Viewing Thread:
"Has Xbox got the better hardware?"

I would like to go over the Hardware confusion.

The Xbox processor, is an IMB processor, It clocks out at 733Mhz within the Xbox, this is hardware. The Gamecube runs on an IBM processor called The Gekko. The gekko contains around 400Mhz, not as much as the Xbox, but does that mean that the Xbox has better hardware? The answer is no. The Gamecube actually has a better processor. The technology of the chip is better, it's much faster.

"The Xbox has better hardware"
True, If you look at the Xboxs hardware at face value, you will be very impressed but anyone who has a slight background In Pc's whether building them, programming them, or doing graphics art on one he/she can tell you quite a bit about all three systems.

* Megahertz means almost nothing when you are talking about CPU speed, In truth the Gamecube Gekko PPC CPU is faster than the Pentium 3, For Starts the Cache system of the Gamecube is far larger, The L1 being 32bit and the L2 being 256 2way, The Pentium 3 has an L1 cache of 16bit and the L2 cache is 256Kb half the speed. So if you were going to take processing power and the amount of Data able to be shoved through a processor, The Gekko can Compute twice as much.


* Next the Ram, The Ram system of the Xbox is based on a flawed Idea from the early 1980's, It's GPU and CPU share 64 Mb of SDram. Though It can designate what part needs more Ram the GPU and CPU, this creates a bottleneck and eats up clock cycles. So the true Polygon processing for the GPU of the Xbox is only around 20 - 30 million polygons in games, The flipper GPU for the Gamecube has better rendering capabilities and the quality of the graphics outmatches the Xbox, The ram in the Gamecube is 27Mb of 1T-Sram the most advanced Ram on the marke. This stops the Gamecube from having a bottleneck, In addition, 3Mb of the Ram go's straight to the GPU and the rest Is used as needed. This Ram is actually around 4-5 times fater than the SDram, In addition the Gamecube also has 16Mb of SDram to be used as needed.

* Hard Drive: Well, next year a card hard drive will be Released for the Gamecube ( or so rumors say ) also unlike the Xbox's ceramic hard drive, the Card Hard drive by IBM will not die after quite a bit of use anyway. A ceramic Hard Drive will.

* Load Times from the Processor are as follows
Gamecube : 4 - 8 Second loading time.
Xbox : 14 - 20 Seconds
PS2 : 30 - 60 Seconds on average
The Gamecube has a lower Loading times than Any other system ever because of a less disk area and a different laser frequency for reading.

So there it is, The Xbox seems to have the better hardware, but It hasn't.
Facts found from sources.

Isn't the GameCube using a chip based on a PowerPC CPU. If that's the case, the GC 450Mhz should be about the same as the 733Mhz CISC based P3 powered XBox - just compare the actual size of the CPU's and will see that the XBox is dated technology.

Semajal wrote:
> did you read this?
>
> http://cube.totalgames.net[SPACE] /features/featuresfull2.epml?
>
> features2.REF=15&news[SPACE] Format.REF=9&featureType.REF=1
But the thing was.......... I didn't.

FantasyMeister wrote:
> Unless you want to play Final Fantasy X and Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons
> of Liberty, and Gran Turismo and Grand Theft Auto 3, in which case
> just get a PS2.
>
> This argument will never end, you know.

Descartes could end it I reckon. He would bring God into the equation and talk a load of bull about how Nintendo being brilliant is an innate idea. Everything else is a priori, but at the end of the day God has placed the perfect console of the Nintendo Gamecube in the shops.

He would argue this same thing for all the consoles, then claim we don't exist and the only thing we can be sure of is ourselves.

Philosophy is funny.

Unless you want to play Final Fantasy X and Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, and Gran Turismo and Grand Theft Auto 3, in which case just get a PS2.

This argument will never end, you know.

Solution: Think of consoles as cars. Some by them because they're a nice colour, some buy them because they get them from A to B, and some buy them because they have a small *blankety blank*

(Bet Terry Wogan never had to read that one out...)

Basically, consoles are for games, the better games are what people should buy a console for. The best games are currently on the Gamecube (overall). If you want ONE console, buy the console for quality gaming hours, if you have enough money buy the Xbox and Gamecube.

:)

FantasyMeister wrote:
> Nice research.
>
> But to me the XBox doesn't have Final Fantasy X or Grand Theft Auto:
> Vice City, so I look at it more in terms of "Has XBox got the
> better software?"
>
> It's got Halo though...

And Rare too, dont forget!
That's what should win arguments - games, not specs.

Still, the Xbox does have one hardware advantage. That hardrive is supposed to be a big advantage, especially when it comes to online gaming.

I still wouldn't choose it over the host of games such as Mario and Zelda though.

the processor speed doesnt do anything without the other components. MHZ is just how quickly electronic pulse can go round the system and do commands. When you read up on it you will see that Xbox utilizes all on the processing power unlike the GC which only initialy uses the 400, but secondary use of the extra 300 or so is used unfavorably.


On paper it seems like the gc has better processing power, but it doesnt.

it says 400, then it says that it has an extra 300 or so hanging about somewhere. But actually its sumthing like 600 when used literally in a pc system.

The xbox graphics card plays a huge role in its performance.

Xbox is the most powerful console out there, but there hasnt been any games out as of yet which have used its full potential.

Its like the psx, look at the games that came out when it was first released, now look at them. They have come along way. Only now have developers had soo much experience and knowledge to pretty much put it to the test.

did you read this?

http://cube.totalgames.net[SPACE] /features/featuresfull2.epml?

features2.REF=15&news[SPACE] Format.REF=9&featureType.REF=1

Very detailed post. Very true about the GC chip being faster than would appear simply on paper. But with the exception of certain NATIVE (exclusive) games, most look the same on all 3 systems. This means, that the average Pearson will have difficulty seeing any real difference on the screen - so since its that close, people then look at the number of games available, and related issues such as how quick do the games come out on each system. This is where PS2 wins out. It's almost a standard like VHS. Then there are other issues. Some early PS2 had problems, but XBox still has problems technically after all this time. People might also take on board the issue of DVD movies, this is where the GC can’t play ball. Then add in the "icool" factor, and XBox is seen by many as a cut down games only pc (a bit unfair, but some people do think that). So it’s not just about power. As long as the 3 boxes are closeish, power alone will not determine the winner. Compare it to the new breed of cars. The SMART car is really slow, only 2 seats, expensive, but it sought after by many. Image plays a big part. No point having a technically perfect box, if nobody wants to buy it.

FantasyMeister wrote:
> Nice research.
>
> But to me the XBox doesn't have Final Fantasy X or Grand Theft Auto:
> Vice City
so I look at it more in terms of "Has XBox got the
> better software?"
>
> It's got Halo though...

The PS2's Software doesn't bother me either, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicle will be on Gamecube aswell as XII onwards, and GTA vice City and Halo will be on PC next summer.