XXXXXX

59 results
1
2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

6341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2013 • 6341 Posts

@TheKingIAm said:

@MightyMuna: The xbox really wasn't a gen ahead. The GC was a factually more powerful console when it came to polygon pushing. Here is an interesting link eexplaining it.

Did you write that link because no technician, programmer, or engineer with a brain agrees with you. Including developers, and third-party developers. Ever.

11 years ago

1531

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 Edited By TheKingIAm

Member since 2013 • 1531 Posts

@Jakandsigz: Who disagrees exactly? Those are facts he stated. The xbox cpu was even weaker the PS2's. The truth is in the games and rebel strike is the best technological feat of that gen. It makes no sense that ppl like you judge power on what the general consensus of a system's power is.

11 years ago

6341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 Edited By Jakandsigz

Member since 2013 • 6341 Posts

@TheKingIAm said:

@Jakandsigz: Who disagrees exactly? Those are facts he stated. The xbox cpu was even weaker the PS2's. The truth is in the games and rebel strike is the best technological feat of that gen. It makes no sense that ppl like you judge power on what the general consensus of a system's power is.

Except that is not true and NONE of the professional in that field agree with you including games that cannot run without heavy compromises on the gamecube according to certain TP developers. I am not judging power on general consensus as you wrote in your obscure blog, I am talking about people actual providing technical details and visual demos you can find in 5 seconds on google.

We argued about this months ago, and you still had no point made. http://www.gamespot.com/forums/games-discussion-1000000/was-the-xbox-more-powerful-than-the-gamecube-29430952/

Your only literal argument is polygons, allow me to make a game where everything is blocks and the color red which will push more polygons than both consoles.

11 years ago

1238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 Edited By Opus_Rea-333

Member since 2013 • 1238 Posts

@XxR3m1xInHDn3D said:

@charizard1605 said:

@XxR3m1xInHDn3D said:

@TheKingIAm said:

@XxR3m1xInHDn3D: In what way? The GC had faster ram, a better cpu and the gpu, due to its fixed functions, was very efficient and succeeded real world figures. Rebel Strike on the GC had over 20 million polygons, more than any other game that gen, while including bump mapping, shading, and running at 60 fps.

GameCube

-485MHz IBM CPU

-162MHz ATI GPU

-40MB overall RAM

Xbox

-733MHz Intel CPU

-230MHz nVidia GPU

-64MB RAM

Real world performance, Gamecube was pretty damn close to Xbox.

Go Play Doom 3, Far Cry, Half Life 2, Riddick, Black or Chaos Theory and then say that

yea i agree i rented Doom 3 for original Xbox and it blowed my mind!!! unlike any gamecube or ps2 game that i played.

11 years ago

6341

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2013 • 6341 Posts

Not to mention Double Steal 2 on Xbox is 720P 60fps which is apparently something this whole gen has a problem with eve with racing games.

11 years ago

992

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2013 • 992 Posts

The closest parallel to the XBO/PS4 launch was the Saturn/PS1 launch.

Both consoles released around the same time with the PS1 being cheaper and more powerful than the Saturn. Ended up with the PS1 outselling the Saturn by around 10-1.

11 years ago

9625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2004 • 9625 Posts

@Caseytappy said:

Playstation 1 vs the crazy expensive Saturn !

Saturn still played arcade perfect ports of my beloved CPS2 engine games while PS1 struggled with a few of them...

Memories :,|

11 years ago

Douevenlift_bro

6804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 Douevenlift_bro

Member since 2013 • 6804 Posts

Because Kinect

11 years ago

7806

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2011 • 7806 Posts

@NineTailedGoku said:

With PS4 having superior performance over XO, its apparent that MS will have a far weaker console this time around. For it to actually be 500 dollars and 100 bucks more than PS4 is insane. Battlefield 4, COD Ghosts, and Need For Speed are all vastly inferior on the XO. Has this ever happened before? How did Sony make the PS4 so affordable, release before XO, and have performance thats head and shoulders over its competition?

"Vastly inferior"? LOL. Cows...

11 years ago

7806

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2011 • 7806 Posts

@sonic1564 said:

@tormentos said:

@superclocked said:

The Kinect 2 is far superior. The R&D costs alone for the technology must've been outrageous...

NO chance in hell you just have read the right signs.

First one MS will profit from the xbox one or break even on launch,compare that to sony who will lose $60 per unit.

Second didn't the first Kinect had a chip.? Because compute on Kinect 2 is done by GPU on the xbox one,in fact is part of the reason for the whole 10% GPU reservation.

Hi idiot

How do I argue with you again? Oh yeah, something something graphics only matter, something something technology, something something visuals and something something spunkgargleweewee.

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

11 years ago

59 results
1
2

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment