Xbox vs Gamecube: most power?
Lightning Bug X
>> The PowerPC processor in the Gamecube beats
>> the Pentium III in the Xbox in floating point calculations. However most
>> floating point calculations in the Xbox will be done by the GPU, which is
>> extremely efficient and capable of dealing with floating point calculations.
>> However the Pentium III 733Mhz out preforms the PowerPC 485Mhz processor in
>> most every other type of task. The 733Mhz Intel Pentium III can do 1985
>> MIPS while the 485Mhz PowerPC can do 1125 MIPS. The Xbox with the 733Mhz
>> Pentium III has the advantage here...how much of an advantage will be
>> determined by future games and the game developers.
I have found that the P3 works most efficient with 32 bit float point
variables, and hence the PowerPC works faster than the P3 in float
point calculations, the XBox is not as powerful as it seems.
>
>I think in both Xbox and Gamecube, the graphics chip offloads all geometry,
>culling, texture decompression and texture work off the CPU. The CPU in both
>systems still has to do physics, AI, coice recognition, heavy-duty decompression
>(MPEG4). I'm guessing that both systems are about equal for these CPU tasks,
>but what about their SIMD units? The P3 has MMX and SSE, the Gamecube
>supposedly has some OpenGL accelerating instructions inside the CPU. What are
>the details?
>
>
>
>> The 233Mhz nVidia chip in the Xbox is more capable than the162Mhz ATI GPU.
>> Both systems create impressive visuals, we'll see what developers can do
>> with each system respectively.
Let me give some history on the nVidia GPU, when it started at 300
Mhz, MS said it can do 300M polygons/sec. Then when MS brought the
speed down to 250 Mhz, the RAW polygon performance was said to be 125M
polygons/sec. If the trend is followed, the new RAW poly/sec should
be 66M.
And think, the power downgrade of the GPU in the GC has not effected
the poly/ses in-game performance.
>
>Well, the Gamecube's GPU has 1 MB of texture cache and 2 MB of frame buffer
>cache, they both transfer at 20 GBps, and they are 1T-SRAM. Then there's 256k
>of L2 cache inside the CPU, and the main memory is 24 MB of low latency 1T-SRAM.
>And Gamecube's GPU can supposedly do 8 textures per pass while Xbox can only do
>4. But we'll see.
ProjectBlackcomb
"Lightning Bug X" <lightni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b8ef9aa....@news.gte.net...
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:17:39 GMT, "Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote:
>
> >> The PowerPC processor in the Gamecube beats
> >> the Pentium III in the Xbox in floating point calculations. However
most
> >> floating point calculations in the Xbox will be done by the GPU, which
is
> >> extremely efficient and capable of dealing with floating point
calculations.
> >> However the Pentium III 733Mhz out preforms the PowerPC 485Mhz
processor in
> >> most every other type of task. The 733Mhz Intel Pentium III can do
1985
> >> MIPS while the 485Mhz PowerPC can do 1125 MIPS. The Xbox with the
733Mhz
> >> Pentium III has the advantage here...how much of an advantage will be
> >> determined by future games and the game developers.
>
> I have found that the P3 works most efficient with 32 bit float point
> variables, and hence the PowerPC works faster than the P3 in float
> point calculations, the XBox is not as powerful as it seems.
You seem to be a bit confused about the P3's main purpose in the Xbox.
Developers won't be using the P3 for floating point calculations, that is
what the GPU is for. In integer capability the P3 733 Mhz creams the
PowerPC 485Mhz ( 1985 MIPS vs 1125 MIPS respectively) So yea the Xbox is
still as powerful as everyone makes it out to be. The Xbox itself can do
1.2 trillion operations per second. Thats what happens when you have a
powerful nVidia GPU and a fast Intel CPU.
> >
> >I think in both Xbox and Gamecube, the graphics chip offloads all
geometry,
> >culling, texture decompression and texture work off the CPU. The CPU in
both
> >systems still has to do physics, AI, coice recognition, heavy-duty
decompression
> >(MPEG4). I'm guessing that both systems are about equal for these CPU
tasks,
> >but what about their SIMD units? The P3 has MMX and SSE, the Gamecube
> >supposedly has some OpenGL accelerating instructions inside the CPU.
What are
> >the details?
> >
> >
> >
> >> The 233Mhz nVidia chip in the Xbox is more capable than the162Mhz ATI
GPU.
> >> Both systems create impressive visuals, we'll see what developers can
do
> >> with each system respectively.
>
> Let me give some history on the nVidia GPU, when it started at 300
> Mhz, MS said it can do 300M polygons/sec. Then when MS brought the
> speed down to 250 Mhz, the RAW polygon performance was said to be 125M
> polygons/sec. If the trend is followed, the new RAW poly/sec should
> be 66M.
Again, you seem confused. When the nVidia GPU was at 300mhz the clook speed
of the CPU was around 600Mhz I believe. Final specs of the Xbox are the
nVidia GPU running at 233Mhz while the Pentium III is running at 733Mhz.
Microsoft still claims the Xbox can produce 150 million raw polygons max and
125 million in game performance maximum. The raw poly/sec is much higher
than 66 million as you theorized but even if it was 66 million its still
much much higher than what Nintendo estimates the Gamecube can do, which is
6-12 million in game.
>
> And think, the power downgrade of the GPU in the GC has not effected
> the poly/ses in-game performance.
Are you sure? Why is Blue Storm only running at 30fps? Xbox games like
Project Gotham are 60fps with 15 million polys, which is over Nintendo's
estimates for the Gamecube of 6-12 million in game.
I don't mean to advocate one console over the other but if you want to
compare atleast get the facts right....
--
---------
I hit 'em up
Joe Ottoson
ProjectBlackcomb <Projectb...@h01o01t01m01a01i01l01.com> wrote in
message news:WWGj7.9026$oc.18...@news02.optonline.net...
Huh? You barely even use integer capability in a game machine. I mean,
that'd be killer if we were going to compare business apps... ;)
> I don't mean to advocate one console over the other but if you want to
> compare atleast get the facts right....
Oh that's rich.
sk³
> Developers won't be using the P3 for floating point calculations, that is
> what the GPU is for. In integer capability the P3 733 Mhz creams the
> PowerPC 485Mhz ( 1985 MIPS vs 1125 MIPS respectively) So yea the Xbox is
> still as powerful as everyone makes it out to be. The Xbox itself can do
> 1.2 trillion operations per second. Thats what happens when you have a
> powerful nVidia GPU and a fast Intel CPU.
>
All hardware is as good as the games played on it.
Which is total bullshit, if you don't mind me saying.
>The raw poly/sec is much higher
> than 66 million as you theorized but even if it was 66 million its still
> much much higher than what Nintendo estimates the Gamecube can do, which is
> 6-12 million in game.
No, Nintendo tell you GameCube can do that, in game. Tests on the
console but the raw numbers to around 100 million.
>
>
>>And think, the power downgrade of the GPU in the GC has not effected
>>the poly/ses in-game performance.
>>
>
> Are you sure? Why is Blue Storm only running at 30fps? Xbox games like
> Project Gotham are 60fps with 15 million polys, which is over Nintendo's
> estimates for the Gamecube of 6-12 million in game.
You keep saying estimates, but it has been proven. I don't see any video
from the xbox with a game using over 15 million. And because it is doing
it at 60 fps, as you say, the scene complexity will be less than Wave
Race... Meaning, get this, it looks worse but runs faster.
The game is still pushing the same number of polys per second. But the
scene complexity is increased because of a reduction in frame rate.
>
> I don't mean to advocate one console over the other but if you want to
> compare atleast get the facts right....
What an ironic statement.
Private CKł Advance
> Project Gotham are 60fps with 15 million polys, which is over Nintendo's
> estimates for the Gamecube of 6-12 million in game.
Yes, we are sure. The downgrade was meant to remove ALL bottlenecks, and
speed up production.
John Thorenson
>still as powerful as everyone makes it out to be.
No one makes it out to be powerful and this time, they're right. Don't cry.
>Microsoft still claims the Xbox can produce 150 million raw polygons max and
>125 million in game performance maximum.
They never even intimated at *nearly* that level in-game. We're looking at
around thirty to the PS2's twenty. At least try to lie more convincingly,
retard.
>Are you sure? Why is Blue Storm only running at 30fps?
Because idiots use one game to make a statement about an entire system? But
hey, along this logic, why is Halo at 20FPS?
>Xbox games like
>Project Gotham are 60fps with 15 million polys
Gotham doesn't push 15 no matter how much you wish it did.
>I don't mean to advocate one console over the other but if you want to
>compare atleast get the facts right....
Learn irony, dimwit.
__
The movie was called "Romeo Must Die" not "Aaliyah Must Die." Fuck! Now who's
going to play Zee in the Matrix sequels? Rest in Pieces, you manipulatively
dying bitch.
getting kevin j
> "Lightning Bug X" <lightni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3b8ef9aa....@news.gte.net...
> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:17:39 GMT, "Dean Siren" <d...@iu.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > The PowerPC processor in the Gamecube beats the Pentium III in the
> > > > Xbox in floating point calculations. However most floating point
> > > > calculations in the Xbox will be done by the GPU, which is
> > > > extremely efficient and capable of dealing with floating point
> > > > calculations. However the Pentium III 733Mhz out preforms the
> > > > PowerPC 485Mhz processor in most every other type of task. The
> > > > 733Mhz Intel Pentium III can do 1985 MIPS while the 485Mhz PowerPC
> > > > can do 1125 MIPS. The Xbox with the 733Mhz Pentium III has the
> > > > advantage here...how much of an advantage will be
> > > > determined by future games and the game developers.
I'd like to know where these numbers are coming from especially since the
systems use custom version of chips.
> > I have found that the P3 works most efficient with 32 bit float point
> > variables, and hence the PowerPC works faster than the P3 in float
> > point calculations, the XBox is not as powerful as it seems.
>
> You seem to be a bit confused about the P3's main purpose in the Xbox.
> Developers won't be using the P3 for floating point calculations, that is
> what the GPU is for. In integer capability the P3 733 Mhz creams the
> PowerPC 485Mhz ( 1985 MIPS vs 1125 MIPS respectively) So yea the Xbox is
> still as powerful as everyone makes it out to be. The Xbox itself can do
> 1.2 trillion operations per second. Thats what happens when you have a
> powerful nVidia GPU and a fast Intel CPU.
The GPU only will do calculations only relating to the geometry. That
means things like mip mapping, lightning, texture compression,
transformation, pixel shading ect are done on the GPU. Also the GC
features a similar GPU.
As far as the CPU's go, it is hard to say. IBM really did a custom part
for Nintendo. The closest CPU to compare to the one in the Cube would be
the PPC 7450. The main reason is its vector units and intergrated cache.
> > >I think in both Xbox and Gamecube, the graphics chip offloads all geometry,
> > >culling, texture decompression and texture work off the CPU. The CPU in both
> > >systems still has to do physics, AI, coice recognition, heavy-duty decompression
> > >(MPEG4). I'm guessing that both systems are about equal for these CPU tasks,
> > >but what about their SIMD units? The P3 has MMX and SSE, the Gamecube
> > >supposedly has some OpenGL accelerating instructions inside the CPU.
> > >What are the details?
I haven't seen a system capable of doing MPEG4 decompression and voice
recognition at the same time. That doesn't include such things as physics
or AI.
The P3 has MMX and SSE which can help in alot of ways. The problem here
is how the programmer gets to use them - they can't right now. MS hasn't
released a true 'down to the silicon' API's and compilers yet. Current
X-Box games use of MMX and SSE are mainly through the Direct X API. Also
do some research into MMX and SSE. Code has to very strictly written to
get the most out of them.
The PPC has some vector units, similar in nature to the PS2's emotion
engine. Their are a few major differences between the emotion engine and
Altvec (the PPC vector unit). First is the way they are intergrated into
the hardware: the EE are two seperate chips that runs along side a MIPS
4400 CPU (same as the N64) where the PPC chip has it intergrated. This
intergration allows for much easier programming: you can use standard C or
assembler to use them.
As far as Altvec vs SSE goes, they both have their strong points which
cannot be surpassed by its rival. The edge goes to Altvec though in
usefulness and programablity.
> > > > The 233Mhz nVidia chip in the Xbox is more capable than the 162Mhz
> > > > ATI GPU. Both systems create impressive visuals, we'll see what
> > > > developers can do with each system respectively.
> >
> > Let me give some history on the nVidia GPU, when it started at 300
> > Mhz, MS said it can do 300M polygons/sec. Then when MS brought the
> > speed down to 250 Mhz, the RAW polygon performance was said to be 125M
> > polygons/sec. If the trend is followed, the new RAW poly/sec should
> > be 66M.
>
> Again, you seem confused. When the nVidia GPU was at 300mhz the clook speed
> of the CPU was around 600Mhz I believe. Final specs of the Xbox are the
> nVidia GPU running at 233Mhz while the Pentium III is running at 733Mhz.
> Microsoft still claims the Xbox can produce 150 million raw polygons max and
> 125 million in game performance maximum. The raw poly/sec is much higher
> than 66 million as you theorized but even if it was 66 million its still
> much much higher than what Nintendo estimates the Gamecube can do, which is
> 6-12 million in game.
It depends on the definition of 'in game performance' Nintendo and MS use.
> > And think, the power downgrade of the GPU in the GC has not effected
> > the poly/ses in-game performance.
>
> Are you sure? Why is Blue Storm only running at 30fps? Xbox games like
> Project Gotham are 60fps with 15 million polys, which is over Nintendo's
> estimates for the Gamecube of 6-12 million in game.
Frame rate depends on how many effects are in the game and how the games
is coded to take advantages of hardware acceleration. A much better
comparison would be a multiplatform title between the two.
Leon Dexter
> > > > > Xbox in floating point calculations. However most floating point
> > > > > calculations in the Xbox will be done by the GPU, which is
> > > > > extremely efficient and capable of dealing with floating point
> > > > > calculations. However the Pentium III 733Mhz out preforms the
> > > > > PowerPC 485Mhz processor in most every other type of task. The
> > > > > 733Mhz Intel Pentium III can do 1985 MIPS while the 485Mhz PowerPC
> > > > > can do 1125 MIPS. The Xbox with the 733Mhz Pentium III has the
> > > > > advantage here...how much of an advantage will be
> > > > > determined by future games and the game developers.
>
> I'd like to know where these numbers are coming from especially since the
> systems use custom version of chips.
>
True, these chips are not the same as their 'relatives' on the market
now...don't forget that the P3 in the Xbox has only 1/2 the L2 cache of a
regular P3. That makes a tremendous difference...the extra L2 cache in a
Xeon P3 is one of the reason they cost many times more than a consumer-level
processor. I doubt the P3 733 in the Xbox would benchmark the same as the
P3 733 in my PC; I have twice the L2 cache so my CPU would kick the hell out
of it.
Jeff Adderley
>
> >So yea the Xbox is
> >still as powerful as everyone makes it out to be.
>
> No one makes it out to be powerful and this time, they're right. Don't cry.
>
> >Microsoft still claims the Xbox can produce 150 million raw polygons max and
> >125 million in game performance maximum.
>
> They never even intimated at *nearly* that level in-game. We're looking at
> around thirty to the PS2's twenty. At least try to lie more convincingly,
> retard.
>
> >Are you sure? Why is Blue Storm only running at 30fps?
>
> Because idiots use one game to make a statement about an entire system? But
> hey, along this logic, why is Halo at 20FPS?
>
> >Xbox games like
> >Project Gotham are 60fps with 15 million polys
>
> Gotham doesn't push 15 no matter how much you wish it did.
>
> >I don't mean to advocate one console over the other but if you want to
> >compare atleast get the facts right....
>
> Learn irony, dimwit.
heh. SPNAK!
--
Gene Poole ³
To reply, e-mail to poolespam AT yahoo.com If you reply to the e-mail
address above, it better be something flameworthy.
Hi, I'm not a signature virus. Why don't you just copy me into your
signature?
Disclaimer: None of the above text has any real bearing on anything
in the real world. It's Usenet, people.
Danzegoł
"Leon Dexter" <leond...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:tovc8ar...@corp.supernews.com...
Is that so? One word: Celeron.
Remember, you're talking games here.....not business apps. By that very same
token, the CPU's in the Gamecube and PS2 spank the hell out of a P3 733. But
that's not where the power in the XBox lies.
That said, we're talking 3 systems, 3 different architectures, and 3
different ways of doing the same thing each with their own strength in
different areas.
Man, I hate these stupid hardware discussions. More than ever it's comparing
apples to oranges yet people seem to want to dwell on it anyway. ;)
Anthony
ProjectBlackcomb <Projectb...@h01o01t01m01a01i01l01.com> wrote in
message news:WWGj7.9026$oc.18...@news02.optonline.net...
>
We're gonna be playing games on these consoles, not doing spreadsheets.
And what are the key words there?
"in game"
>
>
> >
> > And think, the power downgrade of the GPU in the GC has not effected
> > the poly/ses in-game performance.
>
> Are you sure? Why is Blue Storm only running at 30fps? Xbox games like
> Project Gotham are 60fps with 15 million polys, which is over Nintendo's
> estimates for the Gamecube of 6-12 million in game.
Look at this....
http://cube.ign.com/news/37849.html
"LucasArts/Factor 5: If we would start counting the polygons now the game
wouldn't be done, but we estimate most scenes at 12-15 million polygons per
second. The version being shown in Europe is quite a performance increase in
the Hoth level compared to previous showings."
And Rogue Leader runs at a constant 60 fps.....
~Anthony
Leon Dexter
news:niQj7.15788$xb.10...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Is that so? One word: Celeron.
>
Yes, that is so, and the Celeron is a great example of a lack of L2 cache
dampening performance. And I do mean game performance. Don't quote me any
benchmarks; I have got my hands on one, and my excitement fizzled fast in
the face of its dismal performance in FPS games.
> Remember, you're talking games here.....not business apps. By that very
same
> token, the CPU's in the Gamecube and PS2 spank the hell out of a P3 733.
But
> that's not where the power in the XBox lies.
>
Yes, the CPU's in the Gamecube and PS2 DO spank the hell out of my P3.
They're much further along the technology curve, and better designed than
the old X86 architecture. And yes, if the Xbox starts showing some real
power, we can certainly assume it's not coming from the CPU. They're using
the P3 for familiarity and cost (and cost is why they have the smaller L2
cache, not because it's unnecessary for games).
> That said, we're talking 3 systems, 3 different architectures, and 3
> different ways of doing the same thing each with their own strength in
> different areas.
>
> Man, I hate these stupid hardware discussions. More than ever it's
comparing
> apples to oranges yet people seem to want to dwell on it anyway. ;)
>
It's not comparing apples to oranges, it's more like comparing different
apple trees, because all 3 are producing the same fruit: games. We can see
each system's strong and weak points there.
And then disagree on what we're seeing. ;-)
...like that guy who keeps saying Waverace looks shitty.
miha ł
<some...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9993090...@news.islandnet.com...
> :>> The PowerPC processor in the Gamecube beats
> :>> the Pentium III in the Xbox in floating point calculations. However
most
> :>> floating point calculations in the Xbox will be done by the GPU, which
is
> :>> extremely efficient and capable of dealing with floating point
calculations
>
>
> Translation: my processor is bigger than your processor.
>
> So far none of the games announced for either console look to be as much
> fun as some of the 'retro' games on my crusty old Atari.
>
well cry me a river then.
or something.
--
Another psot from the great mind of...
-miha ł-
Graham Triggs
news:niQj7.15788$xb.10...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
the
> > P3 733 in my PC; I have twice the L2 cache so my CPU would kick the hell
> out
> > of it.
>
> Is that so? One word: Celeron.
The original Celerons without a cache sucked...
The new(er) Celerons with a 'half-sized' cache performed well, because
whilst the cache was half the size, it was integrated into the core and
therefore ran at twice the speed - ie. the same speed as the processor...
So performance the X-Box will be very much dependant on the speed of the
cache relative to the processor, and how large the code is that would
benefit from being cached...
G
Graham Triggs
message news:WWGj7.9026$oc.18...@news02.optonline.net...
> Developers won't be using the P3 for floating point calculations, that is
> what the GPU is for. In integer capability the P3 733 Mhz creams the
> PowerPC 485Mhz ( 1985 MIPS vs 1125 MIPS respectively) So yea the Xbox is
> still as powerful as everyone makes it out to be. The Xbox itself can do
> 1.2 trillion operations per second. Thats what happens when you have a
> powerful nVidia GPU and a fast Intel CPU.
And you seem to be assuming what the processor will be used for... yes,
transform & lighting is a very floating point intensive task, that is better
handled by a dedicated processor than the CPU... but you cannot state that
it is only T&L calculations that require the use of floating point in a
game...
G
Graham Triggs
message news:WWGj7.9026$oc.18...@news02.optonline.net...
speed
> of the CPU was around 600Mhz I believe. Final specs of the Xbox are the
> nVidia GPU running at 233Mhz while the Pentium III is running at 733Mhz.
> Microsoft still claims the Xbox can produce 150 million raw polygons max
and
> 125 million in game performance maximum. The raw poly/sec is much higher
> than 66 million as you theorized but even if it was 66 million its still
> much much higher than what Nintendo estimates the Gamecube can do, which
is
> 6-12 million in game.
Found something that will be of interest here... please have a look at:
http://www.segatech.com/gamecube/
Note, that this suggests that the GC *should* be pushing around 20M
polys/sec in-game...
This is a long way off of the claim you state for the X-box of 125M, but
then I would expect the X-box to be a long way off of that claim anyway...
You might like to note a few of the other technical details listed in the
article...
1) Embedded frame buffer on the GC GPU
2) HSR through early Z buffer check
...these should ensure that the GC GPU gets *very* close to it's theoretical
fill-rate limits in real world performance...
(take a look at http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1291.9/ -
notice the big difference between theoretical and real world fill rate for
the GeForce 2? - whilst the GeForce 3 / Xbox processor will get closer to
their theoretical limits, there will still be a much larger gap than exists
with the GC GPU).
This should mean that on average the two GPUs will be pretty much neck and
neck - each having their own advantages...
Going back to the CPU, you might like to note a few of the details there -
like two floating point instructions per cycle!!! Note also some very
impressive memory bandwidth figures...
So overall, technically there isn't much to choose between the X-box and
GC... the X-box has more theoretical grunt than the GC in most areas (apart
from floating point instructions?), but it also has more bottlenecks that
will limit what it is capable of in most circumstances...
The GC on the other hand is very efficient and well balanced system...
G
Gëñë Pøø|ë³
...with more innovative and all around better games.
Lightning Bug X
>You seem to be a bit confused about the P3's main purpose in the Xbox.
>Developers won't be using the P3 for floating point calculations, that is
>what the GPU is for. In integer capability the P3 733 Mhz creams the
>PowerPC 485Mhz ( 1985 MIPS vs 1125 MIPS respectively) So yea the Xbox is
>still as powerful as everyone makes it out to be. The Xbox itself can do
>1.2 trillion operations per second. Thats what happens when you have a
>powerful nVidia GPU and a fast Intel CPU.
>
You are the one who is confused. The P3 handles the float points
faster than the integers.
>> Let me give some history on the nVidia GPU, when it started at 300
>> Mhz, MS said it can do 300M polygons/sec. Then when MS brought the
>> speed down to 250 Mhz, the RAW polygon performance was said to be 125M
>> polygons/sec. If the trend is followed, the new RAW poly/sec should
>> be 66M.
>
>Again, you seem confused. When the nVidia GPU was at 300mhz the clook speed
>of the CPU was around 600Mhz I believe. Final specs of the Xbox are the
>nVidia GPU running at 233Mhz while the Pentium III is running at 733Mhz.
>Microsoft still claims the Xbox can produce 150 million raw polygons max and
>125 million in game performance maximum. The raw poly/sec is much higher
>than 66 million as you theorized but even if it was 66 million its still
>much much higher than what Nintendo estimates the Gamecube can do, which is
>6-12 million in game.
>
>
You do not know the difference between RAW performance and actual
performance. MS began saying that the nVidia GPU can push 300 Million
polygons per second when the GPU was running at 300 MHZ. Now, when
the GPU was brought down to 250 MHZ, the RAW polygon per second
performance become 125 million. This is a near 60% drop in
correspondence to a 16% drop in MHZ.
>>
>> And think, the power downgrade of the GPU in the GC has not effected
>> the poly/ses in-game performance.
>
>Are you sure? Why is Blue Storm only running at 30fps? Xbox games like
>Project Gotham are 60fps with 15 million polys, which is over Nintendo's
>estimates for the Gamecube of 6-12 million in game.
>
The frames/second rating can go down when pulling more than 12
million. What this may mean is that Blue Storm is using 12 to 24
million.
>
>I don't mean to advocate one console over the other but if you want to
>compare atleast get the facts right....
>
If you want to correct one person's comparisons, at least know how to
compare. I gave facts, you can not compare.
Dean Siren
>>Developers won't be using the P3 for floating point calculations, that is
>>what the GPU is for. In integer capability the P3 733 Mhz creams the
>>PowerPC 485Mhz ( 1985 MIPS vs 1125 MIPS respectively) So yea the Xbox is
>>still as powerful as everyone makes it out to be. The Xbox itself can do
>>1.2 trillion operations per second. Thats what happens when you have a
>>powerful nVidia GPU and a fast Intel CPU.
How about physics, AI, and heavy decompression (like DivX)? I think only the
CPU can handle that.
//\\//\\
"ProjectBlackcomb" <Projectb...@h01o01t01m01a01i01l01.com> wrote in
message news:WWGj7.9026$oc.18...@news02.optonline.net...
>