EA benchmarks PS2 vs Xbox vs GCN vs PC
#26
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they used a Radeon on purpose so that the XBox comes out on top.
Microsoft and EA do have some partnership ties dealing with the XBox. I wouldn'd doubt there is some bias involved in the tests setups.
Microsoft and EA do have some partnership ties dealing with the XBox. I wouldn'd doubt there is some bias involved in the tests setups.
#27
Originally posted by Edge
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they used a Radeon on purpose so that the XBox comes out on top.
Microsoft and EA do have some partnership ties dealing with the XBox. I wouldn'd doubt there is some bias involved in the tests setups.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they used a Radeon on purpose so that the XBox comes out on top.
Microsoft and EA do have some partnership ties dealing with the XBox. I wouldn'd doubt there is some bias involved in the tests setups.
Sorry but EA and MS aren't in bed together and your conspiracy theory doesn't add up.
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Edge
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they used a Radeon on purpose so that the XBox comes out on top.
Microsoft and EA do have some partnership ties dealing with the XBox. I wouldn'd doubt there is some bias involved in the tests setups.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they used a Radeon on purpose so that the XBox comes out on top.
Microsoft and EA do have some partnership ties dealing with the XBox. I wouldn'd doubt there is some bias involved in the tests setups.
#29
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gcribbs
not in everything. i expect that the specific benchmarking is more slanted towards nvidia chipsets which is why the XBox which is really a lower end pc system is outoerforming the pc they are using.
The athlon 1.4 Ghz is way faster than a P3 700 or 800 that is in the XBox so why would the XBox outperform it??
The only other possiblility is that they code for a far slower PC and as a result they are limiting the PC performance themselves.
In which case they should just exclude the PC since this Test tells you nothing.
I do think that the GC should be able to run these tests. the fact that it does not shows that this coding system really sucks
not in everything. i expect that the specific benchmarking is more slanted towards nvidia chipsets which is why the XBox which is really a lower end pc system is outoerforming the pc they are using.
The athlon 1.4 Ghz is way faster than a P3 700 or 800 that is in the XBox so why would the XBox outperform it??
The only other possiblility is that they code for a far slower PC and as a result they are limiting the PC performance themselves.
In which case they should just exclude the PC since this Test tells you nothing.
I do think that the GC should be able to run these tests. the fact that it does not shows that this coding system really sucks
#32
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Tamrok
That's true. However, EA is not concerned about selling games to only the hardcore PC gamers. They want to sell their games to the widest possible audience. Unfortunately, this results in their games be programmed for a target PC far below the top of the line systems that many hardcore PC gamers own. Thus, the reason why EA used a decent (though not top of the line) system for their benchmark. There are still many PC game buyers who do not even have a graphics card that can match the Radeon 8500, let alone a 1.4 Ghz processor.
That's true. However, EA is not concerned about selling games to only the hardcore PC gamers. They want to sell their games to the widest possible audience. Unfortunately, this results in their games be programmed for a target PC far below the top of the line systems that many hardcore PC gamers own. Thus, the reason why EA used a decent (though not top of the line) system for their benchmark. There are still many PC game buyers who do not even have a graphics card that can match the Radeon 8500, let alone a 1.4 Ghz processor.
Let's end the conspiracy theories.
#33
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: HB, CA
Posts: 2,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify some points. The NV2A core in the XBox technologically falls somewhere between the NV20 core in the Geforce 3 line and the NV25 core used in the Geforce 4 line. The R200 core used in the test is a little more advanced the NV20, but as I mentioned above, it lacks the second vertex shader which is what probably accounts for much of the NV2A's edge.
There are a couple other reasons why the XBox is better optimized for gameplay than a standard PC. As Tamrok mentioned above, the XBox runs a stripped down version of Win2K where everything runs in the kernel memory space. In regular Win2K and WinXP, the kernel runs in a privileged memory space for memory protection, so that applications can't corrupt the kernel. However, for applications that have to work intimitately with low-level hardware (ie 3D accelerators), this memory protection exacts a significant performance penalty.
The other main reason the XBox has an advantage in games is that it uses a UMA design. The port from PC to XBox isn't as simple as most people think for this reason. Unified Memory allows for some efficiencies in the way that memory is managed in a game which allows for improved performance with 3D games (duh, or MS wouldn't have designed it that way).
Also, it shouldn't be surprising that the much faster CPU in the PC isn't being reflected in this benchmark. This benchmark is purely a test of the graphics subsystem. There's no game physics, or AI going on. In terms of 3D graphics, the CPU hasn't been the bottleneck since hardware T&L was introduced in GPU's.
The real benefits of having a faster CPU won't be apparent except in actual gameplay and for the most part, it won't be manifested in better graphics. It'll be in more subtle things like more realistic physics, smarter AI, etc.
There are a couple other reasons why the XBox is better optimized for gameplay than a standard PC. As Tamrok mentioned above, the XBox runs a stripped down version of Win2K where everything runs in the kernel memory space. In regular Win2K and WinXP, the kernel runs in a privileged memory space for memory protection, so that applications can't corrupt the kernel. However, for applications that have to work intimitately with low-level hardware (ie 3D accelerators), this memory protection exacts a significant performance penalty.
The other main reason the XBox has an advantage in games is that it uses a UMA design. The port from PC to XBox isn't as simple as most people think for this reason. Unified Memory allows for some efficiencies in the way that memory is managed in a game which allows for improved performance with 3D games (duh, or MS wouldn't have designed it that way).
Also, it shouldn't be surprising that the much faster CPU in the PC isn't being reflected in this benchmark. This benchmark is purely a test of the graphics subsystem. There's no game physics, or AI going on. In terms of 3D graphics, the CPU hasn't been the bottleneck since hardware T&L was introduced in GPU's.
The real benefits of having a faster CPU won't be apparent except in actual gameplay and for the most part, it won't be manifested in better graphics. It'll be in more subtle things like more realistic physics, smarter AI, etc.
#34
Moderator
Doesn't make much sense to me. It's obvious to even a casual observer that the GCN is much more powerful than the PS2, but these numbers show just the opposite.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Groucho
Doesn't make much sense to me. It's obvious to even a casual observer that the GCN is much more powerful than the PS2, but these numbers show just the opposite.
Doesn't make much sense to me. It's obvious to even a casual observer that the GCN is much more powerful than the PS2, but these numbers show just the opposite.
#37
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by jeffdsmith
Shoot, the gamecube is the weakest of them all. (yeah right)
Shoot, the gamecube is the weakest of them all. (yeah right)
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1566&p=1
Instead of being a processing powerhouse, Gekko was actually chosen for its physical characteristics. Although it does have a larger on-die L1 & L2 cache than the Xbox CPU (64KB/256KB vs. 32KB/128KB) and is composed of more transistors (over 21 million vs. approximately 9 million for the Xbox CPU), Gekko's die is under 45 mm^2. For comparison, the processor used in the Xbox has a die measuring approximately 100 mm^2.
The Gekko is actually a very cool running CPU, dissipating around 5W at its 485MHz operating frequency. Again, when compared to the Intel CPU used in the Xbox, you're looking at roughly three times more being produced by the X-CPU than by the GameCube's Gekko.
So while isn't as powerful at the Xbox CPU, Gekko's smaller die and cooler operation provide for lower manufacturing costs and a smaller sized console which fit Nintendo's goals perfectly.
Gekko does have more FSB bandwidth at its disposal than the X CPU, simply because its FSB is running at 162MHz vs. the 133MHz FSB frequency that is within the limits of Intel's AGTL+ spec. This results in a 1.3GB/s connection between Gekko and the North Bridge, which like in the case of the Xbox's nForce-based platform, is integrated into a single chip along with the graphics core.
The Gekko is actually a very cool running CPU, dissipating around 5W at its 485MHz operating frequency. Again, when compared to the Intel CPU used in the Xbox, you're looking at roughly three times more being produced by the X-CPU than by the GameCube's Gekko.
So while isn't as powerful at the Xbox CPU, Gekko's smaller die and cooler operation provide for lower manufacturing costs and a smaller sized console which fit Nintendo's goals perfectly.
Gekko does have more FSB bandwidth at its disposal than the X CPU, simply because its FSB is running at 162MHz vs. the 133MHz FSB frequency that is within the limits of Intel's AGTL+ spec. This results in a 1.3GB/s connection between Gekko and the North Bridge, which like in the case of the Xbox's nForce-based platform, is integrated into a single chip along with the graphics core.
Last edited by joltaddict; 08-03-02 at 02:00 PM.
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jeffdsmith
Shoot, the gamecube is the weakest of them all. (yeah right)
All that fun I've been having wasn't as good as I thought it was...
Shoot, the gamecube is the weakest of them all. (yeah right)
All that fun I've been having wasn't as good as I thought it was...
#39
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Tamrok
I don't recall anyone (other than you) saying that the Gamecube is the weakest.
I don't recall anyone (other than you) saying that the Gamecube is the weakest.
Originally posted by Flay
An NA beside the GC means it couldn't handle it.
An NA beside the GC means it couldn't handle it.
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an interview with Nvidia late last year on their NForce technology that's in the Xbox.
I've tried to find the article, but to no avail.
Just going by memory on what Nvidia said, they said that their new NForce chip had beaten their GeForce Ti500 3to4 fold and had beaten there upcoming (out already) GeForce4, 2 fold in all of their benchmark tests and that developers should have no excuse to putting out top notch games that blow away HALO graphics wise. I guess they were hoping developers would change from their lazy ways.
Nvidia also said that when Nforce cards come out for the PC that the rest of their competition will have alot of catching up to do.
Sorry that I can't find the article. but those were the main things that stuck in my mind when I read it.
I'm not an expert but it seems that the Nforce is doing everything that Nvidia said it would based on those tests.
I've tried to find the article, but to no avail.
Just going by memory on what Nvidia said, they said that their new NForce chip had beaten their GeForce Ti500 3to4 fold and had beaten there upcoming (out already) GeForce4, 2 fold in all of their benchmark tests and that developers should have no excuse to putting out top notch games that blow away HALO graphics wise. I guess they were hoping developers would change from their lazy ways.
Nvidia also said that when Nforce cards come out for the PC that the rest of their competition will have alot of catching up to do.
Sorry that I can't find the article. but those were the main things that stuck in my mind when I read it.
I'm not an expert but it seems that the Nforce is doing everything that Nvidia said it would based on those tests.
Last edited by WOWZY; 08-04-02 at 05:15 AM.
#42
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: HB, CA
Posts: 2,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The nForce* is nVidia's chipset for AMD Athlon motherboards. It's extremely similar to the chipset that's used in the XBox. The south bridges are identical, but while the north bridge in the nForce chipset only has an integrated Geforce2 MX core, the north bridge in the XBox chipset has the NV2A core.
The NV2A is indeed more powerful than a Geforce 3 core at the same clock speed, however, there's no way it's 3 to 4 times faster. Nor is there any possibility that it's 2 times faster then the NV25 core used in Geforce 4 Ti boards.
*There's also an nForce2 chipset that's been announced, but won't be shipping for a few weeks yet. It's big improvement over the nForce is that it supports dual channel DDR400 memory and integrates a NV17 (Geforce 4 MX) core in the north bridge.
The NV2A is indeed more powerful than a Geforce 3 core at the same clock speed, however, there's no way it's 3 to 4 times faster. Nor is there any possibility that it's 2 times faster then the NV25 core used in Geforce 4 Ti boards.
*There's also an nForce2 chipset that's been announced, but won't be shipping for a few weeks yet. It's big improvement over the nForce is that it supports dual channel DDR400 memory and integrates a NV17 (Geforce 4 MX) core in the north bridge.
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Kellehair
Lighten the **** up. It was a joke.
Lighten the **** up. It was a joke.
Last edited by Tamrok; 08-04-02 at 11:28 AM.
#44
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Kellehair
Lighten the **** up. It was a joke.
Lighten the **** up. It was a joke.
Joltaddict, I've read over Anandtech's summery long ago, I appreciate you trying to clear the matter for me but I was just messing around.
I guess my point was to poke fun at almost any of these "Comparison tests" because they will always have the GC at a sever disadvantage because of the archatechture Nintendo and IBM chose to go with.
I did not intend for so much confusion. My apologies.
#45
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by jeffdsmith
Perhaps it was ill concieved for some, but it wasn't that bad.
Perhaps it was ill concieved for some, but it wasn't that bad.
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Kellehair
jolt: I'm sure you and Tamrock were just defending the Cube.
jolt: I'm sure you and Tamrock were just defending the Cube.
I don't recall anyone (other than you) saying that the Gamecube is the weakest. Clearly it isn't.
If you read that anandatech link I posted on the first page youll see how much graphic muscle that little box has.
Thus, the graphics end up looking much better on the Gamecube.
Last edited by Shawn; 08-04-02 at 01:40 PM.