Some question about Xbox/GC hardware [Archive]

BenSkywalker

02-Dec-2002, 13:14

Is the reason the GC can't support larger than 480p do to the onboard framebuffer?

Yes.

If so wouldn't the GC have a hard time running any games with 32bpp even at 640x480?

Absolutely, particularly since the GC doesn't support 32bit ;) (24bit).

Is the NV20/NV2A frame buffer compression really 4:1?

Huh? Never heard that one before. ZCompression, texture comrpession etc, but I'm not familiar with a 4:1 fb compression(although I may have missed it).

What sets apart the flipper from the Geforce 256 in terms of power and performance? Is it really any more powerful than the Geforce 256 or Geforce 2?

TEV- It offers some of the flexibility of the Pixel Shaders that the NV2A packs, and the embedded RAM give Flipper a huge edge in certain areas over the NV1X products.

What are some methods of dealing with OD within the NV2A?

Render front to back. The NV2A will eliminate a rather decent amount of OD when rendering front to back(under certain synthetic tests the performance boost can be in the x00% range under demanding enough settings). How much good this will do you on a ~GTexel chip running @640x480 60FPS max I'm not so sure.

cybamerc

02-Dec-2002, 13:43

Actually, the reason why Cube won't output higher than 480p isn't because of lack of RAM (front buffer is stored in main RAM and there's 24 mb of that) but because of a built-in limitation in the display controller.

Legion

02-Dec-2002, 14:58

ok.....so which is it restriction or limitation?

Ben are you saying the flipper is limited to 16bpp?

Cybermac even if it could cal from its main ram would it have to buffer the next frame into the Frame buffer cache anyway? Wouldn't this bring about bandwidth problems?

Teasy

02-Dec-2002, 15:22

Is the NV20/NV2A frame buffer compression really 4:1?

XBox doesn't have framebuffer compression. It does have Z-buffer compression, which is 4:1.

A few things you might want to know:

4:1 is only a maximum number, sometimes the Z compression won't work at all, sometimes it'll work half way and sometimes it may just compress at full 4:1, and many levels in between. So on average its more like 2:1 compression.

Also the compression is for bandwidth only, so the compression of the z-buffer does not mean that the Z-buffer takes up less ram space, it just uses less bandwidth for the Z-buffer.

What sets apart the flipper from the Geforce 256 in terms of power and performance? Is it really any more powerful than the Geforce 256 or Geforce 2?

There are allot of things that set Flipper appart from those chips. Here's a few things Flipper has that sets it appart from Geforce 1/2 and even 3/4 in some cases:

- On-chip 2mb Z and framebuffer with 7.5gb dedicated bandwidth:

Geforce 1 and 2 have nothing like this. Geforce 3 and 4 do have Z- compression, which is similar in some ways in that it saves some Z-buffer bandwidth, but have nothing like the on-chip framebuffer. The advantages of the on-chip cache is that the main ram only ever gets the final frame and Z buffers. So overdraw does not effect main memory bandwidtt at all, neither does FSAA. Also the on-chip cache could be used for other bandwidth intensive things like stencil buffering ect since it has allot of bandwidth dedicated to it.

- 1mb texture cache with 10.5gb dedicated bandwidth which can hold compressed textures:

Of course all chips have a texture cache, and size isn't always everything :) (1mb is massive compared to most other chips). But another thing that sets this appart from Geforce line of chips is the support of texture compression. It can hold a compressed texture in the cache abd only decompress the parts that are being worked on at that time. So its bandwidth is effectively 63gb and its effective size is 6mb!

Geforce 1/2/3/4, texture cache's don't support texture compression AFAIK (NV2A's doesn't so I would think its very similar with Geforce 4 and below).

- Early Z check HSR:

Geforce 1 and 2 don't support this. Of course Geforce 3 and 4 do.

- TEV, basically a pixel shader with extremely flexible texture reads (more so then NV2A's) but slightly less flexible combines then NV2A:

Again Geforce 1 and 2 don't support this and Geforce 3 and 4 has something similar, better in some ways and worse in others.

- Multi-Sample AA:

Basically fillrate free AA. Geforce 1 and 2 don't support this and Geforce 3 and 4 do.

- 8 layer multi-texturing:

Flipper can output 8 texture layers in a single pass. Geforce 1 can only do 1 per pass AFAIR and Geforce 2 can only do 2 per pass. Geforce 3 and 4 can do 4 per pass.

BTW, don't think I'm claiming Flipper is the most advanced chip out there, because its not. After all I'm only mentioning some of its strenghs here. Of course it does have some weaknesses, especially compared to Geforce 4 (not so much compared to Geforce 2). For instance, as you know, one of its weaknesses is that its use of on-chip ram for frame and Z buffers limits the size of those buffers. Which limits its resolution/colour depth.

Basically Flipper has allot of bandwidth saving tech that Geforce 1 and 2 didn't have and also its texturing is allot more flexible then Geforce 1/2. As I said its allot closer to Geforce 3 and 4.

Teasy

02-Dec-2002, 15:23

Ben are you saying the flipper is limited to 16bpp?

No its limited to 24bit.

Legion

02-Dec-2002, 15:33

Ben are you saying the flipper is limited to 16bpp?

No its limited to 24bit.

16 bpp + 8 bit alpha?

Legion

02-Dec-2002, 15:36

IT may be closer to the radeon 7500 but i have a hardtime believing its closer to the Geforce 3/4 in terms of raw power/performance.

PC-Engine

02-Dec-2002, 15:37

I read somewhere that Flipper also supports virtual texturing? What is it anyway?

Legion

02-Dec-2002, 15:38

that does sound oddly familiar PC-Engine.

Fred

02-Dec-2002, 15:40

I wouldnt be so sure about the ' Nv2a has no framebuffer compression' bit if you're being nitpicky.

Geforce 3 and Geforce 4 both do. There's a patent on their system actually (although its nothing like what Nv30 or R300 have).

It has to do with the way they arrange their framebuffer in tiles, and save memory access

Teasy

02-Dec-2002, 15:43

IT may be closer to the radeon 7500 but i have a hardtime believing its closer to the Geforce 3/4 in terms of raw power/performance.

Well I've shown you allot of reasons right there why its allot closer to Geforce 3 and 4 then Geforce 2 (I just updated the post with a few more features).

I'm not saying its as powerful/ feature rich as a Geforce 4, I'm saying its allot closer to the power and functionality of a Geforce 4 then it is to a Geforce 2.

I'm not really sure about the original Radeon. It did have Z-buffer compression and hierarchical Z-buffering, as well as some sort of pixel shader that never got supported in DX8. So its actual functionality and power might be somewhere near Flipper (the 7500 model anyway). I really don't know. But in the end, no API's supported allot of its functionality so the end product isn't really up to Flipper AFAICS.

clem64

02-Dec-2002, 15:52

It should also be mentioned that Nintendo don't usually disclose everything about their hardware. Some guy from ATI that was interviewed by IGNcube said that many of Flipper's features hadn't been made public. So feature wise I would guess that it is considerably beyond the GF1/2 line of chipsets.

For example, the guy said that Cel-shading on the GC isn't done the "usual way", I'm not even sure what that is, but that it was an actual chipset feature.

IT may be closer to the radeon 7500 but i have a hardtime believing its closer to the Geforce 3/4 in terms of raw power/performance.

I remember hearing on this forum a while ago that with 8 hw lights on and 5+ layers Flipper could do a million more polys/sec. then the NV2A.

Legion

02-Dec-2002, 15:52

well i am kind of interested in what can be done with it (in terms of performance). Maybe ERP can help with that one.

If you ask me the 2MB frame buffer seems more like a limitation. At least it helps with fetching. What is the reason for the ~7.5 GB/s bandwidth to the buffer?

Teasy

02-Dec-2002, 15:57

well i am kind of interested in what can be done with it (in terms of performance). Maybe ERP can help with that one.

There are quite a few threads in which ERP has talked about Flipper, its performance and some features, like TEV. Some are quite revealing. So you should probably do a search for threads ERP has posted in regarding GameCube.

If you ask me the 2MB frame buffer seems more like a limitation. At least it helps with fetching. What is the reason for the ~7.5 GB/s bandwidth to the buffer?

Well, in a PC graphics chip it would be much more of a limitation then a advantage (if it was being used exactly the same way). In a console today though its far more of a advantage then a limitation. Because of TV resolutions.

Legion

02-Dec-2002, 15:58

Where did you hear that CLEM? Last i heard the GC experiences a 50% reduction in fillarate after 2 texture layers in rendering. Who did you hear this from?

Legion

02-Dec-2002, 16:00

Teasy

02-Dec-2002, 16:02

Where did you hear that CLEM? Last i heard the GC experiences a 50% reduction in fillarate after 2 texture layers in rendering. Who did you hear this from?

Fillrate has little to do with T&L though. Flipper can do all those 5 texture layers (and more) in one pass. NV2A would take 2 passes after 4 layers, which would half its T&L power as it'd have to T&L everything again for the second pass.

I'm not sure if Clem is right on Flipper being faster in T&L in that situation, but it is possible I suppose. I have heard that Flipper is very good with allot of hardware lights.

Legion

02-Dec-2002, 16:04

ERP can probably help us on this one.

clem64

02-Dec-2002, 16:11

Ok first,
Virtual texturing is when a texture is being broken up into smaller pieces and only the parts of the texture that show up on screen are being sent to the GPU. This process works for both textures in the cache and main RAM. So if, say, only 1/3 of the texture shows up on screen either because the rest is outside the field of view or it's simply blocked by other objects, only the visible part will be sent to the GPU. Saves on bandwidth.

Where did you hear that CLEM? Last i heard the GC experiences a 50% reduction in fillarate after 2 texture layers in rendering. Who did you hear this from?

No idea. It was a few months ago. I honestly don't know if there was any truth to it or if it was just wishful thinking on the guy's part. :)

Legion

02-Dec-2002, 16:15

might i ask again: What is the reason why the GC can't support higher than 480p?

mkillio

02-Dec-2002, 16:17

I was under the impression that it can. and if it can't then it probably has to do with a hardware lock or something of the like.

clem64

02-Dec-2002, 16:24

I heard that the GC could do 480p and 720i, and that the reason for this limitation was the size of the frame buffer.

clem64

02-Dec-2002, 16:36

ERP

02-Dec-2002, 18:03

Is the reason the GC can't support larger than 480p do to the onboard framebuffer? If so wouldn't the GC have a hard time running any games with 32bpp even at 640x480?

The hardware only supports 24bit 6666 or 8880 and 16bit not 32 bit.
The 480p restriction is not really a function of the internal frame buffer, although that does restrict the usefullness of higher resolutions, it's a function of the TV interface. Guessing dince I don't have my devbox plugged in, even if the hardware supports >480P I doubt the libraries provide support for anything over 480P just because there is no practical way to output it.

Is the NV20/NV2A frame buffer compression really 4:1?

The frame buffer is uncompressed, the Z Buffer is compressed losslessly upto 4:1. In practice 2:1 is more common, and there are pathological cases that will net worse results.

What sets apart the flipper from the Geforce 256 in terms of power and performance? Is it really any more powerful than the Geforce 256 or Geforce 2?

The embedded memory, and by enlarge a much better backend (pixel pusher). In T&L terms, IMO at least GF2 is superior, it's much closer to including most useful features.

What are some methods of dealing with OD within the NV2A? Are there any methods of deffering costly OD?

It has an extra set of 4 Z units/pipe up front in the pipeline, so if you draw front to back, it can reject occluded pixels at 4x it's maximum fill rate. When coupled with the ZCompression it actually has a chance of getting near this rate.

Flipper allows the programmer to specify whether the Z unit is before or after texturing. When it is before then it can avoid the texturing step on occluded pixels, but only at it's maximum fill rate. The issue with this is that if the pixel is rejected based on the texture read (say 1 bit alpha sprites), you have to change Z unit modes, and loose the early reject.

I remember hearing on this forum a while ago that with 8 hw lights on and 5+ layers Flipper could do a million more polys/sec. then the NV2A.

The test is artificially trying to bias in favor of flipper by requiring 2 of the most complex geometry passes possible on NV2a. However, I still suspect
using NV2a's fixed function pipeline, and comparable lights (flipper has a somewhat odd lighting model), NV2a would still be faster.
However without specifying the actual blend modes it's really hard to tell, since this would dictate how the shader was split into passes and how much of the lighting needed to be done in both passes.

I have a question. I've always heard that the implementation of S3TC was more efficient on Flipper but I've never heard a clear explanation on why. Something about the GPU being able to access the texture in a compressed state, instead of having to decompress it first, then apply it to objects. Is that it?

No it's not any more efficient. I assume this comes from the "Flipper stores textures compressed in it's cache and NV2A doesn't" argument. NV2A does decompress textures into the cache, but it never reads uncompressed textures over the main bus.

In almost all cases NV2A is just plain faster than flipper, it isn't really very surprising when you look at the relative costs of the boxes, along with the power and cooling requirements.

Teasy

02-Dec-2002, 18:25

I have a question. I've always heard that the implementation of S3TC was more efficient on Flipper but I've never heard a clear explanation on why. Something about the GPU being able to access the texture in a compressed state, instead of having to decompress it first, then apply it to objects. Is that it?

As I said in an earlier post. Flipper can store compressed textures in its texture cache and only decompress as its being worked on. NV2A decompresses a texture as its stored in the cache. Both Flipper and NV2A still take compressed textures over the main memory bus, so there's no difference there. The difference is just that while Flipper can make 6 times better use of its texture cache size and bandwidth (6mb effective size and 63gb/s effective bandwidth rather then 1mb real size and 10.5gb/s real bandwidth), NV2A can't. How important that is to performance is anyone's guess.

EDIT: Ah, I see ERP has already answered this.. that'll teach me for leaving this page unrefreshed for ages before replying :)

Legion

03-Dec-2002, 02:16

Hmmmm that sounds like what the 3DFX chips did.

clem64

03-Dec-2002, 17:07

No it's not any more efficient. I assume this comes from the "Flipper stores textures compressed in it's cache and NV2A doesn't" argument. NV2A does decompress textures into the cache, but it never reads uncompressed textures over the main bus.

Ah I understand now, thank you.

Well call me crazy but that does sound like a more efficient setup. The S3TC itself is done the same way on both systems but the GC just extends its usage further. This would give Flipper the advantage when it comes to repeating textures wouldn't it?

It most likely wouldn't make a significant difference on the NV2A given the size of its cache (I heard it's 256K). Still, I don't understand the reason for this limitation. If the GPU is already set up to process compressed textures from main RAM, why not extend this to the cache?

ERP

03-Dec-2002, 17:27

Well call me crazy but that does sound like a more efficient setup. The S3TC itself is done the same way on both systems but the GC just extends its usage further. This would give Flipper the advantage when it
comes to repeating textures wouldn't it?

As I've mentioned before you can't really compare the two texture caches, they perform different functions. The NV2A texture cache is designed to remove redundant reads incurred in texture filtering. The Flipper cache is designed to hold textures more like the EDRAM on the PS2. Flipper does support fetch on demand for textures (virtual texturing), but it's in very large blocks.

It most likely wouldn't make a significant difference on the NV2A given the size of its cache (I heard it's 256K). Still, I don't understand the reason for this limitation. If the GPU is already set up to process compressed textures from main RAM, why not extend this to the cache?

Flipper supports a relatively limited set of texture formats. NV2A supports many more, I assume the decompression during fetch is to simplify the number of different formats they have to deal with in the texturing logic. It could also be that their isn't a significant benefit to storing them compressed in the cache, given the massive amout of bandwidth available to read from the cache.

BTW you heard wrong, I think I've heard every possible number thrown out there on the NV2A texture cache size, very few people are even close.

clem64

03-Dec-2002, 18:01

Ok that clarifies a few things.

How big is the cache then?

pikkachu

03-Dec-2002, 18:02

what's the exact amount of
NV2a's on-chip buffer/cache?

i think its its 32kb combined
of 8kb quad cache. 8)

ERP

03-Dec-2002, 19:35

what's the exact amount of
NV2a's on-chip buffer/cache?

As I've said before it's very small, but the exact amount isn't public, so I'm unwilling to get specific.

PC-Engine

04-Dec-2002, 07:02

Regarding screen resolutions on GCN, well ED supports widescreen so...

04-Dec-2002, 11:33

Factor 5 have a new GC game that will graphically blow away all known GC games. 8)

zurich

04-Dec-2002, 11:58

Factor 5 have a new GC game that will graphically blow away all known GC games. 8)

go away

04-Dec-2002, 12:03

Why should i?
It is widely known that F5 is doing an amazing GC game. :oops:

Teasy

04-Dec-2002, 12:18

That was a bit of a harsh response wasn't it zurich?

Magnum PI

04-Dec-2002, 12:52

unless chap has more information about this future factor 5 games, we have to wait for it in order to be able to see if it blows away all gc games.

currently we know nothing about this game.

and who knows, maybe factor5 is next in microsoft list of acquisitions.. :-?

clem64

04-Dec-2002, 19:52

In almost all cases NV2A is just plain faster than flipper

Nonsense. Factor5 insists that the GC "can do everything the Xbox can do". :D

Seriously, for people like me who don't really have access to the information you guys have, it's statements like these (from F5) that throw us off. I don't doubt any of the things you said in this thread so I come to the conslusion that the statement was clearly false. If they really meant what they said then their new game should look just as good as Halo2. Oh I guess we'll see.

But I'd have to agree with Chap. Their new game will probably look the best on GC so far. After all the priliminary work, they only worked 9 months to produce Rogue leader which is arguably still one of the best looking game on the system. So with all the time they've had, their next game should look much better.

zurich

04-Dec-2002, 22:12

That was a bit of a harsh response wasn't it zurich?

Not really, although I am always strangely interested to see what random, provoking statement comes out of his keyboard next.

"XB RULZ GC DRULZ :oops: 8) "

Legion

05-Dec-2002, 05:23

Jesus CHap ERP just got through tellings us the Xbox IS superior to the GC in terms of power and performance. lets not turn this into another fanboy power thread. The people residing within this thread have reasonable questions to ask.

Blade

05-Dec-2002, 05:26

Xbox > GCN hardware-wise, most sane people would agree.

It's the power difference between them that I'd like to hear about. I don't care as much anymore, because I own both and I got them for their games.. not their strength.. but it's interesting to hear what people in the know (like ERP) have to say.

Magnum PI

05-Dec-2002, 09:23

why waste our time with PR-ish statements from a factor5 guy ?

did you expect them to tell that the GC can't do everything the xbox can do ? or that they don't know if their game will be über alles ?

we can quote company employees promoting their game, their company and the plateform they choosed but is it interesting ? this is not a fact neither a proof of something.. this can only be biased..

let's stick to the facts. i value ERP statements a lot more than this marketing blurb.

i think i said this before..

cybamerc

05-Dec-2002, 13:03

Teasy

05-Dec-2002, 14:14

JacksBleedingEyes

05-Dec-2002, 15:39

BAH!!
Who cares about the power of either consoles.
The Xbox is more powerfull but its games lack one very important thing that have seen it fail so far. They lack soul.

GO SEGA AND NINTENDO (and few third party sony exclusive developers)

Legion

05-Dec-2002, 16:29

Jesus CHap ERP just got through tellings us the Xbox IS superior to the GC in terms of power and performance.

All Chap said is that Factor 5's next game is going to be better, graphically, then any GameCube game before it. What does that even have to do with XBox? If anyone's in dange of turning this into a GC vs XBox power argument you are.

Also to be exact ERP said in almost all cases (not all cases) NV2A is faster then Flipper, so he actually didn't even mention the systems as a whole. But then I think most people already know that in the majority of cases XBox will be more poweful then GameCube.

Teasy i think that was a challenge. To say that the xbox is more powerful is to say its power is superior Teasy. Like it or not.

And like you said Teasy what he had to say has nothing to do with anyway. He was merely mentioning it to get a rise out of people. I replied to him saying something to get a rise out of him. It seems you are a little touchy there Teasy.

Legion

05-Dec-2002, 16:51

Of course you do. You're an Xbot. However, I hope you do realize that most of Factor 5's comments on the GameCube come from msg board postings by Julian Eggebrecht... much like ERP's posts on this board.

Didn't Julian say at one time the xbox couldn't handle RL? Hmmm....

Xbot...interesting. I can see this thread is degenerating nicely.

DeathKnight

05-Dec-2002, 17:23

Heh, I remember quite a long time ago when either Julian or another F5 guy proclaimed the Xbox couldn't do realtime DD5.1 ingame.

Magnum PI

05-Dec-2002, 18:15

Magnum PI:

> did you expect them to tell that the GC can't do everything the xbox
> can do ?

Please... Factor 5 has no more interest in seeing the Cube do well than ERP did when he was working at Boss Games. Now, you don't expect ERP to change his stance just because Boss Games is history do you? That would make him look really "professional".

please..

as a developper making a title exclusive to the gamecube factor5 has every interest in seeing the gamecube do well and to please his partner nintendo..

would you expect to hear from the factor 5 guy:
"well, we choosed to do this on the gamecube for business motives. but the game could have been better on the xbox".. of course not.. even if it's true..

> this is not a fact neither a proof of something.. this can only be biased..

You could say the same about ERP's comments. The ones that aren't related to printed specs at least.

BS

we some publicly known developper doing public interviews in order to promote his game and his company..

we have someone (who ?) who has nothing to sell, and even no company to defend, talking in a public forum.

the first one can only be biased, the second one have no such obligation..

> let's stick to the facts. i value ERP statements a lot more than this
> marketing blurb.

Of course you do. You're an Xbot.

ROTFL.. i'm more usually described as a nintendo fanb*oy..

eventually i have a big preference for the gamecube.
despite its technical inferiority it has the most appealing games.

and having that preference doesn't prevent to at least try to be objective and admit facts event when they aren't gamecube favorable..

in fact the gamecube could be technically the worst of the three consoles, i couldn't care less as long as its games are so much enjoyable..

However, I hope you do realize that most of Factor 5's comments on the GameCube come from msg board postings by Julian Eggebrecht... much like ERP's posts on this board.

where ? the only things i read and the only quote i saw where from promotionnal interviews..

and btw even if it's in msg board postings doesn't prevent him to do his promotionnal blurb..

I could also be a real asshole and point out that Factor 5 has shipped a game for GameCube while ERP hasn't for either Cube or Xbox. Granted, there wasn't anything he could do about it but the fact remains that he hasn't got a product to back up his claims.

you are defending my point of view. ERP has nothing to sell.

Now I wouldn't be so silly as to say that ERP isn't credible or that he is wrong. I'm not inclined to take Factor 5's word over his either. Both are clearly very competent developers and both clearly have their preferences. The truth about either console is probably somewhere in between the respective opinions of ERP and Factor 5.

so you admit that the factor5 guy could tell something else than just the truth ?

Now, I don't mean to imply anything about ERP and I hope that he understands that. I'm making a point which is simply that your reasoning is flawed, devoid of any logic what so ever.

of course.
we all know that someone doing interviews in order to promote his game can only be objective. i even saw many interview where the guy says "don't buy it !! it's bad !!"..

open your ears wide because i will tell you something important.
it happens sometimes than somebody do not exactly tell the truth.
yes !

especially if it can help his business..

As you said: "let's stick to the facts." This is a tech board. You can leave your <bleep> drivel at the door.

yes it may be a technical board. in that particular case we shouldn't care so much about promotionnal material.. we should leave that to the other forums..

please don't stop... you made me laugh so hard !

Teasy

05-Dec-2002, 19:00

Teasy i think that was a challenge. To say that the xbox is more powerful is to say its power is superior Teasy. Like it or not.

I don't know what your trying to say here. I think you may have missed my point, which was the bolded part specifically.

And like you said Teasy what he had to say has nothing to do with anyway. He was merely mentioning it to get a rise out of people. I replied to him saying something to get a rise out of him. It seems you are a little touchy there Teasy.

His comment was sort of out of place, but yours just made no sense. If you were just saying it to wind him up (which wasn't what is looked like to me) then why say what you said?.. he's not a GC fan anyway.

BTW I only mentioned that your comment didn't make sense in relation to what Chap had said, yeah, that's really touchy isn't it....

cybamerc

05-Dec-2002, 19:03

Legion:

> Didn't Julian say at one time the xbox couldn't handle RL?

Yes... and?

cybamerc

05-Dec-2002, 20:04

Magnum PI:

> as a developper making a title exclusive to the gamecube factor5 has
> every interest in seeing the gamecube do well and to please his partner
> nintendo..

Boss Games was working on an exclusive Xbox title to be published by M$.

> would you expect to hear from the factor 5 guy:

Would you expect to hear the same thing from ERP?

> the first one can only be biased, the second one have no such
> obligation..

Bias isn't a matter of obligation.

> and having that preference doesn't prevent to at least try to be
> objective and admit facts

Automatically dismissing one person's statements while blindly accepting another's isn't being objective, it is bias.

> and btw even if it's in msg board postings doesn't prevent him to do his
> promotionnal blurb..

Same goes for ERP.

> ERP has nothing to sell.

Perhaps not anymore but if he started saying that Cube was the superior platform his credibility would certainly be gone since he claimed otherwise when working at Boss Games.

> so you admit that the factor5 guy could tell something else than just the
> truth ?

I admit that you are surprisingly dense. Take your quote fucking elsewhere.

DeathKnight

05-Dec-2002, 20:26

Boss Games was working on an exclusive Xbox title to be published by M$.
Yet he's had hands-on experience with all three consoles. He's also gone into great technical detail about these consoles as well. All we've heard from Factor 5 is a bunch of gloss-over for the Cube and fallacies about the competition... basically PR.

Magnum PI

05-Dec-2002, 20:42

I admit that you are surprisingly dense. Take your quote fucking elsewhere.

ouch ! what an argumentation...

you must confuse this place and gamecube lovers forums..
i think here we can dare not being blindingly loyal to a plateform at such a level that we wouldn't keep in touch with the reality anymore. :roll:

it's even recommended.

Legion

05-Dec-2002, 20:52

If you were just saying it to wind him up (which wasn't what is looked like to me) then why say what you said?.. he's not a GC fan anyway.

It certainly seemed that way from his statement. It was out of place and on top of that he seems rather fanboyish.

You may not understand it Teasy but yes the xbox is superior to the GC in terms of graphical performance. This is besides the though for stating this wasn't originally intended to take a jab at anyone but him.

Really Teasy i am wondering what your deal is. Why do you have such a hard time accepting this as an axiom? No one said the Xbox is a better console but ERP especially has said it yeilds greater graphical results. Why does asserting this notion upset you so?

BTW I only mentioned that your comment didn't make sense in relation to what Chap had said, yeah, that's really touchy isn't it....

IT does make perfect sense if you consider the possibility of this new title being vastly superior to anything seen on the GC he was asserting its graphical superioty over xbox titles. That was how I interprited what he was saying.

cybamerc

05-Dec-2002, 21:10

DeathKnight:

> Yet he's had hands-on experience with all three consoles.

IIRC he hasn't done any work on PS2. Not that it really matters because this discussion isn't about experience but rather bias.

> He's also gone into great technical detail about these consoles as well.

Not anymore than Julian E.

> All we've heard from Factor 5 is a bunch of gloss-over for the Cube and
> fallacies about the competition

Just because the partisan in you can't accept that other platforms have their merits doesn't mean it is so.

Magnum PI:

> ouch ! what an argumentation...

You asked a stupid question that warranted the answer you got.

> you must confuse this place and gamecube lovers forums..

What a cleverly put together insult. I bet you've been saving that one for months, waiting for the right time to unleash it upon your unsuspecting victim.

> i think here we can dare not being blindingly loyal to a plateform at
> such a level that we wouldn't keep in touch with the reality anymore

I can see the distinction between perception and reality is lost on you.

> it's even recommended.

Ditto.

Teasy

05-Dec-2002, 21:54

Legion, I just said earlier in this very thread:

But then I think most people already know that in the majority of cases XBox will be more poweful then GameCube.

Now isn't that an indication to you that I think that in the majority of cases XBox is more powerful then GameCube?

IT does make perfect sense if you consider the possibility of this new title being vastly superior to anything seen on the GC he was asserting its graphical superioty over xbox titles.

What your saying is that basically you think Chap said this:

"Factor 5 are going to make the best, graphically, GC game ever, which means GC is better then XBox"

When he actually said this:

"Factor 5 have a new GC game that will graphically blow away all known GC games"

?

DeathKnight

05-Dec-2002, 22:39

IIRC he hasn't done any work on PS2. Not that it really matters because this discussion isn't about experience but rather bias.
I thought he did have some experience with the PS2, but not completely sure. However, he has had experience with the other two consoles. It's about bias? I don't see any bias on ERP's part.
Not anymore than Julian E.
ERP's gone into great technical detail about BOTH the Xbox and the Cube. Julian has never done such a thing. Julian's done things like proclaim the Xbox wasn't capable of ingame realtime DD5.1, and also try to compare near final Cube hardware with extremely early Alpha Xbox hardware (which was nowhere close to final silicon and performance).
Just because the partisan in you can't accept that other platforms have their merits doesn't mean it is so.
Did I ever say they didn't? And this isn't about me either. It's about ERP. ERP's gone in-depth with both the Xbox and Cube hardware, and he's given credit where credit was due (whether it be pro-Cube or pro-Xbox) based on his experience working with both platforms. Now you want to call him biased because he's telling the truth, which revolves around the technical merit the Xbox has over the Cube in most situations. Seems like you're pretty uncomftorable with reality.

cybamerc

05-Dec-2002, 23:07

DeathKnight:

> I don't see any bias on ERP's part.

Are you Xbots really that fucking dense? Look at how the discussion started, who reacted to what, who brought credibility into the matter.

I'm NOT saying ERP isn't credible, I AM saying he's biased because quite frankly we all are - that is human nature. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. To claim otherwise is a sign of bias in and of itself - not to mention flagrant stupidity.

My point is that there are no grounds for dismissing any of Factor 5's claims on the basis of bias when the same conflict of interest exists with ERP. Is that really so hard to understand?

> Julian has never done such a thing.

Nonsense.

> Julian's done things like proclaim the Xbox wasn't capable of ingame
> realtime DD5.1

Source.

> and also try to compare near final Cube hardware with extremely early
> Alpha Xbox hardware

Which he also made very clear.

> It's about ERP.

No it's about mentally deprived Xbots with serious reading comprehension issues. Read, then speak.

I'm using ERP as an example to prove the logical flaws in Magnum PI's "argumentation". Not to pass judgement on him (ERP).

> he's given credit where credit was due (whether it be pro-Cube or
> pro-Xbox) based on his experience working with both platforms.

So has Julian.

> Seems like you're pretty uncomftorable with reality.

I'm uncomfortable with your perception of reality.

DeathKnight

05-Dec-2002, 23:37

My point is that there are no grounds for dismissing any of Factor 5's claims on the basis of bias when the same conflict of interest exists with ERP.
WHAT conflict of interest? On one hand we have a developer who's only developed with Cube hardware, has shipped one game for the Cube, has developed tools for it, and sugarcoats everything he says about it. On the other hand we have a developer who's worked with both consoles, hasn't finished any games for them, is giving his technical knowledge of the two based upon his experience working with them, and providing this knowledge on a technical forum with no strings attached.. ie: not in representation of the company he works/has worked for and no obligation to provide such information.

ERP's biased toward the Xbox? Biased toward the Cube? Biased against the Cube? What is it and exactly how? Please point this out oh noble one :roll:
Nonsense.
I don't remember Julian ever going in-depth on both consoles and comparing/contrasting the two based on their technicalities or based on his experience with both platforms (he only has experience with one platform).
Source.
I'll try to find it.
Which he also made very clear.
Really? So when comparing the two he said "The Xbox hardware I'm comparing the near-final Cube to is actually early Alpha hardware that is nowhere near the final silicon or performance" ?
Not to pass judgement on him (ERP).
I'd say you're passing quite a bit of judgement on him: proclaiming he's biased to counter the attack on Julian's credibility, and completely ignoring the credentials that set the two men apart.
So has Julian.
Really? Point it out.
I'm uncomfortable with your perception of reality.
Not surprising from someone whose own perception of reality is horribly skewed ;)

PC-Engine

06-Dec-2002, 01:28

ERP has said in the past that Xbox is more powerful than GCN...yes and everyone is aware of that even the GCN fans.

ERP also said that NV2X is faster than Flipper...yes and everyone is aware of that even GCN fans.

ERP also said that there are some things that can be done on NV2X that couldn't be done on Flipper and vice versa...yes everyone is also aware of that.

Ok the important thing here is how much more powerful, faster, etc.? Significantly more? Enough to be noticable in a game?

Just keep in mind that 80 mph is faster than 75 mph and a 12 volt battery is more powerful than a 10 volt battery. Also a Yamaha R1 with a 150 hp inline 4 is faster than a Viper with a 450 hp V10 :wink:

DeathKnight

06-Dec-2002, 01:30

Crotch rockets = teh no!! :P

cybamerc

06-Dec-2002, 10:18

DeathKnight:

> sugarcoats everything he says about it.

Who are you to say that he sugarcoats anything? Have you worked on it? Do you have access to the full documentation? Please shut the fuck up.

> On the other hand we have a developer who's worked with both
> consoles

ERP hasn't done anymore work on Cube than Factor 5 has on the Xbox.

> is giving his technical knowledge of the two based upon his experience
> working with them

Same thing Factor 5 was doing.

> ERP's biased toward the Xbox?

Yes... he even said that himself once. Unlike you and the Xbox minions on this board ERP has no problem admitting that he has preferences. Like I said, it's human to be biased. Complete objectivity exists only in theory.

> I don't remember Julian ever going in-depth on both consoles

Of course not. You choose to ignore what you don't want to hear.

> (he only has experience with one platform).

False.

> Really?

Yes. When he compared the performance of the SpaceWorld Star Wars demo running on early Cube hardware and XDK Phase 1 he made sure to point out that the XDK wasn't final hardware.

> I'd say you're passing quite a bit of judgement on him

Were you dropped on the floor as a child? I honestly don't know how I can make it more clear. I am countering your retarded arguments by using ERP as an example. I don't take sides, I don't claim one to more trustworthy than the other. I'm merely pointing out that preferences aside Factor 5 and Boss Games/Julian E. and ERP have surprisingly many things in common.

If you can't see that please do give your parents' my condolences.

> proclaiming he's biased to counter the attack on Julian's credibility

I'm glad you use the word "attack". It's very telling.

> and completely ignoring the credentials that set the two men apart.

I've called them both competent and credible. Credentials are largely irrelevant because the discussion isn't about Julian and ERP. It's about mind-numbingly dense Xbots such as yourself.

> Really? Point it out.

I find it amusing that you can remember that Julian compared Cube and Xbox but not everything else he said. Selective memory is certainly a way to create an argument when you don't have one.

Julian has posted about Xbox and Cube many times at Maniac Online. I'd link you to the posts but MO doesn't keep posts for very long.

> Not surprising from someone whose own perception of reality is horribly
> skewed

Yes, and you're the very embodiment of objectivity.

06-Dec-2002, 10:30

Hey! :o
I am just interested to see what F5 have in store for the Cube hardware. They made RL, first gen GC game, which still looked amazing on any platform to date.

If their new game, is as amazingly good looking as they said, it would certainly blow away all known GC games, easily.

It would be a better benchmark for the GC hardware than current GC games.
Cube hardware is so under rated. We have the usual PS2 and Xbox shitnz while Cube is hardly mentioned at all.

zurich

06-Dec-2002, 11:00

ERP hasn't done anymore work on Cube than Factor 5 has on the Xbox

...except for the GC dev kit on his desk.

06-Dec-2002, 11:12

-ERP hasn't done anymore work on Cube than Factor 5 has on the Xbox-

You missed cyberman's point. :P

zurich

06-Dec-2002, 11:23

F5 works exclusively on GC. Erp works on atleast GC & Xbox. Therefore, Erp has done more work on the GC than F5 has done on the Xbox.

edit: before cybermerc goes schitzo, I guess I should clarify that Erp is shipping a game on Xbox, while F5 are not. Julian E. may have poked an XDK with a screwdriver, but his job is to make GC games. Erps job is to make GC & Xbox games.

Ozymandis

06-Dec-2002, 11:38

Please shut the fuck up.

Why not try to calm down a little?

I always liked Beyond3d and its reasonable discussions. Your sort of posting style doesn't really fit in too well I don't think :-?

Qroach

06-Dec-2002, 12:19

Chap, cybermercs point isn't valid.

Factor 5 only looked at the first revision of the Xbox that that was just a a windows 2000 PC with a geforce 2 in it. Factor 5 didn't even run those BS benchamrks on the next rev of the hardware that contained a geforce 3 in a PC. No matter what way you look at it (cybermerc), Julian from factor 5 benchmarked a system that wasn't even close to the actual performance of Xbox. He knew perfectly what he was doing since every dev knew final hardware was coming later on.

Just to be clear, they NEVER even looked at the final hardware which is a a hell of a lot faster than the PC based early versions. I really wish you'd drop this argument.

ERP has worked with final hardware on BOTH platforms, and he doesn't have any reason to declare either hardware faster when it isn't. You (cybermerc) trying to discredit ERP is simply foolish and fanish. Factor 5 had a part in designing the audio hardware for gamecube. They obviously have a vested interest in not saying that the Xbox was better or faster. Did ERP design any of the xbox hardware? NO of course he didn't! So don't say he's no more trustrowthy than anyone from factor 5.

This is just like the BS Julian put forth about the xbox audio hardware in the past. Saying how dolby digital couldn't be done in realtime on xbox due to latency (which was NOT true).

cybamerc

06-Dec-2002, 12:23

zurich:

> ...except for the GC dev kit on his desk.

ERP was doing R&D on the Cube, not actual development.

> F5 works exclusively on GC.

Only after extensive Xbox testing.

> Erp works on atleast GC & Xbox.

Not when he worked for Boss Games.

> Therefore, Erp has done more work on the GC than F5 has done on the
> Xbox.

Nonsense.

> I guess I should clarify that Erp is shipping a game on Xbox, while F5
> are not.

Well, if he's shipping a game for Xbox I assume it won't be for a while since Boss Games is dead.

> Erps job is to make GC & Xbox games.

Who does he work for now? You seem to know.

Ozymandis:

> Why not try to calm down a little?

I will when I no longer feel like I'm talking to a door.

I am baffled by complete lack of reading skills, logic and sensibleness expressed by some posters on this board.

Qroach

06-Dec-2002, 12:28

Cybermerc,

ERP was doing R&D on the Cube, not actual development.

I dont' think you're qualified to even know the difference. while doing R&D on the cube he ran benchmarks.

Only after extensive Xbox testing.

HA, extensive testing of a PC with a geforce 2 in it. They never benchmarked final hardware. For good reason too. I know you won't listen sine you're just being difficult even though it's the truth. If your going to argue, prove me wrong.

Not when he worked for Boss Games.

He was working on both platforms. Stop talking about what you don't understand!

Nonsense.

No, not nonesense. It's true! he was working with MS on the xbox long before many other developers. I hope you can atleast admit he's done WAY more work on Xbox than factor 5. like I said before, factor 5 only did benchmarks on the oringinal PC hardware, and NOT the final hardware from wht I remember.

Well, if he's shipping a game for Xbox I assume it won't be for a while since Boss Games is dead

Now you're just being disrespectful. Quit being an annoyance.

cybamerc

06-Dec-2002, 12:47

Qroach:

> Factor 5 only looked at the first revision of the Xbox that that was just a
> a windows 2000 PC with a geforce 2 in it.

That's not true.

> Factor 5 didn't even run those BS benchamrks on the next rev of the
> hardware that contained a geforce 3 in a PC.

That is most likely true. The socalled "BS benchmrks" were just a few demos specifically created for SW.

> Julian from factor 5 benchmarked a system that wasn't even close to
> the actual performance of Xbox.

Something he also made clear. Also, please refrain from using the word benchmark about a few demos done in a couple of weeks time. Benchmarking implies that the performance is measured in a scientifically responsible manner which was not the case with the Star Wars demos. Something Julian never claimed was the case either.

> I really wish you'd drop this argument.

I really wish you'd stop lying.

> ERP has worked with final hardware on BOTH platforms

So has Factor 5.

> You (cybermerc) trying to discredit ERP is simply foolish and fanish.

Is there a special genetic defect that prevents you Xbox supporters from reading something in its proper context?

> They obviously have a vested interest in not saying that the Xbox was
> better or faster.

Not outside of audio hardware. And OS to some extent.

> So don't say he's no more trustrowthy than anyone from factor 5.

I haven't. Learn to read.

> Saying how dolby digital couldn't be done in realtime on xbox due to
> latency

Haha... All he said was that Factor 5 decided against DICE because they felt that the latency was too high. I'm still waiting for a quote where he specifically states that DD isn't possible in realtime on the Xbox. I don't deny he has criticized DICE (which is Dolby tech so no need for all you Xbots to take it so personally).

> while doing R&D on the cube he ran benchmarks.

While doing R&D on the Xbox Factor 5 ran benchmarks.

> If your going to argue, prove me wrong.

Same to you.

> He was working on both platforms.

If R&D qualifies as working on a platform then so was Factor 5.

> I hope you can atleast admit he's done WAY more work on Xbox than
> factor 5.

Yes, without a doubt. And I hope you can at least admit that Factor 5 has done WAY more work on GameCube than ERP.

> Now you're just being disrespectful.

Well, either zurich believes that ERP is still working for Boss Games or he knows where ERP is working now. I'm just trying to find out what it is.

Qroach

06-Dec-2002, 13:19

Cybermerc,

That's not true.

Yes it is. If I'm wrong then post a link to the article when Julian benchmarked the xbox hardware and look at the date. I can admit that I'm wrong if you can prove it.

That is most likely true. The socalled "BS benchmrks" were just a few demos specifically created for SW.

So now you say it's true? I'm glad you agree. I called them "BS" becuase they compared final gamecube hardware to what was basically a PC at the time. A pC with a geforce 2 and AGP4X.

Something he also made clear. Also, please refrain from using the word benchmark about a few demos done in a couple of weeks time. Benchmarking implies that the performance is measured in a scientifically responsible manner which was not the case with the Star Wars demos. Something Julian never claimed was the case either.

That's what he did though, he benchmarked the hardware. He benchmarked the hardware performance and declared the Xbox to be less powerful than the Gamecube. The thing is, you are correct in that he didn't perform these benchmarks in a responsible manner. It caused a ton of confusion and led to MANY misconceptions on the internet. This is exactly why Factor 5's comments can't be trusted. Did ERP do such a thing? no, he performed benchmarks on the final hardware for both platforms and his results are very clear.

So really, why are you arguing with people about his credibility(trying to say he "can" be trusted as much as julian)? When you even admit that Julian has a vested interest in not saying Xbox is better in any way.

I really wish you'd stop lying.

How old are you cybermerc, I'm curious? You claim I'm lying, well prove me wrong. i have no reason to lie about anything around here. I work on games on all paltforms. How about you? Do you work on games on all platforms?

So has Factor 5.

No they haven't. If I'm wrong I'll gladly admit that. Prove me wrong then...

Is there a special genetic defect that prevents you Xbox supporters from reading something in its proper context?

That's exactly what you are doing. People in this thread discredit Factor 5's comments for a number of reasons:

1. Factor 5 helped design the gamecube audio hardware
2. They performed benchmarks on non final hardware
3. They made claims of things about xbox hardware without knowing the truth (which could be found out by doing some R&D on the final hardware).

Perhaps it's you that has the genetic defect, since you are the person that claims ERPs comments can be trusted as much as factor 5. Which is essentially an attempt to discredit ERP and disregard his comments if we o the same with julian/factor5. An attempt that failed honestly. ERP hasn't done anything like the things above, so we have no reason to doubt him.

Sure you can say he company once worked on a xbox exclusive title, but that changed so long ago that it doesn't have any impact on him getting gamecube hardware and seeing what it can do (in comparison). in fact, he should be angry with MS for dropping his title. However he isn't.

Not outside of audio hardware. And OS to some extent.

So now you at least admit Factor 5 does have a vested interest in NOT saying xbox is more powerful. WEll, I'm glad you're being resonable on this. I fully agree.

I haven't. Learn to read.

You implied it. learn to argue.

Haha... All he said was that Factor 5 decided against DICE because they felt that the latency was too high. I'm still waiting for a quote where he specifically states that DD isn't possible in realtime on the Xbox. I don't deny he has criticized DICE (which is Dolby tech so no need for all you Xbots to take it so personally).

That claim of Julians lead to MANY more arguments and misconceptions about xbox, which simply aren't true.

While doing R&D on the Xbox Factor 5 ran benchmarks.

On a PC with a geforce 2. They haven't performed ANY behcmarks since then. I hoep you see where I'm going with this, becuase you've already admitted that tey did benchmark with early hardware, but you haven't show any bechamarks with current hardware, now have you?

If R&D qualifies as working on a platform then so was Factor 5.

NOT when the only platform Factor 5 worked with is no longer in use by Xbox devs.

Yes, without a doubt. And I hope you can at least admit that Factor 5 has done WAY more work on GameCube than ERP.

Sure I can admit that, but the only difference is that ERP worked with FINAL Xbox hardware, unlike factor 5.

Well, either zurich believes that ERP is still working for Boss Games or he knows where ERP is working now. I'm just trying to find out what it is.

I'm not talking about zurich, I'm talking about you being disrespectful to ERP with your, "he hasn't shipped a game comment". That was uncalled for.

pikkachu

06-Dec-2002, 16:08

hahaha

oh great,the stupid cockaroach idiot is back :roll:

Teasy

06-Dec-2002, 16:44

On one hand we have a developer who's only developed with Cube hardware, has shipped one game for the Cube, has developed tools for it, and sugarcoats everything he says about it. On the other hand we have a developer who's worked with both consoles, hasn't finished any games for them, is giving his technical knowledge of the two based upon his experience working with them, and providing this knowledge on a technical forum with no strings attached.. ie: not in representation of the company he works/has worked for and no obligation to provide such information.

But the problem here is that is just your perception isn't it?.. not fact at all. When you read a comment from Julian, no matter what it is, you assume its sugar coated towards GC. But when you read a comment from ERP you assume its not sugar coated. They're just assumptions.

What people here, like yourself, don't seem to get is that Cybamerc has not said ERP is not a credible siource. He has only said he is not more or less credible then Julian. So if you attack Julians credibility with the reasons you are giving those same reasons could be pointed at ERP. The only people here actually attacking someone's credibility are people like yourself attacking Julians credibility.

edit: before cybermerc goes schitzo, I guess I should clarify that Erp is shipping a game on Xbox, while F5 are not.

See, this is what I'm talking about, a perfect example in fact. Your argument that ERP is shipping an XBox game while Julian is not, can then be turned around as Julian is shipping/has shipped a GC game and ERP has not.

So what are we saying here? That Julian has no expeirence with XBox because he has not shipped an XBox game? Which would then mean that ERP has no experience with GC because he hasn't shipped a GC game? See, the argument is majorly flawed.

Johnny Awesome

06-Dec-2002, 18:11

The obvious facts:

1. ERP is just as credible as Julian of Factor 5, and probably moreso when it concerns the Xbox.

2. Cybamerc is wrong.

3. QRoach is right.

QRoach, I can't believe you bother arguing with Cybamerc the MS-hating fanboy. It's a waste of your precious time.

wazoo

06-Dec-2002, 18:19

The obvious facts:

1. ERP is just as credible as Julian of Factor 5, and probably moreso when it concerns the Xbox.

probably.

2. Cybamerc is wrong.

3. QRoach is right.

I'm sure you did not even try to be funny.

Teasy

06-Dec-2002, 18:56

1. ERP is just as credible as Julian of Factor 5

2. Cybamerc is wrong.

How can you agree with Cybamerc and then say he's wrong?

Johnny Awesome

06-Dec-2002, 19:19

Oh yeah. I forgot:

4. Teasy is wrong.

Teasy

06-Dec-2002, 19:21

Oh I see, your just trolling again, that's ok then, I expect that from you.

DeathKnight

06-Dec-2002, 20:19

I don't need to sit here and waste my time arguing with someone who 1) doesn't have any grasp whatsoever of what is going on and 2) feels the need to spew out personal insults whenever he has the opportunity (really shows who has the upperhand in the argument).

A few other posters including Qroach cleared it up quite nicely while I was away. I've made my points, they still stand, so run along.

zurich

06-Dec-2002, 22:22

Again,

Quincy is right. Cybamerc is wrong.

Must be some strange Cybamerc-Julian-F5-Deutschkonnectionne :o

It'd be like Bungie ripping up the GC hardware in a public forum. Jason Jones is cool and all, but I'd take his vested interest with a grain of salt when comparing techs.

Teasy

06-Dec-2002, 22:26

Eminem

09-Dec-2002, 02:32

It'd be like Bungie ripping up the GC hardware in a public forum. Jason Jones is cool and all, but I'd take his vested interest with a grain of salt when comparing techs.

How would that be anything like this? Bungie are owned totally by MS, Factor 5 are not owned by Nintendo. Factor 5 make GC exclusive games because that's there choice, not because they have to like Bungie.
Would you rather it be square saying PS2 is more powerful than the GC using alpha GC devkits and final PS2 hardware then saying that GC couldn't do FFX because of some small difference in hardware which could easily be worked around.

Ooh-videogames

09-Dec-2002, 04:42

I read that the GC's fillrate is 684megapixels/ps and the same for texels is this true. From what read in this forum ERP has done some benchmarking on GC dev kits and I wanted to know if he could answer this. Everyone answer would be appreciated.

Teasy

09-Dec-2002, 04:58

Would you rather it be square saying PS2 is more powerful than the GC using alpha GC devkits and final PS2 hardware then saying that GC couldn't do FFX because of some small difference in hardware which could easily be worked around.

Well firstly all I said was that Factor 5 are nothing like Bungie when it comes to vested interested in a specific console, and I stick by that. Secondly when did Square say that? Also I wouldn't be suprised if they did in the past, Square and Nintendo were enemies for quite a while and also Sony did own 20+% of Square as well.

I really don't know what Factor 5 have said, could someone actually post real quotes, rather then heresay?

Ooh-videogames

Yes GameCube's fillrate is 648mpixels/s.

Johnny Awesome

09-Dec-2002, 14:17

You live in the Mushroom Kingdom Teasy. :roll:

Legion

09-Dec-2002, 15:09

You live in the Mushroom Kingdom Teasy. :roll:

Agreed. After examining the hardware and reading through the commentaries of ERP the GC is as on par with the xbox as the Geforce 256 is on with an over clocked Geforce 3. Teasy i think any assertions on your behalf are nothing more than wishful thinking. No one has substantiated your claims here.

Well firstly all I said was that Factor 5 are nothing like Bungie when it comes to vested interested in a specific console, and I stick by that. Secondly when did Square say that? Also I wouldn't be suprised if they did in the past, Square and Nintendo were enemies for quite a while and also Sony did own 20+% of Square as well.

They are nothing alike so in your mind so Factor 5 is honest? Teasy you are grasping at straws here. Show me their figures please. Let me see their benchmarks on the final hardware. They are highly biased. Not a single developer here agrees with what factor 5 has ever claimed. Remember their nonsense about RS engine running some 20 million polys at 60 fps with 8 layers of textures in one pass? The GC pixel fillrate is closed to 81 megapixels/second with 8 layers of textures last time i checked. How is this also a single pass considering the lack of multiple TMUs per pipe? According to ERP the GC also loses 50% of its fillrate with 2 texture layers do to the number of clock cycles it takes to pass the textures - so we know there is NO way in hell this is done in a single pass. There is no reason to believe anything that factor 5 says.

Teasy

09-Dec-2002, 16:40

You live in the Mushroom Kingdom Teasy.

How many times will you make pointless troll comments? Tell me, what exactly are you refering to here?, or is that to diffucult a question for you?

Seriously Johhny, is it not about time for you to grow up? Do you see me posting sad childish comments directed at you in every thread?

Agreed. After examining the hardware and reading through the commentaries of ERP the GC is as on par with the xbox as the Geforce 256 is on with an over clocked Geforce 3. Teasy i think any assertions on your behalf are nothing more than wishful thinking. No one has substantiated your claims here.

*sign*, not this again.

In every thread discussing GC and XBox you inevitabely come along and claim that I have said something that I haven't, like "GC is on par with XBox" or even "GC is faster then XBox". Its like you just imagine what I write instead of reading it. I then correct you on it (which I've already done once in this thread), yet you ingore that, as if I didn't actually say it, and come back again with the same crap. Its happened so many times, are you just trying to annoy me or are you genuinly blind to this?

Just to point this out to you for the second time in this thread I said this earlier:

"I think most people already know that in the majority of cases XBox will be more poweful then GameCube."

Legion, I have no problem with you, your posts are usually civil enough and you at least try to argue. But seriously, just stop this patern you have of ignoring my comments on GC and XBox and going back to this pre-determinded opinion you seem to have that I always think GC is better then XBox in every way. Because its starting to get annoying.

They are nothing alike so in your mind so Factor 5 is honest?

Don't put words into my mouth, I don't know if they're honest, is any company always honest? All I said was that comparing Bungie to Factor 5 is pointless. Factor 5 are there own company, not owned by Nintendo, making games for GC because they want to. If they want to say GC is crap they can say it. Bungie are 100% owned by MS, they do and say what MS wants them to.. MS say jump and Bungie will ask how high.

Teasy you are grasping at straws here. Show me their figures please. Let me see their benchmarks on the final hardware. They are highly biased. Not a single developer here agrees with what factor 5 has ever claimed. Remember their nonsense about RS engine running some 20 million polys at 60 fps with 8 layers of textures in one pass? The GC pixel fillrate is closed to 81 megapixels/second with 8 layers of textures last time i checked

I haven't even mentioned any of that stuff and secondly why don't you show me those quotes? Seriously, because no I have never seen these comments from them. I've only seen them as second hand info from people on forums.

Also on a purely technical note, so what if that only leaves 81mpixels/s?.. that's enough to fill a 640x480 screen close to 300 times per second (640x480 = 307,200 pixels, 81mpixels/s = 81,000,000 pixels per second).

There is overdraw of course, but even with overdraw where's the problem there? As Ben pointed out when someone else talking about this, a Voodoo2 ran dual textured games just fine with only 41mpixels/s (82mpixels/s single texturing).

How is this also a single pass considering the lack of multiple TMUs per pipe?

A pass doesn't have to have anything to do with number of TU's. GameCube can do upto 8 texture layers in a single pass, that's a fact.

According to ERP the GC also loses 50% of its fillrate with 2 texture layers do to the number of clock cycles it takes to pass the textures - so we know there is NO way in hell this is done in a single pass. There is no reason to believe anything that factor 5 says.

Your mixing up clock cycles and passes. Yes with 2 textures GC's fillrate is halfed, and as you said with 8 textures it'f finally drops to 81mpixels/s. But all of that is still done in a single pass. So yes there is 'a way in hell' that they could do that in a single pass, infact its easily possible. If this is a major part of your reasoning behind not believing Factor 5 then I have to say your reasoning is on very shacky ground here.

Qroach

09-Dec-2002, 17:13

If they want to say GC is crap they can say it. Bungie are 100% owned by MS, they do and say what MS wants them to.. MS say jump and Bungie will ask how high.

Yes bungie won't say anything bad about xbox. Why would they? However neither will Factor 5 considering they had a part in designing the audio hardware for gamecube. They don't just make games for gamecube, they have a vested interest in the hardware. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.

Either way you look at it. Factor 5 will probably be more biased then any other developers that has worked with FINAL hardware on all platforms.

Perhaps this is what the others mean by you living in a mushroom kigdom. if you were really following the thread, you would have seen this written already. Now calm down and relax. Take a deep breath, and realize it's just about games.

Teasy

09-Dec-2002, 17:23

Quincy

Your wrong on Factor 5 having anything to do with making GC hardware, and AFAIR I've already mentioned this to you before in the past. Factor 5 just made there own DPL2 software for use with there own games. Then they allowed other devs to use it, no different from what plenty of other devs do. So no they don't have any vested interest GC hardware.

Either way you look at it. Factor 5 will probably be more biased then any other developers that has worked with FINAL hardware on all platforms.

If you mean they will likely be more biased towards a single console then a multi-platform dev making games for all consoles then Yes, its likely, or at least a fair assumption. But then maybe you should show me where I've said otherwise so far?

Perhaps this is what the others mean by you living in a mushroom kigdom. if you were really following the thread, you would have seen this written already.

Seen what written already? I haven't said anything about Factor 5 not being more biased towards GC then a multi-platform developer. So maybe you should read my posts more thoroughly?

Qroach

09-Dec-2002, 17:49

No, your wrong on Factor 5 having anything to do with making GC hardware, and AFAIR I've already mentioned this to you before in the past. Factor 5 just made there own DPL2 software for use with there own games. Then they allowed other devs to use it, no different from what plenty of other devs do. So no they don't have any vested interest GC hardware.

:roll:

Factor 5 has also created the multi-platform MusyX™ sound tool technology which pioneered 5-channel Dolby Surround Pro-Logic II sound for games in close collaboration with Dolby, the Mort voice compression system and, as a Nintendo technology partner, was involved in the creation of the Nintendo Gamecube hardware.

It says this right on the bloddy Factor 5 website. Perhaps you should tell them that they didn't have a part in designing the gamecube hardware? Now, the question we all wanted to ask you, "how big are the mushrooms this time of year" ;)

If you mean they will likely be more biased towards a single console then a multi-platform dev making games for all consoles then Yes, its likely, or at least a fair assumption.

Not just a single console, more biased toward gamecube specifically. Which is the exact reason they aren't trusted in what's been said about Xbox. You know, the entire point of what we've been talking about?

But then maybe you should show me where I've said otherwise so far?

Well let's see, you're saying that:

1. Factor 5 really are multiplatform developers that just choose to develop on one console. Compared them to bungie, a company that really wouldn't be honest about xbox hardware vrs the competition.

2. You say they didn't have anything to do with the design of the gamecube hardware at all. Ruling them out of the Bungie/first party catagory or having any reason to not be trusted when they talk about gamecube or even Xbox.

Now, why would you say any of this if you wern't trying to prove that factor 5 really can be trusted in their comments? The fact they can't be trusted with regards to Xbox, is the real reason we're still arguing. If you weren't trying to prove they can be trusted, then what's the point of your replys?

Teasy

09-Dec-2002, 18:38

It says this right on the bloddy Factor 5 website. Perhaps you should tell them that they didn't have a part in designing the gamecube hardware? Now, the question we all wanted to ask you, "how big are the mushrooms this time of year

The sound chip for GC is built into Flipper, which is created by ArtX. So you seriously think that Factor 5 made the sound chip built into Flipper? I've never seen Factor 5 mention that and frankly it seems far fetched.

BTW, stop trying to provoke me with your petty insults, because its not going to work this time.

Not just a single console, more biased toward gamecube specifically. Which is the exact reason they aren't trusted in what's been said about Xbox. You know, the entire point of what we've been talking about?

Well yeah obviously the "single console" was GC.

1. Factor 5 really are multiplatform developers that just choose to develop on one console. Compared them to bungie, a company that really wouldn't be honest about xbox hardware vrs the competition.

How can a developer be a multi-platform developer if they choose to develop for a single console? Really man, think about it for a moment. I said they are not owned by Nintendo, I did not at any time say they were multi-platform developers. Also I didn't compare anyone to Bungie, someone else said Factor 5 to GC is like Bungie to XBox. That isn't true because Bungie are owned completely by MS and Factor 5 are not owned by Nintendo.

2. You say they didn't have anything to do with the design of the gamecube hardware at all. Ruling them out of the Bungie/first party catagory or having any reason to not be trusted when they talk about gamecube or even Xbox.

Who's posts are you reading exactly? I have not said that Factor 5 have no reason at all not to be trusted? So why do you claim I've said that? I tell you what, instead of just claiming I've said things post quotes from me. Because I just haven't said what you claim I've said.

Now, why would you say any of this if you wern't trying to prove that factor 5 really can be trusted in their comments? The fact they can't be trusted with regards to Xbox, is the real reason we're still arguing. If you weren't trying to prove they can be trusted, then what's the point of your replys?

I haven't even said that, you just decided to make it up AFAICS. As for your other comment, worst logic ever. So if I don't think Factor 5 are totally honest about Xbox hardware then I can't post in this thread?

In this thread I have argued against some people claiming that ERP and Factor 5 are totally different, as if one is absolutely honest all the time while the other is never honest. I haven't even mentioned half the things you claim I've said, you seem to have mixed me up with someone else. I hope you can at least admit that.

Magnum PI

09-Dec-2002, 19:55

12/7/2000

Factor 5, the co-developer of Cube's audio hardware

http://cube.ign.com/articles/088/088757p1.html

Factor 5 in particular has been a part of GameCube since the machine's early development, playing an integral in the creation and realization of the console's audio hardware.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/094/094556p1.html

Factor 5 had an important role in the development of Gamecube's audio hardware, and we developed the MusyX audio system in-house.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20020501/engel_02.htm

Johnny Awesome

09-Dec-2002, 19:55

Teasy, which Mushrooms are better Green or Red? :roll:

Poor deluded kid...

Tagrineth

09-Dec-2002, 20:11

There is overdraw of course, but even with overdraw where's the problem there? As Ben pointed out when someone else talking about this, a Voodoo2 ran dual textured games just fine with only 41mpixels/s (82mpixels/s single texturing).

Uh, what? Voodoo2 ran at 90MHz and had two TCU's.

Single texture is 90Mp/s, 90Mt/s.

Dual texture is 90Mp/s, 180Mt/s. :P

Voodoo2 can sustain 60fps at 640x480 in every known GLide game, and 800x600 as well in most of them, with a mere 2.4GB/sec segmented bandwidth. GCN has much, much more total bandwidth. So, barring computational overhead, yes, 81Mp/s should be more than enough for 480p with 8 texture layers on GCN. IN THEORY.

But then again, XGPU is ~233MHz with 4 pipelines, 2 TCU's per pipe, so it's technically over 1Gp/s with two layers, or over 500Mp/s with four layers (technically, 233Mp/s with eight, but that's in two passes).

And finally... yes, Flipper has four pipelines with one TCU each, so it can only texture four times per cycle. However due to its cache it can do eight textures per pass using two cycles. :)

Qroach

09-Dec-2002, 20:25

The sound chip for GC is built into Flipper, which is created by ArtX. So you seriously think that Factor 5 made the sound chip built into Flipper? I've never seen Factor 5 mention that and frankly it seems far fetched.

Teasy, as i said, don't argue with me about it. It says right on facotr 5's website that they had a part in the creation of gamecube hardware. You want to keep arguing about it, then go ahead. You can argue with julian for all I care. However, you're not correct.

BTW, stop trying to provoke me with your petty insults, because its not going to work this time.

Who's trying to provoke anyone? It was just a friendly joke... hence the smilley face. You really need to chill out!

How can a developer be a multi-platform developer if they choose to develop for a single console? Really man, think about it for a moment. I said they are not owned by Nintendo, I did not at any time say they were multi-platform developers.

In other words, they are free to develop on any platform they want, yet they "chose" to work on Gamecube. Is that really that hard to understand? :roll: Teasy, you said this.

Teasy wrote:
Factor 5 are there own company, not owned by Nintendo, making games for GC because they want to.

By saying this are you NOT implying that they are free to develop on any platform they choose since they are NOT owned by nintendo?...and that platform they did choose happend to be GC? if this is true, then are you NOT providing another reason to "trust" what they say regarding Xbox? Example of what I mean would be: we can't trust what bungie says because they are owned by MS

Do you understand? We're saying something similar regarding factor 5. We can't trust what factor 5 says about xbox becuase they helped in the gamecube creation.

Also I didn't compare anyone to Bungie, someone else said Factor 5 to GC is like Bungie to XBox. That isn't true because Bungie are owned completely by MS and Factor 5 are not owned by Nintendo.

Whether you said it isn't really the point, they don't have to be owned to make it true Teasy and that was the point people were trying to make. Both companies have a vested interest in seeing each respected console do well! Bungie is owned by MS and Factor 5 had a part in the GC hardware creation. Right there that should rule out EITHER side when talking about competitors hardware! Once again the point people are making!

What? Who's posted are you reading exactly? So I have said they have no reason at all not to be trusted have I? Go on then, post quotes from me saying that in this thread.

Oh my god man, whats with you? I didn't claim you said that, after the first sentace I was explaining the implication of what you're saying. By YOU saying they didn't have anything to do with the creation of gamecube hardware, you're (perhaps inadvertantly) providing an excuse for us to actually trust what they are saying about Xbox, since they wouldn't HAVE a vested interest in gamecube. This goes right back to the argument we were having with cybermerc, before you decided to confuse thigs that is.

I haven't even said that, you just decided to make it up AFAICS. As for your other comment, worst logic ever. So if I don't think Factor 5 are totally honest about Xbox hardware then I can't post in this thread?

Teasy you really don't know what we're arguing about do you? We were arguing with cybermerc and a few other over why ERP should be trusted in what he says compared to a group like factor 5. I'm not saying you can't post in this thread, I'm asking what's the "point" of your post if you weren't:

A) Agreeing with cybermerc, that ERP is "not" more honest than julian from factor 5 when talking about Xbox vrs GC.
B) Agreeing with the people that claim Factor 5 can't be trusted since they have a partnership with Nintendo and made some huge no no's when benchmarking unfinshed Xbox hardware.

So which side of the fence are you here? I saw earlier you got involved with the argument, and then asked what this stuff about Factor 5 benchmarking Xbox was all about. I think it's a good idea to understand what you're talking about before starting to argue with everyone!

In this thread I have argued against some people claiming that ERP and Factor 5 are totally different, as if one is absolutely honest all the time while the other is never honest.

:roll: if you're arguing that they are NOT totally different, then EVERYTHING you've been saying goes to proving that point does it not? Do you not want to prove how they are "NOT different", when claiming they didn't help create the Gamecube hardware, or are actually linked to Nintendo in some way that could make them biased?

Do your reasons above support your opinion that Factor 5 actually CAN be trusted, or it CAN'T be trusted??? Please make up your mind!! I've seen you say in this thread, that you don't know if they can be trusted. once again, if you don't know then how or why are you arguing against people saying that ERP and facotr 5 are different?

Teasy, as I said before, you are wrong about factor 5 not having a part in the creation of the gamecube hardware. Magnum posted links above to support the claim on Factor 5's website. What factor 5 said about xbox simply can't be trusted, no matter what you think. What ERP said can be trusted since we don't have any valid reason to doubt him compared to Factor 5 (or even Bungie).

Steve Dave Part Deux

09-Dec-2002, 20:30

Actually, it can access each texture twice per pipe per cycle, and I'm sure there are applications which would benefit from such a feature. Though I am certainly not knowledgable enough to think of any.

pikkachu

09-Dec-2002, 22:09

ERP

09-Dec-2002, 23:45

where the heck is ERP?

Staying out of the way..... I don't see anything productive coming from this discussion.

On the internet you rarely change peoples minds, people disreguard any opinion that run in opposition to their own and jump on any that reinforces there position.

Just remember my internet opinions just like everyone elses are worth exactly what you paid to get them.

Dural

09-Dec-2002, 23:51

.

where the heck is ERP? why doesn't he just
clarify what kind of benchmark did he ran?
1 texture with simple transform and no lights?
yup,xbox is faster doing really simple stuff :roll:

how well does ERP knows about and take
advantage of gamecube feature and capability?
did ERP optimize the benchmark for gamecube?
or just a quick and dirty port to gamecube?

how about those benchmarks that shows
gamecube faster than xbox?
how about them benchmarks? :roll:

Have you actually read what ERP has said in multiple threads? If I were him I'd be sick of having to tell the GC fanboys that Xbox is faster. Get over it, in nearly every real world test Xbox is faster. Why is that so hard to believe?

The Xbox is substantially faster than the GC. That combined with the size of our datasets would have meant substantial asset rework on the GC version.
In the end they would have looked similar, but the Xbox version would have been superior.

Obviously the game was targeted at Xbox. The Game cube port was built as a feasability excercise, so that we could offer publishers two sku's instead of just one to make the product more attractive.

We were scheduled to finish work on the Xbox version around the end of August (it would have shipped for Xmas). Had we found a publisher soon enough we could have completed the GC version shortly afterwards.
In terms of cost, I'd rather not comment since I'm not certain about the figures that were thrown around.

In terms of what was and wasn't done, most of the car graphics were in game though not all cars had their performance characteristics set up. None of the upgrade paths for the cars were complete. The championship progress (similar in a lot of ways to WDC) was incomplete. Arcade mode and time attack worked, although no time had been put into balancing the races. There was a basic network play mode that supported 6 player Lan, and it should have scaled pretty well to internet play.
Graphically most of the major work was done, there were a few things we wanted to add, Headlight projections on the road, an additional diffuse shadow under the car, and reflective wet roads.

We would have reduced the complexity of the assets in order to keep the GC version running at 60 rather than dropping the frame rate to 30fps, the XBox datasets were too large to fit in the GC's memory anyway. Probably we'd have used our 12000 poly LOD cars and scaled back the backgrounds to make them fit.
There was some question as to whether the GC could run the full physics model for all the cars, although vectorising the ground collision code would probably have addressed the CPU performance issues that were present in the quick port.

If your looking for a performance comparison, as I stated above there is a large performance disparity between the two graphics chips, I'd rather not start a flame war by putting hard numbers on it.
Again as I've mentioned here before, it's debatable how much of a visual difference that disparity will give you.

And here were the specs for the Xbox version of the game;

This info is from the Xbox version.

Cars were 25000 polys (highest LOD), 4 textures/poly.
Base texture
Reflection map
a texture used to compute a fresnel term
Shadow map
Specular highlight (This was encoded in the alpha channel of the reflection map)

Most of the backgrounds were 2 or in some cases 3 textures/poly
I've measured peak in game polygon counts as high as 30M/sec.