The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Is there any truth in the rumour that the Gameboy Unadvanced uses Sega Gamegear screens which sega flogged off cheap to Nintendo, then again I am not sure if the Sega Gamegear screens are better.
Also who in there right mind wants to play SNES style games from the GBA on there Gamecube as if.
Also who in there right mind wants to play SNES style games from the GBA on there Gamecube as if.
Page:
RAHH
you cannot weild true pins you crazy man
*pins top score*
now, lets have some milk
you cannot weild true pins you crazy man
*pins top score*
now, lets have some milk
*pins Top Score*
Call in WS and he'll never come back.......
Call in WS and he'll never come back.......
Miserableman wrote:
> It is more than a match for a 486, provided you aren't running grunt
> applications such as Windows. If you're not happy with the performance
> of the GBA then by all means don't buy one. I consider it a technical
> marvel to do all those calculations and get it up and running on
> screen for negligible battery power. Granted I find them bloody
> awkward to use, but I've never once thought they weren't powerful
> enough.
If you put a really basic OS on a 486 (rather than Windows), it would be even faster - less performance being wasted on animated hour glasses, and desktop wallpapers, etc. Anyone remember the switch from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 (using a 486)? Precisly, a previously quick pc turned into an animated door stop!
> It is more than a match for a 486, provided you aren't running grunt
> applications such as Windows. If you're not happy with the performance
> of the GBA then by all means don't buy one. I consider it a technical
> marvel to do all those calculations and get it up and running on
> screen for negligible battery power. Granted I find them bloody
> awkward to use, but I've never once thought they weren't powerful
> enough.
If you put a really basic OS on a 486 (rather than Windows), it would be even faster - less performance being wasted on animated hour glasses, and desktop wallpapers, etc. Anyone remember the switch from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 (using a 486)? Precisly, a previously quick pc turned into an animated door stop!
Update2.01 wrote:
> You didn't used to need specialised 3D hardware on the PC-but Quake
> 1&2 (plus Wolfenstien & DOOM and Marathon for Mac) still
> looked very good - better than DOOM on the GBA now. Like you hinted
> about the two AA batteries thing, I don't expect Next Gen PS2/GC from
> the GBA - it's a portable. But I thought a 32bit portable with the
> extra 2D hardware would be at least be a match for those old 32bit
> 486pc's of the early 90's running games of that era such as the
> original DOOM, and so on. Perhaps even, getting close to a PS1. But
> GBA does not match this quality-infact it's usually a long way short
> of it.
It is more than a match for a 486, provided you aren't running grunt applications such as Windows. If you're not happy with the performance of the GBA then by all means don't buy one. I consider it a technical marvel to do all those calculations and get it up and running on screen for negligible battery power. Granted I find them bloody awkward to use, but I've never once thought they weren't powerful enough.
> You didn't used to need specialised 3D hardware on the PC-but Quake
> 1&2 (plus Wolfenstien & DOOM and Marathon for Mac) still
> looked very good - better than DOOM on the GBA now. Like you hinted
> about the two AA batteries thing, I don't expect Next Gen PS2/GC from
> the GBA - it's a portable. But I thought a 32bit portable with the
> extra 2D hardware would be at least be a match for those old 32bit
> 486pc's of the early 90's running games of that era such as the
> original DOOM, and so on. Perhaps even, getting close to a PS1. But
> GBA does not match this quality-infact it's usually a long way short
> of it.
It is more than a match for a 486, provided you aren't running grunt applications such as Windows. If you're not happy with the performance of the GBA then by all means don't buy one. I consider it a technical marvel to do all those calculations and get it up and running on screen for negligible battery power. Granted I find them bloody awkward to use, but I've never once thought they weren't powerful enough.
Miserableman wrote:
> I tell you what. Why don't you start comparing Gamecube games to NES
> games? That makes about as much sense as comparing a GBA to a
> PlayStation. Everyone else on this forum accepts that a GBA is only as
> powerful as a SNES (more or less) - why can't you? Have you ever tried
> to run a Playstation and a TV off two AA batteries?
The GBA doesn't have either the specialised 3D hardware to do Quake,
> and it doesn't have the brute-force of the 486/Pentium. What it does
> have is specialist 2D hardware, which makes its 2D games better than
> any you might see on a 486/low-end Pentium. Which part of this can't
> you comprehend?
You didn't used to need specialised 3D hardware on the PC-but Quake 1&2 (plus Wolfenstien & DOOM and Marathon for Mac) still looked very good - better than DOOM on the GBA now. Like you hinted about the two AA batteries thing, I don't expect Next Gen PS2/GC from the GBA - it's a portable. But I thought a 32bit portable with the extra 2D hardware would be at least be a match for those old 32bit 486pc's of the early 90's running games of that era such as the original DOOM, and so on. Perhaps even, getting close to a PS1. But GBA does not match this quality-infact it's usually a long way short of it.
> I tell you what. Why don't you start comparing Gamecube games to NES
> games? That makes about as much sense as comparing a GBA to a
> PlayStation. Everyone else on this forum accepts that a GBA is only as
> powerful as a SNES (more or less) - why can't you? Have you ever tried
> to run a Playstation and a TV off two AA batteries?
The GBA doesn't have either the specialised 3D hardware to do Quake,
> and it doesn't have the brute-force of the 486/Pentium. What it does
> have is specialist 2D hardware, which makes its 2D games better than
> any you might see on a 486/low-end Pentium. Which part of this can't
> you comprehend?
You didn't used to need specialised 3D hardware on the PC-but Quake 1&2 (plus Wolfenstien & DOOM and Marathon for Mac) still looked very good - better than DOOM on the GBA now. Like you hinted about the two AA batteries thing, I don't expect Next Gen PS2/GC from the GBA - it's a portable. But I thought a 32bit portable with the extra 2D hardware would be at least be a match for those old 32bit 486pc's of the early 90's running games of that era such as the original DOOM, and so on. Perhaps even, getting close to a PS1. But GBA does not match this quality-infact it's usually a long way short of it.
Update2.01 wrote:
> What about a PS1 comparison? I bet that isn't very complex inside (not
> by todays standards). What was the original PS, about 1995? CM2 looks
> good on PS1, and is miles ahead of the new GBA version. I had F1 99 on
> PS1 and Quake2. Nothing on GBA gets close.
I tell you what. Why don't you start comparing Gamecube games to NES games? That makes about as much sense as comparing a GBA to a PlayStation. Everyone else on this forum accepts that a GBA is only as powerful as a SNES (more or less) - why can't you? Have you ever tried to run a Playstation and a TV off two AA batteries?
The GBA doesn't have either the specialised 3D hardware to do Quake, and it doesn't have the brute-force of the 486/Pentium. What it does have is specialist 2D hardware, which makes its 2D games better than any you might see on a 486/low-end Pentium. Which part of this can't you comprehend?
> What about a PS1 comparison? I bet that isn't very complex inside (not
> by todays standards). What was the original PS, about 1995? CM2 looks
> good on PS1, and is miles ahead of the new GBA version. I had F1 99 on
> PS1 and Quake2. Nothing on GBA gets close.
I tell you what. Why don't you start comparing Gamecube games to NES games? That makes about as much sense as comparing a GBA to a PlayStation. Everyone else on this forum accepts that a GBA is only as powerful as a SNES (more or less) - why can't you? Have you ever tried to run a Playstation and a TV off two AA batteries?
The GBA doesn't have either the specialised 3D hardware to do Quake, and it doesn't have the brute-force of the 486/Pentium. What it does have is specialist 2D hardware, which makes its 2D games better than any you might see on a 486/low-end Pentium. Which part of this can't you comprehend?
Why didn't Nintendo use the established StrongARM processor in the GBA. I am sure, that by now a fast version of said chip could easily match or surpass the one they ended up with.
Does the GBA CPU have Level 1 (on board) cache, like the 486 pc/Mac Quadra?
*yawns*
what a boring topic.
what a boring topic.
Miserableman wrote:
> A 486 is basically a lump of unspecialised silicon which approaches
> all tasks given to it via brute force. Compared with a GBA, this brute
> force is considerable, but the GBA has specialised chips which give it
> a great 2D advantage over a 486, and similar 3D power. Sure, if you
> were to run a prime number generator on a 486 and compared it to a
> GBA, the 486 would win.
>
> All games machines are effectively a crud processor strapped to a
> winning graphics card. What's your point? You argued that the raw
> grunt of a 486 is better than the specialised power of a GBA - you are
> wrong. 486 games from 1992 looked appalling at the time compared with
> SNES games, and todays GBA look better than the SNES. Whether you
> think otherwise is a moot point - you are wrong.
You said about the "brute" force of the 486. Well that same brute force was used to run the software + display the graphics (and play the sound). It was the brute force of that technology that took the place of 2D/3D bolt on extra's.
Doesnt matter how much 2D/3D co-processors the GBA has built in, the 486 was better overall. It may be older tech, and did not of have all the little extra accelerator chips, but games like DOOM, Wolfeinstien, Marathon, did (and still do) look much better than DOOM on the GBA. These game's certainly were not "rubbish" in the early 90's.
What about a PS1 comparison? I bet that isn't very complex inside (not by todays standards). What was the original PS, about 1995? CM2 looks good on PS1, and is miles ahead of the new GBA version. I had F1 99 on PS1 and Quake2. Nothing on GBA gets close.
> A 486 is basically a lump of unspecialised silicon which approaches
> all tasks given to it via brute force. Compared with a GBA, this brute
> force is considerable, but the GBA has specialised chips which give it
> a great 2D advantage over a 486, and similar 3D power. Sure, if you
> were to run a prime number generator on a 486 and compared it to a
> GBA, the 486 would win.
>
> All games machines are effectively a crud processor strapped to a
> winning graphics card. What's your point? You argued that the raw
> grunt of a 486 is better than the specialised power of a GBA - you are
> wrong. 486 games from 1992 looked appalling at the time compared with
> SNES games, and todays GBA look better than the SNES. Whether you
> think otherwise is a moot point - you are wrong.
You said about the "brute" force of the 486. Well that same brute force was used to run the software + display the graphics (and play the sound). It was the brute force of that technology that took the place of 2D/3D bolt on extra's.
Doesnt matter how much 2D/3D co-processors the GBA has built in, the 486 was better overall. It may be older tech, and did not of have all the little extra accelerator chips, but games like DOOM, Wolfeinstien, Marathon, did (and still do) look much better than DOOM on the GBA. These game's certainly were not "rubbish" in the early 90's.
What about a PS1 comparison? I bet that isn't very complex inside (not by todays standards). What was the original PS, about 1995? CM2 looks good on PS1, and is miles ahead of the new GBA version. I had F1 99 on PS1 and Quake2. Nothing on GBA gets close.
Page: