Think the PC architecture of the Xbox is holding it back?

Moore\'s Law roughly states that the Power of computers should double every 18 months. Considering the Xbox was released over 18 months after the release of the ps2 shoulden\'t there be at least some linear noticable difference.

This was prompted to be by the developers of Burnout 2 said

"It\'s such a shame that a lot of people appear to have been jaded by first-generation PS2 games. And it\'s stange to hear this directed at Criterion in particular, have any of you guys seen Airblade?

Burnout (our first PS2 game) flickered a LOT due to 2 main reasons, it used the PS2s interlaced approach to rendering and it didn\'t use mip-mapping - both of these were early design decisions which we were forced to stick with, and as you all know it has been Burnouts largest source of criticism. However, we learnt so much during the development of Burnout that we were able to improve massively on it for the sequel.

Burnout 2 renders at a higher resolution than it displays (which is significantly more than double that of the first game), has mipmaps on everything, and combined with the well-known flicker filter hardware it doesn\'t flicker any more, I can promise you that. We\'ve more than doubled the texture data thrown about every frame, upped the poly counts of all cars by 50% or more and added more effects (in addition to the new lighting effect that you\'ve heard about) and we\'re still locked solid at 60hz - any less than that is not an option, in fact there\'s no excuse for it any more. All this from a few months work from myself and another graphics coder - we\'re a small team but do not doubt our ability to produce impressive results.

Anybody doubting that the PS2 can match the Gamecube (and even the XBox in certain respects) is deluding themselves, it\'s pretty much that simple."

Do bare in mind this is coming from a developer who is making games for all consoles.
The ps2 should not be able to match the xbox in any respect considering the 18 months between launches. How is it possible.

2 possiblities come to mind:

1.) Microsoft was just lazy, and thought the HDD and Ethernet Card were more important
2.) The PC architecture simply holds back the xbox.

I personally think its the 2nd reason. The PC architecture is old and outdated, and was never made for 3d graphics. Its easier to develop for simply cause its been around since we were born (well, some of us).

Will MS have to rethink their console building descision next generation? Even if the xbox launches after the ps2, if the ps2 further develops its architecture and the xbox reuses the old grandma then its quite possible that the xbox "2" will have a hard time keeping up with the playstation "3"

anyway, just some thoughts prompted by some developer comments..

Interestingly enough, its a smaller developer.. why can they figure it out while others can\'t? even the larger ones.

I\'m not so sure about this.

EA Canada recently "threw together" some tests and came up with these performance numbers:

                Basketball player                   Bunny
Platform   ---    Gouraud    ---  Lit     ---   Skinned    ---       Gouraud
PS2   ---     17.0 / 22.6  ----    10.9 /14.7  ---    8.5 / 11.5  ---  25.2 / 31.8
XBox  ---   47.2 / 91.4  ---   22.4 /43.4  ---  14.2 / 30.3  ---  63.9 / 93.8
NGC  ---  18.7/ NA  ---   10.3 / NA  ---   7.2 / NA  ---  NA / NA
PC  ---  24.1 / 46.1  ---  15.9/20.9  ---  5.1 / 10.9   ---   6.3 / 36.2

Bear in mind that the GCN test version was apparently far from complete/optimized. The Xbox version wasn\'t ultra-optimized either. The PC is an Athlon 1.4GHz w/ Radeon 8500. In these tests, th\' Xbox trounces the PS2.

then why are the games not showing it?
Games have to do more then display polygons

Showing what?

[Bobs_Hardware]

Say..like.. each car in Project Gotham has 3x the amount of poly\'s as Gran Turismo 3.. but the cars don\'t look anywhere near as good as GT3\'s cars..

So far, we\'ve seen the PS2 get beat down on just about every level.

I personally believe that the PS2 architecture is flexible enough to match the other consoles.. but those type of results have yet to be seen. Ratchet and Clank looks to be pushing the hardware very well.. but that\'s it for now.

I guess we\'ll have to check out Burnout II when it hits the streets to find out about what these developers mean..

As for GT3 looking better than PGR.. that\'s a good question. I think GT3\'s cars look better too.

A little better, anyway.. not much better. Barely. They\'re shaped better, but with slightly worse texturing.

Moore\'s Law has more to do with transistor counts rather than performance on two different architectures. I do agree completely that the Xbox is held back by the PC architecture. Sony invested loads of money together with Toshiba to design the EE and make it far more capable for 3d rendering than any other architecture. The Xbox or x86 architecture may have cought up with the standard tuning seen in chips, but it\'s even more impressive to see a 2 year old console still hanging in there to say the least.

PC architecture is not for gaming. It\'s unefficiant and expensive in the long run.

Oh and bear in mind that benchmarks don\'t prove anything. You never know how optimized either engine is to give you accurate results. Hell, I could programm a benchmark myself and show you how it would cripple the Xbox, yet do amazing results on the PS2.

personally, i think the hybrid-celeron processor is the xbox\'s weak link

Originally posted by Blade
So far, we\'ve seen the PS2 get beat down on just about every level.

I think GT3\'s cars look better too.

Jeez, make up your mind. If you had said edged out instead of beat down it might have sounded a little more reasonable. But beat down?

Consumer/ looks at two year older console being beat down. Scratches head, shrugs. Walks up to the register and pays for it.

End of story

I read that test of EA only used one VU.

Bah.. this is what he said

Uh sorry, I just noticed all other columns have texturing on, just not the first one. Either way it\'s irellevant since the test remains entirely VU limited (at least goraud one) - most likely bandwith limit.

With properly optimized data sets, a single VU will go 40-50M just using vertex color. Using both you should be able to approach 60 - about where you start running out of GIF bandwith.

Originally posted by Chrono
then why are the games not showing it?
Games have to do more then display polygons

I just got Enclave and nothing will beat this hi-res graphic game.   MM, you have to play this game!!  The textures are so damn detail I can\'t belevel the Xbox is playing it.  The game play is also sweet!

There is no (big) noticeable difference because XBox is still in it\'s first generation, many developers are simply porting PS2 games or not using XBox specific hardware features to make games look better.

PGRs cars are much more technically than GT3. But GT3 does practically everything right on it\'s cars, down to the enviroment mapping, PGR doesn\'t do as well. PGR does have some damage though, that GT3 does not have at all. The new Sega GT 2002 videos show a noticeable gap between GT3 and itself. Quite nice, really.

I think by the time developers start making games specifically with XBox in mind and no porting considered, there will be a noticeable upgrade in graphics. Probably around the time Project Ego comes out. There are a couple developers at Gaming-Age that have worked on both and say that XBox is far and away the stronger console. the few respects that Criterion may be talking about probably have to do with the Vertex Shaders on XBox and the Vortex Units (or whatever it is called) on PS2.


Eric Jacob

I admit, "beat down" was a little harsh. And I did kinda jump around on that post.. (edited thrice )

I can safely say that from what I\'ve seen.. Xbox games graphically edge out PS2\'s when built for Xbox.

What I\'ve seen of Panzer Dragoon looks incredible.

I also look at the difference between the PS2 version of Wreckless and the xbox one.

We\'ll see more yet I suspect when the PS2 version of Splinter Cell is release (if that ever happens).

The xbox is more powerful, there should be no debate.

Two years ago we had Alice, Deus Ex, Black and White, Baulder\'s Gate, Red Alert.  These games do not look that much worse than today\'s newest games.  It\'s not, as Chrono suggests, twice as good or that big a discrepency.  Small things, like lighting, texture detail and effects make the difference.

It is those exact same things that the xbox succeeds where the PS2 fails.

Also, as Beast suggested, look at truly the two year difference and look at launch games for the PS2 and compare them with lauch games for the xbox.  There is two years there.

But honestly, how many times do we need to go into this debate?

And while the devs of Burnout do make games for all consoles, they also get a very fat cheque every year, signed by Sony, to keep Burnout a 6 month exclusive.  Don\'t bite the hand that feeds?

Regardless, if we want to quote devs, there are dozens of 3rd parties that contradict this--there is no weight carried by this quote.

I also look at the difference between the PS2 version of Wreckless and the xbox one.

but then you look at spyhunter and reality rears its hideous head