By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Groucho on 09 January 2009
Edit Thread
Darc Requiem said:
Groucho said:
Darc Requiem said:
Groucho the Gamecube had superior multitexturing in comparison to the X-box. Lucasarts had a port of Rogue Squadron 2 and 3 in the works for X-box but they had to can the game because Factor 5 couldn't get the game running on X-box without serious concessions. Rogue Squadron 3 pushed the most polygons a second of any game last gen by far. Rogue Squadron 2 topped most games from last gen as well. This was while running every available hardware effect, at 60fps, in 480p.

 

Sorry pal, I worked on both the GC and XBox in the last gen.  The XBox's GPU is most assuredly superior to the GameCube's, no matter what Factor 5 believes or blubbers on about.  I guarantee you've seen some of the work I did on the XBox, even if you owned one, and I'm sure I know more than F5 does about its GPU, and I know the GC's GPU pretty damn well too.

 

Then you should know that the Gamecube's GPU had superior texturing and lighting capablities. The NV2A had a higher fill rate and programmable shaders. The Flipper, the GC's GPU, could do 8 textures in a single pass with 8 simultaneous hardware lights. The NV2A could only do 4 textures in a single pass with 4 hardware lights.

 

Sure... if you were rendering a slideshow the GC rocked.  Then again, so does software rendering, doesn't it?  

Single pass != single cycle, if you weren't aware.  Also, of course, those 8 textures (tiny enough to fit in the flipper's texture memory, at that) would be kinda overkill without programmable shaders, wouldn't they?

The nv2a was about 50% faster than the flipper, for all practical purposes, and its shader functionality, stencil buffer, much larger texture memory, etc.,  provided utility that the flipper just could not match.  That's all that mattered in the end.