Why GC is more "powerful" than XBox

LOL · 12 Jan 2004, 08:58 AM

Thank you for quoting me in the thread topic and dragging me into such a tired argument when that quote wasn't even directed towards you at all.

**jarrod** · 12 Jan 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Splinter Cell looks decidedly better on the Xbox, and really what it comes down to in my eyes is this...

Actually, there's good reasons for this. First it was handled by a different team (UbiSoft Shanghai iirc). Second, it was based off the downgraded PS2 build rather than the XBox original. Splinter Cell isn't the best example for XBox's superiority, as the Gamecube version's inferior port wasn't due to hardware in the least.

Halo could also probably run pretty well on GCN, if Bungie were so inclined to port it. They could even base it off the Mac build and save some resources doing so.

When Gamecube's used to it's strengths by dedicated teams, it's more than capable. Software houses like Amusement Vision (F-Zero GX), Retro (Metroid Prime), Rare (Starfox Adventures), Factor 5 (Rogue Squadron 2-3) and Capcom Studio 4 (Resident Evil 4) have done jaw dropping things with the hardware. Multiplatform stuff isn't really the best way to judge any platform's potential.

**ssbomberman** · 12 Jan 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Green

Seems to me the color on the Xbox seems slightly grey and duller than GC and PS2. Compared to the other systems, a totally black screen seems a bit greyish and not solid black. However, I've played both the GC and Xbox versions of Soul Calibur 2, and it's not really noticable while playing it. The colors in Vice City seem not near as crisp, though.

This is a hard thing to really talk about because it all depends on TV calibration, cables, what type of TV etc. If Xbox looks grey on your TV while other systems don't, then set up a custom TV setting just for the Xbox -- this isn't uncommon to have settings for different devices like DVD players etc. What I can say is that both Xbox and GC in HD progressive mode look brilliant. Honestly, fully 3-D games look amazing on both systems -- I can't really see one being better than the other, it all depends on the games. But yes the GC was made for HD gaming and also looks flawless in RGB -- Mario Kart, Viewtiful Joe, and others are inspiring. Equally though, the Xbox with games like DOA3 and SC2 looks equally as good in my book -- both are leagues above the PS2 anyway, which looks the best in RGB in my opinion, but still can't handle the other systems and even still isn't as good looking as the Dreamcast half the time -- talking about amazing RGB picture -- Dreamcast has it.

Thanks for the info, honeslty -- it's nice to learn about how the machines work, but it does all come down to how the games are made and what developers take advantage of for each system. GC and Xbox for me aren't played as much as PS2 because of the games selection.

**barbu** · 12 Jan 2004, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by kbuchanan

I started this thread in reaction to the "System of the Year" thread. Some posters intelligently and eloquently asked that I explain to them my opinions on the GC's and XBox's respective power. Glad to help guys.

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.

But one character doesn't equal one instruction. You're 32% may be measurable fact, but I fail to see what it mesures. Unless the gc cpu has some kind of "super-scalar" instructions (processing multiple datas with one instructions) but in that case you should mention that the xbox's cpu has too (the MMX instructions set).

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.

That's just plain false: you need more instructions to perform the same operations on a RISC. (after all one of the drawbacks of the RISC architecture is that the size of programs increase). A RISC may be more efficient at carrying out its instructions but it's because of architectural differences between RISC and CISC, not because of the number of instructions it takes to perform a task.

The XBox also has to maintain it's RAM (it has to keep refreshing it) more than the GC, using up cpu power.

I though it was the role of the DRAM controller to refresh the RAM, which has nothing to do with cpu power. Unless you're talking of power comsuption, in which case I agree.

Anyhow, I think it's rather pointless to discuss which console is more powerful since it all comes down to games preferences. Why should you care for a more powerful console if it doesn't have the games you like ?

**Master** · 12 Jan 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by barbu

Anyhow, I think it's rather pointless to discuss which console is more powerful since it all comes down to games preferences. Why should you care for a more powerful console if it doesn't have the games you like ?

Though, with so many quality multi-platform releases such as Prince of Persia and Beyond Good and Evil, this is an interesting discussion.

PS: For me though, this discussion is pointless. I have an HDTV and a 5.1 surround sound system. 99.8% of xbox games output in 480P and Xbox has the best sound. Also, Xbox games always look better so there :P

**Master** · 12 Jan 2004, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by jarrod

When Gamecube's used to it's strengths by dedicated teams, it's more than capable. Software houses like Amusement Vision (F-Zero GX), Retro (Metroid Prime), Rare (Starfox Adventures), Factor 5 (Rogue Squadron 2-3) and Capcom Studio 4 (Resident Evil 4) have done jaw dropping things with the hardware. Multiplatform stuff isn't really the best way to judge any platform's potential.

Great post.

**Drewbacca** · 12 Jan 2004, 11:55 AM

This is hilarious. He backs himself up and a lot of people have their faces painted red. The responses to this is amazing. I personally don't care either way. I own all 3 systems (although my PS2 just busted... piece of shit).

**Javon_McCloud** · 12 Jan 2004, 11:55 AM

I don't think anyone can argue that the Rouge Squadron games are probably the feathers in Nintendo's proverbial graphical hat. It will be interesting to see the games running on both systems if the rumors of the games being ported to xbox are true.

If any of you are looking for a good game to really compare XB to GC, play Price of Persia. They both looked fantastic, but there is just a different look to the enviroments. The GC has sharper textures and brighter color, while the xbox has more realistic lighting and effects. After playing both versions of the game I don't think anyone could argue that one version is "better", I think it has more to do with personal preferance of controller and things like that.