By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
lilbroex on 12 August 2012
Edit Thread
Navane said:
Darc Requiem said:

Yes it could. Both the PS2 and Xbox touted specs that where unachievable in real situations. Nintendo's Gamecube specs were conservative and based on actuation gaming situations. Nintendo said the Gamecube could render 6 to 12 million polygons a second will all effects. Rogue Squadron 2, a Gamecube launch title, rendered 13.2 million polygons a second with all effects. Rogue Squadron 3 rendered 20 million polygons with all effects. Both games rendered at 60 fps.


I guess I'll have to take your word for it. But isn't it a fact that the Xbox was a more powerful system than the GCN?


No, it was actually a fact that the GC was more powerful when all was said and done, but the Xbox1 was far easier to produce texture and lighting effects on  making a lot of the games a lot better looking in most circumstances. Most devs never took advantage of the full capabilities of the GC.

No Xbox game could even come close to the Rogues Sqadron's on a technical level.

The GC had the stronger CPU all around while the Xbox technically had a stronger GPU(on paper), but the Xbox's GPU took a huge hit when  doing special effects where the one in the Gamecube took next to no hit. It could pretty much do texture effects for free if it was programmed well enough and it could do far more diverse effects at once than the Xbox1.

The Xbox had more RAM while the GC had WAYYYYY faster and technically capable RAM.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorial/516

Believing the Xbox was stronger is huge misconeption just like with peole who believe that the 3DS is stronger than the Wii. Just counting raw stats without understanding what one is seeing is the leading cause of misconceptions from gamers all around.