i will prove once and for all that the wii can do much better than x-box no 56k

starwars rs2,3

star fox adventure notice the fur

resident evil 4

zelda

GC=x-box wii >>> x-box 

Yeah those look terrible compared to Conker for Xbox.JiveT

Yeah those look terrible compared to Conker for Xbox.JiveT

can Conker make fur with 100 differnt things on screen? i rest my case 

Does it really matter...?

I mean, it's like the Nintendo-boys motto that graphics don't mean crap.

[QUOTE="JiveT"]Yeah those look terrible compared to Conker for Xbox.kittykatz5k

And what about Ninja Gaiden Black. Or Jade Empire?

Or even Far Cry: Insticts? 

xbox was more powerful than the gamecube
wii is slighty more powerful than the xbox ;)
is a fact......palaric8

thanks for your "facts"

It's at least 2 times more powerful in hardware.

In the end, it's the software that matters.

Again, we visit the land of Illogica, where screenshots are king and system specs are queen.

you would think so.

But where are the examples of wii games that look "much better" than GC games?

It hasn't happened yet. 

[QUOTE="palaric8"]xbox was more powerful than the gamecube
wii is slighty more powerful than the xbox ;)
is a fact......Maelkav

thanks for your "facts"

It's at least 2 times more powerful in hardware.

In the end, it's the software that matters.

Again, we visit the land of Illogica, where screenshots are king and system specs are queen.

In other words nothing is certain until the actually full fledged games come out. We are still waiting for that.

Yeah those look terrible compared to Conker for Xbox.JiveT

[QUOTE="kittykatz5k"][QUOTE="JiveT"]Yeah those look terrible compared to Conker for Xbox.FlamingFlamingo

And what about Ninja Gaiden Black. Or Jade Empire?

Or even Far Cry: Insticts? 

Those games are pretty good looking, thus the above post proove it can match those games. Ninja gaiden matches with resident evil because they both have high detail but very small areas with load times inbetween each one. Far cry and star wars match with their large, fairly detailed enviorments and good effects in a scaled level. And jade empire... well I didn't really find that all too graphically impressive, so I'm sure I could easly find something to match.

[QUOTE="JiveT"]Yeah those look terrible compared to Conker for Xbox.kittykatz5k

Yeah those look terrible compared to Conker for Xbox.JiveT

[QUOTE="JiveT"]Yeah those look terrible compared to Conker for Xbox.theshadow1212

[QUOTE="theshadow1212"][QUOTE="JiveT"]Yeah those look terrible compared to Conker for Xbox.palaric8

 Oh? Back for more Wii-bashing?

The market would say otherwise. Goodbye.

[QUOTE="palaric8"][QUOTE="theshadow1212"][QUOTE="JiveT"]Yeah those look terrible compared to Conker for Xbox.Maelkav

 Oh? Back for more Wii-bashing?

The market would say otherwise. Goodbye.

The fact that this argument has to even be had is horrible plain and simple.MikeE21286

That's a pretty good point right there. 

Yes, we know the Wii will surpass the Xbox. The question is when that will happen? I'm guessing MP3.Ibacai

the thing is there so close in power you will probalby never see the differnce.  They will remain in the same league.

For sheep not caring about graphics they sure seem to make alot of threads about graphics.......Even if Wii is every so slightly great than Xbox power-wise.....Who cares really. Xbox was realeased in 2001, Wii in 2007.  The fact that this argument has to even be had is horrible plain and simple.  If I were sheep I wouldn't make these posts anymore.  I'd just live with the fact that people bashing the Wii are gonna make these posts and you should try and keep them to a minimum by not making any of your ownMikeE21286

We don't care about having huge graphics, but credit where credit is due. You can't just sit here and take blows from the fanboys talking about how "wii looks worse dan teh n46!!!"

[QUOTE="MikeE21286"]For sheep not caring about graphics they sure seem to make alot of threads about graphics.......Even if Wii is every so slightly great than Xbox power-wise.....Who cares really. Xbox was realeased in 2001, Wii in 2007.  The fact that this argument has to even be had is horrible plain and simple.  If I were sheep I wouldn't make these posts anymore.  I'd just live with the fact that people bashing the Wii are gonna make these posts and you should try and keep them to a minimum by not making any of your ownkittykatz5k

We don't care about having huge graphics, but credit where credit is due. You can't just sit here and take blows from the fanboys talking about how "wii looks worse dan teh n46!!!"

Yeah I guess.......it just bring more attention to a sore spot..........

to all those who state the wii is 2x more powerful than xbox.

wii:

cpu: ibm broadway 729Mhz

gpu: ati hollywood 243Mhz (capable of 480p)

ram: 88Mb ram(24 Mb internal 1T-Ram and 64 Mb external GDDR3), 3Mb texture ram (VRam)

Xbox:

cpu: Intel 733Mhz (pentium 3 based though the initial bathc was celeron based)

gpu: Nvidia XGPU 250Mhz (geforce 3/4 based) (capable of 480p, 720p and 1080i)

ram: 64Mb total memory

the xbox is slighty faster/more powerful but the wii has slighty more ram that is faster.

here are the links:

wii 1

wii 2

xbox

xbox 2

Gameplay > Graphics

$600 > $250

and finally

Wii > Ps3

3 facts, that as of today cannot be disputed unless you use the words wait, or not yet.

to all those who state the wii is 2x more powerful than xbox.

wii:

cpu: ibm broadway 729Mhz

gpu: ati hollywood 243Mhz

ram: 88Mb ram(24 Mb internal 1T-Ram and 64 Mb external GDDR3), 3Mb texture ram (VRam)

 

Xbox:

cpu: Intel 733Mhz (pentium 3 based)

gpu: Nvidia XGPU 250Mhz (geforce 3/4 based)

ram: 64Mb total memory

 

the xbox is slighty faster/more powerful but the wii has slighty more ram that is faster.

here are the links:

wii 1

wii 2

xbox

latinrage69

Um, the architecture on the Wii CPU is inherently faster (about 2 times as fast) as the Intel XBOX CPU. That is why people say it, because there are still some people in this world who know that quoting numbers in a system spec comparison is only half of the equation...

[QUOTE="latinrage69"]

to all those who state the wii is 2x more powerful than xbox.

wii:

cpu: ibm broadway 729Mhz

gpu: ati hollywood 243Mhz

ram: 88Mb ram(24 Mb internal 1T-Ram and 64 Mb external GDDR3), 3Mb texture ram (VRam)

 

Xbox:

cpu: Intel 733Mhz (pentium 3 based)

gpu: Nvidia XGPU 250Mhz (geforce 3/4 based)

ram: 64Mb total memory

 

the xbox is slighty faster/more powerful but the wii has slighty more ram that is faster.

here are the links:

wii 1

wii 2

xbox

Maelkav

Um, the architecture on the Wii CPU is inherently faster (about 2 times as fast) as the Intel XBOX CPU. That is why people say it, because there are still some people in this world who know that quoting numbers in a system spec comparison is only half of the equation...

Yes, PPC vs. Intel core processors.  

to all those who state the wii is 2x more powerful than xbox.

wii:

cpu: ibm broadway 729Mhz

gpu: ati hollywood 243Mhz

ram: 88Mb ram(24 Mb internal 1T-Ram and 64 Mb external GDDR3), 3Mb texture ram (VRam)

 

Xbox:

cpu: Intel 733Mhz (celeron based)

gpu: Nvidia XGPU 250Mhz (geforce 3/4 based)

ram: 64Mb total memory

 

the xbox is slighty faster/more powerful but the wii has slighty more ram that is faster.

here are the links:

wii 1

wii 2

xbox

xbox 2 

latinrage69

Though there's more to hardware than those numbers, good job on the finds. Wii isn't a levels worth of leap over xbox but enough to make cleaner, smoother crisper games.

it doesn't matter if it's based on ppc or not, the truth is xbox and wii are approximately equal to each other with the xbox having a slight edge in overall power and the wii having a slight advantage in efficiency. in 2-3 years time the wii will start to edge out the xbox in graphics but until then, the xbox has better graphics and effects. in any case, intel cores are better than ibm ppc cores, that's why apple dumped ibm for intel. the only reason all three new consoles use ppc is because it's more cost effective than using an intel or amd x64 based processor.

edit:

i forgot to put in my prior post that the xbox was capable of outputting 1080i graphics with dolby digital in-game. some games did come out in 720p and 1080i like the true crimes series. the wii can't do hd. at least, not yet.

it doesn't matter if it's based on ppc or not, the truth is xbox and wii are approximately equal to each other with the xbox having a slight edge in overall power and the wii having a slight advantage in efficiency. in 2-3 years time the wii will start to edge out the xbox in graphics but until then, the xbox has better graphics and effects.latinrage69

Uh, care to explain that? Power is the amount of work done over a period of time, and the PPC and do more work in less time... it's does more in the same time as the Intel. Thus it's more powerful.  

it doesn't matter if it's based on ppc or not, the truth is xbox and wii are approximately equal to each other with the xbox having a slight edge in overall power and the wii having a slight advantage in efficiency. in 2-3 years time the wii will start to edge out the xbox in graphics but until then, the xbox has better graphics and effects.latinrage69

No. It makes all the difference.

Example:

Pentium 4 processors vs. AMB Athlon Processors (for PCs)

P4 processors will ALWAYS be listed as faster, but the fact is, AMD Athlon is speed-checked while plugged into a native motherboard and p4 is speed-checked while plugged directly into a speed-checker-thingy (official name: I don't know). The point is, those numbers are "doctored facts" that do not reflect the truth.

There is much more to a CPU that mere speed. Pipes, format (BIOS?), and the OS software plays a big part, too.

Once again, someone has fallen ploy to the industry's over-simplification of computer hardware.

Gameplay > Graphics

$600 > $250

and finally

Wii > Ps3

3 facts, that as of today cannot be disputed unless you use the words wait, or not yet.

dilmos

[QUOTE="latinrage69"]it doesn't matter if it's based on ppc or not, the truth is xbox and wii are approximately equal to each other with the xbox having a slight edge in overall power and the wii having a slight advantage in efficiency. in 2-3 years time the wii will start to edge out the xbox in graphics but until then, the xbox has better graphics and effects.Maelkav

No. It makes all the difference.

Example:

Pentium 4 processors vs. AMB Athlon Processors (for PCs)

P4 processors will ALWAYS be listed as faster, but the fact is, AMD Athlon is speed-checked while plugged into a native motherboard and p4 is speed-checked while plugged directly into a speed-checker-thingy (official name: I don't know). The point is, those numbers are "doctored facts" that do not reflect the truth.

There is much more to a CPU that mere speed. Pipes, format (BIOS?), and the OS software plays a big part, too.

Once again, someone has fallen ploy to the industry's over-simplification of computer hardware.

uh huh...now for the truth. the ibm broadway was based one the powerpc g3 processor, more specifically, the powerpc 740cl. the g3's main competitor was the pentium 2. the processor in the xbox was a slightly modified intel pentium 3. as we all know, the pentium 3 > g3. the p3 main competitor was the k62 form amd and the powerpc g4. the g4 introduced the efficiency > raw clock speed, not the g3. then again, the g4 was made by motorola, not ibm. the broadway lacks altivec, ibm's answer to sse. both are floating point (FP) calcutlators. this means that the wii may not be capable of floating point calculations like the xbox. here's some links:

p3

g3

broadway

ppc vs. intel

looks like someone fell for nintendo's "kiddy knowledge" campaign.

currently there are no specs for the broadway other than the clock speed, but as i've said before that you clearly missed, the wii will outpace the xbox in 2-3 years, not now.

as for your illogical p4 vs athlon comparison, the p4 was marketed solely on speed were as the athlon was marketed on efficiency. the athlon, while it had literally half the clock speed of a comparable p4, it always out-performed the p4 because it had hyper-transport, internal memory and memory controller on the cpu itself, were as the p4 relied on the system memory and had huge bottlenecks because of the limited front side bus (FSB) speed. this is why to this day the athlon's can have fsb speed of 2ghz while the intel core 2 duo's have 1066mhz.

just face it, the wii is not as powerful as the xbox. just like hecker said, it's 2 gamecubes taped together with a new control. 

[QUOTE="Maelkav"]

[QUOTE="latinrage69"]it doesn't matter if it's based on ppc or not, the truth is xbox and wii are approximately equal to each other with the xbox having a slight edge in overall power and the wii having a slight advantage in efficiency. in 2-3 years time the wii will start to edge out the xbox in graphics but until then, the xbox has better graphics and effects.latinrage69

No. It makes all the difference.

Example:

Pentium 4 processors vs. AMB Athlon Processors (for PCs)

P4 processors will ALWAYS be listed as faster, but the fact is, AMD Athlon is speed-checked while plugged into a native motherboard and p4 is speed-checked while plugged directly into a speed-checker-thingy (official name: I don't know). The point is, those numbers are "doctored facts" that do not reflect the truth.

There is much more to a CPU that mere speed. Pipes, format (BIOS?), and the OS software plays a big part, too.

Once again, someone has fallen ploy to the industry's over-simplification of computer hardware.

uh huh...now for the truth. the ibm broadway was based one the powerpc g3 processor, more specifically, the powerpc 740cl. the g3's main competitor was the pentium 2. the processor in the xbox was a slightly modified intel pentium 3. as we all know, the pentium 3 > g3. the p3 main competitor was the k62 form amd and the powerpc g4. the g4 introduced the efficiency > raw clock speed, not the g3. then again, the g4 was made by motorola, not ibm. the broadway lacks altivec, ibm's answer to sse. both are floating point (FP) calcutlators. this means that the wii may not be capable of floating point calculations like the xbox. here's some links:

p3

g3

broadway

ppc vs. intel

looks like someone fell for nintendo's "kiddy knowledge" campaign.

currently there are no specs for the broadway other than the clock speed, but as i've said before that you clearly missed, the wii will outpace the xbox in 2-3 years, not now.

as for your illogical p4 vs athlon comparison, the p4 was marketed solely on speed were as the athlon was marketed on efficiency. the athlon, while it had literally half the clock speed of a comparable p4, it always out-performed the p4 because it had hyper-transport, internal memory and memory controller on the cpu itself, were as the p4 relied on the system memory and had huge bottlenecks because of the limited front side bus (FSB) speed. this is why to this day the athlon's can have fsb speed of 2ghz while the intel core 2 duo's have 1066mhz.

just face it, the wii is not as powerful as the xbox. just like hecker said, it's 2 gamecubes taped together with a new control.

Ddue gamecube was equal to the x-box rogue squadren did those effects with dozens of things on screen if the game cube was equal then the wii far surpasses the x-box!  even the ram that the wii/ cube uses is su[erior to the x-box ram! 

Does it really matter...?

I mean, it's like the Nintendo-boys motto that graphics don't mean crap.

Spikenenspikspi

Does it really matter...?

I mean, it's like the Nintendo-boys motto that graphics don't mean crap.

Spikenenspikspi

Yes, we know the Wii will surpass the Xbox. The question is when that will happen? I'm guessing MP3.Ibacai

[QUOTE="Ibacai"]Yes, we know the Wii will surpass the Xbox. The question is when that will happen? I'm guessing MP3.Tristam22

[QUOTE="Tristam22"][QUOTE="Ibacai"]Yes, we know the Wii will surpass the Xbox. The question is when that will happen? I'm guessing MP3.Ibacai

[QUOTE="Ibacai"][QUOTE="Tristam22"][QUOTE="Ibacai"]Yes, we know the Wii will surpass the Xbox. The question is when that will happen? I'm guessing MP3.Tristam22