It\'s simply opengl with a few functions unique to gc.
So what about the requirement to store Frame Buffers/Z-Buffer in Main memory
hmph looks like you didn\'t read the article...here\'s a little quote:
Finally, there\'s 900 MBps for the z-buffer (again assuming z rejection three-quarters of the time), putting us pretty close to our bandwidth budget.
I guess thinking you might actual read something carefully without jumping to conclusions was expecting too much of you.
what about memory latency issues with the CPU, GPU, MPU accessing the same bank of memory at the same time
Abrash cut bandwidth by 1.3 gb/sec at the beginning of the article to address concerns like these.
or how about the bandwidth required for the media processor (sound).
I\'ll answer with another quote:
We\'ll allocate 25 MBps for audio
sound barely consumes any bandwidth, you should know that.
Also vertex data is not very Bandwidth consuming so the 100 MPPS is meaningless when discussing Bandwidth.
How very wrong you are. 100 mpps consumes about 2.6 gb/sec of bandwidth. That\'s quite a hefty chunk.
Also keep in mind that Abrash used 4x anti-aliasing in his numbers and didn\'t take into account vertex compression, which he says at the end of the article could free up 1 gb/sec more of bandwidth.
Size does matter, in the XBox\'s case more CPU Cache is extremely important due to the consoles UMA architecture, therefore the less it has to access Main RAM for data the better. More Cache simply means less Cache misses and since Cache is obviously embedded Cache Hits means more workload for the CPU, grabbing data from Main RAM is much slower and is more likely if you have less Cache. The severe lack of Cache is why the EE and it\'s Vector units in Playstation 2 will not and can not ever be fully maxed out.
BTW Common sense suggests that the CPU Cache speed in Gamecube would be equal to the CPU core speed.
yes, but cache speed and architecture matters more. Even assuming we the cache in gekko is equal to core speed, we still don\'t know its architecture.
nice to see you are still rambling on about memory. GC only has 600 mb/sec more bandwidth on the frontside bus than xbox, and neither of them will need close to their full allocations of memory, considering their gpu-centric architectures.
XBox takes a hit if applying more then two textures per pixel, so for 3 or 4 textures per pixel XBox would require two cycles and take a 50% fill rate hit whereas Gamecube can do 4 textures per pixel without a fill rate hit.
actually, most speculation on the net (specifically b3d)right now points to gc having only 2 TMUs, but you are free to your own speculations...
Vertex compression (Z-Compression) has nothing to do with fill rates
ummm...no...
z compression is automatic z-buffer compression, which would free up bandwidth for rendering and therefore increase xbox\'s memory bandwidth limited fillrate.
and HSR is certainly not true HSR in the Power VR sense, it could simply use an early Z-Check algorithm like Gamecube for all we know.
It\'s pretty safe to say it\'s not true tile-based rendering, but it\'s not safe to pass judgement on it the way you do.
My initial point though was that Playstation 2\'s raw 2.4 Gigapixel fill rate is more then twice as high as XBox\'s 1 Gigapixel fill rate, that was not meant to be implied as in real world situations, we both know XBox kills Playstation 2 there.
lol. Then what was even the point of bringing it up?
I can\'t wait for all these great ps2 games with no texture :)
What are you talking about, I said "14 million PPS with four texture effect layers + all other effects on", texture effect layers (such as gloss, bump, environment) have nothing to do with hardware lights, where you got light maps from or why you even brought them up is anybody’s guess.
Each light requires a light map, simple as that. Having 4 textures and only 8 light maps is kinda impossible...
That\'s funny, why do the EGM released XBox pics (running on a GeForce 2 GTS equipped XDK) look nothing like those demos.
yeah, i know!
malice puts those demos to shame! weird, eh?
Notice the fine print in the top right hand corner (next to the X), it basically says that any picture marked with an X is an actual XBox screen shot running off of the current XDK (1st gen XBox dev kit), the final product will look 50% better.
If im not mistaken a 1st generation XBox dev kit consists of a GeForce 2 GTS, does this mean that NV2A is only twice as powerful as these folowing in game pics -
Use your head for a second, please.
geforce 2 - 25 mpps
nv2a - 125 mpps
this is an obvious error on the part of EGM, and it was cleared up at CES when bill and friends repeatedly pointed out that the demos they showed were using only 1/5 the power of final xbox hardware.
I love how people will blindly believe anything they read as long as it supports their beliefs.
A picture does speak 1000 words, and if that\'s not proof that Microsoft will have their work cut out for them in competing with Gamecube then I don\'t know what is.
only two of the games shown in these tiny pics are even running on xbox dev kits, the rest are taken from pc games. Remember, the green x thing.
Allow me compare a full controllable, functional game for xbox, running on hardware which is 1/5 of what final xbox hardware will do, to a gc tech demo cut scene running on final hardware:
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nintendo.com%2Fgamecube%2Fimages%2Fngc3.jpg&hash=34c1e86a9b5f42151cb8d4a157cd5ce039b7cbd8)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxboxmedia.ign.com%2Fmedia%2Fpreviews%2Fimage%2Fmalice%2Fmalice18.jpg&hash=294235e4b3cfc94e8d8f772de1af2f279a1c352d)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nintendo.com%2Fgamecube%2Fimages%2Fngc21.jpg&hash=245346bd90677015d02f99a38436a0e7d2e80d16)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxboxmedia.ign.com%2Fmedia%2Fpreviews%2Fimage%2Fmalice%2Fmalice12.jpg&hash=0ea3c2f1aa0c549181d2995e644d87ed414a7a09)
Of course there is really no point. I expect you to just blindly proclaim superiority in the gc pics...sigh...
19 days using actual Hardware yes, projects like the Rouge Squadron 2 Demo (that will become a fully fledged game) need preparation time, how do we know for sure Pipeworks didn\'t take months in developing the XBox demo\'s, it\'s exactly the same scenario from both angles so don\'t be a hypocrite.
19 days on final hardware after 6 months on emulation kits...:rolleyes:
I remember a pipeworks interview where they say how long the demos took them (it wasn\'t long,and they only have 20 people working there), but I don\'t feel like searching so I\'ll drop it...
From what i\'ve seen so far im far from impressed, maybe it\'s just me but an overhyped hybrid Saturn/3DO with a hybrid Dreamcast/Gamecube controller with crappy looking games and multitudes of potential PC ports doesn\'t exactly appeal to me, maybe my standards are too high, then again maybe yours are too low. I suggest the later.
Spoken like a true Nintendo fanboy.
-
My Gosh... No wonder they call this the console debating forum. I thought this topic was long dead, and I come back and... BAM - theres 15 more long posts (haha - I\'ll let you debate it).
Anyways, on those pics, the things that really pop out at me are the details and the textures (the NGC\'s pics are dark... you can\'t really see the wall\'s textures which were great)
-
Originally posted by Gohan
Originally posted by know-it-all-wanna-be
while ps2 power is 2 years ahead of any top of the line pc graphic chips.....
but they high end graphic chips still couldn\'t beat ps2 in polygons.....
see, most graphic chips have high meg of ram for texture and high resolution while ps2 have low vram but high polygon counts.....
so far, no graphic chips have outperform ps2 polygons count but only outperform mb of vram...meaning its harder to makes more polygons than adding more vram.....
I beg to differ. Read this:
Introducing the game accelerator that breaks the one billion pixel per second barrier - the 3D Blaster® Annihilator™ 2 Ultra. Powered by the GeForce2 Ultra™, this incredible accelerator delivers massive fill rates of up to one billion pixels and two billion texels per second. Featuring the NVIDIA Shading Rasterizer (NSR), the 3D Blaster Annihilator 2 Ultra includes advanced per-pixel shading capabilities for realistic visual effects. Plus 2nd-generation Transform and Lighting (T&L) engines render more than 31 million sustained triangles per second. And with 64MB of ultra-high-speed Double Data Rate (DDR) memory effectively operating at 460MHz with 7.36 GB/sec of dedicated graphics memory bandwidth, you have the power you need for the next-generation of 3D games! Best of all, the 3D Blaster Annihilator 2 Ultra includes everything you\'d expect from a cutting-edge 3D accelerator: 256-bit graphics architecture, AGP 4X with Fast Writes support, true color 32-bit 3D rendering, 32-bit Z/stencil buffer, DXTC and S3TC texture compression for Direct3D® and OpenGL® and superior video capabilities including MPEG1 and MPEG2 playback.
Taken from Buy.com (http://www.us.buy.com/retail/computers/product.asp?sku=10261287&loc=220)
What was that you were saying about high-end graphics cards? Never say that a console is better than PC graphics cards let alone high-end graphics cards. That is unless you want to face the wrath of the PC Gaming 1337 [/B]
Whats wrong know-it-all? Did I call your bluff?
-
Originally posted by thy_toothpick
My Gosh... No wonder they call this the console debating forum. I thought this topic was long dead, and I come back and... BAM - theres 15 more long posts (haha - I\'ll let you debate it).
Anyways, on those pics, the things that really pop out at me are the details and the textures (the NGC\'s pics are dark... you can\'t really see the wall\'s textures which were great)
Not really. The background was generally weak, save for one bump-mapped wall and some flasks and stuff on a table.
-
BTW, with all that power instore within the X Box and GC, will it surpass the power of PS2\'s Emotion Engine to create natural 3D motion and emotions?
When I look at those screenshots taken from the X Box and GC, I can only say, does this screenshot of Rinoa dancing with Squall in real time in PS2 change your mind?
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2Frecarnage%2FRinoa0.jpg&hash=6be015700374da1c497045415104977ab1456460)
Oooohh.... Yeah....!
-
sorry to burst your bubble but the rhinoa dancing scene was not using the actual ps2 hardware, was done on a supercomputer to simulate what the ps2 \'can\' do.