By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Jazz2K on 18 August 2012
Edit Thread
lilbroex said:
Jazz2K said:


Bullshots of what exactly? How about being honest and post pictures of the best looking games? You would have to know your facts, GC could pull off impressive games yes but the machine wasn't as capable as the Xbox. It didn't have the same GPU, CPU or memory. Even texture memory was way better on Xbox, polygon count could go higher on Xbox and some particles effects and blur, resolution everything was more capable on Xbox where have you seen the GC being more capable exactly? How about you post some facts instead of saying it was better with no proofs. I could be wrong you know and I will admit I was if I was just sho some proof.

Here's mine --->  http://wars.locopuyo.com/cwsystemspecsold.php

You posted closeups of singular somewhat detailed  that didn't tell the whole story. Shots of a the area at larged showed that it was empty and flat with most of the detail drawn on. There was no geometry.

No, the polygon count could not go higher on the Xbox. This argument has been was put to rest long ago. For the last time. The best every achieved in an actual game on the Xbox was 12 million at 30 FPS and for the GC is 20 million at 60 FPS. This is fact. It is not going to change. There is no proof to overide this. This is what happened.

Second, the CPU in the GC was far superior to the one in the Xbox. As I posted above.

 

lilbroex said:

 

The Xbox has a 32-bit 733 MHz Pentium 3 based celeron which does 1 process per cycle like all Intel processors.

The GC has a 64-bit 486 Mhz PowerPC processor that does "3" processes per cycle. It also has other enhancement features that the Xbox processor does not possess.

The processor in the GC is over twice as strong as the one in the Xbox.

 

The Xbox uses a 233 MHz GPU with a shader modal 1.1 variant

The GC uses a 162 MHz GPU with an 8 stage TEV

 

TEV's can produce much higher level effects at a fraction of the resource cost compared to a standardized Shader Modal. The thing is that TEV's have to be manually programmed with custom made shaders. This is complex, time consuming and expensive to do. That is why most devs didn't use it.

The Wii also posess an 8 stage tev with twice the bandwith. The Wii suffered from the same problem with devs. Most didn't know how to program it and didn't want to spend the money figure it out.

 

The Xbox had 64 MB DDR SDRAM at 200 MHz

The GC has 24 MB MoSys 1T-SRAM at 324 MHz, 64-bit bus, 2.7 GB/s bandwidth| A 3 MB 1T-SRAM cache| 16 MB DRAM for framebuffer and audio

 

The GC could load data at a speed that was around 3 time what Xbox could. It simply couldn't load as much which is where the first storage limiation comes in.

Look man, maybe you should start to find proof with links because you have nothing to back what you say while eventhough I don't want to post links after links Gamespot, Wikipedia and the link I provided all say  you are wrong. I'm telling you, if you don't have proofs just accept the facts. Noone is saying GC games are bad looking I had one and I was impressed by some games like I was impressed by PS2 games and DC games but facts are facts. Show me GC spec sheets next to XB spec sheets and yes I'll admit... then again I don't feel like replying endlessly so unless you have links to back you up don't even bother. Thanks.