Official Xbox Specs @ Tom's

[DerekBaker]

So, about these 48-way shader pipelines....anyone know how many "ways" the X800 and 6800 series have in their pipes? And...just how many pipes does this GPU have? I didnt notice any specs on it.

The X800 and 6800 have 16 pixel pipelines and 6 vertex pipelines each. I'm most familiar with the X800, because I have one. Each of its vertex pipes has one ALU, while each pixel pipe has two, though one of these is less powerful.

The XBox 360 GPU doesn't have pipes, it uses individual ALUs.

 

[Nightz]

In a lot of ways they seem to be pretty close - certainly going by EAs benchmarking and some developer comments I consider worth taking note of (lack of ram appears to have been a particular issue for multiplatform games). The GC was never really meant to stand out ahead of the PS2 though, unlike the Xbox.

Developers never put much heart in their GC programming. All 3rd Party GC (exc RE4) games look and are technically worse than Roque Leader which was a launch game. So i wouldnt take their views too seriously.

 

[Acert93]

But the GCN did ok on some games that were on all three platforms. e.g. Madden looks a step up from the PS2 imo (and in the opinion of some of the mag sites).

I think all three systems had strengths and weaknesses that could be glossed over or emphasized depending on game design. THat is why ports are so hard to compare. RE4 on the PS2 may not look as nice, not because of the PS2, but because the game engine and art were designed to emphasize the strengths of the GNC which are not the same as the PS2.

 

[Jawed]

Can I ask how this is derived? I'm just looking at MS's claim of 48bn shader ops per sec, but ATi claims 43bn shader ops per sec with the X850 PE (and there's talk of the R520 being north of 100bn). Are these calculated differently? I can see where the R500's is - 2 ops per ALU per cycle x 500mhz = 48bn, but where does the X850 number come from? Are they comparable figures?

http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx850/index.html

With up to 16 parallel pixel pipelines and up to 43 billion shader operations per second...

X850 has 5 ALUs per pixel pipeline. 540x5x16=43.2 billion ops per second.

If you add in the vertex shader pipelines you get an extra 6.5 billion ops per second, total 50 billion ops per second. But the quote above is referring solely to pixel pipelines.

I haven't a clue how R500 achieves 48 billion ops per second, counting ops in the same way as ATI counts ops in R420.

Jawed

 

[nAo]

SOMEONE SHOULD STOP THIS SHADER OPS PER SECOND MADNESS!!! PLEASSEEEEEEE

shader ops is a marketing term way worse than polygons per second, you guys should count floating point ops per second, just leave it at that, PLEASE

Example:
GPU A has 16 pipelines, each pipeline is capable of 2 shader ops per clock cycle = 32 shader ops per clock cycle
GPU B has 16 pipelines, each pipeline is capable of 1 shader ops per clock cycle = 16 shader ops per clock cycle
Which is the most powerful GPU? the first one, right? NO!
Cause GPU A shader ops are 2 scalar fmadd = 2*2*16 = 64 fp ops per clock cycle, while GPU B shader ops are 1 vec4 fmadd = 8*16 = 128 ops per clock,
GPU B is twice as fast as GPU A even if it has half of GPU A shader ops count per clock cycle

X360 GPU is quoted as 2 shader ops per ALU, one is a vec4 fmadd, the other one is a scalar fmadd, thus this 2 shader ops are completely different things!
Be aware guys

 

[Jawed]

Like I said, I haven't a clue: ATI isn't counting shader ops in R500 and R420 in the same way.

Jawed

 

[version]

xbox VS xbox360:

http://www.itmedia.co.jp/games/articles/0505/13/news012_2.html

 

[Fox5]

Two interesting things: the VS/PS shaders ARE unified and the CPU heatsink is water cooled! Heh the heatsink is the most interesting part of the system =]

I believe early dreamcast's were water cooled, as are Apple's G5 computers.

The Dreamcast wasn't underpowered (at least, no more so than the PS2 and Xbox) and Xenon sure as hell isn't. Sony may come out with a more powerful device (as you would expect from a later entrant) but I can't see it kicking a device this fast "in the balls" and I doubt Nintendo have any intention to even try.

The dreamcast was underpowered compared to the systems released years later, just as xbox 360 may be. Xbox and gamecube were roughly 4x as powerful as dreamcast, and probably even more than that in some situations.(I'm not sure if you could directly compare the ps2's total system power to dreamcast, xbox, or gamecube though, it's hardware and strengths were just so different)

Nintendo might have a year to "beef up specs" but that doesn't mean they'll use it for that. Look at their history.

If its "revolutionary" features cost too much, Nintendo may release a console a year later that is roughly as powerful as xbox 360, but smaller and with more features.

So GC wasn't more powerful then PS2 in your opinion?...

IMO, gamecube probably could have launched 6 months after ps2, instead of a whole year.

The EA benchmarks were anything but vague - infact they were highy specific and given for several different tests. Anyway, what evidence are you going on? The fact you really like Nintendo and the GC? Now that would be silly.

Wasn't the focus of gamecube that it was weak, but took a lesser hit for enabling multiple features than other consoles did?(but the lack of memory probably screwed things up quite a bit, that and didn't the TEV need to be programmed for in something like hand-coded assembly in order to come anywhere near its potential?)

 

[jvd]

The dreamcast was underpowered compared to the systems released years later, just as xbox 360 may be. Xbox and gamecube were roughly 4x as powerful as dreamcast, and probably even more than that in some situations.(I'm not sure if you could directly compare the ps2's total system power to dreamcast, xbox, or gamecube though, it's hardware and strengths were just so different)

The dcreamcast was released in 1998 the xbox was released in 2000 .

The xbox360 will be released in 2005. The ps3 / rev will be released in 2006 with the ps3 early 2006 in japan .

The dreamcast also cost around 200$ at launch and the xbox cost almost 450$ at launch . The cube cost just north of 200$ too but once again 2 years later

 

[Fox5]

The dreamcast was underpowered compared to the systems released years later, just as xbox 360 may be. Xbox and gamecube were roughly 4x as powerful as dreamcast, and probably even more than that in some situations.(I'm not sure if you could directly compare the ps2's total system power to dreamcast, xbox, or gamecube though, it's hardware and strengths were just so different)

The dcreamcast was released in 1998 the xbox was released in 2000 .

The xbox360 will be released in 2005. The ps3 / rev will be released in 2006 with the ps3 early 2006 in japan .

The dreamcast also cost around 200$ at launch and the xbox cost almost 450$ at launch . The cube cost just north of 200$ too but once again 2 years later

You mean PS2 was released in 2000, not the xbox, right?
And the xbox was sold at $300, was it ever said how much microsoft was losing on it? And are we just counting hardware costs, or are we including shipping and advertisement? I remember an early figure for the initial PS2 launch put the cost at about $450 per PS2 because of shipping costs.

Hmm, when was it ever said how much the dreamcast cost? I do believe I remember hearing the Gamecube was around $220-$230 at launch, but I don't know if that's just hardware costs or what.

 

[jvd]

You mean PS2 was released in 2000, not the xbox, right?

I thought the ps2 launched in 1999 for the holidays in japan ? was it 2000 ? Heh damn my memory. SO i guess the ps2 launched 2 years later and the xbox 3 years later with the cube .

Which makes it more impressive .

And the xbox was sold at $300, was it ever said how much microsoft was losing on it? And are we just counting hardware costs, or are we including shipping and advertisement? I remember an early figure for the initial PS2 launch put the cost at about $450 per PS2 because of shipping costs.

hardware , shipping , box art , controller packed in .

That crud. That is the numbers i remember hearing about . Even 300$ 3 years later than a 200$ console shows how impressive the dc was

Hmm, when was it ever said how much the dreamcast cost? I do believe I remember hearing the Gamecube was around $220-$230 at launch, but I don't know if that's just hardware costs or what.

it was allways said that they were taking small losses on the system so most likely around 200-250ish

 

[Fox5]

Well, Dreamcast launched in Fall of 1999 in America, I'm not sure if Ps2 launched in time for Winter in Japan, but I seem to remember an early to mid 2000 Japan release for PS2, and a late 2000 release in America.

Well, DC was released 2 years after n64, and was maybe 10x more powerful.(depending on how you want to compare, it could be a bit less than that or way more than that)
Xbox and Gamecube are around 3x-4x more powerful than DC and were released 3 years later, and once again those numbers could be a bit higher or lower depending on how you want to compare. I think it was once stated that Naomi 2 could vastly outperform xbox in some things, so in that case dreamcast would probably compare very well. On the other hand, in every situation I've seen, xbox easily outperforms naomi 2.

 

[jvd]

Well, Dreamcast launched in Fall of 1999 in America, I'm not sure if Ps2 launched in time for Winter in Japan, but I seem to remember an early to mid 2000 Japan release for PS2, and a late 2000 release in America.

ewll the dc launched in japan in 1998 and that is the date the matters . Ps2 was either late 1999 or early 2000 in japan. Mabye it did a japan march launch ? Would put it at a little over a year to two years .

so it took xbox 3 years and more money to triple the power of the dc . But people are predicting the ps3 to be 2-4 times faster than the x360 in a 6 month time frame ?

That doesn't make to much sense to me .

 

[Nightz]

Wasn't the focus of gamecube that it was weak, but took a lesser hit for enabling multiple features than other consoles did?(but the lack of memory probably screwed things up quite a bit, that and didn't the TEV need to be programmed for in something like hand-coded assembly in order to come anywhere near its potential?)

I thought I read somewhere that Nintendo only allows high level coding on the hardware. Some UK developer around the time of launch.

 

[one]

Ps2 was either late 1999 or early 2000 in japan.

It launched in March 2000 in Japan.

 

[jvd]

Ps2 was either late 1999 or early 2000 in japan.

It launched in March 2000 in Japan.

thanks , i guess thats why i keep saying the ps3 in march of 2006 got it from some where haha

 

[archie4oz]

Just to be precise...

Japanese DC Launch: November 27, 1998
US DC Launch: September 9, 1999
Japanese PS2 Launch: March 4, 2000
US PS2 Launch: October 26, 2000
Japanese GCN Launch: September 14, 2001
US GCN Launch: November 18, 2001
Japanese Xbox Launch: February 22, 2002
US Xbox Launch: November 15, 2001

 

[Fox5]

Wasn't the focus of gamecube that it was weak, but took a lesser hit for enabling multiple features than other consoles did?(but the lack of memory probably screwed things up quite a bit, that and didn't the TEV need to be programmed for in something like hand-coded assembly in order to come anywhere near its potential?)

I thought I read somewhere that Nintendo only allows high level coding on the hardware. Some UK developer around the time of launch.

I think 3rd parties were only allowed high level coding, while devs closer to nintendo(like factor 5) were allowed low level.
I believe Sonic Team complained about not being allowed to do low level coding on gamecube.(in that case, kind of impressive that the sonic adventure 2 port which was 'coded to the metal' of the dc was done perfectly and easily with high level only on gamecube)

 

[3dcgi]

So the EDRAM is a Enhanced DRAM module like some have predicted.

I'm not sure why some are concerned about this technicality. It's embedded dram. Custom logic with memory embedded in the same chip. I don't know where one draws the line between the two names, but most people think of this as embedded dram.