Specs explained
Devin
since the Gamecube's cpu is based on the Power PC made by apple (strangley
the cpu is made by IBM) the cube has a HUGE advantage. When was the last
time you heard of a serious graphical artist using an Athlon system they're
all using Macs, for good reason. I'm willing to bet you if you got two
systems a Mac with dual 800s and an Athlon with dual 1.4s and tested them
running a 3d graphics program the Mac would paste the Athlon against the
wall. Now who do you trust with your 3d games Mac or Intel.
ProjectBlackcomb
"Devin" <de...@upnix.com> wrote in message
news:Hqbu7.3080$Nq1.2...@news-rep.ab.videon.ca...
Ahhh great, another half assed post. What you fail to explain/mention is
that the system architectures of the Xbox and Gamecube are not exactly the
same. So therefore your comparing CPU ability alone will not get you an
accurate depiction of each consoles overall ability. First off, you bring
up the idea of "serious" graphical artists. That is interesting, yes many
graphical artists use the Mac and some use the PC. However serious is a
relative term, when I think of "serious" graphical artists, I think of them
using a UNIX like platform like Irix, Linux, etc, etc. Second, you also
bring up this notion that a dual 800 MHz Mac would out perform a dual 1.4
GHz Athlon in a 3D graphics program (maybe you were thinking Photoshop???).
It is true that a 800mhz PowerPC CPU can probably calculate fp number
calculations faster than an Athlon CPU running at 1.4 GHz, but then again
the 1.4 GHz Athlon will smoke the 485mhz Power PC CPU in about 95% of every
other type of software application... but what does that have to do with the
Gamecube and Xbox??? The GPU in the Gamecube and the Xbox will be doing
most floating point calculations, not the CPU which is what you are
referring to. If you take into account MIPS, the Intel running at 733mhz
absolutely kills the PowerPC running at 485mhz. Intel 733mhz CPU is capable
of 1985 MIPS while the PowerPC CPU at 485mhz is capable of 1125 MIPS. The
CPU's in the Gamecube and Xbox will be dealing with things like AI and not
very intensive floating point calculations. What you also fail to mention
is that the Xbox has a dedicated sound processor (meaning the CPU or GPU
will not have to deal with sound processing) while in the Gamecube its
incorporated in the System LSI. The Xbox itself is capable of doing 1.2
trillion operations per second, which is another reason why most if not all
credible media sources herald the Xbox as the most technically
powerful/capable console of this "generation." It honestly isn't up to
logical debate anymore, the Xbox outperforms the Gamecube and PS2
technically in *most* aspects. You might not like the games available for
the PS2 or Xbox but don't half ass equate the capabilities of a console by
comparing the capabilities of their respective CPU's in a PC application
sense. Its apples and oranges. Third and finally, the market has decided
who they trust with their 3D games, clearly they favor a Wintel
platfrom...not that it has anything to do with console gaming but you
brought it up and you needed to be corrected.
slapkicksył
Nothe xbox uses a Pentium, not an athlon It genreally has to do with the
level of back side cache. Mac Processers have 1 meg, while Pentiums have 256
K, and Athlons have 256K.
Devin
"ProjectBlackcomb" <ProjectB...@h01o01t01m01a01i01l01.com> wrote in
message news:trik5sd...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Devin" <de...@upnix.com> wrote in message
> news:Hqbu7.3080$Nq1.2...@news-rep.ab.videon.ca...
> > Sure the Gamecube @ 485MHz looks disadavanteged to the X-Box's 733MHz
but
> > since the Gamecube's cpu is based on the Power PC made by apple
(strangley
> > the cpu is made by IBM) the cube has a HUGE advantage. When was the last
> > time you heard of a serious graphical artist using an Athlon system
> they're
> > all using Macs, for good reason. I'm willing to bet you if you got two
> > systems a Mac with dual 800s and an Athlon with dual 1.4s and tested
them
> > running a 3d graphics program the Mac would paste the Athlon against the
> > wall. Now who do you trust with your 3d games Mac or Intel.
> >
>
>
> Ahhh great, another half assed post. What you fail to explain/mention is
> that the system architectures of the Xbox and Gamecube are not exactly the
> same. So therefore your comparing CPU ability alone will not get you an
> accurate depiction of each consoles overall ability.
I'm not talking about overall ability I'm informing the dumbass public that
MHz isn't everything.
First off, you bring
> up the idea of "serious" graphical artists. That is interesting, yes many
> graphical artists use the Mac and some use the PC. However serious is a
> relative term, when I think of "serious" graphical artists, I think of
them
> using a UNIX like platform like Irix, Linux, etc, etc. Second,
I knew I was making a mistake using the word serious, it's too ambiguous.
>you also
> bring up this notion that a dual 800 MHz Mac would out perform a dual 1.4
> GHz Athlon in a 3D graphics program (maybe you were thinking
Photoshop???).
No I was thinking maybe oh I don't know Maya.
> It is true that a 800mhz PowerPC CPU can probably calculate fp number
> calculations faster than an Athlon CPU running at 1.4 GHz, but then again
> the 1.4 GHz Athlon will smoke the 485mhz Power PC CPU in about 95% of
every
> other type of software application... but what does that have to do with
the
> Gamecube and Xbox???
Why would you compair the Athlon 1.4 and the Power PC 485?
The GPU in the Gamecube and the Xbox will be doing
> most floating point calculations, not the CPU which is what you are
> referring to. If you take into account MIPS, the Intel running at 733mhz
> absolutely kills the PowerPC running at 485mhz. Intel 733mhz CPU is
capable
> of 1985 MIPS while the PowerPC CPU at 485mhz is capable of 1125 MIPS.
The
> CPU's in the Gamecube and Xbox will be dealing with things like AI and not
> very intensive floating point calculations. What you also fail to mention
> is that the Xbox has a dedicated sound processor (meaning the CPU or GPU
> will not have to deal with sound processing) while in the Gamecube its
> incorporated in the System LSI. The Xbox itself is capable of doing 1.2
> trillion operations per second, which is another reason why most if not
all
> credible media sources herald the Xbox as the most technically
> powerful/capable console of this "generation."
I was NOT talking about the entire box, I did NOT mention the sound
abilities of each box, I did NOT talk about the graphics chips on each
console, I didn't do these things for a reason I WAS talking about the CPUs
of the systems and the general misconseption held my the general consuming
public that "more MHz must mean better". As my english teacher would say
"Work with what you have, don't pull stuff that isn't there out of your
ass."
>It honestly isn't up to
> logical debate anymore, the Xbox outperforms the Gamecube and PS2
> technically in *most* aspects. You might not like the games available for
> the PS2 or Xbox but don't half ass equate the capabilities of a console by
> comparing the capabilities of their respective CPU's in a PC application
> sense. Its apples and oranges. Third and finally, the market has decided
> who they trust with their 3D games, clearly they favor a Wintel
One Problem with Macs has been that they've been expensive, up until the
iMac
Danzegoł
Heh, based on Power PC "strangely" made by IBM? You don't know much about
Macs, do you? Yes, I know....... it shows.
Hint: The Power PC chip is a joint effort of Apple, Motorola, and IBM. Thus,
it isn't THAT strange that IBM is making the modified chip for the Gamecube.
Matter of fact, it seems quite logical to me.
Phil Da Lick
message news:trik5sd...@news.supernews.com...
Deary me, this pointless drivel again. It's impossible to compare the
consoles until they are both out. The specs don't tell us much about
anything.
And for the record, the CPU will be doing a hell of a lot of floating point
maths in a game.
ProjectBlackcomb
>
> > It is true that a 800mhz PowerPC CPU can probably calculate fp number
> > calculations faster than an Athlon CPU running at 1.4 GHz, but then
again
> > the 1.4 GHz Athlon will smoke the 485mhz Power PC CPU in about 95% of
> every
> > other type of software application... but what does that have to do with
> the
> > Gamecube and Xbox???
>
> Why would you compair the Athlon 1.4 and the Power PC 485?
You're right, mistake on my part. What I wanted to say is that the 1.4GHz
Athlon will smoke a 800 MHz Power PC CPU in about 95% of every other type of
software app available for the desktop.
I beg to differ, your subject says "Specs explained" not "CPU's explained"
or something like that. So since you mentioned specs I took the liberty to
include other important components in the discussion such as the GPU.
Another problem I inititally had with your post is that the crux of your
argument dealt that the Power PC is better with 3D graphics programs than
even a faster clockspeed x86 compatible/AMD CPU. That is true, I won't
argue that.. However the reason the PowerPC processor is better at 3D
graphics programs than say an AMD CPU is because the PowerPC CPU is better
at dealing with floating point calculations than the AMD CPU is. However
one of my previous points was that in the Gamecube and the Xbox the CPU
itself will be doing very little floating point calculations, the GPU will
be doing the majority of the floating point calculations. So to compare an
AMD & Power PC CPU and relate it to Xbox vs Gamecube really doesn't fit will
here. I will agree that there is a misconception with many computer users
that more MHz is better, that isn't necessarily true.
>
>
>
> >It honestly isn't up to
> > logical debate anymore, the Xbox outperforms the Gamecube and PS2
> > technically in *most* aspects. You might not like the games available
for
> > the PS2 or Xbox but don't half ass equate the capabilities of a console
by
> > comparing the capabilities of their respective CPU's in a PC application
> > sense. Its apples and oranges. Third and finally, the market has
decided
> > who they trust with their 3D games, clearly they favor a Wintel
>
> One Problem with Macs has been that they've been expensive, up until the
> iMac
>
Yes Macs tend to be usually more expensive than their Windows counter parts.
However there is many other issues which kept an x86/Windows enviornment the
preferred platform amongst PC gamers. That is a whole other conversation in
itself.
If anything you bring up something interesting to think about but I don't
agree with you on comparing the PowerPC and x86 CPU's and relating them to
an Gamecube/Xbox discussion. What I do agree with you is there is a
misconception among many people that more MHZ is better and that is not the
case all the time. Btw, the Xbox will have an Intel CPU.
>
ProjectBlackcomb
"Phil Da Lick" <phil_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9pbqnk$ht7qm$1...@ID-84599.news.dfncis.de...
>>
> Deary me, this pointless drivel again. It's impossible to compare the
> consoles until they are both out.
Its not pointless drivel, if you don't care for the topic feel free to move
on or killfile, don't worry no one will hold it against you. To address
your point, we're not exactly comparing the two consoles as a whole, we're
comparing the various components specifically the CPU and their
function/role in each console. Since information on Power PC and Intel
CPU's is readily available one can compare, debate, and talk about this for
quite some time.
>The specs don't tell us much about
> anything.
Ofcourse they do, they give you a general sense of the machine's ability.
>
> And for the record, the CPU will be doing a hell of a lot of floating
point
> maths in a game.
>
Not really, the GPU in both consoles will be dealing with most of the
floating point calculations. In comparison to the GPU the CPU will be doing
very little floating point calculations.
Phil Da Lick
message news:tritfui...@news.supernews.com...
> Not really, the GPU in both consoles will be dealing with most of the
> floating point calculations. In comparison to the GPU the CPU will be
doing
> very little floating point calculations.
Wrong. The GPU prepares and displays each frame from the graphical data, but
the manipulation of said data (i.e. moving objects around) is done by the
CPU.
The Spiritual Jimquiisition
> Deary me, this pointless drivel again. It's impossible to compare the
> consoles until they are both out. The specs don't tell us much about
> anything.
>
> And for the record, the CPU will be doing a hell of a lot of floating point
> maths in a game.
yes - it amuses me that people think that ALL floating point
calculations are only used in 3D graphics and ALL other calculations are
only for everything else like AI etc...
floating point numbers are used extensively in AI for starters, things
like fuzzy logic would not be possible with integers...
The Spiritual Jimquiisition
aluminium, which heats and cools alot faster than copper which is used
in the cube... although the xbox dev team have officially said they
"have no open issues with over heating", because of the design of the
cube (again, similar to a mac) it needs no fan and still keeps itself
cool - the xbox has mistakenly gone the way of the ps2 with an internal
fan which is just another thing that can break... and what an "open
issue" exactly is im not sure, perhaps they have some "closed" issues
with over heating...
all of this is without even mentioning the 0.18 micron wiring inside the
chip itself, smaller wiring means less resistance, less resistance means
that although the clock speed is slower than the xbox, latency is also
much lower than the xbox....
at the end of the day, say what you like about power, but the xbox chip
is standard P3 architecture with a few more bits.... the gekko was
designed from the ground up specifically to go into the gamecube to
process some of the most advanced games seen yet... i know which one i
would rather have in my console...
Phil Da Lick
news:3BB976E7...@myhed.com...
Also: not *all* the graphical load is handled by the GPU. The GPU is
responsible for displaying the world only, not manipulating it as
characters/missiles etc move around. This manipluation is handled by the
CPU.
Phil Da Lick
> there is more than this dood - the chip in the xbox is made from
> aluminium, which heats and cools alot faster than copper which is used
> in the cube... although the xbox dev team have officially said they
> "have no open issues with over heating", because of the design of the
> cube (again, similar to a mac) it needs no fan and still keeps itself
> cool - the xbox has mistakenly gone the way of the ps2 with an internal
> fan which is just another thing that can break... and what an "open
> issue" exactly is im not sure, perhaps they have some "closed" issues
> with over heating...
>
> all of this is without even mentioning the 0.18 micron wiring inside the
> chip itself, smaller wiring means less resistance, less resistance means
> that although the clock speed is slower than the xbox, latency is also
> much lower than the xbox....
>
> at the end of the day, say what you like about power, but the xbox chip
> is standard P3 architecture with a few more bits.... the gekko was
> designed from the ground up specifically to go into the gamecube to
> process some of the most advanced games seen yet... i know which one i
> would rather have in my console...
I think that even though the XBox has a technically faster GPU the overall
system performance will be virtually identical. Nintendo know what they're
doing. We won't know for sure until the XBox comes out though.
The Spiritual Jimquiisition
> > yes - it amuses me that people think that ALL floating point
> > calculations are only used in 3D graphics and ALL other calculations are
> > only for everything else like AI etc...
> >
> > floating point numbers are used extensively in AI for starters, things
> > like fuzzy logic would not be possible with integers...
>
> Also: not *all* the graphical load is handled by the GPU. The GPU is
> responsible for displaying the world only, not manipulating it as
> characters/missiles etc move around. This manipluation is handled by the
> CPU.
damn..good..point!
many people forget this also i guess.....
The Spiritual Jimquiisition
tried to blind the public with bizarrely named features and meaningless
stats...
need i say anymore??
Lightning Bug X
through special effects, big reason why I hate the 3D glasses. I have
compared a few snapshots between the Gamecube and the XBox, and it
shows the Gamecube with the stronger abilities. How do I determine
this just by looking at pictures? I count polygons. I hardly found a
polygon in the Gamecube games while I have found polygons in the XBox.
Look at Resident Evil for Gamecube, I never seen a single polygon in
it.
Lightning Bug X
is there none. It is a liquid cooling system like the one keeping
your car from over heating.
The Spiritual Jimquiisition
our consoles!!!
flo...@usit.net
What gets me, is that people who bring up these technical issues, sit
back and they state a certain use for something, like they are making
the game and using those processors themselves. They have no idea,
unless a publisher is interviewed somewhere, how a game is actually
utilizing a processor at a given time. It's different for each game.
And to act like it's set in stone, shows someones ignorance off the
bat.
flounda
Phil Da Lick
Whats your email again dood?
Ursus Horribilis
The Spiritual Jimquiisition <red...@myhed.com> wrote in message news:<3BB976E7...@myhed.com>...
The Spiritual Jimquiisition
reading about 6/7 years ago that a warhammer fantasy battle computer
game was using (then state of the art ai routines) fuzzy logic to have
the troops moving in formation, but still realistically over different
terrain... if it was used 6/7 years ago im sure its used today...
plus, ive seen fuzzy logic mapped onto ai bugs moving around searching
for food - and the patterns are similarish to the same kind of movement
you see when you group a whole load of troops in any Command and Conquer
type game and tell them to move somewhere... im sure its used elsewhere
tho. (usually where a random function just aint good enough)
koorbł
<red...@myhed.com> wrote:
>cool as man.... next there will be big liquid nitrogen systems cooling
>our consoles!!!
Not shur about consoles, but you can alr4eady get a water cooling
system for your PC, so its only the next step to use nitrogen.
slapkicksył
"koorb³" <ko...@raiders.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3bb9df25...@news.freeserve.net...
It come to a point when PC;s can get no faster... Because of the sheer heat
they create.
Jacob Oost
> Sure the Gamecube @ 485MHz looks disadavanteged to the X-Box's 733MHz but
> since the Gamecube's cpu is based on the Power PC made by apple (strangley
> the cpu is made by IBM) the cube has a HUGE advantage.
Apple doesn't make the PowerPC, they just put it in their computers. It's
completely an IBM thing, just like Microsoft doesn't make X86 chips.
>When was the last
> time you heard of a serious graphical artist using an Athlon system
> they're all using Macs, for good reason.
Artists working with 2D graphics tend to use Macs, it's true, however
Macintosh does not hold the monopoly on 3D graphics. Most 3D graphics
professionals either use an SGI system, an X86 based system (Linux or
Windows), a Sun system (Solaris or Linux), or a Alpha based system (Tru64
Unix or Linux). All of these systems are superior or equal in terms of 3d
ability to the Macintosh, except for the X86 system, which does not offer
the same floating-point math ability as the PowerPC, but which makes up for
it in superior choice of 3D graphics cards and superior software choice
(Softimage, 3D Studio, TrueSpace, Lightwave, etc.)
>I'm willing to bet you if you got
> two systems a Mac with dual 800s and an Athlon with dual 1.4s and tested
> them running a 3d graphics program the Mac would paste the Athlon against
> the wall. Now who do you trust with your 3d games Mac or Intel.
This would be a tricky test. Are you using 3D graphics cards?
However, he's basically right. GameCube's cpu offers over 6 GFLOPS
(billion floating-point operations per second), while a 733 mhz X86
processor (Intel or AMD, they're actually pretty close) does not offer
nearly that much math power, no matter what Microsoft tells you. In X-Box,
the GeForce card is bearing the brunt, believe you me.
Jacob Oost
(mips) is not as important as floating-point math operations per second,
which the Gekko has in droves and the x86 chip does not.
Mips is in a way like how many bits a system has, it doesn't tell you much.
One system can do more mips per second than another but it depends on what
instructions those are. Trust me, the GameCube has a better cpu than X-Box.
slapkicksył
"Jacob Oost" <fid...@zoomtown.com> wrote in message
news:trjoifq...@corp.supernews.com...
> Devin wrote:
>
> > Sure the Gamecube @ 485MHz looks disadavanteged to the X-Box's 733MHz
but
> > since the Gamecube's cpu is based on the Power PC made by apple
(strangley
> > the cpu is made by IBM) the cube has a HUGE advantage.
>
> Apple doesn't make the PowerPC, they just put it in their computers. It's
> completely an IBM thing, just like Microsoft doesn't make X86 chips.
>
> >When was the last
> > time you heard of a serious graphical artist using an Athlon system
> > they're all using Macs, for good reason.
>
> Artists working with 2D graphics tend to use Macs, it's true, however
> Macintosh does not hold the monopoly on 3D graphics. Most 3D graphics
> professionals either use an SGI system, an X86 based system (Linux or
> Windows), a Sun system (Solaris or Linux), or a Alpha based system (Tru64
> Unix or Linux). All of these systems are superior or equal in terms of 3d
> ability to the Macintosh, except for the X86 system, which does not offer
> the same floating-point math ability as the PowerPC, but which makes up
for
> it in superior choice of 3D graphics cards and superior software choice
> (Softimage, 3D Studio, TrueSpace, Lightwave, etc.)
Truespace, the one 3d program that I enjoy working with.
Jacob Oost
However the reason the PowerPC processor is better at 3D
> graphics programs than say an AMD CPU is because the PowerPC CPU is
> better
> at dealing with floating point calculations than the AMD CPU is. However
> one of my previous points was that in the Gamecube and the Xbox the CPU
> itself will be doing very little floating point calculations, the GPU will
> be doing the majority of the floating point calculations. So to compare
> an AMD & Power PC CPU and relate it to Xbox vs Gamecube really doesn't fit
> will
> here. I will agree that there is a misconception with many computer users
> that more MHz is better, that isn't necessarily true.
Not really. Software, especially games, eat up loads of floating-point
math power (and integer math power, which the GC's cpu is also better at
than the x86 chip), and not just in graphics. AI especially takes a lot of
fp math power.
Jacob Oost
I believe he's right. Geometry transformation will be done by the GPU,
but the CPU still has to handle a lot of spacial stuff, and collision
detection. Collision detection and placement of high-polygon models eats
up math power like Oprah Winfrey at a sundae bar.
Jacob Oost
Not really, all 3D games operate in essentially the same way. Some of us
study computer programming, so we know.
slapkicksył
Some of us study computer programming and have yet to pass the 'hello world'
program... <cough>
flo...@usit.net
wrote:
I simply disagree.
While alot of games are indeed utilizing the processors in very
similiar fashions.
The way in which things are offloaded to the main CPU changes quite
often, from game to game.
flounda
koorbł
<fu...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>It come to a point when PC;s can get no faster... Because of the sheer heat
>they create.
In witch case I wont need a central heating system. If I shut my study
door, in two hours its warm even with it being freezing outside and
the heating system off.