Printable View
How did I know I should've bolded the word "multi-platform" because someone was going to count all of the first-party games when trying to list a number? According to that site you brought up, about 30 of those 90 480p games are first-party so that immediately drops to 60 total. Then again, they also list Resident Evil 4 as being 480p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv
So they suck that white stuff out? Ewwwww.... :yuck:Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
They also list Steel Battalion as 480p - I'm not sure but I could have sworn it wasn't.
does that change the fact that for games hitting both the systems the majority of ones are 480p on both systemsQuote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
whats a recent major game on both besides BG&E thats not 480p on both
just out of curiosity
maybe medal of honor rising sun ? but im not sure ill look tomorrow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tosh
Except that 2.4 million for the GBA is actually the number of GBA SP's they've sold in 2003. They sold another 1.1 million GBA units as well, for a total of 3.5 million GBA/GBA SP's for the year 2003 in Japan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kano On The Phone
Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstBlood
(Sigh), I didn't realize you guys knew so little about these things, and then to be so malicious. But I guess it explains a few things. Instead of being a dick back to you, I'll just explain, briefly, and in no great detail, why the GC's proccessor is at least 30% more powerful than the XBox's and how it's architecture widens the difference in throughput, which is why so many GC games run at up to twice the framerate as the same game on the XBox, even if the game is developed on the XBox (Turok, Vexx, Beyond Good and Evil, Dark Summit, Wreckless, Splinter Cell, LOTR, etc...). And there's not a single game (that I'm aware of) that runs at 60fps on the XBox and less than that on the GC, and there shouldn't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by omfgninjas
I'm gonna keep it as brief as I can because I have other things I need to be doing. I may go into more detail tomorrow. And believe it or not, although I'm admittedly a huge Nintendo fan, I'm objective on this matter. If the XBox really was more powerful than the GC, I wouldn't care, but it's not, so I'm just explaining why.
Just to clarify, I know a bit about this stuff because I'm a computer programmer. I've got a CP degree and I'm also certified in several languages, that's just to present that I have some authority on this subject and I'm not just making shit up.
First off, figuring out how "powerful" a cpu is, is pretty easy. There's nothing magical about the way they work. The main points to look at are the speed(mhz), size of the data stream (32bit, 64bit), floating point (mathematical notation in which a quantity is denoted by one number multiplied by a power of the number base), and the efficiency of the instruction set (CISC, RISC).
The XBox's cpu is 32bit @ 733mhz. That is to say the XBox can process a data stream 32 characters wide, 733 million times a second; that's 23,456,000,000 characters a second. The characters are the program's code. The GC's cpu is 64bit @ 485mhz. That's 31,040,000,000 characters a second. The GC can process over 32% more characters in any given time, so right off the bat the GC's cpu is 32% more powerful. That's a measurable fact. They both have similar floating points, around 8.6 GFLOPS, so they're even there, but another point of interest which widens the difference in throughput, is the different instruction sets.
The characters that the machine processes (in 32 or 64 bit "chunks") is known as it's instruction set. The programmer's code is converted into this, because that's what the machine understands. The XBox uses a CISC (Closed Instruction Set Chip) and the GC uses a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Chip). RISC is a newer technology, and it allows fewer characters to be used to perform the same operations as it would in a CISC. So the GC's processor, which is already 32% faster is also more efficient, it takes less cpu power to carry out similar operations. The difference in throughput widens.
Then you can take into account both of the system's architecture. The GC has 1T-SRAM embedded on it's gpu, which means the cpu doesn't have to waste cycles moving data to and from RAM. The XBox has nothing similar. The XBox also has to maintain it's RAM (it has to keep refreshing it) more than the GC, using up cpu power. You can see the XBox's cpu getting behind in it's "housekeeping", as a result, in games like Glitch, Splinter Cell, Simpsons Hit and Run. This looks like the screen breaking up into horizontal slices when the camera pans around fast. I know other people on this board have seen this because I've seen them asking what it was.
And there are other things too, such as the GC's gpu drawing eight textures per pass and the XBox only drawing four, the drawbacks of DTS (lag), the obviously higher image quality of the GC (I can't believe anyone who has spent time with both systems could see that any other way) and other things but I don't have the time to get into anything else now.
I should probably start a new thread with this post because it's not really on topic and I should save a mod the trouble of moving it.
More later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Seven paragraphs about somthing that doesn't matter, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by kbuchanan
WHO. THE. FUCK. CARES?
MASS PWNAGE~!!
Microsoft Xbox (2001)
CPU: Intel Pentium III 32-bit integer 80-bit floating-point 64-bit MMX 128-bit SSE 733 MHz 32KB L1 cache 128KB L2 cache 1980 Dhrystone 2.1 MIPS 2.93 GFLOPS ~120.0 GFLOPS (CPU+GPU) 1.0 GB/sec external bus
Graphics: NVIDIA xGPU 250 MHz 1.0 gigapixel per second 2.0 gigatexels per second 4.0 billion anti-aliased samples per second 60 million polygons per second programmable vertex and pixel processors texture compression full-scene anti-aliasing 32-bit color processing 24-bit color output
shares 64MB system memory 6.4 GB/sec memory bandwidth no swapping due to unified memory
Sound: NVIDIA MCPX APU 256 2D voices 64 3D voices Dolby Digital shares 64MB system memory 800 MB/sec via HyperTransport
System Memory: 64MB DDR 200 MHz 128-bit 6.4 GB/sec
Storage & Communication: DVD-ROM DVD-9 (8.54GB) 8GB Hard Drive 10/100 Mbps Ethernet
Nintendo GameCube (2001)
CPU: IBM Power PC Gekko 32-bit integer 64-bit floating-point 485 MHz 64KB L1 cache 256KB L2 cache 1125 Dhrystone 2.1 MIPS 1.94 GFLOPS 10.5 GFLOPS (CPU+GPU) 1.3 GB/sec external bus
Graphics: ATI/Nintendo Flipper 162 MHz 650 megapixels per second 650 megatexels per second 12 million polygons per second transformation and lighting engine texture compression subpixel anti-aliasing 32-bit color processing 24-bit color output
2MB frame buffer 1MB texture cache 10.4 GB/sec texture read 2.4 GB/sec texture swap
Sound: Macronix 16-bit DSP 64 2D voices ADPCM encoding shares 16MB DRAM 81 MB/sec bandwidth
System Memory: 24MB 1T-SRAM 325 MHz 64-bit 2.6 GB/sec
16MB DRAM 81 MHz 8-bit 81 MB/sec
Storage & Communication: Optical Disc 1.5GB discs 128ms access time
Found these specs. Looks like the GC has less of everything except cpu cache, unless these are wrong for some reason. Next question: Why hasn't the GC done 720p or 1080i? And why would developers make the Xbox version of multi-platform games look better if the GC is so technically superior (for instance, Prince of Persia)? Shouldn't they put those enhancements on the GC version as well, or is it a Saturn-like deal where the programming effort isn't worth the output?If it's so obvious why are you seemingly the only person online to have noticed such a thing and why is not so on my TV?Quote:
the obviously higher image quality of the GC (I can't believe anyone who has spent time with both systems could see that any other way)
While not to say the GC is more powerful than the Xbox, but the GC is hardware limited for a max resolution of 480p, even if they wanted to, they can. And the GC also has a MUCH bigger texture cache in comparision to the Xbox which is why it can come clost to it's theoretical specs. But of course the sheer brute force of the Xbox desgn will always make the Xbox superior when it comes to output. However the only reason why he would think that the GC looks better is because the GC has true component compared to other consoles which have line doublers(if he is comparing component output for both systems).Quote:
Found these specs. Looks like the GC has less of everything except cpu cache, unless these are wrong for some reason. Next question: Why hasn't the GC done 720p or 1080i? And why would developers make the Xbox version of multi-platform games look better if the GC is so technically superior (for instance, Prince of Persia)? Shouldn't they put those enhancements on the GC version as well, or is it a Saturn-like deal where the programming effort isn't worth the output?