Gamecube not as powerful as ps2?!?!?!!?

Look I don\'t care what the damn numbers are most the console makers probably make them up I want to see them in action before i judge. I have to admit i like ps2 better at the moment beacuse bill just gets up my nose he\'s the richest person on earth but no thats not enough he has to get into consoles i don\'t know maybe im an idiot ( wait I am an idiot) but I don\'t realy care!

I didn\'t think it was microsoft that can out and said that it can do 80 and more gigaflops, i thought it was a developer that was testing the hardware out, but don\'t hold me to that, as i am probably wrong, i can\'t remeber exactly who said it can do that.
Also Seven why are you saying stuff about MS marketing when Sony said the same things about the PS2,they said it could do 70 million polys a second, no console in a game would be able to reach the performance that the companys say, apart from nintendo which said the GC and do 12 million polys a second.

2Fast you are right they should just in joy the games, and not worry about what the company say that the consoles can do!

EA games better on GC and XBox than the PS2 versions? Have you played SSX Tricky lately?

Some devs are actually repulsed by the XBox\'s unified memory and are claiming that it\'s slowing things down more than they like. Each and every device has to wait for the other device to finish the memory access before it\'s turn. I know an EA developer who\'s flat out claiming that box is actually slowest of all the three for the reason mentioned, and he programs for all three consoles. Also, his experience with x86 architecture is much bigger than with PS2 or GC. XBox definitely produces best graphics, he says, but it\'s slowest... Frankly, I have no idea what to think about all that.

Funny, I\'ve never heard this, nor really seen this. Nothing that I haven\'t seen on xbox: I\'ve seen rain fall on the PS2 and xbox, I\'ve seen blizzards on both consoles, high winds...couldn\'t relly tell a difference. It\'s just particle effects and all next gen systems can do them.

A game that looks and feels like MGS2? Sorry, I haven\'t seen one yet, not even on PS2. I am just quoting what a lot of developers are saying. But when I actually give an example, it suddendly gets called a port:

Yeah, and if both systems did a port of Double Dragon the textures would be identical too--what\'s your point? Test Drive doesn\'t have the world\'s best textures. It\'s one game, one developer, one engine. You are saying the xbox couldn\'t do the reflection effects? C\'mon, get your head out of your ass.

A port? Port of which system? Test Drive 5 for PSX? Yes 1 game, 1 developer who is developing this game for both systems. I think it is very relevant. But of course, eventhough the nicer looking reflections are absent, it gives us every reason to believe that it could be done... :rolleyes:

Actually, the xbox archetecture give WAY more freedom--that\'s the whole knock against the PS2--you have to program with the RAM constraints, streaming and dual archetecture. The xbox leaves everything open, gives devs options, that\'s why everyone likes it so much.

Woah, listen up guys! Watchdog is a developer! But since my opinion can\'t be taken as a trusted source, I\'ll quote something by the Square developer that was recently posted on the ArsTechnica forums:

"As far as possible PS2 bias goes, I\'m a fan of it\'s architecture because it\'s fully exposed to the developer and it\'s very configurable providing a plethora of options to tinker with... That makes people like me happy..."
ArsTechnica Thread

Other developers have also said that the PS2 gives them freedom in every possible way. Developers like Xbox as a platform because it\'s EASY and give even untalented developers a chance to program something that\'s really pretty. Get it right.

And the xbox can do anything the PS2 can--I judge by the facts, by what devs say and what I see. Ports usually are terrible games, marred by bad framerates. Yet, when a EA, a dev notorious for bad ports, ports to GC and xbox, framerate issues and bad textures go away. And these are from inferior consoles?

I believe Marconelly already answered this. Opposed to what you are also saying, I find it also very interesting about what some EA developers said (quoted by Marconelly). If you remember back, I said the same a while back.

Also Seven why are you saying stuff about MS marketing when Sony said the same things about the PS2,they said it could do 70 million polys a second, no console in a game would be able to reach the performance that the companys say, apart from nintendo which said the GC and do 12 million polys a second.

Ethan, If you read the other thread, you will see that there are developers that are exceeding this number. So these numbers, believe it or not, are much more valid then you may think. Secondly, everyone knows these numbers are not in-game numbers - but Sony also posted estimates with effects on which come close to the number you\'ll have during in-game. And Sony published messured numbers of the VU1 performing perspective transformation calculations (66 million pps) and rendering on the GS (75 million pps), unlike Nintendo who mades estimates of how many polys their games probably would have. Now you tell me, what\'s better? Estimates or messured numbers? Now ask a developer what he thinks about Microsoft\'s numbers, and he\'ll probably laugh away. Sad but true.

Some of you guys in here (not you Ethan) should really get a bit out of these forums here. Go visit some technical forums where people who actually know their stuff post and you might be a bit more open minded. But saying that Xbox is superior to the PS2 in every way and not admiting to the faults it may have is very sad and shows the lack of technical understanding in here. Just because the Xbox has all the obvious numbers higher doesn\'t mean it\'s better in every aspect.

[BizioEE]

EA games better on GC and XBox than the PS2 versions? Have you played SSX Tricky lately?

Some devs are actually repulsed by the XBox\'s unified memory and are claiming that it\'s slowing things down more than they like. Each and every device has to wait for the other device to finish the memory access before it\'s turn. I know an EA developer who\'s flat out claiming that box is actually slowest of all the three for the reason mentioned, and he programs for all three consoles. Also, his experience with x86 architecture is much bigger than with PS2 or GC. XBox definitely produces best graphics, he says, but it\'s slowest... Frankly, I have no idea what to think about all that.

I have not enough technical knowledge to prove it\'s wrong...but I think that each new thing give developers some problem at first...and I think some have still to understand how to use UMA properly...
...I still remember all the complaints at Capcom about the streaming techniques on PS2,AA problems,etc...and they said at fist..."well...right now we\'re working on something...but we cannot show you nothing because...err...you shouldn\'t understand if it\'s for PSone or PS2...[developers\'s laugh]"...
...but look at what developers have achieved and are achieving...DMC,MGS2,J&D,BG: DA,GT3,FFX...and yes...that was more and more drastic on PS2...but X-Box needs more and more time too to be fully understood...I read that UMA architecture has all the necessary bandwidth to fully express each single spec of the X-Box...but it doesn\'t mean it\'s easy...developers will have to fight to achieve the best from this console ! ----> The bottom line is that Xbox is a well-balanced graphics system that will generally be capable of approaching the specs being claimed for it. "Capable" is not the same as "easy" -- this level of performance will require exemplary programming, taking full advantage of the fact that Xbox is a fixed platform to which code can be carefully tuned....""Xbox has a unified memory architecture (UMA), whereby the GPU and CPU share a single memory space, with memory control provided by the GPU. This is in marked contrast to the separate memories used for high-performance 3D in PCs. UMA has a significant advantage in that it allows the CPU, DVD and disk controllers, and GPU to access common data without copying; for example, models and textures can be streamed off the DVD into memory and used directly by the GPU. However, the history of UMA is spotty; witness IBM\'s PCjr UMA, which stopped the CPU virtually dead in its tracks by allotting two out of every three memory cycles to graphics. Not surprisingly, this is the aspect of Xbox that has aroused the greatest degree of public skepticism, so the accompanying text box entitled "Xbox Memory Bandwidth" discusses Xbox\'s memory bandwidth in high-end scenarios. The short version of the bandwidth story is that while there are scenarios in which Xbox could run out of bandwidth, there should be more than enough for most cases, particularly those that leverage the GPU\'s programmable pipeline. Under virtually any set of assumptions, Xbox has adequate memory bandwidth to handle 50 Mtris/sec. in real-world use, and usually plenty to hit the pipeline limits of the chip.""     ...I\'ll find the link...


However...if you look at DOA3,you realize that graphics are not only beautiful but even ultra fast and smooth...and look at JSRF...it looks amazing with smooth and fast action...and Brute Force(and it\'s only the beginning)...so...I don\'t see any problem with UMA...

if some developers have problem with UMA at first it doesn\'t mean UMA is a problem !


...a word to the wise...let\'s try to be a bit more coherent

I really can see both sides of the argument in here, but to tell you the truth the xbox should be more powerful then the PS2 because the ps2 came out a year before the xbox.
But i would say the best thing is to have this discussion in a years time, that way developers will know the ps2 pretty much inside out and should be a power house, and we can see what it really can do, and the xbox should be flying by then as well, as the learning curve is not as bad, don\'t get me wrong it will take a little while to get use to it, but you just have to look at games like Halo and DoA3 to see that the developers are alreadt getting to grips with the xbox, and just think they were launch titles, that didn\'t have the full hardware until what 4-5 months before the console launch.
But hey just in joy the game guys, that is what it is all about the fun!:D

[BizioEE]

BizioEE, since you also understand a lot of technical stuff and participate in the technical posts, I would have expected more of your reply. My post had nothing to do with PS2 for one, but all about Microsoft\'s great marketing to make their console look to be the "ultimate" machine in raw performance. Sadly, it seems to be working, even with you.

not in my case ...I don\'t think X-Box is the best hardware(overall) neither because MS are claiming so nor because developers like Tecmo say it\'s 4/5 times more powerful than PS2...I\'ve formed a general idea for the "real specs" of this machine(I read a lot of article from unbiased and reliable source(at least it seems so ---graphics capabilities,sound capabilities,bandwidth,rendering bandwidth,effective texture bandwidth,etc) and for what I see(DOA3,Halo,PG,Project Ego,JSRF,Brute Force,etc)...nothing more...nothing less...
...I could be wrong...I\'m not saying I\'m 100% sure X-Box is the "ultimate" machine...I have no idea...

What makes me think that? Look at what you posted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think X-Box is the most powerful...with its 80 and more gigaflops...we can\'t argue about it...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

80 GFLOPS. You got to be kidding me right? Are you telling me that the Pentium III in the Xbox does 80 GFLOPS? Or maybe the beefed up Geforece 3 in there? HAHAHA.. please...

If the Xbox was really to process 80 Giga-Floatingpoint Operations per Second (compared to the EE\'s 6.2), then I really wonder why the Xbox can only do 125 mio pps (or 300 for that matter). That must be the most complete bull**** I have ever heard.

Like I said, what ever Microsoft is publishing on big numbers is sure paying off. Got to give their marketing credit.

well...I was hurried ...I spent 3 sec to make this post

I think X-Box is the most powerful...with its 80 and more gigaflops...we can\'t argue about it...

...I meant that X-Box seems to have better performance almost in everything...but I can\'t be sure...how could I...I\'m not an unbiased,expert and talented developer who spent a lot of time on all the next generation consoles !

Marconelly--again I have never heard that, and have a suspician that you are making it up.
 
Ethan, that\'s all I\'ve ever said, is that it should because it\'s newer, but Seven seems to be on a mission.

That square quote is not from a multi-platform dev and therefore means nothing.  If you\'d like I could find a quote from bungie or Lanning...
 
__________
Some devs are actually repulsed by the XBox\'s unified memory and are claiming that it\'s slowing things down more than they like.
__________

Again, EVERY article I have read says the exact opposite.  You sound a lot like Seven.

Go hug your PS2.

That square quote is not from a multi-platform dev and therefore means nothing. If you\'d like I could find a quote from bungie or Lanning...

Huh, Square is working on Final Fantasy XI which is supposed to be multi-platform. Great try proving my (his) opinion wrong. :rolleyes:

Again, EVERY article I have read says the exact opposite. You sound a lot like Seven.

Again, great job proving him wrong. :rolleyes: But Watchdog, out of curiousity; who wrote those articles? People with good technical (but sometimes faulty) knowledge or developers who program for the damn system?

Seems to me every time a developer says something negative about Xbox, that their opinion and experiences have to be questioned - *and Watchdog gets his tech-theoretical-articles* "..but here it says [insert theoretical calculations here]"

LOL. Pathetic.

While I believe the PS2 has much more potential, I\'ll let my eyes do the analyzing of power.

Neither Halo nor DOA3 would be done perfectly on the PS2. The visuals would degrade, and if there\'s one main area the PS2 will never touch, it would be textures. I love my PS2 as much as the next guy, but I know what I see.

DM, I think exactly the same way.  Try telling Seven this though--gr0an.

Yes Seven, I know you are notorious for pointing out the technical knowledge flaws of some vetted and professional journalist, but you provide none of your own.  You expect us to believe your ramblings and calculations?  Give your head a shake.

And Square has never said--ever--they would publish for the xbox--this is a rumour and until there is an official announcement you can\'t use it as proof.  Besides, since Square is only making games for PS2 now, they would be doing themselves a disservice if they said the hardware made them make sacrifices.  Of course they are going to say it lets them fulfill their vision.  Again, give your head a shake and use some common sense.

And furthermore Square doesn\'t say anything about the xbox--so again, you are making no valid points.

__________
Seems to me every time a developer says something negative about Xbox, that their opinion and experiences have to be questioned - *and Watchdog gets his tech-theoretical-articles* "..but here it says [insert theoretical calculations here]"
__________

It seems to me you have dug up articles from Sony, Naughty Dog and Square--not exactly credible sources when discussing MS.

You Sir, are the one who is truly pathetic.

Take off your PS2 colored glasses and take a look at xbox\'s graphics--this is all the proof I\'ll ever need.

Watchdog: I think you took the wrong turn when you joined these forums..
TeamXbox is that way.. -->

Originally posted by datamage
While I believe the PS2 has much more potential, I\'ll let my eyes do the analyzing of power.

Neither Halo nor DOA3 would be done perfectly on the PS2. The visuals would degrade, and if there\'s one main area the PS2 will never touch, it would be textures. I love my PS2 as much as the next guy, but I know what I see.

So true once you look at halo textures I don\'t think ps2 could match that.  DOA3 is just downright amazing I know that wouldn\'t be ported perfectly on ps2.  PS2 is still an amazing system.

Coming from a PS2 zealot like you Fatson I could care less.  I can appreciate the merits of two consoles *gasp* perhaps you should try.

If you look at all my posts I come down on xbox fanboys too.  The problem is that most of those types don\'t last here very long.  Since this is a PS2 forum, people like you and Seven are tolerated--it isn\'t for your open mindedness that is for certain.

Originally posted by fastson
Watchdog: I think you took the wrong turn when you joined these forums..
TeamXbox is that way.. -->

Hahaha:laughing: , well he atleast post intelligently, I wouldn\'t say the same about teamxbox members