The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The X-Box was always going to be the foremost contender for Nintendo-basher of the year. What with Sony quietly slipping away, and Sega finally giving up the ghost, the battlefield has been left clear for the most intense console war that you may ever see. The thing is, Microsoft is not experienced in the console market, and it's already beginning to show. The control pad, as expected, is uninspiring, looking remarkably similar to a Dreamcast pad.
But that was expected, right? The word Microsoft isn't exactly synonymous with innovation - more like borrowing and improving, or to be more accurate, cunningly creating an exclusive mass market. Mr Gates has no idea what Nintendo are up to, and this has forced him to have a dig at Gamecube's specifications. On the X-Box official web-site, you can view the X-box's all-important numbers compared directly to Gamecube and PS2. Here is an example of the statistics for you to look at;
X-box
CPU – 733MHz
Graphics Processor – 250MHz
Total Memory – 64MB
Memory Bandwidth – 6.4GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 125M/sec
PS2
CPU – 294.912MHz
Graphics Processor – 147.465MHz
Total Memory – 32MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 66M/sec
Gamecube
CPU – 405 MHz Power PC
Graphics Processor – 202.5MHz
Total Memory – 40MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 6-12M/sec
As you can see, it doesn't look good for Nintendo, but it wouldn't if any of it was based on in-game comparisons. Every machine works differently, so the fact that one console has a larger number than the other means nothing. As it happens, the Gamecube's CPU is based on the Power PC architecture, which works in a totally different way to a standard PC CPU. Putting the two numbers next to each other is just plain ignorance. Maybe they think that nobody will notice? In actual fact, one major developer has said, that Gamecube's CPU is easily equivalent to a 733MHz CPU. One down, several other misleading facts to go!
X-box supposedly has 21MB more memory than Gamecube. This is actually true, but Gamecube uses highly advanced texture-compression techniques. It doesn't need all that memory, and if you take into account all that extra space available after compression, Gamecube has tons more virtual memory than X-Box.
The most misleading and downright stupid looking comparison of all is in the polygon performance. What's that? X-Box is 11 times more powerful than Gamecube? Nintendo doesn't stand a chance. On the contrary, Nintendo has learned a valuable lesson - this time round, it's being realistic with its figures. The N64 had some awe-inspiring, polygon-pushing numbers when it was first announced, but it never came close. According to this data, the PS2 can push 66 million polygons per. second. So why is it that Ridge Racer V never goes above three million/sec? The cold light of day is that these figures are only true if there are no effects. Once you have a bunch of light sources, textures, and a decent framerate, that number immediately goes down to under 1/10th! This puts Microsoft's machine at around 12 million/sec. With EA Canada announcing that in benchmark tests (on Gamecube) they were achieving in the region of 15 million/sec with multiple effects and light sources, everything suddenly looks rosy again. 125 million polygons/second indeed!
Ok, so I’ve pretty much proven that technically, the Gamecube can more than hold its own in the coming console wars, but that’s only part of the battle. The console market is now full of huge publishers, whose games will more than likely be of the multi-format variety. So what is to stop Joe Bloggs buying an X-Box instead of a Gamecube? That’s where the exclusive software comes in. Nintendo is without doubt home to some of the most talented designers and programmers in the world. Its two main in-house teams, EAD and HAL Laboratory are responsible for franchises such as Pokémon, Mario, Zelda and Metroid, and that’s only to mention a few. Rest assured, there won’t be a shortage of awesome titles available from Nintendo themselves.
Then there’s the 2nd Parties, the developers in which Nintendo has a financial stake. Due to the financial tie, these developers will develop only for Nintendo’s consoles. At the moment, the list includes Rare, Silicon Knights, Left Field, NSTC and Retro Studios.
Last of all are the 3rd-Party developers. Microsoft recently released a list of 150 3rd-Party developers who it claimed were developing for its console. Many of these are also developing for Gamecube, Activision, Infogrames, Namco, Acclaim, 3DO, Konami and Capcom to name just a few.
As you can see, there are more than enough quality development studios working on Gamecube software, but whereas Microsoft is actively showing off what its machine can do, Nintendo has slammed Non Disclosure Agreements on everyone so that they can’t say a word until May. Roll on E3!
But that was expected, right? The word Microsoft isn't exactly synonymous with innovation - more like borrowing and improving, or to be more accurate, cunningly creating an exclusive mass market. Mr Gates has no idea what Nintendo are up to, and this has forced him to have a dig at Gamecube's specifications. On the X-Box official web-site, you can view the X-box's all-important numbers compared directly to Gamecube and PS2. Here is an example of the statistics for you to look at;
X-box
CPU – 733MHz
Graphics Processor – 250MHz
Total Memory – 64MB
Memory Bandwidth – 6.4GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 125M/sec
PS2
CPU – 294.912MHz
Graphics Processor – 147.465MHz
Total Memory – 32MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 66M/sec
Gamecube
CPU – 405 MHz Power PC
Graphics Processor – 202.5MHz
Total Memory – 40MB
Memory Bandwidth – 3.2GB/sec
Polygon Performance – 6-12M/sec
As you can see, it doesn't look good for Nintendo, but it wouldn't if any of it was based on in-game comparisons. Every machine works differently, so the fact that one console has a larger number than the other means nothing. As it happens, the Gamecube's CPU is based on the Power PC architecture, which works in a totally different way to a standard PC CPU. Putting the two numbers next to each other is just plain ignorance. Maybe they think that nobody will notice? In actual fact, one major developer has said, that Gamecube's CPU is easily equivalent to a 733MHz CPU. One down, several other misleading facts to go!
X-box supposedly has 21MB more memory than Gamecube. This is actually true, but Gamecube uses highly advanced texture-compression techniques. It doesn't need all that memory, and if you take into account all that extra space available after compression, Gamecube has tons more virtual memory than X-Box.
The most misleading and downright stupid looking comparison of all is in the polygon performance. What's that? X-Box is 11 times more powerful than Gamecube? Nintendo doesn't stand a chance. On the contrary, Nintendo has learned a valuable lesson - this time round, it's being realistic with its figures. The N64 had some awe-inspiring, polygon-pushing numbers when it was first announced, but it never came close. According to this data, the PS2 can push 66 million polygons per. second. So why is it that Ridge Racer V never goes above three million/sec? The cold light of day is that these figures are only true if there are no effects. Once you have a bunch of light sources, textures, and a decent framerate, that number immediately goes down to under 1/10th! This puts Microsoft's machine at around 12 million/sec. With EA Canada announcing that in benchmark tests (on Gamecube) they were achieving in the region of 15 million/sec with multiple effects and light sources, everything suddenly looks rosy again. 125 million polygons/second indeed!
Ok, so I’ve pretty much proven that technically, the Gamecube can more than hold its own in the coming console wars, but that’s only part of the battle. The console market is now full of huge publishers, whose games will more than likely be of the multi-format variety. So what is to stop Joe Bloggs buying an X-Box instead of a Gamecube? That’s where the exclusive software comes in. Nintendo is without doubt home to some of the most talented designers and programmers in the world. Its two main in-house teams, EAD and HAL Laboratory are responsible for franchises such as Pokémon, Mario, Zelda and Metroid, and that’s only to mention a few. Rest assured, there won’t be a shortage of awesome titles available from Nintendo themselves.
Then there’s the 2nd Parties, the developers in which Nintendo has a financial stake. Due to the financial tie, these developers will develop only for Nintendo’s consoles. At the moment, the list includes Rare, Silicon Knights, Left Field, NSTC and Retro Studios.
Last of all are the 3rd-Party developers. Microsoft recently released a list of 150 3rd-Party developers who it claimed were developing for its console. Many of these are also developing for Gamecube, Activision, Infogrames, Namco, Acclaim, 3DO, Konami and Capcom to name just a few.
As you can see, there are more than enough quality development studios working on Gamecube software, but whereas Microsoft is actively showing off what its machine can do, Nintendo has slammed Non Disclosure Agreements on everyone so that they can’t say a word until May. Roll on E3!
Page:
Don't get me wrong - I think that it's great that it may be coming out on X-Box. I just don't want to start another argument!! ;-p
Bandit wrote:
> i'm right with you "your honour",
> "perfectdarkwizard" you can print as much verbal bulls**t as
> you like but at the end of the day it's down to your choice of
> game/gameplay.
It's not verbal bulls**t i'm just stating the facts, so that you can make your own minds up.
> i'm right with you "your honour",
> "perfectdarkwizard" you can print as much verbal bulls**t as
> you like but at the end of the day it's down to your choice of
> game/gameplay.
It's not verbal bulls**t i'm just stating the facts, so that you can make your own minds up.
adrian wrote:
> But all the games magazines use the same comparisons. Its not Bill
> Gates lying, its the whole industry. The specs for the PS2 are false.
> The Xbox has 64mb RAM which is correct. The GC has 16mb of Graphics
> RAM and 24mb of System RAM so that is 40Mb. The PS2 has 32mb of System
> RAM and 4mb of graphics RAM so thats 36mb of total RAM, yet magazines
> some how forget that.
>
> The specs below are what appear in every, even a Nintendo magazine
> would quote the same specs. Non biased magazines quote the same specs.
I know but I couldn't think of a better title, and I thought it might get your attention and obviously it worked on you.
> But all the games magazines use the same comparisons. Its not Bill
> Gates lying, its the whole industry. The specs for the PS2 are false.
> The Xbox has 64mb RAM which is correct. The GC has 16mb of Graphics
> RAM and 24mb of System RAM so that is 40Mb. The PS2 has 32mb of System
> RAM and 4mb of graphics RAM so thats 36mb of total RAM, yet magazines
> some how forget that.
>
> The specs below are what appear in every, even a Nintendo magazine
> would quote the same specs. Non biased magazines quote the same specs.
I know but I couldn't think of a better title, and I thought it might get your attention and obviously it worked on you.
So, PerfectDarkWizard, I have some questions for YOU!
1) Have you ever actually played Perfect Dark
2) Where is your tagline?!?!?!?!
1) Have you ever actually played Perfect Dark
2) Where is your tagline?!?!?!?!
lying tw@
PefectDarkWizard wrote:
> Every machine works differently, so the fact that one console has a larger number than the other means nothing. As it happens, the Gamecube's CPU is based on the Power PC architecture, which works in a totally different way to a standard PC CPU. Putting the two numbers next to each other is just plain ignorance. Maybe they think that nobody will notice? In actual fact, one major developer has said, that Gamecube's CPU is easily equivalent to a 733MHz CPU. One down, several other misleading facts to go!
Ok, I'll forget that you obviously have 'Nintendo' tattooed on your backside for now. Instead, it would be nice to see 'experts' such as yourself realise that Mhz isn't everything the next time they go out and buy new Pentium 4s. AMDs are cheaper and pack more power per Mhz, yet I despair when I see Intel's P4 chips still selling. What processor you got in your PC mate?
> Every machine works differently, so the fact that one console has a larger number than the other means nothing. As it happens, the Gamecube's CPU is based on the Power PC architecture, which works in a totally different way to a standard PC CPU. Putting the two numbers next to each other is just plain ignorance. Maybe they think that nobody will notice? In actual fact, one major developer has said, that Gamecube's CPU is easily equivalent to a 733MHz CPU. One down, several other misleading facts to go!
Ok, I'll forget that you obviously have 'Nintendo' tattooed on your backside for now. Instead, it would be nice to see 'experts' such as yourself realise that Mhz isn't everything the next time they go out and buy new Pentium 4s. AMDs are cheaper and pack more power per Mhz, yet I despair when I see Intel's P4 chips still selling. What processor you got in your PC mate?
Gar-J wrote:
Instead, it would be nice to see 'experts' such as
> yourself realise that Mhz isn't everything the next time they go out
> and buy new Pentium 4s. AMDs are cheaper and pack more power per Mhz,
> yet I despair when I see Intel's P4 chips still selling. What
> processor you got in your PC mate?
AMD in my PC.
Instead, it would be nice to see 'experts' such as
> yourself realise that Mhz isn't everything the next time they go out
> and buy new Pentium 4s. AMDs are cheaper and pack more power per Mhz,
> yet I despair when I see Intel's P4 chips still selling. What
> processor you got in your PC mate?
AMD in my PC.
PS2 "quietly slipping away", eh?
Have you checked on any sales figures recently?
> According to this data, the PS2 can push 66 million polygons
> per. second. So why is it that Ridge Racer V never goes above three
> million/sec? The cold light of day is that these figures are only true
> if there are no effects. Once you have a bunch of light sources,
> textures, and a decent framerate, that number immediately goes down to
> under 1/10th!
You are quoting a very early game. Just to bring things up to date a litte...
The raw power of PS2 is put at anywhere between 66 and 75 million polys/sec. And yes, it does drop dramatically with extra effects turned on.
However, more recent flagship products fair far better. GT3, for example, uses around 20 million polys/sec, AND looks as good as - if not better than - anything on any other platform. Not bad for hardware nearing three years old.
Of course, figures are largely irrelevant anyway, as it's the games that are important. In this area, my PS2 gives me the most enjoyment, while my Xbox enjoyment is wearing thin and is in danger of being replaced by a 'cube.
(Cue Gar-J jumping down my throat for mentioning PS2... ;-)
Have you checked on any sales figures recently?
> According to this data, the PS2 can push 66 million polygons
> per. second. So why is it that Ridge Racer V never goes above three
> million/sec? The cold light of day is that these figures are only true
> if there are no effects. Once you have a bunch of light sources,
> textures, and a decent framerate, that number immediately goes down to
> under 1/10th!
You are quoting a very early game. Just to bring things up to date a litte...
The raw power of PS2 is put at anywhere between 66 and 75 million polys/sec. And yes, it does drop dramatically with extra effects turned on.
However, more recent flagship products fair far better. GT3, for example, uses around 20 million polys/sec, AND looks as good as - if not better than - anything on any other platform. Not bad for hardware nearing three years old.
Of course, figures are largely irrelevant anyway, as it's the games that are important. In this area, my PS2 gives me the most enjoyment, while my Xbox enjoyment is wearing thin and is in danger of being replaced by a 'cube.
(Cue Gar-J jumping down my throat for mentioning PS2... ;-)
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> (Cue Gar-J jumping down my throat for mentioning PS2... ;-)
Haha, not at all mate. Up to you which console you're happiest with. I get ar5ey when someone tries to say the PS2 is technically most powerful, or when someone starts talking about the PS2 when I'm talking about Bleem on Dreamcast. :oP
> (Cue Gar-J jumping down my throat for mentioning PS2... ;-)
Haha, not at all mate. Up to you which console you're happiest with. I get ar5ey when someone tries to say the PS2 is technically most powerful, or when someone starts talking about the PS2 when I'm talking about Bleem on Dreamcast. :oP
Page: