An original Xbox can do Doom 3 at 720p natively with extra RAM

[Deleted member 11852]

Xbox released later, in a time when technology moved extremely fast. Its not really surprising.

20 Months separated the launch of PS2 (March 2000) and Xbox (November 2021) and was indeed a much higher pace for technology to advance back then.

A quick look at Nvidia's Geforce release schedule at the time puts it into perspective: Geforce 2 (June 2000), Geforce 3 (February 2001), Geforce 4 (February 2002), Geforce FX (March 2003).

 

[PSman1700]

20 Months separated the launch of PS2 (March 2000) and Xbox (November 2021) and was indeed a much higher pace for technology to advance back then.

A quick look at Nvidia's Geforce release schedule at the time puts it into perspective: Geforce 2 (June 2000), Geforce 3 (February 2001), Geforce 4 (February 2002), Geforce FX (March 2003).

Almost. PS2's worldwide release happened october 2000, march was for the Japan launch. Effectively were talking about a 12 month difference for practically the whole world with the Xbox. Technology was moving at a very fast pace back then, though that wasnt the only factor. Sony designed their own hardware while MS just picked what was available to them, in time for the Xbox release window then. Which is less time-intensive i assume.
Geforce 2 GTS (either 32 or 64mb) released April 2000.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Almost. PS2's worldwide release happened october 2000, march was for the Japan launch.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? The PS2 became publicly available in March 2000, the hardware wasn't going to change for subsequent regional launches. The PS2 hardware had to be finalised in time for its March 2000 launch. The Xbox hardware had to be finalised for its November 2001 - that was 20 months apart.

 

[PSman1700]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? The PS2 became publicly available in March 2000, the hardware wasn't going to change for subsequent regional launches. The PS2 hardware had to be finalised in time for its March 2000 launch. The Xbox hardware had to be finalised for its November 2001 - that was 20 months apart.

Publically available to only Japan in march 2000, rest of the world october 2000 (including EU and the US). You're right on when the PS2/Xbox hardware designs had to be finalised though.

 

[Mobius1aic]

Xbox could have had been even more powerful, but pure politics did their thing.

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

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.

That was really among the worst of the Intel-shadiness years. Might as well have scratched out Intel and wrote "Lockheed" but we see who is experiencing a slow and agonizing death these days unless they pivot hard.

From what I remember, the Xbox was supposed to have a 600 MHz model of some sort. I presume an Athlon, but I thought I remember seeing something about the K6-2. That was probably just for developmental prototypes?

 

[jackal256]

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.

it was a locked 60fps on the PS2?. Are you still being dense about the fact the Xbox only has 6.4GB/s which 50% was for the CPU/Non gaming tasks. Try port Zone of the elders 2 to the Xbox see how It will cope, Before you and PSman1700 say the PS3 port used a massive hack to work because It 22.4GB/s bandwidth was only 8GB/sec in reality.

Also since this thread full of sore Xbox fanboy's who are now dissing Burnout Dev's, Here why they PS2 hardware was liked so much - :

- The EE had 6.2Gflops which allowed both spill over for car damage without hurting Ai, The Xbox is screen tear central on Traffic attack.

- The GS wins for fill rate & bandwidth which Burnout revenge uses to the max for lighting/particles. On the Xbox port it was cut out making look like PCSX2 at 480p with 2xAA. lol

- The GS could still do 90% of what the NV2A could do in Revenge, The cars look more stable when blown up by a crash breaker. Polygon model breaking more common on the Xbox versions cause they could spill to the CPU like on the PS2.

Also are you a alt or just cut/paste someones comment as if I care about your fanboyism?.

 

[jackal256]

20 Months separated the launch of PS2 (March 2000) and Xbox (November 2021) and was indeed a much higher pace for technology to advance back then.

A quick look at Nvidia's Geforce release schedule at the time puts it into perspective: Geforce 2 (June 2000), Geforce 3 (February 2001), Geforce 4 (February 2002), Geforce FX (March 2003).

Yet the PS2 hardware still hold It own despite being 1999 tech. There are so many 1st party games that do stuff that PC/Xbox wish they could. Quite a few Xbox games were 30fps even there proto-Forza while GT4 was 480p60?. Hell Devil may cry 3 look's like 480i PS3 game just from high polygon numbers.

Pretty sure if Naughty dog was did there games on Xbox, The 6GB/sec bandwidth would've had workaround that. The only true issue with the PS2 was sony sticking with 4MB EDRAM instead of 8 ~ 12MB.

 

[PSman1700]

Its 2002 again in the system wars section of GS lol.

 

[davis.anthony]

The only true issue with the PS2 was sony sticking with 4MB EDRAM instead of 8 ~ 12MB.

That wasn't really a problem as running games on the emulators have shown, PS2's problem was it's dirty video output.

Using GS Mode Selector to adjust the output resolution on a PS2 game can have a massive impact on the quality.

MGS2 forced to output 1080i (Not rendered at 1080i) looks so much cleaner than the 480i output even though rendering resolution is the same.

 

[function]

Are you still being dense about the fact the Xbox only has 6.4GB/s which 50% was for the CPU/Non gaming tasks.

lol no it wasn't.

 

[PSman1700]

it was a locked 60fps on the PS2?. Are you still being dense about the fact the Xbox only has 6.4GB/s which 50% was for the CPU/Non gaming tasks. Try port Zone of the elders 2 to the Xbox see how It will cope, Before you and PSman1700 say the PS3 port used a massive hack to work because It 22.4GB/s bandwidth was only 8GB/sec in reality.

Also since this thread full of sore Xbox fanboy's who are now dissing Burnout Dev's, Here why they PS2 hardware was liked so much - :

- The EE had 6.2Gflops which allowed both spill over for car damage without hurting Ai, The Xbox is screen tear central on Traffic attack.

- The GS wins for fill rate & bandwidth which Burnout revenge uses to the max for lighting/particles. On the Xbox port it was cut out making look like PCSX2 at 480p with 2xAA. lol

- The GS could still do 90% of what the NV2A could do in Revenge, The cars look more stable when blown up by a crash breaker. Polygon model breaking more common on the Xbox versions cause they could spill to the CPU like on the PS2.

Also are you a alt or just cut/paste someones comment as if I care about your fanboyism?.

Xbox stomped all over the PS2 for good reasons. Its no rocket science.

 

[Nesh]

Xbox stomped all over the PS2 for good reasons. Its no rocket science.

But still held up well for something released in 2000

 

[PSman1700]

But still held up well for something released in 2000

It did. So did other platforms released during that time era.

 

[Nesh]

It did. So did other platforms released during that time era.

I am not convinced that PCs of the same time frame managed just as well, but each his own.

 

[swaaye]

That's because things were changing incredibly fast back then. It went from a mish mash of fixed function GPUs (some of which were just broken) to highly programmable floating point GPUs in 2-3 years. Then you had the software ecosystem which is a mix of super advanced optimized games but also homebrew stuff. You can go load up something like Doom3 and see a GeForce 256 completely utilized and get many of the same effects as if you were running it on a Radeon 9700. Or you can play Counterstrike on it which looks 1998 and run it 200 fps because you need that to jump around competitively or whatever.

 

[Nesh]

And Then we had examples where Silent Hill 3's (2003) minimum System requirements were:

CPU:1 GHz Pentium III or AMD Athlon
RAM:256MB RAM
GPU:GeForce 3Ti/Radeon8500 (VRAM32MB)

And Silent Hill 2 wasn't running properly on PC and XBOX due to the way the PS2 handled sound, huge amounts of transparencies/particles and shadows.
Not sure if the same applied to Silent Hill 3 on PC.

GT4 was competing effortlessly the best racers out there on XBOX and PC while running at 60fps.
Nobody is denying that you could build a very powerful PC that could overall outcompete the PS2. But there was no way we could get a PS2 at $299 launch price with such a performance and capabilities that could produce the visuals it did until its end, if it went with any other solution.

 

[PSman1700]

And Then we had examples where Silent Hill 3's (2003) minimum System requirements were:

CPU:1 GHz Pentium III or AMD Athlon
RAM:256MB RAM
GPU:GeForce 3Ti/Radeon8500 (VRAM32MB)

And Silent Hill 2 wasn't running properly on PC and XBOX due to the way the PS2 handled sound, huge amounts of transparencies/particles and shadows.
Not sure if the same applied to Silent Hill 3 on PC.

Thats ports. How did the PS2 handle Chaos Theory?

GT4 was competing effortlessly the best racers out there on XBOX and PC while running at 60fps.

Wrong. Rally Sport Challenge 2 was doing 60fps while looking better at it. Xbox exclusive, there wasnt even a PC version.

Nobody is denying that you could build a very powerful PC that could overall outcompete the PS2.

Indeed, im saying you could actually outclass it by the mid 2000's.

But there was no way we could get a PS2 at $299 launch price with such a performance and capabilities that could produce the visuals it did until its end, if it went with any other solution.

Probably true yes. If Sony could source a GF2 Ultra/GTS, teamed to 64mb ram, a hdd and a P3 or AMD t-bird, it probably could have produced abit less of 'PS2 graphics' although with some less special effects, but even that is up to debate.
MS got their hands on a GF4 product almost half a year before release.... Sony couldve had a early GF3 perhaps. All in hindsight, but if were in fantasy land anyway.

 

[Nesh]

Thats ports. How did the PS2 handle Chaos Theory?

Pretty great for such an old hardware running a PC/XBOX optimised game on significantly more powerful hardware with new feature sets.

Wrong. Rally Sport Challenge 2 was doing 60fps while looking better at it. Xbox exclusive, there wasnt even a PC version.

Well on a significantly more powerful hardware and still GT4 was competing it effortlessly. edit: Just checked it to remember. Bleh. GT4 looks better

Indeed, im saying you could actually outclass it by the mid 2000's.

Subjective.

Probably true yes. If Sony could source a GF2 Ultra/GTS, teamed to 64mb ram, a hdd and a P3 or AMD t-bird, it probably could have produced abit less of 'PS2 graphics' although with some less special effects, but even that is up to debate.
MS got their hands on a GF4 product almost half a year before release.... Sony couldve had a early GF3 perhaps. All in hindsight, but if were in fantasy land anyway.

XBOX GPU was a variant of a GF3 not of a GF4. And MS's choice of hardware was eating profits like a bulimic.
Sony could have never have an early GF3 when the hardware was in development and finalized much earlier. And considering how bad the deal was for MS to go with NVIDIA, it sounds even much crazier for Sony to go the same route to develop the PS2 a lot lot earlier with NVIDIA.

 

[PSman1700]

Pretty great for such an old hardware running a PC/XBOX optimised game on significantly more powerful hardware with new feature sets.

And thats the thing with these ports. SH2 and MGS2 did quite well on the Xbox. Wrecked/Chaos Theory for example didnt really look like the same game on the PS2. The best measure would be multiplatform games, and these almost always ran better on the Xbox, with often the PS2 being the lead platform (developer ERP witnessed this on this forum).

Well on a significantly more powerful hardware and still GT4 was competing it effortlessly.

The PS2 for sure was holding its own looking at its hardware, alot had to do with studios pushing everything they could out of the hardware. The PS2's architecture allowed for some effects not seen on other platforms, however thats not the whole picture.

Subjective.

Thats with every discussion. The PS2 was capable for its time, even looking at a late 2000 launch window (when i got mine). It did things my PC couldnt, but alot also alot of things the PS2 couldnt that the pc could. For a 299 console though, yeah, it was a killer value in special with regards to the extreme amount of exclusives it got, its the most impressive library of any console to date and will remain that forever probably. We had not one GoW no two. GT3 and 4, three GTAs timed exclusive, MGS2 and 3, ratched and clank..... three versions?`Then there was things like Okami, SotC, jak & daxter, the Sly series, SOCOM games.... one could go on forever.
Ghost Hunter (late ps2 game) probably put the system through its paces the most.

The hardware was a success, it would have been with a different architecture too. Devs and studios would have found their ways around the hw in a console as popular as the PS2. So no, in hindsight i wouldnt think Sony should have done things differently since the ps2 turned out the most successfull console for them or anyone. Its not so much about the HW, its about the games and developers to it.

XBOX GPU was a variant of a GF3 not of a GF4. And MS's choice of hardware was eating profits like a bulimic.
Sony could have never have an early GF3 when the hardware was in development and finalized much earlier. And considering how bad the deal was for MS to go with NVIDIA, it sounds even much crazier for Sony to go the same route to develop the PS2 a lot lot earlier with NVIDIA.

Right, its called NV2A, it could be a variant of the GF3, but at the same time its quite close to a GF4 due to the added vertex shader and other GF4 and even GF5 features.
On that last, GF3 was probably abit of a risk to take for Sony. GF3's where supposedly ready/in stock during late 2000 but since there was still GF2's in stock NV decided to delay the new chip. Some sort of variant of GF3 could have been possible for a late 2000 release perhaps, negating the Japan march release (good thing that doesnt happen anymore lol).

 

[PSman1700]

Ive done ALOT of platform comparisons during that era and later (6th gen). Ghosthunter truly makes use of the PS2 hw. Particulary the casting of shadows from light sources (for the platform)