@3Dude
The frame buffer is where the image is stored its the location where gpu renders the image before output. This is the restriction that prevents the gamecube/wii from going above 480p.
There may not be many 720p or 1080i xbox games but it has infinitely more than the Gamecube and wii which have 0. If all 720p and 1080i games were pre-rendered you'd have a point but games like Soul Caliber 2 and the ATV games etc are full action games so your comments may little sense and show complete bias.
Yes the ps2 is more powerful than the Gamecube in many ways that is reality but taken overall its weaker. The idea that one console exceeds in every area against another is incredibly stupid. Most consoles are both good and bad in specification when compared in the same generation. That is reality, deal with it. The ps2 has 5.1 sound support, 32bit colour, very high polygon output (but rubbish texturing), 4meg video memory not 3meg, 1080i support plus some eccentric but capable support processors that take the burden of its rather weak mips cpu.
The latency of the wii/gamecube memory is included in the superior memory bandwidth which I've already stated the wii/gamecube has but remember the reason it has superior memory bandwidth is because video memory and main memory are seperated. The xbox shares its main memory so creates higher latency. As long as you keep to the 24meg of main memory of the wii/gamecube and 3 meg of video memory you have high bandwidth. As soon as you start moving data between main memory and gpu it will clearly slows down considerably. The cache is there to prevent latency being an issue and it works.
What is the point of pretending the Gamecube is more powerful than it is? Clearly it has no hard drive, limited memory, small capacity optical discs, 2 channel sound, 24bit colour and low resolution output. I just don't get the need to pretend something is more powerful than it is. Then by direct comparision of gpu and cpu etc its still much weaker.
@3Dude
The frame buffer is where the image is stored its the location where gpu renders the image before output. This is the restriction that prevents the gamecube/wii from going above 480p.
There may not be many 720p or 1080i xbox games but it has infinitely more than the Gamecube and wii which have 0. If all 720p and 1080i games were pre-rendered you'd have a point but games like Soul Caliber 2 and the ATV games etc are full action games so your comments may little sense and show complete bias.
Yes the ps2 is more powerful than the Gamecube in many ways that is reality but taken overall its weaker. The idea that one console exceeds in every area against another is incredibly stupid. Most consoles are both good and bad in specification when compared in the same generation. That is reality, deal with it. The ps2 has 5.1 sound support, 32bit colour, very high polygon output (but rubbish texturing), 4meg video memory not 3meg, 1080i support plus some eccentric but capable support processors that take the burden of its rather weak mips cpu.
The latency of the wii/gamecube memory is included in the superior memory bandwidth which I've already stated the wii/gamecube has but remember the reason it has superior memory bandwidth is because video memory and main memory are seperated. The xbox shares its main memory so creates higher latency. As long as you keep to the 24meg of main memory of the wii/gamecube and 3 meg of video memory you have high bandwidth. As soon as you start moving data between main memory and gpu it will clearly slows down considerably. The cache is there to prevent latency being an issue and it works.
1. Incorrect, the frame buffer is where an image that has been RASTERIZED is put to to, not rendered to, no rendering anywhere. The images in a frame buffer are LITERALLY nothing more than a bitmap. The frame buffer simply has to be big enough to hold a bitmap of the specified resolution. Has near NOTHING to do with system power
2. Soul calibur is a fighting game with 2 characters in a tiny arena. Its also indistiguishable from its counterparts in assets, meaning it doesnt even attempt to make use of the xbox's power. msx also has miniscule overhead compared to xboxs best looking games like riddick or doom, which feature a unified lighting and shadowing engine, tiny resource overhead is a trait common in ALL 720-1080 box games.
3. Read up on the difference between theoretical peak performance, and sustainable performance, as its very clear this is not in your knowledge base, as made incredibly obvious by your completely erroneous guess that the xbox bandwidth you mentioned is sustainable latency, when in reality it is simply using the formula to aquire peak bandwidth from raw specs. The cube badwidth you supplied is ALSO peak theoretical bandwidth, so sustainable bandwidth with the cube is ALSO lower than the fantasy bandwidth you posted, although, since the cube has 90% ram effeciency, its not much lower, unlike the xbox which loses entire GIGABYTES worth of bandwidth from its theoretical peak. On the other hand, 6.2 ns IS the SUSTAINABLE latency of the 1tsram of the cube. That IS its slowest performance under the most DEMANDING of circumstances, its PEAK burst latency is 2 ns. Yeah, it was THAT FAST, almost like its single transistor ram or something. Probably why the cubes 24MB of ram costs more than xbox's 64MB.
4. LMAO, dont even TRY to pull that card. Before you even BEGAN responding to me I was busy telling your Nintendofan counterpart to stop cherry picking bad xbox screens, and that no matter what rouge squadron does, the cube will never be able to match the box's programmable shader environment. Something, hilariously, you have NEVER mentioned. How can you not mention that?
Though since you made it a point to showcase your faux impartiality, maybe you should let people know the vast majority of ps2 games can only perform 5.1 surround during fmv cutscenes, and not during gameplay, and the few that do utilize one of the vector processors, destroying even more of the ps2's poly performance on TOP of the lack of hardware s3 texture decompression already destroying ps2 poly throughput.
Or that the cube has a dedicated processor to handle sound, so whatever resources taken away from ps2 and the box for sound, the cube gets to keep and use.
Maybe you should also let people know the 3mb of embedded video memory in the cubes gpu is ALSO 1tsram... Meaning it smokes the ever living crap out of the ps4's 4MB stock edram, in every category but capacity.
The only person playing checks and balances before this post of yours was me. This tells me youve been plugging the stuff ive been saying into google and cant get around it.
The only person here who is pretending things are what they arent is you.
I already mentioned the cubes lack of rom space in my argument about what the box has the cube doesnt. Which by the way, doesnt have anything to do with system power.
I already mentioned the hard drive in the same argument about what the box has the cube doesnt, which again, has nothing to do with system power.
I already mentioned the box's ability to render in 720 and above. Unlike you, I didnt purposefully leave out that the increase of image quality comes at the expense of graphical fidelity.
The cube has 32bit rgba color. It has no problems with transparancy whatsoever, which should be incredibly obvious since embm is a hardware supplied effect for the system and extensively used.... Something you should have seriously considered before peddling that lie.
And the best looking most demanding cube games are ALL 480p, the exact same resolution as ALL of the best looking most demanding xbox games. So once again, you are caught trying to peddle another lie... Humourosly, after being forced to admit that only a small handful of xbox games render above 480p (and even less than that actually RENDER hd, like the 360, most are rendered sub hd and simply upscaled.)
And of those best looking games, ALL the cube games come out on top in polycount, texture resolution, simultaneous character counts, scale, unique texture tiles, and texture layers (cube supports 8, to the box's 6).
What does the Xbox have? programmable shaders.
Real time lighting, from movable lightsources, unified with real time shadowing, interacting with dot3 normal mapping.
What does this do? Well its a real slap you in the face kind of graphical power.
For a direct comparison, in metroid prime shots 'light up' the area and characters around them in a localized sphere around the projectile.
All this does is use THIRTY TWO BIT COLOR to provide alpha blending with the color of the projectile light, blending the color of everything in the localized area with the color of the projected light. It just tints everything it comes across a transparent yellow or purple or whatever color your beam is. No highlights, no shadows, (environment shadows and highlights are all baked in prime).
On the box, in say, doom III when an imp launches a fireball the same concept is in play. However, thanks to programmable shaders, the player is treated to a spectacular display.
From the moment the imp begins growing a fireball in hands, real time shadows begin dancing around the area (Thats because, all the lighting is in real time and not baked). Real time lighting radiates out from the fireball casting shadows from the imp, its hand, fingers head, the environment, barrel shadows, other enemies, the player, everything, casts a shadow from this real time light source, onto EVERYTHING, which casts shadows themselves on EVERYTHING ELSE.
Then there is the per pixel lighting, also emanating from the glow of the fireball, not just real time vertex lighting, but per pixel lighting of dot 3 normal maps, lighting up every bumpy skin pore, scar, wart, scale in real time, highlights rising across the surface of a texture, rippling over normal map bumps, shadows following suit.
And then it LAUNCHES the fireball, and shadows and lights grow and fade and dance around as the projectile races towards the player.
THATS what the xbox has that the cube, and wii, could never do.
Something, you have, somehow, spectacularly failed to mention throughout this entire thread.
You never mentioned it.
NOT ONCE. :
Instead youve been championing something as stupid as an increase in resolution in a scant handful of games that dont even have the graphical fidelity to even CARE about in comparison.
Just stop trying to make the Xbox look good. Because you arent. And as someone who remembers the Xbox fondly, I ask you to stop dragging it through the mud already.
Edited by 3Dude, 30 July 2012 - 08:37 AM.
