|
What exactly was the joke?
|
Originally posted by Shawn What exactly was the joke? My comment was meant to highlight that fact. By the manner of how I suggested my enjoyment of the GC should somehow be lessoned from the fact that the hardware is less powerful. My post was not to defend nor attack any particular hardware platform. However some people seem to believe I only speak up when the cube is being attacked or to attack another console. Whatever. That wasn't my intention at all. I have never been, nor will likely ever be on Nintendo's payroll. Until that day comes I could care less what someone's opinion of the cube is. (This is does not however mean people should be able to pass along inaccuracies) Besides all this, I rarely bother to post on here anymore. And this would be one reason why. |
Originally posted by jeffdsmith All I was trying to poke fun at was the fact that these comparison tests are dumb. I thought we all agreed long ago that it doesn't matter whats stronger, it's about the games. My comment was meant to highlight that fact. By the manner of how I suggested my enjoyment of the GC should somehow be lessoned from the fact that the hardware is less powerful. My post was not to defend nor attack any particular hardware platform. However some people seem to believe I only speak up when the cube is being attacked or to attack another console. Whatever. That wasn't my intention at all. I have never been, nor will likely ever be on Nintendo's payroll. Until that day comes I could care less what someone's opinion of the cube is. (This is does not however mean people should be able to pass along inaccuracies) Besides all this, I rarely bother to post on here anymore. And this would be one reason why. |
Originally posted by Tamrok Well, as I mentioned earlier, it didn't strike me as a joke (try using ;) instead of :rolleyes: next time) but rather sarcasm implying that people were foolishly claiming the Gamecube was the weakest console. Since you didn't quote from any previous posts and your post fell just after mine, I assumed you were implying I had claimed the Gamecube was the weakest, which if you read my posts carefully, I clearly did not. In fact, the entire purpose of my post was similar to your apparent point which is that performance tests do not tell the whole story when it comes to graphics. Clearly, the Gamecube is capable of producing better graphics than the PS2. I was simply explaining why it was possible for the Gamecube to be edged by the PS2 in a polygon performance test and yet still be the superior platform. |
Originally posted by jeffdsmith Ah... Gotcha. Sorry about that. That's not what I meant. |
Originally posted by ScandalUMD Based on their description, they're using graphics chips entirely for graphics, and no CPUs here. That means it's the Xchip vs the PS2 GS vs the Flipper vs the Radeon. The CPU's don't come into play. Incidentally, the CPU is the Xbox Achilles heel. I don't think EA is biased against anyone; after all, their program is limited by the PS2 GS, and will fail to utilize the Xbox. I think they just cut corners. |
While the PS2's Emotion Engine has a lot of potential, developers have continuously stated that the platform is too difficult to program for. With both GameCube and Xbox using widely available and common CPU platforms, the real competition exists between the Cube's Gekko and the Xbox's Intel CPU. The Celeron 733 (4-way set associative L2) in the XBox will outperform the PowerPC 750 in the GameCube running at 500MHz in any of the synthetic benchmarks we've seen. We can only assume that a 733MHz CPU with a 133MHz FSB and 8-way set associative L2 cache would only be faster than the Gekko giving the Xbox the CPU performance advantage. Both platforms have good compiler support and the tilt of the hat goes to IBM's Gekko in terms of having a very flexible ISA. Where the GameCube does clearly come out on top however is in heat production and die size. The Gekko produces around 1/3 the amount of heat as the Xbox CPU and measures in at close to half of the die size. This leads to tremendous cost savings |
"This leads to tremendous cost savings"
Yeah - because smaller electronics are so much cheaper to make :rolleyes: and heatsink fans are so costly :rolleyes: j/k :) Maybe they're talking about the cost in electricity used running these consoles. As for the Emotion engine - it's not entirely that they don't know how to program for it... it's more difficult to program for, but not impossible. The games don't look as slick and smooth as Xbox or GCN games because the Emotion engline lacks a good way to perform antialiasing tasks. Their next generation should have all that and more. Anyway - people should realize that these reports are only discussing graphics power of the systems... the games are still fun on all 4 platforms. Sure, games are capable of looking the best on a PC or an Xbox (not that this is even always the case) but I think we all agree that that's not the most important thing... and some of us even think that graphics are not important at all. |
Originally posted by Trigger How is the CPU Xbox's achilles heel? They have the fastest processor of the 3 consoles. Maybe against a new PC it's slower, but out of the 3 consoles, it's the fastest... unless I've somehow teleported into Bizarro world. Unfortunately, since the architecture is unique, most developers have neither the time nor the resources to really work with it properly. What we're getting from EA appears to be games that don't take much advantage of the Emotion Engine, instead treating the GPU/CPU relationship on the PS2 the same as other systems. This means that they're making a game that doesn't take full advantage of PS2 hardware. Then they just port it up. So all platforms basically get an ugly PS2 game. This is why most multiplatform titles are kind of a waste of time. They don't take proper advantage of any of the hardware. |
Originally posted by belboz 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. |
These debates are only interesting before consoles are released. Now the proof is in the pudding.
|
Originally posted by Trigger "This leads to tremendous cost savings" Yeah - because smaller electronics are so much cheaper to make :rolleyes: and heatsink fans are so costly :rolleyes: j/k :) Maybe they're talking about the cost in electricity used running these consoles. |
Originally posted by Kellehair These debates are only interesting before consoles are released. Now the proof is in the pudding. Even comparing the same piece of software across the platforms doesn't provide a useful benchmark, because the software may not be properly optimized for the hardware, as appears to be the case here. This is not the same as benchmarking Nvidia against ATi in PC graphics. |
Originally posted by WOWZY I tend to believe them over you since they're the experts on their own products. [COUGH]Parahelia[/COUGH] |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.