Morrowind on XBox... Crappy?

[Bobs_Hardware]

awww Watchdog, i was just joking around :shy: dont be..OH. MY. GOD.  IVE TURNED INTO OOSEVEN!

Originally posted by Watchdog
Yes it would seem so...I just thought you left out the \' for stylistic purposes.

I consider myself repremanded.

Yo xbox fanboy.  Isnt Xbox supposed to be this new amazing graphical machine that is supposed to match PC gaming.  I mean besides the fact that this thing has loading time which is a joke, when GC barely has any loading time, the way that Morrowind turned out is an embarassment.

Originally posted by smoke\'emtrees


Yo xbox fanboy.  Isnt Xbox supposed to be this new amazing graphical machine that is supposed to match PC gaming.  I mean besides the fact that this thing has loading time which is a joke, when GC barely has any loading time, the way that Morrowind turned out is an embarassment.

Watchdog is a respected member while you on the other hand.:rolleyes:

Yeah, Bob, I knew you were joking.  I was just having fun.

Loading times?  Are you saying Rogue Squad. has short load times?  Here\'s another: go into your local EB and ask them to put Spiderman in all three systems; what you\'ll find is that the xbox loads faster, looks better, and has none of the slowdown of the other two versions.

:rolleyes:

This is of course only one game, but when you speak in absolutes, you end up looking absolutely stupid.

But wait...there\'s more.

Morrowind isn\'t out on the xbox you stu...oh, I\'m sorry, Miss Cleo, I mistook you for some one who couldn\'t tell the future.

:rolleyes:

Where do these guys come from?

watchdog, watch where you step bro

http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/november/011116_Xbox/011116_Xbox.htm

For many months, the official data on the Xbox website only stated that its CPU would be a 733 MHz Intel part.  As we can see in the photo below, it appears that the CPU is simply a 733 MHz BGA Mobile Celeron mounted directly to the motherboard

whats this i see, a 128k cache? and not 256k?

Originally posted by Bozco



Watchdog is a respected member...

That\'s funny... for a second I thought you meant it.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1561&p=1

not a celeron.

here\'s the just of what anandtech says

The CPU that powers the Xbox is a Coppermine based Pentium III with only 128KB L2 cache.  While this would make many think that the processor is indeed a Celeron, one of the key performance factors of the Pentium III that is lost in the Celeron core was left intact for this core.  The Coppermine core was left with an 8-way set associative L2 cache instead of the 4-way set associative cache of the Celeron.  Based on what we\'ve seen with the Coppermine and Coppermine128 (Celeron) cores we estimate that the 8-way set associative L2 cache gives this particular core a 10% performance advantage over the Coppermine128 core of the Celeron.

so which site do we believe?
one says its a celeron, the other says its not

the chip STILL possesses a 128k cache, which = celeron based to me

and how cheated do we feel to gain 10% performance to save m$ construction costs :rolleyes:

It\'s a fanboy thing to say anyway--who cares what the chip is called (not a celeron)?  I wouldn\'t care if it\'s called a Burger King chip--the xbox outperforms any other console on the market today.

It gets the job done.  Beyond that I could care less. To make a point that it\'s a celeron, and wave it around like it\'s a deathknell for xbox and a great victory for other consoles is ridiculous.  What point are you trying to make?  And why does it matter to you what chip it is?  I for one never see the inside of my xbox whilst playing, do you?

Originally posted by "The One" Billy Gunn
You wouldn\'t even have to play the X-Box version, that 733 mhz(correct me if I\'m wrong), is showing it\'s age already, no console at the point will surpass the PC.  So unless your running a computer from Pre-98, I\'d say your in good shape.  Oh that\'s right, computers are upgradable.:rolleyes:

No, no, no Billy...I asked you how far off of a port it is?  You said not even close, which brings me to believe you have played or have enough info to determine just how this port turned out...

Please share with us...

wtf man, im not waving poop around
i merely stated that it is just a celeron processor, and you take personal offense?  this is exactly why were changing the format of CD forum.

a 733mhz  restricted coppermine chip was a mistake, they could have went with a MUCH faster cpu, and you know it.

i see yer frustrated and im sorry, but you cant deny what they did was for cost control, and in the long run, it will limit what the xbox can do.

ill let someone else tell you why the EE chip > coppermine

the xbox outperforms any other console on the market today.

it also came out two years after the PS2, so what should we expect?  i certainly dont deny the xbox isnt a beast, but its nowhere near the "ps2 killah" you wish it was

Originally posted by mm
  this is exactly why were changing the format of CD forum

What\'s going on?

http://www.psx2central.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22034

X-Box version = Chugfest 2002
PC Version = smooth sailing, for those who meet requirements.

Again Billy, you\'ve never played it.

FYI: I\'m not frustrated.  

And, also, of course they could have put a 2ghz processor in there.  They could have put a 2 gig HD, taken out the nic card, put in 2 controller ports with 2 foot long cords, taken away DVD compatibility, nixed progressive scan, 5.1 and HDTV support.  They drew lines and I think they did a fine job.

I didn\'t want to pay $800 for a console, it was a cost cutting measure, but every console maker goes through that sort of process.  They looked at the xbox and knew it was more advanced than their competitors and felt no need to go over board and loose more money.

You think they\'d sell more if they had a true pentium chip in there clocked at 1 ghz?  Or if they would have stuck in an AMD?  No, people don\'t care about specs, people care about performance, and the xbox out performs any console on the planet.

MS is a business, and I\'m pretty sure they did more research into the matter than we have.  Sure, I would love to have a 2 ghz chip in there, but I wouldn\'t want to pay for it.  This console has a shelf life of 4-5 years, no sense going over board.

The same could be said about the PS2 and its paltry memory, but why bother?