The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
“99% of statistics are wrong, and that’s a fact!”
Well, it would certainly seem that way from some of the abuse of specifications people are trying to use nowadays. Just today I read the funniest post that went along the lines of:
“Since the PS2 is based on architecture made for gaming and not PC usage then it has more power than an Xbox”
Nice idea, but so unbelievably wrong! Although the power squeezed from the PS2 chips can be maximised there are two problems. Firstly, very few developers in the world have the money to maximise it, or even get near to the maximum. Secondly, although the Xbox has a lower processor efficiency, the processor itself is more powerful meaning that, even with the handicap of PC architecture, it “beats” the PS2.
Another quick one that’s been floating around:
“The Gamecube has the fastest loading times because the disc is smaller, allowing the read heads to pick data from different places more quickly”
Fair point- data can be got from a GC disc faster than from a PS2 or Xbox game disc. One huge flaw though- the Xbox doesn’t take game data from the disc- it takes it from the HDD. And as anyone technically minded would know, HDD loading times are hundreds of times faster than any optical medium.
Moving on from my rants…
Specs are a very interesting weapon. They allow anyone to prove anything about any console. I could prove that the Jaguar was better than the PSX… and the opposite too. Nice!
But the funniest thing is that specs should never matter to gamers- games are the be all and end all of whether a console is good or not. That’s all. Of course, specs do affect the game quality somewhat- a game that has no anti-aliasing because the dev kit doesn’t support it is a very bad sign indeed.
However, all three of the latest generations of consoles have the power to deliver anything developers could want, and as a result it’s the games that will differentiate between the consoles. Just think about that before quoting more stats…
Sonic
Well, it would certainly seem that way from some of the abuse of specifications people are trying to use nowadays. Just today I read the funniest post that went along the lines of:
“Since the PS2 is based on architecture made for gaming and not PC usage then it has more power than an Xbox”
Nice idea, but so unbelievably wrong! Although the power squeezed from the PS2 chips can be maximised there are two problems. Firstly, very few developers in the world have the money to maximise it, or even get near to the maximum. Secondly, although the Xbox has a lower processor efficiency, the processor itself is more powerful meaning that, even with the handicap of PC architecture, it “beats” the PS2.
Another quick one that’s been floating around:
“The Gamecube has the fastest loading times because the disc is smaller, allowing the read heads to pick data from different places more quickly”
Fair point- data can be got from a GC disc faster than from a PS2 or Xbox game disc. One huge flaw though- the Xbox doesn’t take game data from the disc- it takes it from the HDD. And as anyone technically minded would know, HDD loading times are hundreds of times faster than any optical medium.
Moving on from my rants…
Specs are a very interesting weapon. They allow anyone to prove anything about any console. I could prove that the Jaguar was better than the PSX… and the opposite too. Nice!
But the funniest thing is that specs should never matter to gamers- games are the be all and end all of whether a console is good or not. That’s all. Of course, specs do affect the game quality somewhat- a game that has no anti-aliasing because the dev kit doesn’t support it is a very bad sign indeed.
However, all three of the latest generations of consoles have the power to deliver anything developers could want, and as a result it’s the games that will differentiate between the consoles. Just think about that before quoting more stats…
Sonic
Strafex wrote:
> Besides, half the people who quote these sorts of stats often leave out vital
> information and don't really know what they're talking about.
And yes, it
> does take one to know one! :-D
lol... I was wondering how long it would take for someone to say that!
sonic
> Besides, half the people who quote these sorts of stats often leave out vital
> information and don't really know what they're talking about.
And yes, it
> does take one to know one! :-D
lol... I was wondering how long it would take for someone to say that!
sonic
Besides, half the people who quote these sorts of stats often leave out vital information and don't really know what they're talking about.
And yes, it does take one to know one! :-D
And yes, it does take one to know one! :-D
YH, the whole point of the topic was that we should not concentrate on specs- only games should be used to judge consoles.
However, getting back to your point (which I concede did stem from a problem in my post)...
The Xbox will in fact stream game data from the HDD- this is one of it's uses... just read up on the tech documents for dev kits. Although reading a HDD is slower than top speed CDs (sorry, my mistake), the bandwidth of the signal from a HDD to memory (RAM) is higher than that of from the CD drive to RAM... infact the bandwidth of the optical reader on the GC to the GC memory is lower than that from the HDD in the Xbox- meaning that data can in theory be sent quicker.
But then again, you have to take into acount whether the data needs to be compressed and decompressed, or whether it is optimised to reduce loading.. whcih will differ from game to game
Which leads back to my original point- specs mean next to nothing- it's how developers use them
Sonic
However, getting back to your point (which I concede did stem from a problem in my post)...
The Xbox will in fact stream game data from the HDD- this is one of it's uses... just read up on the tech documents for dev kits. Although reading a HDD is slower than top speed CDs (sorry, my mistake), the bandwidth of the signal from a HDD to memory (RAM) is higher than that of from the CD drive to RAM... infact the bandwidth of the optical reader on the GC to the GC memory is lower than that from the HDD in the Xbox- meaning that data can in theory be sent quicker.
But then again, you have to take into acount whether the data needs to be compressed and decompressed, or whether it is optimised to reduce loading.. whcih will differ from game to game
Which leads back to my original point- specs mean next to nothing- it's how developers use them
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
“The Gamecube has the fastest loading times because the disc is smaller, allowing the read heads to pick data from different places more quickly”
Fair point- data can be got from a GC disc faster than from a PS2 or Xbox game disc. One huge flaw though- the Xbox doesn’t take game data from the disc- it takes it from the HDD. And as anyone technically minded would know, HDD loading times are hundreds of times faster than any optical medium.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Utter rubbish!
As soon as 24 speed CD-ROM's came out, it was quicker to load from a CD than from a HDD.
So unless the XBOX has some beefy 10,400 rpm (the standard for PC's at the moment is 7,200 RPM), it will be quicker to load from the DVD.
IGNORING the blatant mistake the the XBOX will NOT be loading any game from the HDD.
It's only 8Gig! You won't be installing games on it in the same way you do for a PC!
You'll run the games from the disc, the same as the PS2 and GC. The HDD will just be used for game saves etc.
You did make one valid point though, about specs. I was chatting to my mate last night, when he said he was going to buy an XBox. He'd always enjoyed games on my N64, so I asked him why he wasn't going to get a GC.
He said that the XBox was twice as powerful, and so could have better AI and better games. I tried to tell him that since he enjoyed N64 games so much, wouldn't it be a good move to stick with Nintendo?
But he wouldn't have any of it.
“The Gamecube has the fastest loading times because the disc is smaller, allowing the read heads to pick data from different places more quickly”
Fair point- data can be got from a GC disc faster than from a PS2 or Xbox game disc. One huge flaw though- the Xbox doesn’t take game data from the disc- it takes it from the HDD. And as anyone technically minded would know, HDD loading times are hundreds of times faster than any optical medium.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Utter rubbish!
As soon as 24 speed CD-ROM's came out, it was quicker to load from a CD than from a HDD.
So unless the XBOX has some beefy 10,400 rpm (the standard for PC's at the moment is 7,200 RPM), it will be quicker to load from the DVD.
IGNORING the blatant mistake the the XBOX will NOT be loading any game from the HDD.
It's only 8Gig! You won't be installing games on it in the same way you do for a PC!
You'll run the games from the disc, the same as the PS2 and GC. The HDD will just be used for game saves etc.
You did make one valid point though, about specs. I was chatting to my mate last night, when he said he was going to buy an XBox. He'd always enjoyed games on my N64, so I asked him why he wasn't going to get a GC.
He said that the XBox was twice as powerful, and so could have better AI and better games. I tried to tell him that since he enjoyed N64 games so much, wouldn't it be a good move to stick with Nintendo?
But he wouldn't have any of it.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> For the love of GOD! That was a joke...
I gathered that, just provoking a response!;-)
> For the love of GOD! That was a joke...
I gathered that, just provoking a response!;-)
Tyla wrote:
> ===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> “99% of statistics are wrong, and that’s a
> fact!”
So I assume this stat is wrong too?
For the love of GOD! That was a joke...
Sonic
> ===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> “99% of statistics are wrong, and that’s a
> fact!”
So I assume this stat is wrong too?
For the love of GOD! That was a joke...
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> “99% of statistics are wrong, and that’s a fact!”
So I assume this stat is wrong too?
> “99% of statistics are wrong, and that’s a fact!”
So I assume this stat is wrong too?
“99% of statistics are wrong, and that’s a fact!”
Well, it would certainly seem that way from some of the abuse of specifications people are trying to use nowadays. Just today I read the funniest post that went along the lines of:
“Since the PS2 is based on architecture made for gaming and not PC usage then it has more power than an Xbox”
Nice idea, but so unbelievably wrong! Although the power squeezed from the PS2 chips can be maximised there are two problems. Firstly, very few developers in the world have the money to maximise it, or even get near to the maximum. Secondly, although the Xbox has a lower processor efficiency, the processor itself is more powerful meaning that, even with the handicap of PC architecture, it “beats” the PS2.
Another quick one that’s been floating around:
“The Gamecube has the fastest loading times because the disc is smaller, allowing the read heads to pick data from different places more quickly”
Fair point- data can be got from a GC disc faster than from a PS2 or Xbox game disc. One huge flaw though- the Xbox doesn’t take game data from the disc- it takes it from the HDD. And as anyone technically minded would know, HDD loading times are hundreds of times faster than any optical medium.
Moving on from my rants…
Specs are a very interesting weapon. They allow anyone to prove anything about any console. I could prove that the Jaguar was better than the PSX… and the opposite too. Nice!
But the funniest thing is that specs should never matter to gamers- games are the be all and end all of whether a console is good or not. That’s all. Of course, specs do affect the game quality somewhat- a game that has no anti-aliasing because the dev kit doesn’t support it is a very bad sign indeed.
However, all three of the latest generations of consoles have the power to deliver anything developers could want, and as a result it’s the games that will differentiate between the consoles. Just think about that before quoting more stats…
Sonic
Well, it would certainly seem that way from some of the abuse of specifications people are trying to use nowadays. Just today I read the funniest post that went along the lines of:
“Since the PS2 is based on architecture made for gaming and not PC usage then it has more power than an Xbox”
Nice idea, but so unbelievably wrong! Although the power squeezed from the PS2 chips can be maximised there are two problems. Firstly, very few developers in the world have the money to maximise it, or even get near to the maximum. Secondly, although the Xbox has a lower processor efficiency, the processor itself is more powerful meaning that, even with the handicap of PC architecture, it “beats” the PS2.
Another quick one that’s been floating around:
“The Gamecube has the fastest loading times because the disc is smaller, allowing the read heads to pick data from different places more quickly”
Fair point- data can be got from a GC disc faster than from a PS2 or Xbox game disc. One huge flaw though- the Xbox doesn’t take game data from the disc- it takes it from the HDD. And as anyone technically minded would know, HDD loading times are hundreds of times faster than any optical medium.
Moving on from my rants…
Specs are a very interesting weapon. They allow anyone to prove anything about any console. I could prove that the Jaguar was better than the PSX… and the opposite too. Nice!
But the funniest thing is that specs should never matter to gamers- games are the be all and end all of whether a console is good or not. That’s all. Of course, specs do affect the game quality somewhat- a game that has no anti-aliasing because the dev kit doesn’t support it is a very bad sign indeed.
However, all three of the latest generations of consoles have the power to deliver anything developers could want, and as a result it’s the games that will differentiate between the consoles. Just think about that before quoting more stats…
Sonic