I was just wondering if the graghics for X box will
be better than ps2 since its not out probably know
one knows

------------------
[b]ev,evo,evn
and Ares are
all of the ambrosia games I have ;-)

They will be considerably better, the graphics chip is a modified GeForce 3, almost three times the power of a [smirk] PS2.

------------------
Ladies and Gentlemen, as you know we have something special for you at
Birdland this evening. A recording for Blue Note Records...
Let's take it back to the concrete streets, original beats and real live MC's...
"I don't know how radical you are or how radical I am. I am certainly not radical enough; that is, one must always try to be as radical as reality itself" - Lenin

It is clear that the PS2 will be the weakest of the next-gen consoles, in pretty much every way (except maybe storage——the GCN can "only" use 1.5 GB). The Gamecube will be able to handle the same graphics load as the X-Box and for half the price!

—Tim

------------------
—= Timinator =—

*sigh* D, check xbox.ign.com, cube.ign.com or ps2.ign.com. They have plenty of info. Ya know, there are plenty of xBox-devoted sites out there...

------------------
Corey³ (Cubed)
Ask somebody if you don't know, that Caesar's rockin' mics like Huey rocks the afro...And flow like a thug look mean, you can't see Caesar with a quart of 'Visine' OR psychic dreams...It make the crowd say ho! and ya sister sat golly, that me and Huey sock-tight like Sifl and Olly, so emcees who step up with their heads held aloft...get their pride cut in two like Darth Maul and Microsoft! BROOKLYN BABY!! WHAT?! WHAT?!

You know, a lot of people (major developers included) really don't understand the PS2 architecture as well as they could. I'm no expert either, of course, but the PS2 takes a very unconventional approach toward 3D graphics.

Other systems generally have graphics processors with a large VRAM cache (like a computer, and like the XBox and GC will be having). The PS2 has barely 200K of VRAM cache (compared to 16 or 32MB as is the standard for PC GPUs now). The way the PS2 works, is it relies on its incredibly fast DMA bus and main system memory to keep it afloat. In addition to the 300MHz MIPS3 processor, the PS2 has 2 "vector units" (vu0 and vu1) which do most of the graphics number crunching, then shuffle data back to the main CPU to be packaged and sent to the video output. In effect, everything has to happen in a very rapid procession, and the programmer must stay several steps ahead of where they would be if they were programming for a conventional architecture. Also, many hardware effects present in the newest video cards (like shadows and mist effects and cell-shading) are absent from the PS2: developers must code them by hand. The PS2 doesn't take a performance hit handling these if the developers are competent enough (just look at Ico), but it certainly is a larger curve to climb before the actual game can be implemented, rather than just the engine. As you may have surmised, this is the source of most of those developer complaints regarding how difficult the PS2 is to develop for. But, that will start to become easier as most development shops have a defined method for going at PS2 programming at this juncture.

Just because the PS2's approach is unconventional, doesn't mean it's better. If current PS2 games are any indication, we'll see considerable graphics performance for the PS2, certainly not VASTLY inferior to the XBox or Gamecube. But it's possible that developers may never really get a handle on the PS2 enough to make it outdo the XBox or Gamecube. Personally, I think it's possible, but Sony may just have tried to make the PS2 too much of a console, which will probably turn out to be a mistake when it goes up against the more PC-like Gamecube and XBox.

------------------
APATHISTS OF THE WORLD, U- ah forget it.

What does you mean by "more PC like consoles"?!

------------------
The romans The best SC Clan on the net!

heh, yeah, WTF? does that mean? Do you want to run windows on game console? Do you want you game console to be more like a personal computer? With it's own hard drive(like X-box)? I personally think that that would be really lame.


-Kevin

------------------
Yet another sensless post by CE™
Check out Starbase Delta or The Daedalus developers forums.
don't click here

I think he means the structure/components of the machine is PC like.

------------------

I believe he means that it's more like the PC to program for. (Ironhorse might be right as well.)

------------------
Visit my EVO web site at http://www.evoverride.com!
"The onion you are eating is someone else's water lily." -- actual fortune cookie

I meant the layout of the components is unlike what you'd find on a PC. Indeed, it would be impossible to attain the functionality of a PC (or Mac, or what have you) on something like the PS2. The Xbox and GC mimic the PC architecture a lot more closely than the PS2 dos.

------------------
APATHISTS OF THE WORLD, U- ah forget it.

Keep in mind that the GC and Xbox have both had alot more development time than the PS2 did. In fact it's possible that the PS2 was rushed into completion in an effort to keep all the "stand by customers" that would have bought Dreamcast if they didn't finish soon.

------------------
-TheDarkDragon
Visit #cythera on IRC for all you Cythera/IRC fans. (You probably should be able to figure that out.)

Finally someone mentions Dreamcast. It is a 'nex-gen' console. The PS2 has a 128 bit processor and so does the Dreamcast. PS2 only has two advantages over the Dreamcast: A DVD player(and I'd rather have internet playability) and that there are still plans for many games. Yes, Dreamcast third party game developers ran away when they heard Sega was not going to make anymore software for it. The only game I really miss is going to be House of the Dead III, which was going to come out on DC but was later moved to an XBox exclusive title.

Still, many people don't realize what a great buy the Dreamcast is. It has a massive library of games(well over 300) which are not yet outdated. Plus, you can get online with it, not so great just for internet acess(unless you don't have a comp...) but very good for playing games online and dling cool stuff into a VMU(also very unique). And the best part is they're going cheap! You won't pay more than $80 for the system itself, and you can usually get good package deals. I bought mine several months ago and I am sure glad I did. It is an excellent system with excellent games. You can't go wrong.

------------------
Knowledge is power, but ignorance is bliss.

Amen! I couldn't agree more on all counts. In fact, the Dreamcast is the FIRST console I have ever actually considered buying. Had Sega not wimped out and cancled it, i bet you ten to one it would have lived. With games the likes of Skies of Arcadia and Shenmue, how could it not?

------------------
I may not have the strength to hold you up/ but if you fall/ I will fall under you/ and make it as soft as I can
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Resistance Web Page

Can you say "major competition"?

------------------
Corey³ (Cubed) | Plugs³ | EVula's Lair

HappyPirateLand - because conquering the galaxy should be fun for the whole family!

Well, history has shown that there is generally only one console that ends up with lion's share of the market in all respects. The NES, the SNES, and the PlayStation respectively by generation. Sega has never been able to compete with the top dog, mostly because of lackluster marketing, and never landing exclusvies titles from the big developers (Square, Enix, Capcom, Konami, Namco...)

------------------
APATHISTS OF THE WORLD, U- ah forget it.

Actually, the Genesis beat the SNES handily in terms of both sales and popularity. It's the system released first in each generation of consoles that tends to emerge victorious: NES in the 8-bit era, Genesis in the 16-bit era, and PlayStation in the 32/64-bit era.

------------------
http://www.conewars.com/- fear the cones
Just Games, because wasting time is a beautiful thing

Since this is a topic about the X-Box, I just thought that I'd point out some facts that I picked up when one of my friends got to demo one (as well as a Gamecube) at ToysRUs this weekend. I'll summarize his opinions of the two.

X-Box: Big. The console is physically big. As big as a standard VCR. The load times were also very poor. He put it on the same level as the PS2 (supposedly Microsoft eliminated load times). The graphics were all right, but he wasn't too impressed. He did like the controller (despite the obvious "influences"). He played 4x4 2 or something. It should be noted that Tony Hawk 3 is not coming out for X-Box, only a port of the PC TH2.

GameCube: The console is very small. Look at a CD case, and you're looking down at the footprint of the GameCube. The controllers are also small; something he didn't like, but rated the controller as better than the X-Box's. The analog L- and R-buttons felt great; with lots of room for the analog. Rogue Squadron looked "totally amazing," just as good as the screen shots on IGN. He wasn't impressed at all by Wave Race, but he thinks it might be due to the fact that it was a demo CD on a crappy TV. He also said that load times were very short, less than 2 seconds or so.

He was more impressed with the GameCube than the X-Box. Nintendo thought about non-spec-related things, like "size" and load times. Microsoft seemed to care more about getting impressive numbers. The end result is a system which is just as powerful as Nintendo's, but is $100 more expensive, and takes up 4x the space.

Just his opinion.

—Tim

------------------
—= Timinator =—