ACtually what you are doing is nothing wrong. It's just not the right field. What you are doing works for the PC. The PC playing field is equal on all fronts.

In the area of custom designed electronics where you do not require standards this becomes vastly different.

The Intel chip for xbox was a run of the mill Intel CPU. The chip had 13 instruction sets for numeric processing. The GC had 5. What this meant that even though the GC mhz was a bit slower it could process a numer in 5 sets not 13. Which meant that the GC could process 2.3 32bit numbers more than the XBox.

There is also matters of BUS speed. wich translates to how fast can data be moved from CPU/RAM/GFX RAM/ GFX CPU. The GC had a BUS speed that was about 3 times faster than the XBox. THe XBox memory was also bottle neck due to this transfer limit rate. So while the CPU was faster it was limited by instruction set and that it's BUS speed was less than the GC.

The best games on XBox could push about 12million poly count per second.
Factor 5 had a game at 22million poly count per second, they also boasted they could have done 30million.

This however doesn't matter since the XBox shader and more memory was far easier to use than the TEV and working with texture compression. 

Well,

Wii >50 Mio.

XBox

We're talking about the power of each console, not how much it sold.

This doesn't make sense as stated. Maybe you meant something different than "instruction sets"? Are you talking about pipeline length? About cycle costs of some particular number-related instruction?

wow never saw an Xbox / Wii war thread before...

So am I.

Back in the day there were countless debates over whether the Gamecube or the XBox was more powerful, and (for the most part) people came to the conclusion that the Gamecube and XBox were (overall) fairly similar in performance but achieved that performance through different means; and it could be said that one of the reasons why Microsoft went for an IBM-ATi combo this generation was because of how powerful of a system those companies produced with the Gamecube at such a low cost.

Regardless of all other factors, one of the core problems the Wii has faced as far as producing impressive games is that there has been very few developers who are even trying to push the Wii; and no publishers have devoted their top teams to producing big-budget Wii games that would be the most likely to show off what the Wii can do. I know people are going to minimize this, but when the most technically advanced game on a 3 year old console comes from a (previously) unknown company on their very first game on the system on a shoe-string budget, when the company has a track record of producing licenced crap, it should be a huge indication of how little effort has been put forward by third party publishers and developers.

Now, the reason why so many (decent) developers favour a less realistic art style on the Wii is that (with the exception of a couple of games in certain genres) no console produces photorealistic graphics and when they attempt to the results age very poorly. Even if you pushed the Wii to its limits producing a photo-realistic game the end result would look like a 5 year old game that doesn't look that good. On any system stylized graphics can look really good and age very well, and the quality of product produced depends more on the quality of your artist than the processing power available.

Old debate is old.


GC



If you really want more details, use the search function here. Or Google.

I don't know much about it, but i do know that the visual differences are because of incentive (you had more of an incentive to develop great looking Xbox games, because it was a better investment for grabbing consumers. Nintendo themselves laid the "graphics don't matter" groundwork), and because of the whole TEV thing, a general issue of the XGPU being easier to work with, due to its basically being an off-the-shelf Nvidia PC GPU.

PowerPC processors are notably more efficient than Intel, leading to the GameCube's virtual parity with the Xbox last time.

I also think the original Xbox had more Shader memory, which is why it was able to render in HD in some cases

All those poeple who talk about the the technology and complicated words make me feel dumb

OT:I think the wii has really good graphics and I wouldn't mind if they stayed like that though I do hear that the wii is more powerful