Depends on the weaknesses/strengths.
Xbox was definietly the more powerful machine though
An original Xbox can do Doom 3 at 720p natively with extra RAM
- Thread starter mavox01
- Start date
Xbox was definietly the more powerful machine though
The PS3 was a console designed to be released around the same time as the 360 but delayed due to BR and silicon was sacrificed for other non gaming features that took cost of production over the roof.
PS3 was an interesting case.
Cheer you could be correct, I have no idea, I never actually seen a ps2 in use.
OK I found this, I think you're right, framerate looks much worse here, So I assume this is proper PS2?
It's a surprisingly good movie tie in game that's decent on every platform it released on. There's even a PSP version for it that... Looks like a PSP game. It's probably the worst port, but still OK for what it is. The thing about the PS2 version is that the framerate isn't all that stable, and the texture filtering is PS2 quality. There is a bunch of shimmering. The framerate is more stable on Xbox and the texture filtering is better. I don't know if any version has any exclusive effects or anything, but the Xbox version was the most playable in my experience. I also don't know if the demo is different than the retail release. I remember playing the demo for Timesplitters 2 on Xbox after I already owned the retail release on GC and noticed it missing some graphics. Can't remember exactly what, just remember giving my friend a hard time about his mighty Xbox being outdone by the Gamecube. Got the retail release later... The issue was resolved in shipping code, and the Xbox version of that looks better overall. So comparing the demos might not even be representative of what the machines did when the game came out.
The PS2 version via emulation gets a big face lift because the fur shells look better with the added resolution, and the textures don't look as bad with proper filtering.
King Kong was also a cross generation title, and the 360 version was one of the best looking early "next gen" titles. There were also 2 PC versions. One was a port of the PS2/XB/GC version of the game, and it was the retail version. There was one that was a port of the 360 version, and I think it was only available with graphics cards or via online retailers or something. I don't remember exactly but it was much harder to get at the time. It might have only shipped on DVD while the lesser port also shipped on CDs.
General IQ was a terrible problem for so many PS2 games. 480i.......bleh.
Still keep telling myself to build a PIII test machine to see what some non-Xbox released games would be like on the processor family. Just really surprised FEAR didn't get ported to the Xbox.
Still keep telling myself to build a PIII test machine to see what some non-Xbox released games would be like on the processor family. Just really surprised FEAR didn't get ported to the Xbox.
It was released on PC about a month before the Xbox 360 launched, and I think the 360 release was about a year after launch. I don't think there are any games that run on JupiterEX on original Xbox.
You're right on the money on the dates there. I beat FEAR on 360 first since I didn't have a PC that could play it at a good clip with the worthwhile graphical features.
Even with pixel doubling?
Pixel doubling sure helped, but when you effectively have to go below 480p for worthwhile performance (while still keeping at least the shadows).......it was time to give up. This was a laptop mind you, so no way to upgrade the graphics since it wasn't MXM (Mobility Radeon X600). At least it was my first machine with dedicated graphics.
I remember I had like 4 computer generations (as in, new builds a year or more apart) and every time I would test them with fear to see if I could get soft shadows working at a decent framerate.
My first desktop build was with an 8800 GTS 320 MB. Maxed out FEAR @1440x900 was magnifique! Gaming on laptops was interesting in the mid 2000s timeframe though. I didn't have a full grasp of what was a good GPU or not and how bad the hypermemory/turbocache schemes really were compared to actual full dedicated VRAM pools.
laymanpigeon
Newcomer
Xbox could have had been even more powerful, but pure politics did their thing.
www.techspot.com
If it weren't for politics between CEO's, Xbox would have rocked 1GHz Athlon.
Then Half Life 2 would have performed better, especially when ragdoll physics.
Another is that Microsoft could have taken cues from Nintendo 64 as too PCs.
They could have implemented an expansion slot on side of Xbox for RAM.
Could have been optional upgrade from launch at consumers choice.
Developers could have at very least use such to reduce load times.
Such as preloading assets for next level when player reaches.
Or for games no loading at all after player gets killed.
Because some data may not be in main RAM.
Due to backtracking, depending on game.
Xbox creator apologizes to AMD over last-minute switch to Intel CPUs 20 years ago
Microsoft launched the original Xbox on November 15, 2001. While we're still one month away from the 20th anniversary, Seamus Blackley is using the occasion to apologize...
www.techspot.com
Then Half Life 2 would have performed better, especially when ragdoll physics.
Another is that Microsoft could have taken cues from Nintendo 64 as too PCs.
They could have implemented an expansion slot on side of Xbox for RAM.
Could have been optional upgrade from launch at consumers choice.
Developers could have at very least use such to reduce load times.
Such as preloading assets for next level when player reaches.
Or for games no loading at all after player gets killed.
Because some data may not be in main RAM.
Due to backtracking, depending on game.
It didnt have to be more powerfull…. It was far enough ahead though it would have been faster with a 1ghz thunderbird.
Expension ram slots wasnt a need either i think. The console could use 1gb from the hdd as ’scratchpad’ for games which was unseen for consoles at the time.
The console did Doom 3, HL2, far cry pretty well. Quite a powerfull box at the time.
Expension ram slots wasnt a need either i think. The console could use 1gb from the hdd as ’scratchpad’ for games which was unseen for consoles at the time.
The console did Doom 3, HL2, far cry pretty well. Quite a powerfull box at the time.
laymanpigeon
Newcomer
AMD reached 1GHz with Classic Athlon as its top of the line model in early 2000 and Thunderbird came several months after when that went beyond that.
By the time Xbox was released there was Athlon XP with lowest model being at 1.3GHz and just before launch of Xbox there was one at 1.6GHz.
At best HDD in Xbox could perhaps have bandwidth of 20~30MBps and that is not good enough nor reliable enough for games.
By the time Xbox was released there was Athlon XP with lowest model being at 1.3GHz and just before launch of Xbox there was one at 1.6GHz.
At best HDD in Xbox could perhaps have bandwidth of 20~30MBps and that is not good enough nor reliable enough for games.
Or any PS2 game that used the GS's large bandwidth & fill rate. Black on OG Xbox had frame dips if there was too much dust around the player.Tell that to MGS2
How old is the post you're quoting, cant seem to find it. MGS2 wasn't a great port, even on pc it ran bad. Xbox probably could have done it (much) better then what it was. PS2 had its advantages and some of it probably couldnt be one to one replicated on the xbox, but Black wasnt one of them, it runs as smooth if not smoother than the PS2 version, all the while looking somewhat better. Just hunt for reviews or test it yourself.
You've been repeating this on this whole thread ignoring being told 3 times that PC/Xbox are bandwidth & Fill rate limited. It pure trolling to think if they were made on PC/Xbox instead of ported they've had the same lighting & effects, Also claim that Burnout dev's are invalid on them liking the PS2 hardware over Xbox/Gamecube. Go look at Black PS2 vs Xbox face offs the Xbox version frame dips when there too many particles on screen.
Is there an actual framerate test though? Some pretty crazy cherry picking going on considering the droves of games that got fps AND resolution bumps from ps2 to xbox.
And speaking of devs, there was a certain multiplatform dev here that stated no matter what custom work you did for ps2/gc, the xbox would run it better if time was spent. But that was the issue, most xbox ports were just dirty ports with resolution bumps because of time constraints.
Xbox was very far ahead the PS2 in almost every technical aspect except the edram framebuffer effects (which the PS2 dearly needed anyway). Xbox released later, in a time when technology moved extremely fast. Its not really surprising.
Similar threads
