selnor said:
No he dooesnt go into details. Firstly he disregards more than 50 websites facts about Xbox and GC figures. 2ndly he disregards every websites and articles opinions that Xbox is clearly more powerful. 3rdly he stated Xbox polygon count had no game above 12,000. When Dead Or Alive 3 contains 10,000 per character not including scenery at all. Thats 20k onscreen without scenery. 4thly he states the game known as Rebel X which was rumoured to be Rogue Squadron 1-3 in late 2013 to release for late 2014 was canned because Xbox couldnt handle it. Funny how IGN were frothing at the bit to see what improvemebts the Xbox version would have. Notice how IGN knew the Xbox was more powerful. http://uk.xbox.ign.com/articles/454/454215p1.html
|
How did you come up with the number of 12000 out of 12million achieved? I would say the xbox and GC were on par depending on what you were trying to accomplish on the hardware, the thing about the GC is that Nintendo was very good at not creating a bottleneck other than the storage part on that console, so everything worked together really well while the xbox was basically a poor man's PC with a lot of bottlenecks.
The CPU numbers don't mean shit Selnor, we had this discussion years back as I tried to explain to you what the numbers really mean, since we are in today's world, I'll tell you this, try to search google for benchmarks on a AMD quad core Bulldozer FX at 3.1 Ghz vs a Core 2 Quad at 3.1 Ghz vs a Core i7 at 3.1Ghz, they are all quad cores running at the same clock rate, but the i7(or the i5) in any variation will rape the other 2 so bad that it's almost WTF is going on bad. That's the same idea when you are talking about the lower clock Power PC vs the higher clock modified P3, Power PC chips were always known for their efficiency in the computing field back in the days because RISC was just that much more superior to CISC in the olden days.
I will also tell you why the xbox wasn't able to handle the game you were discussing, the reason being the difference inbetween a programmable pipeline vs a fixed pipeline(more commonly known as shaders these days due to d3d.) The reason why gc was able to push out those numbers is because those were fixed built in functions that can be executed extremely fast on a hardware level while not hinder performance as much. The xbox gpu programmable pipelines, while more flexible, was basically d3d shader model 2.0, and is extremely limiting at the time, not to mention the technology was still so new that most games didn't use it due to lack of understanding of the techniques required to fully optimize the code for a game as such to run at the same level as the gc version, not to mention the xbox's ram was really really gimp too, it was a really bottlenecked machine so it would never have hit the peak number on paper and would be off by a long shot, but it was definitely easier to port PC games to it, that's for sure. Look at it this way, the 360 came out much less bottlenecked so they learned their lesson, improvements were made and that's the important part.
