Xbox\'s CPU is a Celeron, NOT a Pentium III

well my P3 makes great graphics when coupled with my GeForce3

and i was talking about xbox having a p3 and that xbox makes nice graphics

just replaced xbox with "it"

just saying that since im bored

1.................. :surprised: 3................ :surprised: ..................5  :surprised: .................6  :surprised: .................7 :surprised: . AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NO ITS A BEEPER CONSPIRACY! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

PEOPLE PEOPLE can\'t we all just get along?
er, wrong board

It is not a P3, nor is it a Celeron, that\'s because it is a reject chip from the dumpsters in the back of any ol\' Intel plant.

You See, instead of using these reject chips for key-chains, they pack them into an XBox :nerd:

Yes, I think toxical is on to something here.

[BizioEE]

Originally posted by Sublimesjg
well my P3 makes great graphics when coupled with my GeForce3

and i was talking about xbox having a p3 and that xbox makes nice graphics

just replaced xbox with "it"

just saying that since im bored

Nope ! ...

Your PC and the X-Box are two different things for some reasons...I hope this helps you...

""Instead of relying on resolution to try and make crap look better, console developers are focusing their attention on upping polygon counts giving things a more natural appearance, using things like pixel shaders, vertex shaders or environmental effects on everything they can. They are putting significantly more effort into giving animations a more natural appearance by utilizing skeletal animation and skinning techniques to help move them closer to CGI quality. DOA3 on the XBox puts anything on the PC to shame, easily. That really can\'t come close to summarizing the gap however as almost all titles available for the XBox or GameCube do the same, they just do it in a way that we aren\'t used to seeing in the PC space.

So, the real bandwith strain on consoles is more focused around vertex data and texture handling but here consoles actually have a big edge over PCs. You may have a graphics card with 64MB of RAM on it, but data doesn\'t suddenly land there, it has to move over the AGP bus. Of course, this can\'t take place until after it is written to system RAM. So you have your CPU taking time writing data to system RAM, then moving it over the AGP bus, then the graphics chip can take advantage of it. On any UMA architecture, it is immediately available as soon as it is loaded. Memory redundancy issues are eliminated with a UMA making it far more powerful then its raw specs would indicate. Since our framebuffer can\'t use that much bandwith(less then 1.4MB used for 480p for the back buffer), and the NV2A doesn\'t take a fill hit from MSAA(not that it would matter) the bandwith problems that are present on the PC are really quite meaningless on the XBox.

This goes for the entire system. The sound chip has direct access to all data, no need to write to system RAM then move it across the PCI bus, it is all right there for immediate useage. The reality is that the XBox in comparitive terms for real world useage is an absolute bandwith monster compared to PCs. That is one of the reasons you shouldn\'t expect perfect ports anytime soon, nor should we expect PC games to look as good as XBox games for a while yet. nForce has the potential to put us a lot closer if they can get it working as it should, but that has yet to be demonstrated and even if it does hit its theoretical edge over current PC hardware, it still will fall short of what the XBox can do because of the limitations of the PCI and AGP bus...""

PC games look like crap !
Future X-Box games will look beautiful !;)

PC games look like crap !

i dont believe he just said that!

:eek:

/me shakes head in disgust

stop using mom\'s gateway PC to play games, its only good for checking email, and looking at pr0n

[BizioEE]

Overall PC games look like CRAP !

I do agree that the Xbox has a more advanced architecture than PC\'s, but a UMA also has its problems. As I stated before (but wasn\'t able to back that up), I can finally put my whole concerns into words.

Imagine the memory within a UMA as a big bucket that can store 64 MB. While 6.4 GB/s does seem lika a lot of bandwidth, don\'t forget that CPU, GPU and Sound-Processor all have to get their data via that same bus. While the Sound-Processor does not take all that much of data, CPU and GPU do. All the bandwidth is needed when CPU processes the images and stores any changes into the "bucket" (RAM) again. So lets check what kind of data we have travelling over the 6.4 GB/s bus:

1. Textures that are read by the CPU -> out of the RAM
2. Changes made to the textures -> back into the RAM
3. Sound data that are read by the SP -> out of the RAM
4. Any executable code, read by the CPU -> out of the RAM
5. Changes and data that is saved -> back into the RAM

I am sure there are heaps more data that is required to be shuffled out of the RAM and into the RAM again. So, question: is 6.4 GB/s still a lot of bandwidth? And getting back to textures capabilities of the Xbox:

Any image that is presented on screen has to be processed and changed to the view that you will see that texture from on screen. Example: If you have a cube that is standing straight infront of you, one texture filling one side will be in a square-form and unchanged. However, if you turn the cube just slightly in any direction, that texture will stretch or turn depending on how the object is now standing. This means, that the texture just can\'t be read, it needs to be processed and turned into that new image that fits the object perfectly. Where is this data stored in a UMA? Of course, in the only place, the one and only RAM. This means, data needs to be stored again in the RAM, needs to travel through the bus twice (unprocessed out of the RAM, back into the RAM processed). Again, I will note that the Xbox only has a bandwidth of 6.4 GB/s, where as PS2 has a 48GB/s bus to do stuff like this. Note that I am not critisizing the Xbox in anyway, but just getting back to my last statement, why UMA is causing some problems to developers. Above are probably the main reasons why. Of course, Xbox still has an edge over the PC architecture, but so does PS2 too.

My conclusion is simple: UMA is great to give developers lots of freedom, but it also requires high bandwidth. I have high doubts that 6.4 GB/s are enough (above are the reasons why), plus memory efficiancy isn\'t that high (original and processed textures are both within the memory) as with say PS2.

Originally posted by mm


i dont believe he just said that!

:eek:

/me shakes head in disgust

stop using mom\'s gateway PC to play games, its only good for checking email, and looking at pr0n

How did you know that\'s exactly what I use my Gateway PC for?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[BizioEE]

My conclusion is simple: UMA is great to give developers lots of freedom, but it also requires high bandwidth. I have high doubts that 6.4 GB/s are enough (above are the reasons why), plus memory efficiancy isn\'t that high (original and processed textures are both within the memory) as with say PS2.

I know,from what I read,that 6.4 GB/s is more than enough...X-Box has hardware-compressions and then enough bandwidth to process even 50-60 mpps in game...

stop using mom\'s gateway PC to play games, its only good for checking email, and looking at pr0n

I use my PC(AMD 1.4 Giga,GeForce2 PRO 64 Mega,512 Mega of system RAM,etc,etc) for checking e-mail,looking at pr0n,preview and review of PS2,GC and X-Box games,Odigo,Flight Simulators like(Fly,Fly 2k,Fly2,PS1,Flight Simulator 2000,etc - because I\'m an airplane pilot,waiting for job) but NEVER FOR PLAYING THE CRAPPY PC GAMES !!!  

Seven, you just don\'t give up with your tech lessons.  The xbox\'s bandwidth is more than enough because of the low resolution it has to display.  It doesn\'t get any simpler than that.

Show me one established developer that is having problems with the UMA?

Show me an article that gives meaning to your very thin prose.

I\'ve said it before, you sound a little like some one with some technical knowledge, but once you cut out your mixed metaphors (that prove nothing BTW: a bucket of water has nothing to do bandwidth!  You are drawing faulty parallelisms.) and technobabble there is nothign there.  You\'ve certainly read more articles than anyone should and pulled them all together in one incoherent post after another.

Sure the xbox hardware has limitations, but after everything is considered it is a more powerful piece of hardware than the PS2.  Give up this crusade to discredit the xbox hardware because for one most people here don\'t care--they can see the results for themselves and two, it just exposes your deep-seeded bias against the PS2\'s biggest competitor.  Go post your "xbox\'s CPU is really a celeron!" topic on the IGN PS2 boards, they\'ll love you there.

If you read my previous post concerning the UMA \'problem\' (Thread Xbox like a PC), you will know that I wasn\'t able to back that up back then. I am just catching up on that, now that I have studied and gathered some more information on this topic. While it may not interest you, it might others.

Also note, that I never used the term IS, but PROBABLY, which basically means that my whole post is assuming where the problem could[/b] lie, since I was not the one to raise these concerns. And please, speak for yourself while saying that it doesn\'t interest anybody else. Where\'s the fun about having a discussion about some technical aspects now days? Why do you always have to drag this into a debate? It isn\'t Watchdog, I am just pointing out my concern and you can be pretty damn well sure that I know that a good game doesn\'t come from just having a great architecture, so what is your point? I also never stated that PS2 is more powerful, neither did I imply anything like that.

But before you send me to another PS2 board, why don\'t you go to a Xbox board? I think you\'ll have more fun there among other fanboys that seem to have the same level of ignorance like you have.

For once Watchdog, either prove me wrong, write something intelligent or just leave it, but criticising my post won\'t bring you any further.

Originally posted by BizioEE


I know,from what I read,that 6.4 GB/s is more than enough...X-Box has hardware-compressions and then enough bandwidth to process even 50-60 mpps in game...

Okay, true. But the bandwidth is just half the point... memory efficiancy is the other. If you take PS2 for a example, you\'ve got a stream-lined architecture (all data flows in one direction). With Xbox, since it uses a UMA, you need to shuffle data back and forth because you only have one memory to save data. So you are actually taking up bandwidth taking data out of the RAM, but also while putting it back into the RAM when changes are applied. But I guess that\'s where the texture compression comes in handy, although I am still not sure if this really makes up for it...

Read my posts on other threads.  I shut down fanboys of any affiliation.  But you, oh glorious you, have done nothing but attack the xbox.  You sir start obvious trolling threads like this one to talk about stuff that you do not know anything about--not first hand knowledge anyway.  Your "knowledge and theories" are nothing but a smattering of tech docs that you have scoured for unknown hours.

____________
If you read my previous post concerning the UMA \'problem\' (Thread Xbox like a PC), you will know that I wasn\'t able to back that up back then. I am just catching up on that, now that I have studied and gathered some more information on this topic. While it may not interest you, it might others.
____________

Oh yes, and the forum responce to that thread was unprecidented!  If I remember correctly, only three people were actively responding to that thread (couting the both of us).  It is good that you are holding this torch so very high for all your followers and supporters.
_______________
Also note, that I never used the term IS, but PROBABLY, which basically means that my whole post is assuming where the problem could[/b] lie,
_______________

Given the above, this means nothing.  There is no problem.  You are the only person who is spewing crap like this.  I don\'t care what your analysis is, because you are not an expert, you are a fanboy trying to defend his PS2.  Tell me this: how do you type while hugging your PS2 as tightly as you do?

And I have proven you wrong--there is no problem with the bandwidth.  With resolutions as low as they are for TVs, the xbox has bandwidth to spare.  And all this garbage about the UMA--it is a high point of the archetecture, devs and people who know anything have praised the decision.  You better do a little more research; I am astonished that someone with such technical acumen could make such ignorant statements.  Surely they are typos or lapses in thought, because you surely know what I say to be true.

No, you never implied that the PS2 is more powerful, but you are picking on the best piece of hardware of this generation while blindly ignoring the faults of the PS2.  If you were a not a fanboy you could see that the xbox\'s "bottlenecks" are not where at the level of the PS2\'s.  While you are taking little pot shots at the xbox, you extoll the virtues of the PS2.  Give it a rest.  People with far more knowledge than you have done this already.

why are you attacking me? The thing you fail to realise is, that there are actually people on this board (at least I like to think so) that enjoy talking about this and that technical aspect of a console, without feeling the need to bash eachother. This is not bashing another console in anyway, just talking about it in clear language. And if I have bashed the Xbox in anyway, please point it out. I\'d gladdly take it back since this is not my intension at all.

But it seems to me you\'re the only one who always feels the need to protect your precious Xbox from the "evil" fanboys, even in posts that aren\'t intended as an attack.

why can\'t we all just get along?