The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This is all from memory so about 10% is most likely gonna be wrong. The reason is because i don't wanna go steal sumin of another site:
Polygons
*Note: the Xbox's polygon specs aren't officially confirmed*
Gamecube: 6 to 12 million polygons per second (conservative, but realistic estimate)
PlayStation 2: 75 million polygons per second (realistically first-gen games are more like 3-5 million)
Xbox: 150 million polygons per second (does not consider real gameplay environments)
Dreamcast: Roughly 3 million polygons per second
Nintendo 64: Around 150,000 polygons per second
PlayStation: Around 360,000 polygons per second (lacks comparable effects)
MHZ speed
Gamecube: 405MHz
PlayStation 2: 300MHz
Xbox: 733MHz
Dreamcast: 200MHz
Nintendo 64: 93MHz
PlayStation: 33MHz (how can this be true)
Memory
Gamecube: 3.2 GB/s (Gigabytes per second)
PlayStation 2: 3.2 GB/s (Gigabytes per second)
Xbox: 6.4GB/s (Gigabytes per second)
Dreamcast: 800 MB/s (Megabytes per second)
Nintendo 64: 500 MB/s (Megabytes per second) or about 0.5 GB/s
PlayStation: 132 MB/s (Megabytes per second)
Software Format
Gamecube: mini-DVD, 1.5 GB capacity
PlayStation 2: DVD, 4.7 GB capacity
Xbox: DVD, 4.7 GB capacity
Dreamcast: CD, 1 GB capacity
Nintendo 64: Cartridge, 64MB capacity (so far)
PlayStation: CD, 650 MB capacity
What's your opinion on this and will this affect your plan for the next console?
*phew now must start new topic*
Polygons
*Note: the Xbox's polygon specs aren't officially confirmed*
Gamecube: 6 to 12 million polygons per second (conservative, but realistic estimate)
PlayStation 2: 75 million polygons per second (realistically first-gen games are more like 3-5 million)
Xbox: 150 million polygons per second (does not consider real gameplay environments)
Dreamcast: Roughly 3 million polygons per second
Nintendo 64: Around 150,000 polygons per second
PlayStation: Around 360,000 polygons per second (lacks comparable effects)
MHZ speed
Gamecube: 405MHz
PlayStation 2: 300MHz
Xbox: 733MHz
Dreamcast: 200MHz
Nintendo 64: 93MHz
PlayStation: 33MHz (how can this be true)
Memory
Gamecube: 3.2 GB/s (Gigabytes per second)
PlayStation 2: 3.2 GB/s (Gigabytes per second)
Xbox: 6.4GB/s (Gigabytes per second)
Dreamcast: 800 MB/s (Megabytes per second)
Nintendo 64: 500 MB/s (Megabytes per second) or about 0.5 GB/s
PlayStation: 132 MB/s (Megabytes per second)
Software Format
Gamecube: mini-DVD, 1.5 GB capacity
PlayStation 2: DVD, 4.7 GB capacity
Xbox: DVD, 4.7 GB capacity
Dreamcast: CD, 1 GB capacity
Nintendo 64: Cartridge, 64MB capacity (so far)
PlayStation: CD, 650 MB capacity
What's your opinion on this and will this affect your plan for the next console?
*phew now must start new topic*
Page:
That's about right. Anyway, as for the PS2 being rushed...
When the first movies on the Ps2 were shown, they were not only running off Pcs, but were made by developers who only had about 2 weeks to make them. Before that the PS2 had not existed in any form. The reason is that Sony were confident that Sega would not dent the PSone domination on the market... how wrong they were! The PS2 movies were made to get people waiting for the PS2 rather than buy a DC.
Oh and the thing about Sony and Nintendo swapping places... you've hit the nail on the head. Whereas Sony had to make the PSone well thought out, the PS2 was rushed.
Nintendo, on the other hand, believed that developers would flood to the N64, so didn't put alot of thought into it. Now, however, they really have checked their archetecture.
SonicRav
When the first movies on the Ps2 were shown, they were not only running off Pcs, but were made by developers who only had about 2 weeks to make them. Before that the PS2 had not existed in any form. The reason is that Sony were confident that Sega would not dent the PSone domination on the market... how wrong they were! The PS2 movies were made to get people waiting for the PS2 rather than buy a DC.
Oh and the thing about Sony and Nintendo swapping places... you've hit the nail on the head. Whereas Sony had to make the PSone well thought out, the PS2 was rushed.
Nintendo, on the other hand, believed that developers would flood to the N64, so didn't put alot of thought into it. Now, however, they really have checked their archetecture.
SonicRav
from reading Sonic-Rav's first post it seems that the PSX's was better than the N64, as the N64's processor had to do everything, whereas the PSX had a different build that allowed graphics and sound to be processed by different processors.
(Am I right so far?)
Funny then that Nintendo and Sony have changed positions here with their NG consoles, as the PS2's processor has to deal with graphics, sound and the rest, whereas the GCN has separate processors for each of these things!
Does this show that the PS2 was rushed?
mega_dragon PQMS8/00
(Am I right so far?)
Funny then that Nintendo and Sony have changed positions here with their NG consoles, as the PS2's processor has to deal with graphics, sound and the rest, whereas the GCN has separate processors for each of these things!
Does this show that the PS2 was rushed?
mega_dragon PQMS8/00
Popularity means nowt. As Gamecube has not been released yet Vai.
vai wrote:
> Snic Rav, dont you think insulting the PS2 is slighty dumb, look at
> by Guinness post.
Who's guiness and where's his post??? Anyway, I was simply answering the question as to which had better archetecture, the gamecube or Ps2... not satisfied with the answer??? Then write with reasons
SonicRav
> Snic Rav, dont you think insulting the PS2 is slighty dumb, look at
> by Guinness post.
Who's guiness and where's his post??? Anyway, I was simply answering the question as to which had better archetecture, the gamecube or Ps2... not satisfied with the answer??? Then write with reasons
SonicRav
Grix Thraves wrote:
> On the subject of cpu's and all, what do you think has the best
> architechture [sp], out of Gamecube and PS2, Rav?
Without a doubt the Gamecube! Let's face it- the Ps2 was rushed. It was only when Sony saw the DC was going to sell like crazy in America that they announced the console (and no, it wasn't already done!). It was another few months till developers got their kits, which are so poor that Konami made their own dev tools. The lack of VRAM means that interlacing must be used- putting half the screen on the TV one fiftieth of a second, and the other half the next (not half as in top and bottom, rather every other line). This is possibly the stupidest thing Sony have ever done! It resulted in the Jaggy edges fiasco (which wasn't due to AA at all!) and means that developers will always fight with the coding to get great looking graphics.
The Gamecube on the other hand is far better. Nintendo have put quality above coming out first, and this time they really do have quality. They have a fast processor, but unlike the PS2 have everything to go with it. Whereas the PS2 is like a 1GHz PC with only 4 MB RAM, the Gamecube is a 1.1GHz PC with the full 256 MB RAM (*Numbers bare no relation to actual console specs, instead just a representation of them). The dev kits are much easier to use (as many have said... mind you, it's hard to get worse than PS2 kits!). Finally, I believe you can never make a truely great games console till you have really learned from your mistakes. Sega did it with the DC (after the Saturn's death) and Nintendo's N64 was hardly great! Both companies have addressed the mistakes they made with their previous consoles, and that is why the Gamecube, from a purely archetectural point of view, is far better than the PS2. Whether developers will recognise this is another question all together.
SonicRav
> On the subject of cpu's and all, what do you think has the best
> architechture [sp], out of Gamecube and PS2, Rav?
Without a doubt the Gamecube! Let's face it- the Ps2 was rushed. It was only when Sony saw the DC was going to sell like crazy in America that they announced the console (and no, it wasn't already done!). It was another few months till developers got their kits, which are so poor that Konami made their own dev tools. The lack of VRAM means that interlacing must be used- putting half the screen on the TV one fiftieth of a second, and the other half the next (not half as in top and bottom, rather every other line). This is possibly the stupidest thing Sony have ever done! It resulted in the Jaggy edges fiasco (which wasn't due to AA at all!) and means that developers will always fight with the coding to get great looking graphics.
The Gamecube on the other hand is far better. Nintendo have put quality above coming out first, and this time they really do have quality. They have a fast processor, but unlike the PS2 have everything to go with it. Whereas the PS2 is like a 1GHz PC with only 4 MB RAM, the Gamecube is a 1.1GHz PC with the full 256 MB RAM (*Numbers bare no relation to actual console specs, instead just a representation of them). The dev kits are much easier to use (as many have said... mind you, it's hard to get worse than PS2 kits!). Finally, I believe you can never make a truely great games console till you have really learned from your mistakes. Sega did it with the DC (after the Saturn's death) and Nintendo's N64 was hardly great! Both companies have addressed the mistakes they made with their previous consoles, and that is why the Gamecube, from a purely archetectural point of view, is far better than the PS2. Whether developers will recognise this is another question all together.
SonicRav
Better pop in here... Sorry Dan.
1) The N64 sold more during the week before Christmas worldwide, and is now still selling more.
2) You have infringed copyright, please withdraw the remark about your brain.
1) The N64 sold more during the week before Christmas worldwide, and is now still selling more.
2) You have infringed copyright, please withdraw the remark about your brain.
SNIPER wrote:
> The N64 is outselling the Dreamcast! Oh dear.
Only if the term outselling means selling considerably less.
So FantasyMeister - you're getting a DC then huh? Maybe you've put some of your intelligence aside for purchasing decisions at last, after so many very interesting posts on the forums...
(I can see a sale happening) Shush brain...
The Encore is a very powerful machine - it gets rave ratings - many features - great ergonomics, and a superb picture.
It also provides a rather nice and complimentary coving for my Dreamcast...
> The N64 is outselling the Dreamcast! Oh dear.
Only if the term outselling means selling considerably less.
So FantasyMeister - you're getting a DC then huh? Maybe you've put some of your intelligence aside for purchasing decisions at last, after so many very interesting posts on the forums...
(I can see a sale happening) Shush brain...
The Encore is a very powerful machine - it gets rave ratings - many features - great ergonomics, and a superb picture.
It also provides a rather nice and complimentary coving for my Dreamcast...
The N64 is outselling the Dreamcast! Oh dear.
Page: