The Gameucbe was the most powerful console it's gen.

No, it wasn't. The XBox was. And it's not a discussion, it's a fact.

The xbox had native 720P games via component  like Ninja Gaiden and a better GPU with programmable shaders, it was really more powerful than the Cube !

The Gamecube had some great looking games though .

Who cares

(Xbox was most powerful and the Wii U is not the most powerful this gen)

The xbox had native 720P games via component  like Ninja Gaiden and a better GPU with programmable shaders, it was really more powerful than the Cube !

The Gamecube had some great looking games though .

Caseytappy

System wars is in another part of the forum Trol boy !

But you'd be WRONG. NGC was not the stronger of the consoles... Next time, blog your ignorance. We discuss things in a forum, and your OP doesn't leave room for anything but laughing at you...

;)

System wars is in another part of the forum Trol boy !

 

Caseytappy

But you'd be WRONG. NGC was not the stronger of the consoles... Next time, blog your ignorance. We discuss things in a forum, and your OP doesn't leave room for anything but laughing at you...

;)

MonkeySpot

[QUOTE="MonkeySpot"]

But you'd be WRONG. NGC was not the stronger of the consoles... Next time, blog your ignorance. We discuss things in a forum, and your OP doesn't leave room for anything but laughing at you...

;)

TURBO-DASH

Nobody needs any proof. It's a fact that the XBox is the most powerful that gen. There's nothing to discuss here.

Everyone ignore this mentally defective troll's posts and threads; I smelt the stench of Another48Hours a mile away on this account.

[QUOTE="TURBO-DASH"][QUOTE="MonkeySpot"]

But you'd be WRONG. NGC was not the stronger of the consoles... Next time, blog your ignorance. We discuss things in a forum, and your OP doesn't leave room for anything but laughing at you...

;)

Emerald_Warrior

Nobody needs any proof. It's a fact that the XBox is the most powerful that gen. There's nothing to discuss here.

Everyone ignore this mentally defective troll's posts and threads; I smelt the stench of Another48Hours a mile away on this account.

Shenmue_Jehuty

[QUOTE="Shenmue_Jehuty"]

Everyone ignore this mentally defective troll's posts and threads; I smelt the stench of Another48Hours a mile away on this account.

TURBO-DASH

derp -a - derp, I'm Turd-hole Daash, dah I mean turbo dash. I ah, turtles are green, just like the XBOX, dddrrrrrr dddrrr!

Xbox could run Half-Life 2 with full PC physics and Doom 3 with full PC effects and games as complex as Operation Flashpoint and Full Spectrum Warrior.

GameCube had problems running games like Ghost Recon 2 and Spinter Cell: Chaos Theory without framerate dips and mediocre visuals. (shoddy ports or not)

Also, the PS2 actually had a CPU with more theoretical raw FLOPS performance than either NGC or Xbox. (if considerably worse GPU and less RAM)

XBOX was a BEAST! They could have run that thing for another 4 years. It did 720p in 2001!

The Gamecube was second in Processing power to Microsoft Xbox. It was a great effort tech-wise from Nintendo. Mini DVD was it's downfall. Xbox and Playstation used regular DVD Roms. IBM Power PC technology was decent but the choice of Mini DVD really hurt the Gamecube.

Thus ended up dead last in sales for the 6th generation. 21.74 Million in total sales from 2001-2007.

The Gamecube was second in Processing power to Microsoft Xbox. It was a great effort tech-wise from Nintendo. Mini DVD was it's downfall. Xbox and Playstation used regular DVD Roms. IBM Power PC technology was decent but the choice of Mini DVD really hurt the Gamecube.

Thus ended up dead last in sales for the 6th generation. 21.74 Million in total sales from 2001-2007.

Megavideogamer

[QUOTE="TURBO-DASH"][QUOTE="MonkeySpot"]

But you'd be WRONG. NGC was not the stronger of the consoles... Next time, blog your ignorance. We discuss things in a forum, and your OP doesn't leave room for anything but laughing at you...

;)

Emerald_Warrior

Nobody needs any proof. It's a fact that the XBox is the most powerful that gen. There's nothing to discuss here.

Did I seriously just hear that? Of course you need proof, so that you can back up your own claims.

Nope.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="TURBO-DASH"] Yep nice proof there, at least I posted something.GSJones1994

Nobody needs any proof. It's a fact that the XBox is the most powerful that gen. There's nothing to discuss here.

Did I seriously just hear that? Of course you need proof, so that you can back up your own claims.

There's no need to prove anything, is my point. This is a known fact that's not in question, except for by alt-account boy. This isn't anything that's debatable.

In a few hours, we'll see another 48 alt accounts.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="TURBO-DASH"] Yep nice proof there, at least I posted something.GSJones1994

Nobody needs any proof. It's a fact that the XBox is the most powerful that gen. There's nothing to discuss here.

Did I seriously just hear that? Of course you need proof, so that you can back up your own claims.

Click me

These days people complain about Nintendos lack of power or that Nintendo does things to prevent getting power. Well with Wii U being stronger than PS4 and Xboxone as well as above most PC's, it's clear that this is not true. Going back to the Cube, the Cube was already next gen when it came out. So far ahead the Wii was pretty much a slightly more powerful cube. You needed no more. Xbox and PS2 games looked like pixel newgrounds art at best. Jagglies everywhere! Gamecube games were clean and crisp. Smooth like butter, and high color count. High-end 480P as well. TURBO-DASH

No, it wasn't. The XBox was. And it's not a discussion, it's a fact.

Emerald_Warrior

and the first one who feeds the troll... :L

People disregard the gamecube because of it's smaller library (or even just Nintendo console sin general these days) but what they have is excellent

We love you, A48!

Gamecube I think was most powerful or maybe tied with Xbox but it just goes to show that graphics aren't everything. >:3

[QUOTE="Megavideogamer"]

The Gamecube was second in Processing power to Microsoft Xbox. It was a great effort tech-wise from Nintendo. Mini DVD was it's downfall. Xbox and Playstation used regular DVD Roms. IBM Power PC technology was decent but the choice of Mini DVD really hurt the Gamecube.

Thus ended up dead last in sales for the 6th generation. 21.74 Million in total sales from 2001-2007.

GSJones1994

I wouldn't even count the Dreamcast.  Out of the big 3 Nintendo was last.

Gamecube I think was most powerful or maybe tied with Xbox but it just goes to show that graphics aren't everything. >:3

final_lap

You have to define what exactly you mean with "power".

Most FLOPS?

PS2 won in that. (Emotion Engine)

Best graphical capabilities?

Xbox won in that. (GeForce 3-based GPU)

The GC actually wasn't all that powerful (it's more in line with Dreamcast in raw power) but it was very efficient design, if explored well.

[QUOTE="final_lap"]

Gamecube I think was most powerful or maybe tied with Xbox but it just goes to show that graphics aren't everything. >:3

nameless12345

You have to define what exactly you mean with "power".

Most FLOPS?

PS2 won in that. (Emotion Engine)

Hell no, Sony only started  boasting about Floating point operations with the PS3 .

Xbox 21,6 Gflops 

Gamecube 10,5 Gflops

PS2 6,2 Gflops

Dreamcast 1,4 Gflops

The CPU was much better, but that was mostly mitigated by the Xbox's huge clock speed advantage and a seperate chip for audio.  And the memory set up in Gamecube was in another league, but Xbox still had more potential in terms of raw output because of more memory and a more modern gpu (the biggest advantage). 

But, gamecube absolutely smoked Xbox in loading times, so there's a win for the gamecube.

So, they traded blows. 

Since we're talking about misconceptions here, Wii destroys them both in every way, and Ps2 wasn't exactly "destroyed" by either the cube or Xbox.  Yes, really.

Why does it matter if it was the most powerful or not? It all came down to the games the systems had.

The Gamecube may have had really good 1st party games, but the rest of its library was pretty poor, and that was one of its downfalls. The Mini-DVD didn't help either.

Remember how Gamecube owners were screwed over and over again when the publishers decided to cancel the Gamecube versions of many games?

Wake up fanboys, the Gamecube was a low point for Nintendo. The Nes sold well, SNes sold well, N64 sold so-so, but still respectable, Game boy (original, color and advance) sold almost 200 million units, and the DS's sold an are still selling well.

Back when the Gamecube was selling, it was the Game boy who really supported Nintendo. Nintendo would be dead it they didn't own the portable market back then.

[QUOTE="GSJones1994"][QUOTE="Megavideogamer"]

The Gamecube was second in Processing power to Microsoft Xbox. It was a great effort tech-wise from Nintendo. Mini DVD was it's downfall. Xbox and Playstation used regular DVD Roms. IBM Power PC technology was decent but the choice of Mini DVD really hurt the Gamecube.

Thus ended up dead last in sales for the 6th generation. 21.74 Million in total sales from 2001-2007.

WonderfulTonite

I wouldn't even count the Dreamcast.  Out of the big 3 Nintendo was last.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="final_lap"]

Gamecube I think was most powerful or maybe tied with Xbox but it just goes to show that graphics aren't everything. >:3

Caseytappy

You have to define what exactly you mean with "power".

Most FLOPS?

PS2 won in that. (Emotion Engine)

Hell no, Sony only started  boasting about Floating point operations with the PS3 .

Xbox 21,6 Gflops 

Gamecube 10,5 Gflops

PS2 6,2 Gflops

Dreamcast 1,4 Gflops

ok, I expressed myself inaccurate - PS2's CPU had the most FLOPS performance out of the three system's CPUs. (PS2's "Emotion Engine" - 6.2 GFLOPS, GC's "Gekko" - 1.9 GFLOPS, Xbox's "Coppermine-based" - 1.5 GFLOPS)

Other systems had better GPUs which added to the total FLOPS performance.

The OP's post is nonsensical... but many of the replies are also almost just as nonsensical.

The Xbox was not more powerful than the GameCube. The Xbox certainly had more advanced graphical shading capabilities, but in terms of raw power, the GameCube outputted a higher GFLOPS floating point performance and polygon rendering performance. This shouldn't be surprising, since the GameCube's PowerPC architecture was more efficient, so much so that the Xbox 360 later also adopted a similar PowerPC architecture (abandoning the Pentium III architecture of the original Xbox).

Very few games used the GameCube to its full capabilities, however, such as Resident Evil 4 and the Rogue Squadron games. I remember not too long back Rogue Squadron III looking rather impressive even compared to Xbox 360 launch titles, in fact.

At best, I'd say the GameCube and Xbox was about on par, with the GameCube having the edge in raw performance and the Xbox having the edge in graphical shading capabilities.

At best, I'd say the GameCube and Xbox was about on par, with the GameCube having the edge in raw performance and the Xbox having the edge in graphical shading capabilities.

Jag85

Yeah, pretty much.

I mean, you're right, at least in practice.  The reason my conclusion differed a bit is because, I have to give Xbox the benefit of the doubt.  It never even got CLOSE to being pushed.  We have the information, but comparing results... you'd think Gamecube shat on the Xbox.  The best raw output results we have with Xbox, is a freakin port of an N64 game.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="final_lap"]

Gamecube I think was most powerful or maybe tied with Xbox but it just goes to show that graphics aren't everything. >:3

Caseytappy

You have to define what exactly you mean with "power".

Most FLOPS?

PS2 won in that. (Emotion Engine)

Hell no, Sony only started  boasting about Floating point operations with the PS3 .

Xbox 21,6 Gflops 

Gamecube 10,5 Gflops

PS2 6,2 Gflops

Dreamcast 1,4 Gflops

The Xbox's actual floating-point performance was 7.3 GFLOPS, higher than the PS2 but less than the GameCube.

Also, the Dreamcast's 1.4 GFLOPS is an understatement, as its only referring to the Hitachi SH-4 CPU and doesn't include the more powerful NEC/VideoLogic PowerVR2 GPU. Its overall floating-point performance should at least be in the region of 2-3 GFLOPS.

EDIT:

Also, about the PS2, its CPU had a higher GFLOPS performance than its competitors, but its GPU was well below the Xbox & GC.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

At best, I'd say the GameCube and Xbox was about on par, with the GameCube having the edge in raw performance and the Xbox having the edge in graphical shading capabilities.

Chozofication

Yeah, pretty much.

I mean, you're right, at least in practice.  The reason my conclusion differed a bit is because, I have to give Xbox the benefit of the doubt.  It never even got CLOSE to being pushed.  We have the information, but comparing results... you'd think Gamecube shat on the Xbox.  The best raw output results we have with Xbox, is a freakin port of an N64 game.

Which game was that?

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

At best, I'd say the GameCube and Xbox was about on par, with the GameCube having the edge in raw performance and the Xbox having the edge in graphical shading capabilities.

Jag85

Yeah, pretty much.

I mean, you're right, at least in practice.  The reason my conclusion differed a bit is because, I have to give Xbox the benefit of the doubt.  It never even got CLOSE to being pushed.  We have the information, but comparing results... you'd think Gamecube shat on the Xbox.  The best raw output results we have with Xbox, is a freakin port of an N64 game.

Which game was that?

Conker.

The OP's post is nonsensical... but many of the replies are also almost just as nonsensical.

The Xbox was not more powerful than the GameCube. The Xbox certainly had more advanced graphical shading capabilities, but in terms of raw power, the GameCube outputted a higher GFLOPS floating point performance and polygon rendering performance. This shouldn't be surprising, since the GameCube's PowerPC architecture was more efficient, so much so that the Xbox 360 later also adopted a similar PowerPC architecture (abandoning the Pentium III architecture of the original Xbox).

Very few games used the GameCube to its full capabilities, however, such as Resident Evil 4 and the Rogue Squadron games. I remember not too long back Rogue Squadron III looking rather impressive even compared to Xbox 360 launch titles, in fact.

At best, I'd say the GameCube and Xbox was about on par, with the GameCube having the edge in raw performance and the Xbox having the edge in graphical shading capabilities.

Jag85

Carmack said that GC was actually less-powerful than the PS2. (smaller peak poly-counts)

But he also said that PS2 had a backwards GPU in comparison to GC and Xbox. (much less features)

Only console in that generation that was powerful enough to run Doom 3 was the Xbox.

Also, Xbox's Pentium 3-based CPU had it's strenghts over the PowerPC-based GC CPU.

Like for example it was better at complex physics calculations (Half-Life 2) and complex AI calculations. (Operation Flashpoint: Elite)

It was also PC-like X86 architecture so ports from the PC were easy on the Xbox.

Altho there weren't exactly many physics and AI intensive games on the GC so it's hard to say how it would handle them.

But Xbox also had more RAM in it's favour.

I personally think that Nintendo had won the last gen... sort of. That being, the Wii did not self-destruct much among the line which the PS3 and Xbox 360 did. But this isn't about the Wii, its about the Gemcube instead. Where to begin... 

I personally feel that Nintendo lost its spark right after they released the N64. What I want to say is: They have made some rather stupid design in their consoles staring from the N64. Nintendo knew damn-well that CD based media was in high swing at the time of development. Instead of moving forward with technology advancement like the rest of the industry, they rather decided to ignore it and design the N64 with the out-dated cartridge-based loading system. 

They did almost the same mistake with the NGC. A mini-DVD optical-based system? What were you thinking Nintendo?! These little design inconveniences, that Nintendo has done in the past has dethroned them off of first/second place of the gaming industry. 

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

The OP's post is nonsensical... but many of the replies are also almost just as nonsensical.

The Xbox was not more powerful than the GameCube. The Xbox certainly had more advanced graphical shading capabilities, but in terms of raw power, the GameCube outputted a higher GFLOPS floating point performance and polygon rendering performance. This shouldn't be surprising, since the GameCube's PowerPC architecture was more efficient, so much so that the Xbox 360 later also adopted a similar PowerPC architecture (abandoning the Pentium III architecture of the original Xbox).

Very few games used the GameCube to its full capabilities, however, such as Resident Evil 4 and the Rogue Squadron games. I remember not too long back Rogue Squadron III looking rather impressive even compared to Xbox 360 launch titles, in fact.

At best, I'd say the GameCube and Xbox was about on par, with the GameCube having the edge in raw performance and the Xbox having the edge in graphical shading capabilities.

nameless12345

Carmack said that GC was actually less-powerful than the PS2. (smaller peak poly-counts)

But he also said that PS2 had a backwards GPU in comparison to GC and Xbox. (much less features)

Only console in that generation that was powerful enough to run Doom 3 was the Xbox.

Also, Xbox's Pentium 3-based CPU had it's strenghts over the PowerPC-based GC CPU.

Like for example it was better at complex physics calculations (Half-Life 2) and complex AI calculations. (Operation Flashpoint: Elite)

It was also PC-like X86 architecture so ports from the PC were easy on the Xbox.

Altho there weren't exactly many physics and AI intensive games on the GC so it's hard to say how it would handle them.

But Xbox also had more RAM in it's favour.

Are you sure Carmack said that? I just Googled it and haven't found him saying anything like that. As for peak polygon counts, benchmark tests showed the GameCube having the highest that generation, especially with the Rogue Squadron games which had polygon counts well beyond any Xbox games...

The Old Xbox vs GameCube Graphics War

As for Doom 3, the reason why it wasn't brought over to the GameCube was because, like I said above, it lacked the Xbox's more advanced shading capabilities that the game heavily relied on. It was technically possible to recreate those shaders on the GameCube, but it would have been too difficult.

As for the Pentium III architecture, I'm not really sure if it really did have better physics & AI calculations, but the fact that Microsoft abandoned it in favour of the PowerPC architecture for the Xbox 360 suggests that, overall, the GameCube's PowerPC architecture had the edge over the Xbox's Pentium III architecture.

And finally, while the Xbox did have more overall RAM, the GameCube had faster 1T-SRAM.

Overall, the Xbox and GameCube were closely matched, with the GameCube offering more raw power while the Xbox offered a more advanced feature set... almost like the Mega Drive vs SNES, with the Mega Drive offering more raw power and the SNES offering a more advanced feature set.

I personally think that Nintendo had won the last gen... sort of. That being, the Wii did not self-destruct much among the line which the PS3 and Xbox 360 did. But this isn't about the Wii, its about the Gemcube instead. Where to begin... 

I personally feel that Nintendo lost its spark right after they released the N64. What I want to say is: They have made some rather stupid design in their consoles staring from the N64. Nintendo knew damn-well that CD based media was in high swing at the time of development. Instead of moving forward with technology advancement like the rest of the industry, they rather decided to ignore it and design the N64 with the out-dated cartridge-based loading system. 

They did almost the same mistake with the NGC. A mini-DVD optical-based system? What were you thinking Nintendo?! These little design inconveniences, that Nintendo has done in the past has dethroned them off of first/second place of the gaming industry. 

Metallic_Blade

The optical mini-disc wasn't a deal breaker compared to the DVD, the same way the 360's DVD format isn't a deal breaker compared to Blu-Ray. The GameCube featured texture compression and video compression, both of which the PS2 lacked, so using optical discs (roughly 1/3 the storage space of a DVD) didn't disadvantage it in any major way compared to the PS2. In addition, the mini-discs loaded a lot faster than DVD.

In other words, the situtation isn't remotely comparable to the N64 era. While the cartridge also loaded faster than CD, there was a huge difference in size (anywhere from twenty to fifty fold) between a CD and a cartridge, not to mention cartridges being much more expensive.

In other words, Nintendo offered a powerful GameCube which was technically superior to the PS2 in almost every single way, and yet it barely sold a fraction of what the PS2 sold. That was the reason why Nintendo decided to go with a technically inferior Wii, which won last gen much like how the technically inferior PS1 and PS2 won in the previous generations.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

The OP's post is nonsensical... but many of the replies are also almost just as nonsensical.

The Xbox was not more powerful than the GameCube. The Xbox certainly had more advanced graphical shading capabilities, but in terms of raw power, the GameCube outputted a higher GFLOPS floating point performance and polygon rendering performance. This shouldn't be surprising, since the GameCube's PowerPC architecture was more efficient, so much so that the Xbox 360 later also adopted a similar PowerPC architecture (abandoning the Pentium III architecture of the original Xbox).

Very few games used the GameCube to its full capabilities, however, such as Resident Evil 4 and the Rogue Squadron games. I remember not too long back Rogue Squadron III looking rather impressive even compared to Xbox 360 launch titles, in fact.

At best, I'd say the GameCube and Xbox was about on par, with the GameCube having the edge in raw performance and the Xbox having the edge in graphical shading capabilities.

Jag85

Carmack said that GC was actually less-powerful than the PS2. (smaller peak poly-counts)

But he also said that PS2 had a backwards GPU in comparison to GC and Xbox. (much less features)

Only console in that generation that was powerful enough to run Doom 3 was the Xbox.

Also, Xbox's Pentium 3-based CPU had it's strenghts over the PowerPC-based GC CPU.

Like for example it was better at complex physics calculations (Half-Life 2) and complex AI calculations. (Operation Flashpoint: Elite)

It was also PC-like X86 architecture so ports from the PC were easy on the Xbox.

Altho there weren't exactly many physics and AI intensive games on the GC so it's hard to say how it would handle them.

But Xbox also had more RAM in it's favour.

Are you sure Carmack said that? I just Googled it and haven't found him saying anything like that. As for peak polygon counts, benchmark tests showed the GameCube having the highest that generation, especially with the Rogue Squadron games which had a polygon count well beyond any Xbox game.

As for Doom 3, the reason why it wasn't brought over to the GameCube was because, like I said above, it lacked the Xbox's more advanced shading capabilities that the game heavily relied on. It was technically possible to recreate those shaders on the GameCube, but it would have been too difficult.

As for the Pentium III architecture, I'm not really sure if it really did have better physics & AI calculations, but the fact that Microsoft abandoned it in favour of the PowerPC architecture for the Xbox 360 suggests that, overall, the GameCube's PowerPC architecture had the edge over the Xbox's Pentium III architecture.

And finally, while the Xbox did have more overall RAM, the GameCube had faster 1T-SRAM.

Overall, the Xbox and GameCube were closely matched, with the GameCube offering more raw power while the Xbox offered a more advanced feature set... almost like the Mega Drive vs SNES, with the Mega Drive offering more raw power and the SNES offering a more advanced feature set.

Well that's what I heard from some "sources". (that he said that PS2 had better poly-count than GC did)

MS picked Power architecture because it was cheaper, not because it would be better than X86 architecture in all aspects.

The PS4 and X1 are both using X86 now.

IBM G3 vs Intel P3 was a interesting match but we haven't really seen much CPU-oriented games on GC.

The P3 in Xbox was clocked higher, if anything.

I don't quite agree that GC had more power than Xbox did.

GC's video chip was about on-par with a AMD/ATi Radeon 7200 while the Xbox's was a GeForce 3-based chip with improved feature set.

So basically their video chips were almost a gen appart.

GC was just a very efficient design, that I give it right.

I'd say "MD vs SNES" is more comparable to "PS3 vs 360".

PS3 had the CPU edge (like MD) but 360 had better GPU. (SNES)

Anyway, it's the games that should do the talking: