By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Graphics: Gamecube vs. Xbox vs. PS2 vs. Dreamcast

lilbroex on 18 August 2012
ChadOkada said:

Virtual On Oratorio Tangram

Soul Calibur

Grandia II

Cannon Spike

Sonic Adventure

Yes!!! The good stuff. Long live old dead SEGA!

 

 

Border Down

 

D2

 

Illbleed

 

Evolution



Around the Network
Jazz2K on 18 August 2012
lilbroex said:
Jazz2K said:

I'm sorry but the Xbox was without a doubt the most powerful and it showed. Although GC could put really beautiful games it couldn't handle the best Xbox could offer. Framerates was better and jaggies were less apparent on Xbox. Also there was some particles effects not possible on other platforms and some blur effects. Everything was so smooth and like someone said they could output at a higher resolution.

 

 

Some of the geometry on Xbox games weren't even possible on other platforms, games like Splinter Cell Chaos Theory had landscapes different from both GC and PS2 because they weren't powerful enough. Some lightning found in games like Doom, SC, Riddick couldn't be found in competitors games. Every multiplat games were far better on Xbox. There were impressive games like F-Zero GX on GC but nothing that could surpass the best Xbox had to offer... damn I even remember games like Burnout 4 which were simply stunning (IGN gave a better graphic score for the PS2 version simply because it was impressive for a PS2 title eventhough it wasn't on par with the Xbox version).


False. Don't post bullshots to someone who knows the score. Most of the geometry in Xbox games was extremely "FLAT" with bump mapped textures, and empty evironments.

 

All of the indentions on the armor are completely flat. They just look like they have depth because of the texture effects.

 

The xbox couldn't touch the GC when it came to pushing geometry. These surfaces aren't bump mapped on.

 

They tried to port this game to the Xbox but it couldnt handle it without sever downgrades so they scrapped it. On a technical level, this game pushed more last gen than any game on any console in existence. No other game on the GC, PS2, Xbox or Dreamcast technically outperfomed this.


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



lilbroex on 18 August 2012
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. It is not debateble.

Second, the CPU in the GC was far superior to the one in the Xbox. As I posted above. The stats you posted don't mean anything if you don't know how to read them.

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.

THe 200 mhz PowerPC processor got 3 times the perfrmance on a full scale Pentium 3 clocked at 300 mhz overall. The processor in the Xbox isn't even s full scale pentium 3.

 

http://macspeedzone.com/archive/4.0/g4vspent3signal.html



Jazz2K on 18 August 2012
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.



lilbroex on 18 August 2012
Jazz2K said:
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.

Go back and reread my last posted.

Nothing you posted proved me wrong or anything else. What you posted was some average fans rendition of the intentionally partial specs. They never state that the Xbox cpu was 32 bit and the GC cpu was 64 bit. They never state that the PowerPC Processor does 3 instructions for ever 1 in the Pentium Processor.

These are common facts. People are "actively" omitting those facts of the prcoesors when comparing them and are just comparing the raw clock numbers out of context. Thus, they are comparing a lie and trying to push this lie in arguments.

The higher clock speed on the Xbox CPU doens't indicate that its stronger. It indicates that it takes more electricity to do what it does. The higher clock speed is a testament to that processors lack of efficiency and features, not its strength.



Around the Network
ChadOkada on 18 August 2012

Daytona

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Power Drift

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beserk (Sword of the Beserk Guts Rage)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                           Crazy Taxi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gunlord (brand new Dreamcast game for 2012)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fast Striker (2011 game)



curl-6 on 18 August 2012

So if the GC doubles the Xbox in CPU grunt, and the Wii is 50% faster than the GC, then the Wii has 3 times the CPU power of the Xbox?



lilbroex on 18 August 2012
curl-6 said:
So if the GC doubles the Xbox in CPU grunt, and the Wii is 50% faster than the GC, then the Wii has 3 times the CPU power of the Xbox?


The one in the GC is close to 3 times as powerful so I would set the one in the Wii at a little over 4.

Remember that the on top of the 3 processes per cycle, their prcoessor were also 64 bit while the Xbox1 is 32 bit. That allows it to read and right twice as much data per cycle alone. Then add in the extra features like the velocity engine and other special instruction sets. Then add in the larger processor cache.

I would place the Wii's CPU at being at least 4 times as strong as the one in the Xbox1.


The Wii also dumped the auxillary DRAM and moved to faster 64 MB GDDR3 which is also what the 360 uses(albeit, its a lot faster in the 360) and it a faster variant of the 1T-SRAM from the GC.

Its sad that 99% of the Wii's libraby doesn't even look as good the games on the GC. The Wii was capable of so much more than what was done with it.

 

Sonic Shuffle

 

Super Magnetic Neo

Napple Tale

Rent A Hero No.1



Tridrakious on 18 August 2012

I can't believe I haven't seen anyone post something from Final Fantasy XII.

 



lilbroex on 18 August 2012

SEGAGAGA


 

 

Omikron: The Nomad Soul

 

 

Typing of the Dead