Xenon , Ps3 , Revolution ...

[Li Mu Bai]

but it came out over a year and a half later.

Which means spec. finalization probably occurred when? It was released first in JPN iirc, but yes I see the point you are trying to illustrate but the time disparity again is not quite as lengthy as the release date would suggest. Though I am in agreement regarding the N64, it should've been more advanced.

Compared to what MS offered with the Xbox, what Sony offered with the PS2 18 months earlier and what Sega offered with the DC 3 years earlier the GC is not really a powerful machine. It wasn't offering cutting edge performance for the console market, or compared to the PC market, in any way when it came out.

To be truthful, there isn't a huge gap within this generation at all. As I said earlier, Nintendo had to delay GC production for at least a year after their specs were already locked. And to be honest, the PS2 has benifitted greatly from being the market leader. It is no surprise that the console with the most competitive development environment gets delved into the most deeply.

Publishers focus their ambitious projects for that console, backing it with much larger budgets, more staff, art assets, and generally more resources overall. Games are often conceptualized and tuned more aptly for the machine. A developers' "A Team" staff are put on the job. A larger general sampling of developers, which in turn, means a larger number of talented developers, continue to raise the technical bar at a faster pace for what can be done with the machine. (-credit to Lazy8's for posting something very similar in an older thread of mine)

I don't feel that this was the case regarding the GC barring a very few select titles. Especially after seeing RE4 & the upcoming LOZ. Early optimization of the XBX's visuals with the DX8.1 API in place with dedicated pixel & vertex shaders was a basic no-brainer for devs. But please, the DC? I am more impressed with the GC's & PS2's architecture than I am with the basic off-the-shelf PC-lite's XBX. I am glad to see that the XBX 360 is differentiating itself as being a "true console" in my eyes.

Nintendo know how they make their money, and being "out there" with a peice of expensive, top the line hardware isn't how they do it. And I think that this generation it's started to hurt them (along with their much maligned "kiddy image" - which I prefer to think of as "everyone friendly") in terms of customer perception.

No, it's because Nintendo themselves didn't push the hw as they had traditionally in times past. Third party exclusive offerings & cross-platform software generally looked better than their 1st party counterparts. The GC is definitely more powerful than you're giving it credit for to be sure. The indirect texture unit (TEV) is definitely under utilized. Their publicly perceived "kiddy image" & declining 3rd party sales hurt them much more than their hw ever did. Causing M-rated titles & developers to abandon the console, many times prematurely, as in the case of LucasArts which was still selling a very good quantity of software on the platform. Appealing to the whole demographic requires massive support that Nintendo simply did not have.

Thus going by your assessment, Hollywood is destined to be the weakest of the three IYO correct? Is XBX 360 considered cutting edge? And for a console's architecture to be considered powerful, do you disregard efficiency? (which the PS2 is not) Basically any equation for power/thrust etc. must take formulaically into account the ratio of the power efficiently expended, console power is no different once real world degradation is introduced. I guess our views on what's impressive differs here.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Li, what you describe is EMBM, not dot3. if the TEV does not have a specal dot product op then you can't say it has dot3. yes, dot3 can be decomposed into multiple passes of add and mul (mainly) ops, but we are speaking of deliberate support for dot3 here.

Yes you were correct darkblu, thanks for the additional confirmation Faf. I got confused on the decomposition aspects rather than the dedicated hardcoded support. Time to edit, & thanks for the knowledge dark.

 

[Fox5]

What more could N64 have used to make it 'powerful enough'? I think most of the hardware was there, it just needed more memory.(and a cd drive too probably, but with the ram allocation the n64 had I think carts or a cd drive would have been a moot point, it couldn't have used hi res textures no matter the medium)

 

[function]

But please, the DC?

It was a hell of a lot more impressive than the GC for the time it came out, beating anything in the arcade, home, or any combination of PC hardware. GC never even got close to that. But it wasn't supposed to.

I am more impressed with the GC's & PS2's architecture than I am with the basic off-the-shelf PC-lite's XBX.

That's cool. I'm still impressed by the Neo Geo. Doesn't change the fact that in terms of what the GC can deliver to the end user, the "basic off-the-shelf PC-lite's XBX" is a great deal more capable than the GC.

I am glad to see that the XBX 360 is differentiating itself as being a "true console" in my eyes.

To be honest, I'm more interested in what they can do that where they come from.

The GC is definitely more powerful than you're giving it credit for to be sure.

With respect, I don't think you have any idea how much credit I give the GC for its power!

The indirect texture unit (TEV) is definitely under utilized.

It may appear that way, but there could be good reason for whatever features haven't been used, not being used. I'm personally disappointed no-one ever used normal mapping on the DC, but that's not based on any actual experience with the console.

Their publicly perceived "kiddy image" & declining 3rd party sales hurt them much more than their hw ever did.

Yeah, I'd agree. But the hardware (including it's appearance) hasn't helped IMO.

Thus going by your assessment, Hollywood is destined to be the weakest of the three IYO correct?

I don't believe in destiny. If Nintendo follows the same pattern as with its previous consoles, it'll be the least powerful consider the time of its appearance if not in absolute terms (though this doesn't mean "worst designed").

Is XBX 360 considered cutting edge?

Would you like it not to be?

And for a console's architecture to be considered powerful, do you disregard efficiency? (which the PS2 is not) Basically any equation for power/thrust etc. must take formulaically into account the ratio of the power efficiently expended, console power is no different once real world degradation is introduced. I guess our views on what's impressive differs here.

You judge power based on the work something can do. You may also find any number of other things like "efficiency" impressive (though I doubt many here are qualified to the various consoles on this merit) but don't confuse them with what a piece of hardware can do.

 

[function]

Nintendo pushed the "cutting edge" button with the N64 as much as MS did with the Xbox.

marketing something as the best thing and really "pushing the envelope" are two different things. It's obvious Function isn't refering to marketing.

Yeah, cheers, that's what I meant.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

You judge power based on the work something can do. You may also find any number of other things like "efficiency" impressive

function, there is a direct correlation between the two. Also I wanted your opinion on what you thought XBX 360 was, I know my own.

Doesn't change the fact that in terms of what the GC can deliver to the end user, the "basic off-the-shelf PC-lite's XBX" is a great deal more capable than the GC.

I don't remember arguing this, were you offended by the PC-lite comment? And the power gap is also not that wide.

but there could be good reason for whatever features haven't been used, not being used.

Yes, I think they're called budgets & time. (esp. with most technically proficient western devs not working on the platform) Capcom & F5 found acceptable trade-offs as far as the TEV's usage was concerned. Architecture familiarity could also play a significant part.

But the hardware (including it's appearance) hasn't helped IMO.

I agree with you on the appearance, & I've voiced my conflicting opinion regarding the hw.

I don't believe in destiny. If Nintendo follows the same pattern as with its previous consoles, it'll be the least powerful consider the time of its appearance if not in absolute terms (though this doesn't mean "worst designed").

Good to know that you're not mentally inflexible, many forrumites here know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the console will be the weakest among the 3 without seeing spec. one.

 

[function]

function, there is a direct correlation between the two. Also I wanted your opinion on what you thought XBX 360 was, I know my own.

You could have a dreadfully inefficient piece of hadrware that was still by far the most powerful. This wouldn't be good though, especially if you were taking a loss on making it. Xbox 360 looks like it will be "cutting edge", though perhaps not quite as much as PS3 when it arrives. It looks like with the CPU design MS have traded off some power for useability.

I don't remember arguing this, were you offended by the PC-lite comment? And the power gap is also not that wide.

Hell no I wasn't offended, the Xbox *is* more or less a "PC-lite"! Doesn't bother me in the slightest - hardware is there to enable the software to be made. The actual gap in power between GC and Xbox is debateable I guess, but given the figures released in the EA benchmark and those given out by some developers here on this board, I'd say the difference is "significant", and leave it at that.

Yes, I think they're called budgets & time ... Architecture familiarity could also play a significant part.

No doubt this has played a big part. I think sometimes though features get included on graphics chips despite them being too slow or resource consuming to actually use in real time game situations. I've read in the recent thread here about Dot3 on the GC GPU (for example) being quite slow. Couple this with needing extra memory to store the bump map over the base texture, and you have a cool feature which may just not be practical to use in most situations, regardless of familarity or budget.

Good to know that you're not mentally inflexible, many forrumites here know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the console will be the weakest among the 3 without seeing spec. one.

If Nintendo wanted to make a console that could go head to head with Xenon and PS3 (or perhaps even overtake them) in terms of what it could deliver, I'm sure they'd do a damn good job of it. I'm inclined to think they won't deem it important enough, but that they'll make more of an effort to stay close this time (and launch timeframes should help them here). We might not often get excited over 3rd party multiplatform games, but it hurts to get worse versions of them than your competitors.

 

[Fox5]

but given the figures released in the EA benchmark and those given out by some developers here on this board, I'd say the difference is "significant", and leave it at that.

I remember the figures released by EA Canada early in the gen that had the GameCube and Xbox as virtually equal.(I think a slight advantage to the gamecube, but I think it was only a texture and polygon pushing test and maybe lighting, I don't think complex pixel shaders or ai or any real game code were included in the tests)

 

[Qroach]

Those benchamrks released by EA put the game cube in 3rd in terms of polygon, skinning, and a few other catagories. Look up the benchmark PDF onlie and see for yourself.

 

[Fox5]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/088/088713p1.html
These?

 

[Ooh-videogames]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/088/088713p1.html
These?

I remember that, those numbers some what mirror what you see in RE4 and RS, its guess but its possible there pushing up to 17 million polygons per second.

 

[Qroach]

No, EA released benchmark numbers, comparing all the platforms to each other. Not only that, but Nintendo changed the speed of the gamecube development kits a few months after they were released. If I recall these figures listed on IGN came right out of the nintendo documentation for the gamecube.

 

[Fox5]

No, EA released benchmark numbers, comparing all the platforms to each other. Not only that, but Nintendo changed the speed of the gamecube development kits a few months after they were released. If I recall these figures listed on IGN came right out of the nintendo documentation for the gamecube.

The final specs had a 21% faster cpu, and a 20% decrease on the gpu.
However, the spec change could have increased the performance if the cpu was a limit and not the gpu.(most likely not the case, I'd imagine EA's initial tests were making full use of the fixed function t&l of the gpu plus the cpu, but it the gamecube may hold up better in real game scenarios with the fast cpu/slower gpu)

 

[Li Mu Bai]

I've read in the recent thread here about Dot3 on the GC GPU (for example) being quite slow. Couple this with needing extra memory to store the bump map over the base texture, and you have a cool feature which may just not be practical to use in most situations, regardless of familarity or budget.

Slow? I say RL & RS3 speak otherwise. (60fps primarily in RL, 60 with some drops to 30fps per second in RS3 while simultaneously doubling the geometry, increasing the polygon throughput, widescale bumpmaps, particle effects, a more robust lighting engine, per-pixel lighting in areas, water physics, self-shadowing, etc.) F5 are technically gifted to be sure & know the hw intimately, but are they the only studio that could manipulate the TEV in such a manner? No. It may be in some cases impractical to implement, but not enough studios have given the coding effort to be sure. (it may not have been deemed worth the time=money) As it would generally have to be built from the ground up on the GC's architecture it seems, instead of porting generic PS2 code.

Xbox 360 looks like it will be "cutting edge", though perhaps not quite as much as PS3 when it arrives. It looks like with the CPU design MS have traded off some power for useability.

Agreed.

I'm inclined to think they won't deem it important enough, but that they'll make more of an effort to stay close this time (and launch timeframes should help them here). We might not often get excited over 3rd party multiplatform games, but it hurts to get worse versions of them

I thought that you didn't believe in "fate." Are you referring to the PS2 in that last sentence? You would have to be. I leave you with something from Iwata:

Iwata once more reiterated that while cutting edge graphics and audio are to be expected, Nintendo hopes to deliver a new gaming dynamic that will enhance the way players enjoy its software.

 

[Megadrive1988]

I don't feel that this was the case regarding the GC barring a very few select titles. Especially after seeing RE4 & the upcoming LOZ. Early optimization of the XBX's visuals with the DX8.1 API in place with dedicated pixel & vertex shaders was a basic no-brainer for devs. But please, the DC? I am more impressed with the GC's & PS2's architecture than I am with the basic off-the-shelf PC-lite's XBX. I am glad to see that the XBX 360 is differentiating itself as being a "true console" in my eyes.

yeah, agreed.

 

[Megadrive1988]

I don't know, function. Nintendo seemed pretty intent on developing "cutting-edge hardware" with N64. Remember all the "Ultra 64" hype? The fancy alliance with SGI, and all the hype from those people? N64 was to deliver unprecedented power and visuals - at one time, I even remember someone saying this mini-SGI might be able to replicate the T-Rex in Jurassic Park.

the thing is, that many people fail to realize, is even the SGI workstations that rendered the Jurassic Park dinos offline could never, ever have handled it in realtime.

the truth is, the Nintendo 64 was like a very very watered down SGI Visualization System (Reality Engine) which cost ~$100,000 in its basic configuration. The N64 did in fact surpass the polygon capabilities of SGI's low-end $5000-$10,000 workstations of 1993-1995.

the basic Reality Engine was about 4 times as powerful as the N64 - making the N64 very impressive for 1995, less so for 1996 when it finally arrived.

even the then-next generation Infinite Reality graphics systems that came out in 1996, which had 10 times the performance of Reality Engine 2, could not have rendered Jurassic Park CGI in realtime. Only in recent years, with more modern hardware, could SGI systems reproduce Jurassic Park CGI in realtime--the SGI UltimateVision systems with 32 ATI graphic processors could probably do it.

 

[function]

No, EA released benchmark numbers, comparing all the platforms to each other.

Yep, that's the one I was referring to. In the EA benchmarks pdf the PS2 holds it's own against the GC, and the Xbox is more than twice as fast as either. This roughly correlates with comments from other 3rd party developers.

(regarding DOT3) Slow? I say RL & RS3 speak otherwise. (60fps primarily in RL, 60 with some drops to 30fps per second in RS3 while simultaneously doubling the geometry, increasing the polygon throughput, widescale bumpmaps, particle effects, a more robust lighting engine, per-pixel lighting in areas, water physics, self-shadowing, etc.) F5 are technically gifted to be sure & know the hw intimately, but are they the only studio that could manipulate the TEV in such a manner? No. It may be in some cases impractical to implement, but not enough studios have given the coding effort to be sure. (it may not have been deemed worth the time=money) As it would generally have to be built from the ground up on the GC's architecture it seems, instead of porting generic PS2 code.

Well, I have the word of actual developers who've worked on the system who say it is. It's easy to take a hyped up game along with the PR that comes out about it, add 2 and 2 together and get "18 MILLION POLYGONS AND BUMPMAPS no l1m1ts!". I'm reminded of the Saturn Shenmue video, which I though looked great for the Saturn, but legions of Sega fans took as definitive proof that the Saturn was far more powerful than the Playstion, only it never got proved because the game didn't come out, becuase everyone was lazy and unskilled compared to AM2, because this, because that ...

There's always a reason why "My Favourite System X" didn't get to prove how awesome it was in every game with features/performance that "Developer Y" implemented/attained in highly specific "Game Z".

]I'm inclined to think they won't deem it important enough, but that they'll make more of an effort to stay close this time (and launch timeframes should help them here). We might not often get excited over 3rd party multiplatform games, but it hurts to get worse versions of them.

I thought that you didn't believe in "fate." Are you referring to the PS2 in that last sentence? You would have to be.

That's not fate. I think there will be at least one more critical upate for Windows XP, for example. That's not believing in fate either. I think the sun is likely to come up tomorrow morning. That's also not believing in fate.

In terms of 3rd party games, I was talking about any platform that gets worse versions of third party games, since the Megadrive and SNES or Amiga and ST. And it includes Xbox and GC, among others.

I leave you with something from Iwata:

Iwata once more reiterated that while cutting edge graphics and audio are to be expected, Nintendo hopes to deliver a new gaming dynamic that will enhance the way players enjoy its software.

What a surprising thing for him to say!

 

[Fox5]

In the EA benchmarks pdf the PS2 holds it's own against the GC, and the Xbox is more than twice as fast as either. This roughly correlates with comments from other 3rd party developers.

This certainly evidences itself in EA's games for all 3 platforms, often GC even has the worst version graphically. It doesn't hold up well for platform specific titles, or multiplatform titles by other companies, in which case the GC and Xbox versions are usually about equal with the PS2 version behind, and the xbox version slightly ahead.(such as in Soul Calibur 2 and Timesplitters 2)

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Well, I have the word of actual developers who've worked on the system who say it is. It's easy to take a hyped up game along with the PR that comes out about it, add 2 and 2 together and get "18 MILLION POLYGONS AND BUMPMAPS no l1m1ts!". I'm reminded of the Saturn Shenmue video, which I though looked great for the Saturn, but legions of Sega fans took as definitive proof that the Saturn was far more powerful than the Playstion, only it never got proved because the game didn't come out, becuase everyone was lazy and unskilled compared to AM2, because this, because that ...

There's always a reason why "My Favourite System X" didn't get to prove how awesome it was in every game with features/performance that "Developer Y" implemented/attained in highly specific "Game Z".

And you believe that you are the only one with access to devs.? I have a few friends that are already, & some that have recently become programmers. As well as knowing some gaming journalists myself. RL, RS3, & a Saturn video of Shenmue are rather poor comparisons imo. Which software was demonstrating the full repertoire of hardcoded features the platform was said to support? Even the DC version of Shenmue would make one wonder about the supposed "huge power leap" claimed by the PS2 early on.

I'm not simply believing F5's PR, it's called playing the software & seeing these effects with my own eyes. Yes in multi-player the onscreen geometry doubled, bumpmapping was widespread on multiple surfaces & on-foot missions as well. Yes, there were more ties as they claimed even. The lighting engine was more complex, rain interacting with the water's physics, etc were all visible. This wasn't a fur-shading or blast processing scenario. What a luxury it is to comment on games we never experienced indepth. Oh, & all developers have the same amount of technical proficiency as well correct?

I'm not blindly defending my system of choice, but illustrating that the architecture supported features that were applicable in real world gaming scenarios. This is no X, Y, Z, software comparison. FF:CC even used bumpmapping albeit sparingly, I never claimed that other developers were by comparison lazy due to F5's efforts. They sought to allocate their resources regarding the TEV elsewhere. Like RE4 for instance, or F-Zero GX. Was it still under utilized imo? Yes. Especialy when self-shadowing comes automatically as a variant on all three methods of global lighting. This isn't theoretical talk like the documents stating that the PS2 would be able to do bumpmapping in 5 passes, or displacement maps even. We have tangible proof that it's possible, the GC does bumpmapping in 2 passes iirc.

This certainly evidences itself in EA's games for all 3 platforms, often GC even has the worst version graphically. It doesn't hold up well for platform specific titles, or multiplatform titles by other companies, in which case the GC and Xbox versions are usually about equal with the PS2 version behind, and the xbox version slightly ahead.(such as in Soul Calibur 2 and Timesplitters 2)

Fox, Fox! Read an IGN head-to-head comparison sometime regarding EA specific titles. (or if your eyes are adept enough play some EA titles comparatively side-by-side) Madden, LOTR series & the majority of EA titles simply look better upon the Cube. There are exceptions however, but this is generally the rule despite their early benchmarked numbers.

 

[Quaz51]

1T-SRAM embedded DRAM in revolution's GPU again?

http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/...d=REMOAJVGAN3SUQSNDBESKHA?articleID=159905383