Zurich-
It'll be interesting to see how KOTOR turns out, since I'm pretty sure its using the Aurora engine as well. Hopefully it won't suffer the same CPU-bound fate as UC.
KoTOR has been my most anticipated XB title for some time, I
really hope it runs smooth.
Phil-
With all respect, this arguement about GF1 vs PS2 is pretty moot, as there aren't any games (to my knowledge) that really make use of the hardware as it would be capable of. In about 2 years from now, we'll all know better of how much PS2 is capable of.
While the PS2 has a couple of hundred titles built around what it is capable of already, I have to date seen one developer state that they built a game around what is possible with the GeForce architecture. You think the PS2 ports aren't optimized for it properly which is fair, although the same can be said about pretty much any PC game. UT was Glide native, one of the games that runs significantly faster on the GF2MX then it does on the PS2.
I do find it funny though when we look at Xbox (which, by your arguement) should be a considerably better seeing that it is also a fixed platform - yet the real-world differences reflect by now way what you are argueing here.
DOA3 still easily kills anything on the PS2 in terms of graphics.
BTW: Since you haven't played Baldurs Gate, I can only recommend it, as it really is one of the best PS2 games out graphically.
And merely above average when perfectly ported to the XBox
If I decide to pick the game, it will certainly be on the XBox. I've seen the game running, guess I must have missed seeing the impressive parts(not being sarcastic here, every game has average looking areas).
Zidane-
Well i dunno about that the ps2's EE been taped up to 70%+, and the xbox GPU resources being more easy to tap and all should be at least on par... heck xgpu's resources might even be in use more effectively than the EEs considering the difference in dev. difficulty...
Thirty months, twelve months. Compare DOA3 or SC to the best PS2 offerings. I didn't say the PS2 was competitive with the XBox, but the GameCube is currently which won't be the case when devs start actually utilizing some of the shader effects possible with the hardware.
Nice... so even the Gf2PRO can't even push more than 2M polys per second... just what i expected... let's not talk about Gf1...
You do realize that there are things that limit games performance besides ply throughput, don't you? UnrealTournament on the PS2 has about half the polys of Quake3 and runs 30FPS, so does that mean the PS2 can handle less then 300K polys per second? Most games aren't transform limited, particularly not on the PC(at least, not with T&L equipped boards).
V3-
Q3 ? The performance you get, largely depend on the map you played, also Q3 fluctuates quite abit, depending the number of bots or players on screen.
At
640x480????? What are you running, a P2 400 with a Voodoo2? The only way I can get a reasonable FPS drop running 640x480 under Quake3 is doing the stare at the wall and emptying a machine gun trick. I normally run the game @1600x1200 all settings maxed, TC off.
Marco-
Real life perfomace that I've experienced, aside, that makes me even more suspicious about those benchmarks :\
It shouldn't. Faf has brought up a couple of times a factor that most others seem to be ignoring, the GF2MX has the advantage of a significantly faster processor then the consoles(at least, for the numbers I'm talking about). My point in using a stacked example is quite simple, I'm talking about what the
chip is capable of, ideally we could see numbers with a THZ processor to see where the chips limits lie. Running 640x480 for resolution almost every game is CPU limited on PCs using a GF2MX. Right now people are using 1600x1200 w/32 tap anisotropic and 4x AA with current level hardware, the GF2MX would be a joke at those settings, but consoles don't run those setting either
Chap-
For a start, a GF1 with 2Ghz and 512mb would perform a tad faster than one with 1Ghz and 256mb. But then PC elitists would cry foul over the winOS overhead costs and all.
I'm talking about the chips capabilities, not the overall PC platform. If the rest of the system is too weak to handle a game, how is that the fault of the GF?
Then we have the choice of ported games. I wouldnt be surprise if MGS2 PC causes the GF1 to choke with all the particle and motion blurring effects, even at 640x480.
Tell me a game with a bench included besides those I listed. GTA3 doesn't have an included bench AFAIK unfortunately. It runs a
lot better on the PC then it does on the PS2.
Then we have the choice of ported games. I wouldnt be surprise if MGS2 PC causes the GF1 to choke with all the particle and motion blurring effects, even at 640x480.
When is it supposed to be out?
We could use games of similar genre, but i have yet to see a GF1 game that looks as good and run as fast as BGDA or GT3, then again PC seems to always have an advantage with FPS games, even over the Xbox.
For GT3- NFS:HP2, BGDA I haven't seen in motion enough to offer a comparable title on the PC.
IMHO, the only "fair" comparsion, is those who have first hand experience on both hardware.
Not that easy. nV hides most of the inner workings of their chips, and PC developers don't code 'to the metal'. I'm trying to compare every game that I'm aware of that is on both platforms, in the end that is what really matters isn't it? Not which particular ports there are, but how well the games run on their respective hardware.
Faf-
Yeah, that was my beef with it too. Actually the hw was real weird, there were D3D apps where it ran comparable to a V2, and then there were others where a V1 would run circles around it.
The wonderful ATi driver tuning(only for a select few apps which were used in comparison test unfortunately). Really like the 'Turbo' drivers with their single buffering
It overclocked like a dream though, I pushed mine from 50 to 90 without a hitch. Too bad it did squat for performance though
Did it actually overclock? I never thought it actually worked.
