Argument bait: Gamecube > PS2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
There's a lot of misinformation going around about the next generation of consoles. Specifically, the Gamecube seems to be getting the shaft on internet fansites and even from retailers. To combat this lack of knowledge, and because I'm bored, I proudly present:

[hr width=50%]

Why the Gamecube is Better than the Playstation 2​

Regarding CPU and Cache Memory

The Gamecube uses a 405 MHz, .18 micron chip based off of the PowerPC archetecture, as opposed to the 300 MHz chip used by the PS2. Although the GCN processor speed may seem low, it's important to remember that the PowerPC chip can perform more calculations than a "faster" Intel or AMD chip. The Gamecube CPU, while seemingly weak by even current standards, is indeed a powerful little chip. That chip is also complemented by 256k of cache memory, which is significantly more than the PS2's 16k and even double what the Xbox will have. Cache memory, in case any of you weren't aware, is a smaller amount of memory that the CPU writes to faster than RAM. Only the most used or most recent data would be stored in the cache.

Regarding RAM

The Playstation 2 uses 38 MB of Direct Rambus RAM which is high quality memory. However, the Gamecube uses 24 MB of 1T-SRAM and 16 MB of 100 MHz DRAM as its main memory. As any certified computer technician could tell you, the very nature of SRAM makes it faster than DRAM. Don't be confused by the 3.2 GB/s number seen in spec sheets. That is the main memory bandwidth, not the speed of the memory. Contrary to what some people think, PS2 RAM is not as fast as Gamecube RAM.

Recently leaked documents also state that the Gamecube will be upgradable with another 32 MB of 100 MHz ARAM (http://cube.ign.com/news/32429.html). With the upgrade, the GCN will have an unheard of 75MHz of total RAM!

Regarding Storage Media

It seems like Gamecube gets more grief on the size of its storage media than any other area of the console. While the proprietary 1.5GB optical discs that the system uses don't store as much as the PS2's DVDs, they do offer a few other advantages. The smaller disc reads faster which, when combined with more and faster RAM, means that the problem of load times will be significantly reduced. Furthermore, the proprietary format will be much more difficult to pirate and frees Nintendo from having to pay royalties to the DVD Consortium.

The N64 had a lot of problems because of the chosen storage medium, but carts are not hot-swappable and are much more expensive than the optical discs. Simply put, none of the media-related problems that plagued the N64 will affect the GCN.

Regarding Graphics Chips and Polygon Count

The Nintendo Gamecube comes equipped with a 202 MHz graphics chipset designed by ATI and manufactured by NEC. It has more hard-wired affects than the PS2's 150 MHz chipset and it has 3 MB of embedded 1T-SRAM for added "oomph."

Aside from the chipset itself, one of the biggest issues that people look at when considering the graphical prowess of these machines is the polygon count. I've heard everything from 60 Million polys to 75 Million polys for Sony's machine, but it's important to realize that that number will never be achieved in PS2. Not even close, in fact. That number is the raw polygon count without any textures, sound, lighting, an AI or a physics engine. To put it bluntly, that number is completely worthless.

The only official numbers released from Nintendo are conservative gameplay counts, in the area of 6-12 Million polys. It's important to note that that those numbers include multiple texture layers, hardware lights, sound, AI and a physics engine. Regardless, that's still a bit low. EA Canada began benchmark testing after getting their development kits and inside source leaked that they were able to obtain a polygon count of 17M with 4 hardware lights and other graphical effects (http://cube.ign.com/news/28713.html). Still more reports indicate that that number is itself a bit low.

Regarding Simultaneous Textures

The Gamecube supports a remarkable 8x texture rendering with a single pass. This means that the system can apply 8 effects to one polygon with less CPU stress than applying them individually, which the PS2 has to do.
[blockquote]So, for example, Gamecube developers can effectively start with the base geometry (1), add a bump-map to it (3), add a dirt map (4), add a gloss map (5), add a reflection map (6), add a radiosity light map (7) and an effects layer of their choice (8) -- all in a single pass. By contrast, PS2 developers would have to re-render the polygon itself for every pass meaning eight times the work to get the same effect. So essentially PS2 has to render 1,000 polygons eight times over whereas Gamecube only has to render 1,000 polygons once for the same effect.[/blockquote]
-IGNCube.com http://cube.ign.com/

Jason Ruben of Naughty Dog, a Sony second party, remarked, "Yes, it's very nice that Nintendo Gamecube can do eight layers in one pass. It's all set up for you. Believe me, I would have loved it."

Regarding Texture Compression

The Gamecube supports 6:1 texture compression on the fly with a negligable loss of quality. Combine this with the very fast, embedded 1T-SRAM and you're looking at better textures with much less system strain. If a developer wanted texture compression on the PS2, it would have to be done through software and would require a lot more CPU power.

[hr width=50%]

All things considered, there's no doubt in my mind that the Gamcube is considerably more powerful than the PS2 and very capable of competing with the Xbox. However, the important question is: Will the game-playing public realize this? Come E3 and Nintendo's big unveiling, it seems very likely.

 
>The Gamecube uses a 405 MHz,
>.18 micron chip based off
>of the PowerPC archetecture, as
>opposed to the 300 MHz
>chip used by the PS2.
>Although the GCN processor speed
>may seem low, it's important
>to remember that the PowerPC
>chip can perform more calculations
>than a "faster" Intel or
>AMD chip. The Gamecube
>CPU, while seemingly weak by
>even current standards, is indeed
>a powerful little chip.
>That chip is also complemented
>by 256k of cache memory,
>which is significantly more than
>the PS2's 16k and even
>double what the Xbox will
>have. Cache memory, in
>case any of you weren't
>aware, is a smaller amount
>of memory that the CPU
>writes to faster than RAM.
> Only the most used
>or most recent data would
>be stored in the cache.

However you must also take into account that the Playstation 2's power doesn't all come from the main CPU core ("Emotion engine"), in fact a great deal of its power comes from the vector units that the Playstation 2 has. They can effectively increase the CPU's speed 20% to 100%. The VU1 vector processing unit is probably more powerful than the CPU itself.

Games made now only take advantage of the Emotion engine, not many have taken advantage of the powerful Vector engines.

If you're just counting megahertz, you're not getting a clear picture of the consoles. Most hardware comparisons that go in depth into the actual structure of the systems will tell you that the Playstation 2's CPU power *is* more powerful than the Gamecubes, despite the fact that the gamecube sports a 400 mhz "Gecko" CPU.

>Regarding RAM
>
>The Playstation 2 uses 38 MB of Direct Rambus RAM which is high quality memory. However, the Gamecube uses 24 MB of 1T-SRAM and 16 MB of 100 MHz DRAM as its main memory. As any certified computer technician could tell you, the very nature of SRAM makes it faster than DRAM. Don't be confused by the 3.2 GB/s number seen in spec sheets. That is the main memory bandwidth, not the speed of the memory. Contrary to what some people think, PS2 RAM is not as fast as Gamecube RAM.

The Gamecube's RAM is faster in the field of small random reads and writes. Ideally, the Rambus RAM is probably faster than the Gamecube's, but the Gamecube's is more suited to games, especially where textures and such are concerned.

>Recently leaked documents also state that
>the Gamecube will be upgradable
>with another 32 MB of
>100 MHz ARAM (http://cube.ign.com/news/32429.html).
>With the upgrade, the GCN
>will have an unheard of
>75MHz of total RAM!

75 megs you mean?

>Regarding Storage Media
>
>It seems like Gamecube gets more
>grief on the size of
>its storage media than any
>other area of the console.
> While the proprietary 1.5GB
>optical discs that the system
>uses don't store as much
>as the PS2's DVDs, they
>do offer a few other
>advantages. The smaller disc
>reads faster which, when combined
>with more and faster RAM,
>means that the problem of
>load times will be significantly
>reduced. Furthermore, the proprietary
>format will be much more
>difficult to pirate and frees
>Nintendo from having to pay
>royalties to the DVD Consortium.

I really don't think read time is really an issue when it comes to consoles. That large amount of space is mostly for FMV and other such things which don't take all that much speed to load up.

>Regarding Graphics Chips and Polygon Count
>
>
>The Nintendo Gamecube comes equipped with
>a 202 MHz graphics chipset
>designed by ATI and manufactured
>by NEC.

ATI? That's reason enough not to buy. :)

>It has
>more hard-wired affects than the
>PS2's 150 MHz chipset and
>it has 3 MB of
>embedded 1T-SRAM for added "oomph."

The Gamecube's power, or rather ease of use, comes from the ability to apply effects to polygons in one pass where the PS2 requires several. When factoring in that the PS2's CPU is actually faster than the Gamecube's it evens out, only that the programmers need to be more savvy, but can achieve other effects in the process if needed.

>Aside from the chipset itself, one
>of the biggest issues that
>people look at when considering
>the graphical prowess of these
>machines is the polygon count.
> I've heard everything from
>60 Million polys to 75
>Million polys for Sony's machine,
>but it's important to realize
>that that number will never
>be achieved in PS2.
>Not even close, in fact.
> That number is the
>raw polygon count without any
>textures, sound, lighting, an AI
>or a physics engine.
>To put it bluntly, that
>number is completely worthless.

You're right that 75M polygon-per-second count is worthless, but the Gamecube STILL outputs less polygons at its peak than the PS2's "realistic" polygon count. The PS2 can output about 20 million polygons per second (fully textured, lit, etc.) whereas the Gamecube can only output 6-12 million.

>Regarding Simultaneous Textures
>
>The Gamecube supports a remarkable 8x
>texture rendering with a single
>pass. This means that
>the system can apply 8
>effects to one polygon with
>less CPU stress than applying
>them individually, which the PS2
>has to do.

That's where the Gamecube shines. They made it easy for the devolopers to take advantage of the hardware. You can achieve the same effects on the PS2 at roughly the same speed, only it takes better programming.

>All things considered, there's no doubt
>in my mind that the
>Gamcube is considerably more powerful
>than the PS2 and very
>capable of competing with the
>Xbox. However, the important
>question is: Will the
>game-playing public realize this?
>Come E3 and Nintendo's big
>unveiling, it seems very likely.

But is it too little too late? The PS2's hardware is still more than capable of competing with the Gamecube which isn't even out yet. Futhermore, by the time that the Gamecube *does* come out, developers will have mastered the PS2's hardware capabilities to churn out exceptional games. Let's face it, the N64 was technically more powerful than the Playstation 1, but which console seriously owned the other? The Playstation.

Furthermore there are other nice features that the Playstation 2 has that the Gamecube will not. For one, backwards compatibility with the previous system. For the Gamecube, it is unheard of. It isn't even a cartridge-based system. On the PS2 you can play your PS1 games just the same. And then comes the fact that you can use the PS2 as a DVD player. It may be kind of petty, but it's still a nice feature.

Also, the X-Box is coming out at roughly the same time as the Gamecube, which will hurt sales for both of them. At the same time, the PS2 will have a plethora of games to choose from and big company names behind it like Squaresoft and others. Furthermore, the PS2 will STILL have quite capable hardware.

I'm not convinced, but either way, I'm not buying either, but instead investing in a damned good computer.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>>However you must also take into account that the Playstation 2's power doesn't all come from the main CPU core ("Emotion engine"), in fact a great deal of its power comes from the vector units that the Playstation 2 has. They can effectively increase the CPU's speed 20% to 100%. The VU1 vector processing unit is probably more powerful than the CPU itself.<<

I agree with you there, but the PS2 is not the first console to use a vector system. The N64 had one and although it was capable of quite a bit, it earned the system a reputation of being a bitch to develop for. In this case, the PS2 is the system with the reputation of being difficult. With two other systems out there that are easier to develop for, there's no doubt that Sony will lose some of its edge.

You also have to consider development times. Even when games did come out on the both the PSX and the N64, the PSX version almost always came out first, partially due to ease of development. Though there may not be any third party exclusives on the GCN, they may start to be released before the PS2 versions.

>>75 megs you mean?<<

Err... Yeah, but you knew what I meant

>>I really don't think read time is really an issue when it comes to consoles. That large amount of space is mostly for FMV and other such things which don't take all that much speed to load up.<<

Honestly, Xotor, that's the stupidest thing I've heard you say. Although that space is used for extensive FMV and sound, the actual [em]game[/em] data still has to load. With the GCN, you can still have all them purty movies and have significantly reduced load times.

>>The PS2 can output about 20 million polygons per second (fully textured, lit, etc.) whereas the Gamecube can only output 6-12 million.<<

That 20M number [em]still[/em] isn't a gameplay number, and Gamecube sites aren't the only ones to say so (http://xbox.ign.com/news/18801.html). I'd honestly be surprised if most developers could even get that number in a real time cut-scene.

>>Furthermore there are other nice features that the Playstation 2 has that the Gamecube will not. For one, backwards compatibility with the previous system. For the Gamecube, it is unheard of. It isn't even a cartridge-based system. On the PS2 you can play your PS1 games just the same. And then comes the fact that you can use the PS2 as a DVD player. It may be kind of petty, but it's still a nice feature.<<

I realize that this may pose a bit of a problem for Nintendo. However, when I got my latest issue of GamePro and I opened to the "WatchDog" page, a letter section dedicated to technical problems and the like, I found that it was filled with questions and problems about... *drumroll* PS2 backwards compatability and DVD functionality! There's a growing list of PSX games that won't work on the system and quite a few DVDs either look like crap or don't play at all. As a PSX/DVD replacement, the PS2 certainly isn't faring too well.

>>Also, the X-Box is coming out at roughly the same time as the Gamecube, which will hurt sales for both of them.<<

Of course, Nintendo realize that this could be a major problem, but they've got one significant advantage over the Xbox: Cost. The Gamecube, being a pure gaming machine and thus lacking some of the petty extras the competition has, probably won't sell for over $200, but I certainly doubt that Microsoft would let the system go for less than $300. They would simply lose too much money.

If cost isn't enough of an incentive, one needs only to look at some of the games slated for launch: Metroid, Perfect Dark 2, Eternal Darkness, Starfox Adventures, Too Human, Resident Evil "0" and an as-of-yet-unnamed RPG. Add in a few more titles that have only been hinted at thusfar plus several games left unanounced because of NDAs and you've got an impressive mix of famous franchises and some new Nintendo gems. Before the end of the year, GCN owners will be cradling their own copies of SSX SE and a version of MGS2 will most likely be along not too long after that.

>>At the same time, the PS2 will have a plethora of games to choose from and big company names behind it like Squaresoft and others.<<

Many of these big-name companies have endorsed Nintendo's system and some have even thrown their support behind the system wholeheartedly. I'm telling you, the media problems have been erased and the systems are all comparable in terms of technology. The playing field is, or soon will be, level in terms of third party support and Nintendo's many exclusive titles could easily sway the battle in their favor. Not even considering the increased connectivity with the ludicrously popular GB, Nintendo stand to recove some major ground in this next battle.

 
>I agree with you there, but
>the PS2 is not the
>first console to use a
>vector system. The N64
>had one and although it
>was capable of quite a
>bit, it earned the system
>a reputation of being a
>bitch to develop for.

That's not the point. I'm saying that the PS2 is more powerful CPU-wise because of the powerful vector processing unit. I don't give a fuck if the N64 had one or even the Genesis. That's not the point of that argument.

>In this case, the PS2
>is the system with the
>reputation of being difficult.
>With two other systems out
>there that are easier to
>develop for, there's no doubt
>that Sony will lose some
>of its edge.

However with a years edge developers will have already mastered (or know more about) getting the most out of their gaming console. Take the SNES, its initial games had some fancy stuff but can't even compare to the late-generation titles. The same way with the Genesis.

You won't be seeing many titles taking full advantage of the Nintendo when it first debuts. It's the same way with the PS2. Most PS2 games only take advantage of the Emotion Engine. Very few have even touched the Vector unit. However as time passes, developers will make better use of the PS2's powerful vector engines which will play a big part in making some fantastic games.

>You also have to consider development
>times. Even when games
>did come out on the
>both the PSX and the
>N64, the PSX version almost
>always came out first, partially
>due to ease of development.
> Though there may not
>be any third party exclusives
>on the GCN, they may
>start to be released before
>the PS2 versions.

But again, by that time those third-party developers will be coming out with second generation games which take advantage of the PS2's full potential.

>>>I really don't think read time is really an issue when it comes to consoles. That large amount of space is mostly for FMV and other such things which don't take all that much speed to load up.<<
>
>Honestly, Xotor, that's the stupidest thing
>I've heard you say.
>Although that space is used
>for extensive FMV and sound,
>the actual [em]game[/em] data still
>has to load. With
>the GCN, you can still
>have all them purty movies
>and have significantly reduced load
>times.

Honestly Doyle you're putting too much stock into load times. The data segment of these games are relatively small and thus unless it takes a couple minutes to load up a single scene most people won't give a damn. Most of the graphics are created in real-time anyway so I wouldn't try strutting the GC's "faster" loading as anything really special.

>That 20M number [em]still[/em] isn't a
>gameplay number, and Gamecube sites
>aren't the only ones to
>say so (http://xbox.ign.com/news/18801.html). I'd
>honestly be surprised if most
>developers could even get that
>number in a real
>time cut-scene.

That's funny, the Gamecube site itself says that poly counts range from 3M to 20M (http://cube.ign.com/news/26984.html).

These early-generation games don't use the PS2 to its full potential.

>I realize that this may pose
>a bit of a problem
>for Nintendo. However, when
>I got my latest issue
>of GamePro and I opened
>to the "WatchDog" page, a
>letter section dedicated to technical
>problems and the like, I
>found that it was filled
>with questions and problems about...
>*drumroll* PS2 backwards compatability and
>DVD functionality! There's a
>growing list of PSX games
>that won't work on the
>system and quite a few
>DVDs either look like crap
>or don't play at all.
> As a PSX/DVD replacement,
>the PS2 certainly isn't faring
>too well.

I have to admit that the PS2's DVD drive wasn't intended to be the best quality DVD drive money could buy, but it is still there, and it does play a lot of DVD titles. Most problems come in the form of extras and other things that come on the DVDs.

>Of course, Nintendo realize that this
>could be a major problem,
>but they've got one significant
>advantage over the Xbox: Cost.
> The Gamecube, being a
>pure gaming machine and thus
>lacking some of the petty
>extras the competition has, probably
>won't sell for over $200,
>but I certainly doubt that
>Microsoft would let the system
>go for less than $300.
> They would simply lose
>too much money.

I actually doubt that. Even the N64 cost more than that. If Nintendo is planning on releasing a machine that is better than the Playstation 2, which is actually sold at a loss for Sony, their price is going to stay in the ballpark of around $250-$300.

As for the X-Box, Microsoft always overcharges for everything anyway.

>If cost isn't enough of an
>incentive, one needs only to
>look at some of the
>games slated for launch:
>Metroid, Perfect Dark 2, Eternal
>Darkness, Starfox Adventures, Too Human,
>Resident Evil "0" and an
>as-of-yet-unnamed RPG.

... and to think I thought the number of titles that the PS2 came out with initially (12) was pathetic.

>>>At the same time, the PS2 will have a plethora of games to choose from and big company names behind it like Squaresoft and others.<<
>
>Many of these big-name companies have
>endorsed Nintendo's system and some
>have even thrown their support
>behind the system wholeheartedly.
>I'm telling you, the media
>problems have been erased and
>the systems are all comparable
>in terms of technology.
>The playing field is, or
>soon will be, level in
>terms of third party support
>and Nintendo's many exclusive titles
>could easily sway the battle
>in their favor. Not
>even considering the increased connectivity
>with the ludicrously popular GB,
>Nintendo stand to recove some
>major ground in this next
>battle.

Perhaps. Personally I wish they'd still develope for the SNES, but maybe that's because I never pay for the ROMs..

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>>That's not the point. I'm saying that the PS2 is more powerful CPU-wise because of the powerful vector processing unit. I don't give a fuck if the N64 had one or even the Genesis. That's not the point of that argument.<<

Getting a bit defensive there, aren't we? No matter, cuss all you want, I don't mind. ; )

Actually, it's a very valid point. Why should a developer struggle to get the results he wants when he can get the same results on another console with less work? If a developer can make his resources go farther developing primarily for another console, wouldn't that be the smart thing to do? After all, it's like you said: the N64 was technically more powerful than the PSX, but which system got owned?

>>However with a years edge developers will have already mastered (or know more about) getting the most out of their gaming console. Take the SNES, its initial games had some fancy stuff but can't even compare to the late-generation titles. The same way with the Genesis.<<

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the best results weren't achieved until several years into those systems' lives, and the PS2 is decidedly more difficult to develop for than either of those consoles. Even the N64 reached its "peak" now. The recently released Conker's Bad Fur Day has the best graphics seen on the console with the smallest hit to framerate, and that game was developed by a second party and released [em]five years[/em] into the system's life.

>>You won't be seeing many titles taking full advantage of the Nintendo when it first debuts. It's the same way with the PS2. Most PS2 games only take advantage of the Emotion Engine. Very few have even touched the Vector unit. However as time passes, developers will make better use of the PS2's powerful vector engines which will play a big part in making some fantastic games.<<

The point is that you can get more from the GCN with less effort than on the PS2. I have no doubt that the GCN's first generation software will be comparable to most of what's available on the PS2 at the time.

>>But again, by that time those third-party developers will be coming out with second generation games which take advantage of the PS2's full potential.<<

You think developers will reach the system's "full potential" by the second generation? You certainly have a lot of faith in the developers. Look back to your earlier examples of the SNES and Genesis. The games continued to get better year after year, they didn't hit a peak as soon as they'd worked with the hardware for a year.

>>Honestly Doyle you're putting too much stock into load times. The data segment of these games are relatively small and thus unless it takes a couple minutes to load up a single scene most people won't give a damn. Most of the graphics are created in real-time anyway so I wouldn't try strutting the GC's "faster" loading as anything really special.<<

I think you're not putting [em]enough[/em] weight on load times. It generally isn't a problem with PC games, but consoles tend to not fare as well in regards to load times. Being primarily a cartridge gamer for the last decade, load times are very important to me and the PSX had a buttload of 'em. Even games that I wouldn't have thought would have many load times would have those irritating little bars travelling across the screen before I could play. While load times don't totally ruin the experience for me, I must say that RE2 would have been a lot more fun without those door animations.

>>That's funny, the Gamecube site itself says that poly counts range from 3M to 20M<<

Well that line is certainly taken out of context. What you didn't mention is that the article says those numbers come from early reports of what developers think they can achieve. Other reports say that the Gamecube is superior to both the PS2 and the Xbox. Still more claim that the Xbox will clean house. If you wrote into Q&A, I'm sure Matt and Fran would tell you the same thing I am: that is not a firm estimate by any means.

>>I actually doubt that. Even the N64 cost more than that.<<

I don't know where you live, but here in America the N64 debuted for $200, despite being initially slated to cost $250. Back then, no one believe that Nintendo would sell the console for even $250, but they certainly did.

>>If Nintendo is planning on releasing a machine that is better than the Playstation 2, which is actually sold at a loss for Sony, their price is going to stay in the ballpark of around $250-$300.<<

I'm glad you're finally admitting that the Gamecube is better than the PS2, but one look at the specs will tell that it isn't so much as to cost as much to make a year later. In fact, I'm sure it will cost significantly less because Nintendo didn't bother including DVD player functionality. Plus, you have to consider the fact that the GCN will be competing with two other consoles for holiday sales. Nintendo have been in the business long enough to know that at least matching the price of the PS2 is important.

Perhaps you think Nintendo can't afford to debut the console at that low of a price, but you couldn't be more wrong. Nintendo made more many than any other console publisher last year by a margin of $400 Million (http://ign64.ign.com/news/30185.html). While most of that is undoubtedly GameBoy revenue, it's that much more money that Nintendo can use in the Gamecube launch. Furthermore, Nintendo have a $5 Billion war chest that they could tap if the going got rough. Nintendo certainly aren't too worried about finances at the moment, you can be sure of that.

>>... and to think I thought the number of titles that the PS2 came out with initially (12) was pathetic.<<

Please. Those are merely the titles I could name off the top of my head. Many more from Nintendo and their second parties are underway and a lot of third parties are making games for the 'cube, not to mention the PS2 ports. The GCN will be released with a much larger list than that.

Nintedo are better prepared for the upcomming battle than most people realize. I'm confident that they'll win back a lot of fans and show the competition just how serious they are.
 
>>>That's not the point. I'm saying that the PS2 is more powerful CPU-wise because of the powerful vector processing unit. I don't give a fuck if the N64 had one or even the Genesis. That's not the point of that argument.<<
>
>Getting a bit defensive there, aren't
>we? No matter, cuss
>all you want, I don't
>mind. ; )

I don't think I had much sleep that night. :)

>You think developers will reach the
>system's "full potential" by the
>second generation? You certainly
>have a lot of faith
>in the developers. Look
>back to your earlier examples
>of the SNES and Genesis.
> The games continued to
>get better year after year,
>they didn't hit a peak
>as soon as they'd worked
>with the hardware for a
>year.

Full, no, but by that time more developers will actually take advantage of the more powerful functions of the PS2. Right now most games only run on the Emotion Engine which doesn't really let the PS2 strut its stuff.

If the PS2 (or any of the more modern systems) are still popular after five years, they're pretty successful.

>I think you're not putting [em]enough[/em]
>weight on load times.
>It generally isn't a problem
>with PC games, but consoles
>tend to not fare as
>well in regards to load
>times. Being primarily a
>cartridge gamer for the last
>decade, load times are very
>important to me and the
>PSX had a buttload of
>'em. Even games that
>I wouldn't have thought would
>have many load times would
>have those irritating little bars
>travelling across the screen before
>I could play. While
>load times don't totally ruin
>the experience for me, I
>must say that RE2 would
>have been a lot more
>fun without those door animations.

I must admit that gametime load is irritating when it is extremely long, but I seriously don't think it is going to be a major issue with these consoles. I mean, I thought load times were such a pain in Planescape Torment that I copied all the CDs to my hard drive (2 gigs), but we're talking about about systems that rely mostly on their hardware to make the graphics rather than what is loaded from the CD.

>If you
>wrote into Q&A, I'm sure
>Matt and Fran would tell
>you the same thing I
>am: that is not
>a firm estimate by any
>means.

But the point is that the while they are rough estimates, they are still in the ball-park, and they're estimates based on the first generation games.

>I'm glad you're finally admitting that
>the Gamecube is better than
>the PS2, but one look
>at the specs will tell
>that it isn't so much
>as to cost as much
>to make a year later.

My claim is that the PS2 is still good enough to compete with the GC. I would expect that the GC would have better hardware than the PS2, for one because it is a year younger. It is the same as the Genesis and PS2.

> In fact, I'm sure
>it will cost significantly less
>because Nintendo didn't bother including
>DVD player functionality.

Sony didn't exactly spend a whole lot on the DVD player.. it was probably the cheapest they could get.

>Perhaps you think Nintendo can't afford
>to debut the console at
>that low of a price,
>but you couldn't be more
>wrong. Nintendo made more
>many than any other console
>publisher last year by a
>margin of $400 Million (http://ign64.ign.com/news/30185.html).

Plus they probably can't lose as much per machine as Sony.

> While most of that
>is undoubtedly GameBoy revenue, it's
>that much more money that
>Nintendo can use in the
>Gamecube launch. Furthermore, Nintendo
>have a $5 Billion war
>chest that they could tap
>if the going got rough.
> Nintendo certainly aren't too
>worried about finances at the
>moment, you can be sure
>of that.

Heh.. I like the Gameboy.. nice solid system.

>Please. Those are merely the
>titles I could name off
>the top of my head.
> Many more from Nintendo
>and their second parties are
>underway and a lot of
>third parties are making games
>for the 'cube, not to
>mention the PS2 ports.
>The GCN will be released
>with a much larger list
>than that.

They better.. that's what made people hesitate to get a PS2 over the Dreamcast.

>Nintedo are better prepared for the
>upcomming battle than most people
>realize. I'm confident that
>they'll win back a lot
>of fans and show the
>competition just how serious they
>are.

Well if they produce another SNES, it should be good.

Just don't discount the PS2, it still has a lot to offer. That's my main argument.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>>Full, no, but by that time more developers will actually take advantage of the more powerful functions of the PS2. Right now most games only run on the Emotion Engine which doesn't really let the PS2 strut its stuff.<<

I agree with you on that, the games certainly will get better. But it all comes down to ease of development again. By the time the GCN is released, most developers will have tapped into the vector units, but that won't mean they know [em]all[/em] there is to know about the system. Far from it. Factor 5 used the N64 vector heavily even as early as Rogue Squadron, but they kept working with it and trying to get more from it. Even after the unit had been tapped, there was more to do and more to work with before they could get the most out of it. Hell, I'm still not sure anyone has.

The point is, while developer A is working with the vector units to make them do what he wants, developer B could do the same thing on the Gamecube with less effort and get the same product out the door faster and with greater ease. Of course, developer B could also use the extra time to tweak the game and make it even better. Either way, it amounts to the same thing.

>>I must admit that gametime load is irritating when it is extremely long, but I seriously don't think it is going to be a major issue with these consoles. I mean, I thought load times were such a pain in Planescape Torment that I copied all the CDs to my hard drive (2 gigs), but we're talking about about systems that rely mostly on their hardware to make the graphics rather than what is loaded from the CD.<<

You're still going to have to load textures, sounds, scripts, AI, physics engines etc. If a game is 2D, it could have just as much to load as PS:T, but it would have the benefit of reading off a hard drive. Before you suggest it, it's already been established that games won't be installed on the PS2 hard drive.

>>But the point is that the while they are rough estimates, they are still in the ball-park, and they're estimates based on the first generation games.<<

No, that's simply wrong. I defy you to find a first generation game with even 10 Million polygons per second.

>>Plus they probably can't lose as much per machine as Sony.<<

That doesn't matter; they won't have to. The GCN is not so advanced as to cost Nintendo a bundle more than they could possibly charge. Nintendo have a history of designing more cost-effective hardware.

>>Heh.. I like the Gameboy.. nice solid system.<<

I agree, even though I'm not sure that wasn't a sarcastic comment. I'm looking forward to getting a GBA, but that probably won't happen this year.

>>They better.. that's what made people hesitate to get a PS2 over the Dreamcast.<<

People hesitated? Who? Some retailers are just now meeting all of their preorder demands, due to the initial shortage, but the systems would have sold like hotcakes regardless.

>>Just don't discount the PS2, it still has a lot to offer. That's my main argument.<<

I don't doubt that you can do amazing things on the system, but I don't think it has a significant technical advantage over Gamecube, if one at all, and the ease of development for the GCN is a major factor. Throw in Nintendo's exclusive software and I'd put my money behind the GCN any day.

 
>into the vector units, but
>that won't mean they know
>[em]all[/em] there is to know
>about the system. Far
>from it.

All? No, but far enough to make more use of the more powerful features of the PS2, yes.

>You're still going to have to
>load textures, sounds, scripts, AI,
>physics engines etc.

Those really don't take up tremendous amounts of space. Those are usually the fastest loading parts anyway.

Right now the PS2 relies on its CD-ROM drive rather than the DVD part for games. Load times are really not a huge issue, especially when considering the max transfer rate is 4800KB/sec.

Hmm, I found that the max transfer speed of the PS2 drive is actually faster than the GC's. The PS2's max speed is 4800KBytes/sec (32X, or DVD 2) whereas the GC's is 25mbps (Min 16mbps), e.g. 25000kbit/sec * (byte / 8bit) = 3125KBytes/sec.

However the GC's speed may on the average be higher than the PS2's because the data is located closer to the outer rim of the CD rather than extending much further into the disk's center and thus degrading speeds. I really don't know the minimum speed of the PS2, but I'd venture a guess and say it is probably in the ballpark of maybe 8x or 12x, e.g. 150kBytes / sec * 8 = 1200kBytes/sec or 150kBytes / sec * 12 = 1800kBytes/sec. The minimum speed for the GC would be 16000kbit/sec * (byte / 8bits) = 2000kBytes/sec.

Either way, they are about even, so the GC really doesn't have an advantage (or disadvantage) when it comes to data transfer. The only disadvantage is that the GC is limited to 1.5gig, but it isn't like the PS2 has taken advantage of the DVD capacity yet anyway, so right now that's a non-issue.

>If
>a game is 2D, it
>could have just as much
>to load as PS:T, but
>it would have the benefit
>of reading off a hard
>drive. Before you suggest
>it, it's already been established
>that games won't be installed
>on the PS2 hard drive.

On that pathetic thing? No. On future machines they should provide, either as an upgrade or built in, an 80gig hard drive.. the only problem is that it would probably encourage pirating.

>>>But the point is that the while they are rough estimates, they are still in the ball-park, and they're estimates based on the first generation games.<<
>
>No, that's simply wrong. I
>defy you to find a
>first generation game with even
>10 Million polygons per second.

I've heard/read some games claim 20 million. I don't know if there are any benchmarks on this though.

>That doesn't matter; they won't have
>to. The GCN is
>not so advanced as to
>cost Nintendo a bundle more
>than they could possibly charge.
> Nintendo have a history
>of designing more cost-effective hardware.

But Sony's strategy is to make money off the games, not the hardware.. only this time they could be losing up to $200 per machine.

>>>They better.. that's what made people hesitate to get a PS2 over the Dreamcast.<<
>
>People hesitated? Who? Some
>retailers are just now meeting
>all of their preorder demands,
>due to the initial shortage,
>but the systems would have
>sold like hotcakes regardless.

Many did, citing that the PS2 didn't have many games and the Dreamcast had many (100+). Unfortunately SEGA cut off the machine anyway.

>I don't doubt that you can
>do amazing things on the
>system, but I don't think
>it has a significant technical
>advantage over Gamecube, if one
>at all, and the ease
>of development for the GCN
>is a major factor.
>Throw in Nintendo's exclusive software
>and I'd put my money
>behind the GCN any day.

I'd say both will be able to compete. I don't know about the X-box though.. many sites say that it will really suck, but others say it will own.. I personally don't trust Microsoft to make it well..

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>>All? No, but far enough to make more use of the more powerful features of the PS2, yes.<<

I still think you're putting too much stock in developers' abilities, but there's really no way to answer this other than "We'll see." If the first generation GCN software isn't at least comparable to most of what's available on the PS2 at the time, I'll eat my copy of Fallout 2.

>You're still going to have to
>load textures, sounds, scripts, AI,
>physics engines etc.

>>Those really don't take up tremendous amounts of space. Those are usually the fastest loading parts anyway.<<

Is that why both the GCN and PS2 have 12 GB/s (peak) of memory bandwidth dedicated entirely to textures?

>>Right now the... that's a non-issue.<<

All those numbers sure are pretty, but the smaller seek time of the GCN optical disk and more/faster RAM do make a difference. If/When DVDs become widely used for PS2 games, the difference will become even more pronounced. While the difference is not major, you have to admit that it is there. Even your math agrees with that.

>>I've heard/read some games claim 20 million. I don't know if there are any benchmarks on this though.<<

Some yet-to-be-released games may be [em]promising[/em] 20M, but no game has gotten anywhere close to that number, I assure you. If you can find a reputable, and varifyable, source to tell me otherwise I'll eat my copy of PS:T, manual and all.

Think about this logically. You yourself have cited sources saying that the maximum PS2 could generate in a real-time environment is 20M. If this were true, what are the chances that a developer could reach that number in the first generation of games? You've already answered that question: [blockquote]"Most PS2 games only take advantage of the Emotion Engine. Very few have even touched the Vector unit. However as time passes, developers will make better use of the PS2's powerful vector engines"[/blockquote]

>>But Sony's strategy is to make money off the games, not the hardware.. only this time they could be losing up to $200 per machine.<<

Yeah, that's the strategy of the whole industry. What's your point?

>>Many did, citing that the PS2 didn't have many games and the Dreamcast had many (100+). Unfortunately SEGA cut off the machine anyway.<<

Do you wonder why SEGA stopped production? They weren't making any money. Over the past 2 years, they've lost over $500M and they blamed poor Dreamcast sales (Gamepro Is. 151 "PRONews: Sega: The Dream is Over"). Apparently, enough software-buying gamers [em]didn't[/em] opt for the DC over the PS2.

>>I'd say both will be able to compete.<<

Sure, they'll both be able to compete, but the fact remains: the PS2 is not significantly, if at all, better than the GCN technologically and easier production combined with more and better exclusive software tips the scales in favor of Gamecube.

>>I don't know about the X-box though.. many sites say that it will really suck, but others say it will own.. I personally don't trust Microsoft to make it well..<<

No argument here.

 
>Some time ago I heard stuff
>about a game console running
>on linux and having a
>swappable graphics chip. Anyone heard
>about that one ?

Yeah, I think that was the Dreamcast.. I don't know about the PS2. They were able to put a Genesis emulator on the Dreamcast or something too, pretty neat.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>>>Those really don't take up tremendous amounts of space. Those are usually the fastest loading parts anyway.<<
>
>Is that why both the GCN
>and PS2 have 12 GB/s
>(peak) of memory bandwidth dedicated
>entirely to textures?

What's your point there? Memory bandwidth has nothing to do with the speed of the texture loading from disk, nor how much space the textures take up. It is dedicated to moving the textures from RAM, to the graphics units and eventually to the screen at a fast rate, it has absolutely nothing to do with how fast the drive is, or the initial load time.

>>>Right now the... that's a non-issue.<<
>
>All those numbers sure are pretty,
>but the smaller seek time
>of the GCN optical disk
>and more/faster RAM do make
>a difference. If/When DVDs
>become widely used for PS2
>games, the difference will become
>even more pronounced. While
>the difference is not major,
>you have to admit that
>it is there. Even
>your math agrees with that.

You have to remember that most graphics data is not loaded on-the-fly, it is loaded once at the beginning of the current part of the game and then used. Therefore the seek time is not a significant factor considering the data will be loaded once instead of randomly accessed.

>>>I've heard/read some games claim 20 million. I don't know if there are any benchmarks on this though.<<
>
>Some yet-to-be-released games may be [em]promising[/em]
>20M, but no game has
>gotten anywhere close to that
>number, I assure you.
>If you can find a
>reputable, and varifyable, source to
>tell me otherwise I'll eat
>my copy of PS:T, manual
>and all.
>
>Think about this logically. You
>yourself have cited sources saying
>that the maximum PS2 could
>generate in a real-time environment
>is 20M. If this
>were true, what are the
>chances that a developer could
>reach that number in the
>first generation of games?
>You've already answered that question:
> [blockquote]"Most PS2 games only
>take advantage of the Emotion
>Engine. Very few have even
>touched the Vector unit. However
>as time passes, developers will
>make better use of the
>PS2's powerful vector engines"[/blockquote]

But think about it this way: If first-generation-games can even claim 20M, games that nearly only use the Emotion Engine, what can be said about later games, like games that take advantage of the VU1? Nintendo has already declared the maximum polygon count to be around 16M max, so if the PS2 is already chugging out moderately good amounts of polygons now, think of how well it will do right now.

>>>But Sony's strategy is to make money off the games, not the hardware.. only this time they could be losing up to $200 per machine.<<
>
>Yeah, that's the strategy of the
>whole industry. What's your
>point?

But that's Sony's ground-up strategy. Most console makers would sell their consoles for roughly the production cost, or even more. Sony swept the competition by making their system inexpensive and mooching off the games.

But unfortunately for Sony, the PS2 is quite expensive to make with all its features.

>Sure, they'll both be able to
>compete, but the fact remains:
> the PS2 is not
>significantly, if at all, better
>than the GCN technologically and
>easier production combined with more
>and better exclusive software tips
>the scales in favor of
>Gamecube.

Again, we'll have to see.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>>But think about it this way: If first-generation-games can even claim 20M games that nearly only use the Emotion Engine, what can be said about later games, like games that take advantage of the VU1? Nintendo has already declared the maximum polygon count to be around 16M max, so if the PS2 is already chugging out moderately good amounts of polygons now, think of how well it will do right now.<<

My point in the last 2 or 3 posts is that NO FIRST GENERATION GAME CAN REALISTICALLY CLAIM A NUMBER THAT HIGH! Have you been reading my posts or simply scanning through them?! Let me say it again: [strong]NO FIRST GENERATION GAMES GOT ANYWHERE NEAR 20 MILLION POLYGONS PER SECOND![/strong]

Your insistance that games have been published that maintain such a polygon count is ludicrous, oral diarrhea. Your implication that the PS2 could attain a polygon count well over 20 Million is baseless conjecture. The term "verbal masturbation" does not adequately describe the situation.

The fact that you say you "heard" of a such a title is meaningless. I could just as easily claim to have "heard" that the Gamecube will be released with 2 gigs of RAM, a full complement of disk and cart slots capable of making the system backwards compatible with every other system ever released, and a debut price of $.25. Such claims would differ from yours in purely immaterial manners. In this case, Xotor, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. If you cannot supply a reputable and verifiable source to back your claims, then they are best left unclaimed, because they are completely meaningless.

Furthermore, your proclamation that Nintendo have declared the maximum real-time output of the Gamecube to be 16 million polygons is equally baseless. Nintendo have released no maximum output. The closest official numbers, 6-12 Million, are simply what can be easily and realistically obtained. The number I assume you refer to is a benchmark performed by EA Canada after having a dev kit for a week. It is in no way indicative of Nintendo's official numbers or the limits of the system.

In short, your above quoted statement is [em]in all possible ways absolutely incorrect[/em]. It was this type of vicious rumor that I hoped to combat in the first place. I am not nearly done with my post. Please contain the fury that must be coursing through your veins a few minutes longer and at least finish reading what I have to say in response to your statements.

>>But that's Sony's ground-up strategy. Most console makers would sell their consoles for roughly the production cost, or even more. Sony swept the competition by making their system inexpensive and mooching off the games.<<

You are simply wrong again. This statement sparked my memory and I scoured my archive of GamePro magazines to find the issue I wanted. In issue 96 a table was published containing the debut pricing information for the latest, at the time, generation of consoles. The PSX is priced at $299 with no game compared to the Saturn at $399 with Virtua Fighter, the Jaguar at $249 with Trevor McFur, the 3D0 at $799 with Crash 'n' Burn and the N64 at $249 with no game. This mistake is corrected in issue 97 when the US launch is reported in full. It clearly states that the N64 debuted at $200, for the record.

It's important to realize that the above data clearly demonstrates that the PSX was very comparably priced to the other systems' debut prices with the exception of the 3D0. Interestingly, the prices of the Saturn and the Playstation were both cut to $200 just before the launch of the N64. It is clear that this price cut influenced the final price of the N64 and demonstrates Nintendo's willingness to price their consoles competitively.

Your claim that Sony have lowered their prices below that of their competitors in the hopes that they will make up the difference in software is completely baseless as well.

Xotor, throughout this debate, and indeed in previous encounters, I have found you to be a very worthy opponent. Furthermore, you have maintained the integrity of these boards very well. However, your statements in your most recent post have turned out to be wrong. There are no two ways about it. What most surprises me is that you seem to have made up information and attempted to twist my words and arguments to mean something completely different.

I certainly never thought I would see this from you, but I've had my fill of it. I have no wish to continue an argument with an opponent so thoroughly unwilling to discuss the topic seriously and rationally. If you wish to continue the topic without basing your arguments entirely on baseless conjecture, blatantly false information and vague memories of what you have "heard," then I would be willing to continue our discussion as well. As of this point, I see no such reason to dignify any further comments regarding this topic with a reply.
 
thats the indrema not a mainstream machine more of a niche thing basically a linux x86 PC in a box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top