The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I'm fed up of saying this, so I'm posting this one the forums, and I'm going to pop it everytime someone thinks different to the above.
Because it's getting to me. :0D
I might even explain WHY the Gamecube is as fast as the X-Box later... ;0)
BTW: The X-Box looks rather disapointing at the moment.
Because it's getting to me. :0D
I might even explain WHY the Gamecube is as fast as the X-Box later... ;0)
BTW: The X-Box looks rather disapointing at the moment.
Underwear stall?? moi?
*outside brothel*
"Get you're sexy undies here,negligees going half price..."
*outside brothel*
"Get you're sexy undies here,negligees going half price..."
Thanks you little underwear stall you. ;)
Another thing is the difference in architecture between the two CPUS of the consoles.
The architecture of the Gamecube's CPU is faster, and uses a large cache than the X-Box's CPU. This means that it can get things off the disc and onto screen quicker, and can therefore have more things on screen.
The same goes for RAM.
The architecture of the Gamecube's CPU is faster, and uses a large cache than the X-Box's CPU. This means that it can get things off the disc and onto screen quicker, and can therefore have more things on screen.
The same goes for RAM.
Sixth Graver wrote:
I might even explain WHY the
> Gamecube is as fast as the X-Box later... ;0)
No, it's alright, I'll do it for you...
The X-Box is apparently, as claimed recently by a Microsoft spokesperson "As powerful as a nuclear reactor" You can go to ww.xbox.com and view a chart of specs comparing the X-Box to the GameCube and the PS2. If you look at this chart you can clearly see that the X-Box is much more powerful than it’s opponents in the console market. One thing they have overlooked however (or just chosen to ignore for that matter…) is that these specs are NOT ingame.
All consoles architecture is different. Some use different methods to generate better looking graphics. Others run them compressed to leave more cart space. The GameCube uss a new spangled techno way to generate the graphics. The name at the present time escpaes me. But what it basically boils down to is that the GC is able to create good looking graphics using up minimal cart space, leaving more power left over for the geniuses at Nintendo to play God with.
The Xbox uses a different way to create the graphics in a game. Their way consists of using a huge chunk of the CD primaily for graphical detail. This effects the amount of power that the X-Box has left over.
So, in terms of raw power the X-Box wins hands down. But when the consoles are running games the tables turn completely and the GC is the one that is as powerful as a nuclear reactor (errrr….. yeah… whatever)
So what is this that Microtosh is doing? Has Bill Gates finally realised that the X-Box is infact NOT as good as the PS2 and GC. IS this an attempt to put one over Nintendo and Sony? To me it looks like the acts of a dying/failing company. Only time will tell…
A very technical *yeah right...*
RBS
I might even explain WHY the
> Gamecube is as fast as the X-Box later... ;0)
No, it's alright, I'll do it for you...
The X-Box is apparently, as claimed recently by a Microsoft spokesperson "As powerful as a nuclear reactor" You can go to ww.xbox.com and view a chart of specs comparing the X-Box to the GameCube and the PS2. If you look at this chart you can clearly see that the X-Box is much more powerful than it’s opponents in the console market. One thing they have overlooked however (or just chosen to ignore for that matter…) is that these specs are NOT ingame.
All consoles architecture is different. Some use different methods to generate better looking graphics. Others run them compressed to leave more cart space. The GameCube uss a new spangled techno way to generate the graphics. The name at the present time escpaes me. But what it basically boils down to is that the GC is able to create good looking graphics using up minimal cart space, leaving more power left over for the geniuses at Nintendo to play God with.
The Xbox uses a different way to create the graphics in a game. Their way consists of using a huge chunk of the CD primaily for graphical detail. This effects the amount of power that the X-Box has left over.
So, in terms of raw power the X-Box wins hands down. But when the consoles are running games the tables turn completely and the GC is the one that is as powerful as a nuclear reactor (errrr….. yeah… whatever)
So what is this that Microtosh is doing? Has Bill Gates finally realised that the X-Box is infact NOT as good as the PS2 and GC. IS this an attempt to put one over Nintendo and Sony? To me it looks like the acts of a dying/failing company. Only time will tell…
A very technical *yeah right...*
RBS
I'm fed up of saying this, so I'm posting this one the forums, and I'm going to pop it everytime someone thinks different to the above.
Because it's getting to me. :0D
I might even explain WHY the Gamecube is as fast as the X-Box later... ;0)
BTW: The X-Box looks rather disapointing at the moment.
Because it's getting to me. :0D
I might even explain WHY the Gamecube is as fast as the X-Box later... ;0)
BTW: The X-Box looks rather disapointing at the moment.