What were the specs of GC compared to Xbox? I remember it being outclassed spec wise but actual performance was about 30% less.

Eh.

Otakumegane said: What were the specs of GC compared to Xbox? I remember it being outclassed spec wise but actual performance was about 30% less. Eh.

well there are A LOT of inbetweens that play a major role in realtime performance, in that time even more i guess in equal condition i think Xbox is still more capable of showing impressive grafix, only due to GC being a bit bottlenecked by the factors i mentioned above if Nintendo wouldve put 48mb of mem instead of 24 and used DVD i think wouldve been enough to have the best grafix without debate, GC had the best components, its just they didnt have enough output due to form factor and pricpoint issue finally i would like to add that NONE of them were ever maxed out, not even close

sorry, i cant paragraph properly
sry mate

Otakumegane said: What were the specs of GC compared to Xbox? I remember it being outclassed spec wise but actual performance was about 30% less. Eh.

On paper it was superior.

In real world scenarios the GC was quite effienct and could put out some nice graphics if the effort was put into it, tho still not beyond what the Xbox was capable of.

If anything it should teach people that hardware isn't everything, it's about the developers and the willingness to push the system.

They all had their own trade offs. PS2 was designed as a CPU approach to GPUs, one coprocessor was to act as a vertex shader, the other as a pixel shader (PS2 additionally had 12 pixel pipelines.) Gamecube was more of a classic design. By classic, I mean when GPUs first came out, everything was fixed function (The TEV unit was some weird fixed function pixel shader from what I understand). The Xbox was more forward thinking on where GPUs were heading, the console was just bottlenecked, too much PC in the design. Microsoft did technically have the right hardware for where graphics were heading though.

DieAppleDie said: ive also read how the FSB limited a lot the CPU performance of the Xbox, and how PS2 had by far the lowest mem bandwith GCs Flipper could in theory make 8 texture layer passes per clock but in reality it was limited to four like Xbox because it only had 4 pipelines, so that part was overengineered

The Geforce 4 Ti (That's in the Xbox) has 2 Texture Mapping Units per-pipeline, hence each pipeline gets 2 textures per clock cycle. - Throw in a loopback and the Geforce 4 Ti can achieve 4 textures in one pass when using a second cycle, per pipeline.

4x4 = 16 maximum theoretical.

Flipper (That's in the Gamecube) however can achieve 8 textures in a single pass, albeit via 7 loopbacks. - However in order to do so, it still requires a clock cycle per texture, hence it will cut into the GPU's maximum fillrate for each additional texture that a developer uses, it's still however superior to the multipass method that was utilised in the PS2 because it's all done in a single pass saving on geometry and bandwidth.

The Xbox compared to the other consoles at the time was a Texturing monster.

So in non techie terms is this a fair comparison

PS360=Dreamcast
Wii U=Playstation 2
720=Gamecube
PS4=Xbox

Pemalite said: DieAppleDie said: ive also read how the FSB limited a lot the CPU performance of the Xbox, and how PS2 had by far the lowest mem bandwith GCs Flipper could in theory make 8 texture layer passes per clock but in reality it was limited to four like Xbox because it only had 4 pipelines, so that part was overengineered The Geforce 4 Ti (That's in the Xbox) has 2 Texture Mapping Units per-pipeline, hence each pipeline gets 2 textures per clock cycle. - Throw in a loopback and the Geforce 4 Ti can achieve 4 textures in one pass when using a second cycle, per pipeline. 4x4 = 16 maximum theoretical. Flipper (That's in the Gamecube) however can achieve 8 textures in a single pass, albeit via 7 loopbacks. - However in order to do so, it still requires a clock cycle per texture, hence it will cut into the GPU's maximum fillrate for each additional texture that a developer uses, it's still however superior to the multipass method that was utilised in the PS2 because it's all done in a single pass saving on geometry and bandwidth. The Xbox compared to the other consoles at the time was a Texturing monster.

The Geforce present in the xbox was quite downgraded compared to the PC version if i recall, plus the memory bandwith was weak and the Cpu seemed to be severely bottlenecked im just talking by memory from what i read in Beyond3D, neogaf etc.

zorg1000 said: So in non techie terms is this a fair comparison PS360=Dreamcast Wii U=Playstation 2 720=Gamecube PS4=Xbox

no, PS2 outclasses both GC xbox in some areas, something WiiU is far from

DieAppleDie said: The Geforce present in the xbox was quite downgraded compared to the PC version if i recall, plus the memory bandwith was weak and the Cpu seemed to be severely bottlenecked im just talking by memory from what i read in Beyond3D, neogaf etc.

Indeed it was. But the Pipelines and Texture mapping units was all still there.