Revolution vs. Xbox One
So, Revolution specs have been leaked onto IGN's site. The quote that best describes the specs is the following: "As soon as we find out what it can do then we'll know if Revolution will just be like an Xbox or something a little more." To me, these specs are quite disappointing. If you aren't disappointed, then you don't appreciate the new gaming experiences that increased power can open up. Complicated physics? No can do. Realistic reflections? Ha! Normal mapping? Laughable! Hundreds of enemies? Sorry, wait for Revolution 2 (or buy a PS3 or Xbox 360). Since I like speculating on the Revolution, let me tell you if it'll be like an Xbox or something a little more.
Processor
The Revolution has a processor that's possibly twice as fast as the GameCube processor. GameCube has a 485 MHz PowerPC, so let's assume the power is like a 970 MHz PowerPC. Xbox has a 733 Mhz. It's difficult to compare different architectures just based on clock speeds, but since the Xbox 1 got about twice the CPU performance of GameCube, I'd say they are the same.
Winner: The same.
GPU
No details have really emerged, but IGN reports that the Revolution dev kits are just GameCube dev kits at the moment. Let's assume that the GPU is a souped up version of the current GPU. The current GPU isn't nearly close to as good as the Xbox GPU, which features shaders and all sorts of goodies that GameCube lacks. So, although it's not obvious what the clear winner is, I'm guessing they'll be similar in power.
Winner: The same.
RAM
Revolution has 88 MB of useful RAM along with the 16 meg of slow ARAM according to IGN. Xbox has 64 MB.
Winner: Revolution!
HDTV support
Revolution will support 480p. Xbox 1 supports 480p, 720p and 1080i. Miyamoto has claimed that people can't tell the difference... I don't know what mushrooms he's been eating, but you can totally tell the difference between a 480p game and the higher HD resolutions.
Winner: Xbox
Controller
Yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone is claiming that the Revolution controller is the greatest thing since the joystick, so MAYBE I'll let the Revolution win here. But really, what good is the controller if no one makes games for it? Most development studios aren't really enthused about making games for it. Sure, the big companies release press releases saying they will develop for it, and individual people say how great it is, but I'm betting most of the game developers who praise it won't actually make games for it since it is their studio's decision, and most studios (that I know of... Sure, I don't know everyone, but I know a good slice of game developers) aren't doing Revolution games. You can do a cross plat game for PS3 and Xbox 360 and hit a large target audience, or risk it all on one platform that might not actually have good market penetration... So, most studios aren't going to want to do it, especially because a lot have already started developing next gen tech. They aren't going to abandon it and go back to their current gen tech for Revolution, are they? Maybe that's good because Revolution will get some fresh, new developers, but on the other hand, the new blood will be inexperienced and might
make mediocre games...
Winner: Uncertain
Well, there you have it! The Xbox has better HDTV support, but the Revolution has more RAM. Otherwise, they'll probably be comparable. The one ramification of the poor hardware specs is that Revolution won't get ports. That's someone good because titles will be able to utilize the controller more, but it's also bad because there won't be very many games for it...
posted by The BIG G at 7:37 PM
14 Comments:
You are really dumb... do you realize that? Your so called "in depth reviews" are just biased crap, and now let's go through each part of that last bit of posted filth and break it down.
First off, the most obvious part of your bias. You compare processor, GPU, RAM, HD support, and the controler section. Did you compare previewed gameplay? Or potential development? Or what about innovation? No, never innovation, Innovation is heavily slanted in Nintendo's favor, must delete the innovation section...
Now then, one at a time.
Intro:
The Revolution is actually going to be 3-4 times more powerful than the GCN, and the GCN was ranked as having better graphics as the PS2 on 1up and IGN several times running.
Processor:
Xbox got twice the CPU performance? Are you stupid or just being dumb on purpose? GCN was ranked as having equal if not better CPU performance. Are you basing all of your "facts" off of popular opinion, or did you actually look this shit up like I did?Even if your woefully obvious bias was true (that the Revolution was barely twice as powerful) then it would still win over Xbox by 67 points, yet you listed them as "The same"
Incidentally, you're wrong. GCN easily hit around 800 on it's own. 3-4 times more powerful would be WAY above Xbox.
GPU:
"IGN reports"? What is this bullshit. Do you believe that? Or did you make that up. Anyone with half a brain would realize that the SDK for a GCN would NEVER come CLOSE to working for a Revolution. Now, you say "let's assume the GPU is the same" well guess what deuchebag, IT'S NOT THE SAME, and even if it was, "doesn't come close to Xbox"... hellooooo? Are you being retarted on purpose? LOOK UP THE STATS SOMETIME. And not the stats some fanboy posts, but actually go to the official websites and check the REAL stats. GCN was vrey close to matching, if not beating Xbox in power, therefore any improved version, even by the slightest bit, would be more powerful than an Xbox. Once again though, you list the two as "The same"
RAM:
The system isn't done yet, nor will it be for another year. How do you have finalized stats?
HDTV support:
Wow, the bias is really piling up here. Bring hip boots and a shovel for this shit mess...
So, is HD support the only new trick the Xbox360 has? Well I know a total of like 12 people IN THIS CITY that have HD TV.
Closing:
You do realize the Revolution supports standard controlers, right? Of course you do, we beat that into your brain like 50 times when you were on the 1up forums. You've conveniently forgotten that though...
You're so full of crap you sicken me...
The Bigger G:
You have proven to me that you are a huge idiot. That's quite impressive because I normally try to keep an open mind.
Intro: The Gamecube is less powerful than the PS2. Some Cube games look better than some PS2 games as do some PS2 games look better than some Xbox games. Depending on how much time a developer puts into a game, that determines the graphical quality. Every game developer under the sun will state that Xbox is more powerful than PS2 which is more powerful than GameCube. Maybe some developers might think GameCube is more powerful than PS2, but compare God of War to RE4, and I think PS2 comes ahead. Plus, PS2 has no problems running RE4 at or above Cube performance.
Processor: I've programmed for Xbox AND GameCube, and I assure you that Xbox's CPU performance is better. It may not be exactly twice, but it is significantly better. I don't know where you got your figure that they are the same, but you are incorrect. Ask any other game programmer who's worked with both systems. If by 800, you are referring to 800 MHz, you are just proving your ignorance again. The clock speed is 485 MHz. See here: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Nintendo-GameCube-9400-S-4-4 I was incorrect in saying it was 400 MHz, (that was the original spec before the console came out) but that is a long way from 800 MHz. You'd have to overclock your gamecube to get 800 MHz on its own, but it would overheat, and it wouldn't run most games better, since they often lock the framerate.
GPU: You don't have to believe that the Revolution dev kit is a GCN kit with a special controller. You also don't have to believe that we landed on the moon. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. If it weren't true, don't you think someone would come out and refute it? They aren't the only one saying it either. Would you believe it if.... Drum roll please... Shigeru Miyamoto said it? Check this out: http://gc.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=5842
Doesn't seem so far fetched now, does it? Oh and for your information, it's spelled douche bag... GameCube was missing pixel and vertex shaders, which are VERY powerful tools. I don't expect you to understand how they work, but any programmer will tell you that you get a lot of bang for your buck with a programmable graphics pipeline. If revolution doesn't have that, it hurts.
RAM: I believe what other game developers say and leak to IGN. I suppose they could be liars, but if you don't believe anything you read on the internet, how do you expect to learn anything?
HDTV: Your city must suck. I have an HDTV, and it's awesome. If you weren't bagging food at the local grocery store, I'd recommend that you buy one, but somehow, I don't think your bagboy wages will cut it.
Closing: I'm well aware that Revolution will support a standard controller. What does that have to do with this article? I'm merely saying that because it's hardware is not comparable to the others, it cannot get ports.
I'm sorry that I sicken you. Just go back to bed, and your mommy will cook you some chicken soup that'll make you feel much better!
-The BIG G
Let's just get this out of the way now: GC is a lot more powerful than the PS2. You'd have to be insane if you think that PS2 version of RE4 is superior to the GC. Though the GC doesn't have the number crunching specs the XBOX has, it more than makes up for those specs because it's a far more refined platform. A 450Mhz Power PC can do a lot more than a 450Mhz PIII CPU. So we're not talking even clock cycles here.
Yes Xbox is more powerful than a Gamecube, there's no denying that. But the difference isn't as clear cut...take a look at the new Zelda coming out. I'm not saying Xbox CAN'T do that game, just that I have yet to see an Xbox that smooth(anti-aliasing is done really well on the GC).
Anyway to me Revolution will look like 360 games running on a standard TV. Looks next generation, but lack of HD really hurts it when comparing vs. 360, PS3, or PC. But then again you're not buying the Revolition for its graphics, you're buying it because the innovation that Nintendo is trying to bring us. The system will be nice and cheap and that to me is a Revolution of itself!
I've programmed for both GameCube and PS2, and PS2 is more powerful. Every programmer has said the PS2 is more powerful that I've talked to. GameCube doesn't have the vector units, and it is really hurt by the small amount of memory. Criterion didn't do Burnout for GameCube (even though Renderware supports it) because the hardware isn't good enough.
Revolution will NOT look as good as a 360 on a standard definition TV because it doesn't have the memory for large textures and normal maps.
I haven't played RE4 for PS2, but keep in mind that it is a port, and regardless of system performance, it's harder to get as good quality graphics when porting since the architecture and pipeline are different.
The big G - I am no programmer, let me assure you. But the 733Mhz PIII in the Xbox TWICE as 'fast' (whatever that word means in this context) as the 485Mhz G3 in the 'Cube? As I said, I'm not programmer, but in the real world, talking about real games, the GameCube was often not far behind the Xbox in terms of graphics and AI.
And Resident Evil 4 may well be a port on PS2, but you can't deny that ports to the GameCube from the PS2 often look and play better; and if they play worse (controller idiocy withstanding - still haven't forgiven them for not having two real Z buttons) it because the developers couldn't be bothered to optimize code enough - therefore, final product is held back because of the limitations of the target console.
While we're on RE4, I came across numerous screenshots comparing the two different versions, Cube and PS2, the Cube was leagues ahead in terms of lighting effects and textures. I believe there were some framerate problems as well, but don't quote me on that one.(To be fair, the Cube version was letterboxed and PS2 version was true widescreen.)
The PS2 maybe more powerful than the 'Cube on paper, but the buck stops there. It's a quality machine, no doubt, but by all reports that I've heard, to get at that power, you've got to squeeze, and squeeze hard - something most devs won't do. With the Cube and Xbox, there is much less squeezing to be done. I don't think you took that enough into account.
This is a five-year-old argument long dead. Let's bury it.
As for the Rev being a glorified Xbox, come on. (Echos of the allegation that the Flipper GPU was just a glorified ALiMagic 7 come to mind.) The overall comparison seems too simplistic to come a real programmer. Most I've read shy away from such direct 'on paper' comparisons - the two architectures are miles apart, as you should well know if you are who you say you are.
(And not just RISC vs. CISC - I mean the graphics card, the different memory latency, etc. etc.)
Aight, I'm out
eli b.
Yeah, posing as "The Bigger G" Got old, and a little sickening because of how similar it is to your own name...
You're very stubborn, aren't you? If graphical performance of a game depends on the time a developer puts into it, then there is NO winner, no matter what the specs, because you never once examined the third party producers working under Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony Respectively. End of story.
And as for this "I've programmed for" bullshit, drop it. If you did program for any of the companies, you've obviously forgotten a LOT (as in everything)
I have two relatives working at Nintendo RIGHT NOW. They're not high up enough to get me free stuff, just promo disks every now and then. They report that a GCN software makeup (I'll avoid using their exact language, it makes me feel dumb just hearing them talk) is very different than a normal computer's makeup. Incidentally, an Xbox is a normal computer stuffed in a Box, even Microsoft admits that.
And wooow, that whole "bagboy" thing cut deep yo. You've demonstrated a far superior intellect by calling me a bagboy. Okay then, I'm a bagboy. I'm not the one being repeatedly called a retard though. Think of it this way. You aren't openly acting like an asshole, yet people who don't know you have the instant impulse to say "omg what a retard"
Does that mean anything to you mr "I programmed the on/off switch for Xbox"?
"Why does it matter"?!?! WTF do you mean, why does it matter? You dedicated an entire paragraph about how developers would hate on the Rev because it DIDN'T have a standard controler. Suddenly you're "well aware" of it?
I'm sorry, but sickness is just a thing I live with. Garbage sickens me, but I'm irreversably drawn to garbage until I'm able to stamp it out.
And if you wanna sling arrows with me, don't bother with the "I'm right because you're gay and work in a grocery store" category of barbs. I deal with that all the time from people who otherwise don't have anything more effective to throw around.
And seriously, the fake article is getting old. I doubt any REAL magazine or newspaper could take one look at your blog before calling down the huge red stamp of "BIAS" and just tossing it away. We're not talking subtle bias you can get away with on the news here folks, we're talking IN YOUR FACE SHAMELESS BULLCRAP.
Eli B:
You are definitely correct. Clock speed is relatively meaningless, and I don't have any benchmarks to compare them. Even if I did, it would be against NDAs to disclose such information. It's a commonly held opinion among programmers that Xbox is more powerful from a CPU standpoint than GC, so I'm betting that's based on some real profiling (I've never done any personally). I would deny that GameCube ports don't look better than any other platform. I haven't seen a port that looks better on GameCube than Xbox. If something is available on all three platforms, I buy the Xbox version because it's (almost) always the best looking, since it's the most powerful hardware. GameCube has 24 meg of main memory, which doesn't leave a lot of room for high resolution textures. I would say that in many examples GameCube is behind Xbox in graphics (not AI, since usually, that isn't so processor intensive). Look at Panzer Dragoon Orta, Halo 2, Dead or Alive 3, Conker, Chronicles of Riddick (which features normal maps) and try and tell me that the GameCube has anything with that quality of graphics. Resident Evil 4 is the closest, but I don't think they match up.
Yes, you have to squeeze the PS2 more to get good graphics, but most developers are willing to do squeeze it since it is the primary SKU since it has the largest install base. So, you can look at some really amazing graphics in PS2 games like "God of War" and "Ratchet and Clank", but besides Resident Evil 4, no one has really pushed the Cube.
Yes, I agree with you completely. An on paper comparison based on numbers is pretty worthless. Many details about the hardware like cache size, memory latency, bus size/speed, etc make a profound difference, and those numbers aren't given. Yes, the comparison is both an exaggeration and an oversimplification. No, there's no way of knowing how the CPUs compare until you profile them, but my point is just to show that Revolution is closer to the top end of the previous generation than it is the next generation.
Parry Aldon:
I'm well aware of the architecural differences between GameCube and Xbox. Xbox is NOT a normal computer stuffed into a box. Xbox has PC hardware. So does GameCube. PowerPC chips have been used in in Macintoshes for quite a while. Sure, it's not the same as one off the shelf, but Xbox has the nForce motherboard, which has unified memory, which wasn't available in any PCs (until nVidia started selling nForce motherboards). My point is this: PC hardware and console hardware can be similar. From what I hear, they want to make PCs with cell processors. Does that make the PS3 a PC? No.
Another difference between Xbox and a normal PC is the lack of Windows. It has the Windows Kernel, and some of the API, but your games are basically running as Kernel mode programs. This is a considerable performance boost. Things don't need to call a system interrupt and switch to kernel mode when making a kernel level call. I'm sorry if this is making your head hurt. If you'd like more information, read this. My point is just that calling it the same as a PC is a gross oversimplification. More importantly than running in kernel mode, is that you control the entire computer. No other processes are hogging your resources.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the controller in this article. I'm saying people won't develop for the system because of its poor hardware specs, not necessarily because of the controller. I talk about how you couldn't port to the standard controller in other articles, which is why I was confused as to what you were referring to in this particular article. The problem is, not everyone will have a standard controller since it doesn't come with one, so you are limiting your audience by designing a game that relies on the standard controller.
-The BIG G
You're well aware, huh?
Well are you well aware that Microsoft has publicy admitted several times that the Xbox1 was nothing more than a PC stuffed into a box. They used almost that exact wording too.
According to them, the Xbox1 is made from off the shelf PC parts, but they're only mentioning it because 360 is supposed to be so much better and they need something to compare it to.
Parry:
Can you find a link to them saying it is JUST off the shelf PC parts? Certainly, it has more similarities to PCs than any other console, but the nForce motherboard was developed for them, and nVidia started selling it AFTER they developed it for Xbox.
The internet is not a reliable source, and anything I show you will be called into question as fake.
Case in point, this very blog.
But here's something you can do.
Since you make so much fucking money programming for Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, go out and buy a few fucking issues of EGM and Gamepro. Look for the issues that are labeled "NEXT GEN CONSOLES"
Inside you can find plenty of articles where Microsoft spokesmen get up and say "Xbox was pretty much made from off the shelf parts, but Xbox360 will be different"
But, since I highly doubt you've worked for any of those companies, or even worked at all (I don't know many people that could stand to listen to you speak for long periods of time before firing you)
I'll scan a picture of a page from my own Gamepro issue (#208 January 2006, page 22) which basically summarizes several interviews, press conferences, shows, ect. for you to choke on.
http://img310.imageshack.us/img310/9905/xboxandxbox3607jq.jpg
If you wanna just skip all the brainwork required to read all of that, then here's another one with the important bits circled
http://img310.imageshack.us/img310/6857/xboxandxbox36029tz.jpg
Now, any programmer for this system would know what sort of archetecture they were programming games for. Any programmer that DIDN'T...
Well, let's just say that if you DID work for Microsoft, I can see why they fired your stupid ass.
Now, repeat after me.
"I'm sorry Parry, I admit I know dick about this console, and will no longer pretend to be an expert on it"
But you won't say that, because I already know what you're going to say.
"I said find an article saying it was JUST off the shelf PC parts, and you didn't"
Well in this case "just" means 100% nothing else, just PC parts. Any idiot would know that this isn't the case, because no PC has parts for gamepads to plug into, gamepad buttons, or green glowing open buttons with a big "X" on it. Therefore, "Just PC parts" would be technically incorrect. In other words you already knew you were boned, you were trying to cover you ass on a technicality. That's one smart thing you've done so far...
In column two, in big red circle number two, are the words "Architecture for the 360 is far from a PC in a box this time"
...meaning?
Meaning Xbox was a PC in a box, and was widely regarded as such, and no amount of fast talking by you or posting of other peoples' tech specs on the windows operating system is going to save your ass.
Xbox = PC in a box. Give it up.
http://img310.imageshack.us/
img310/9905/
xboxandxbox3607jq.jpg
http://img310.imageshack.us/
img310/6857
/xboxandxbox36029tz.jpg
Links were cropped last time... whatever.
Here's the undamaged links. I assume you know how to use them?
You do realize that GamePro is written by journalists, not by people who understand computer hardware, right? Largely composed of is a fair statement, but there are a number of key differences I pointed out, which make programming for the system different. It's easy for you to ignore them if you'd like. But, you don't know anything about programming, and I know quite a lot. You didn't know about kernel mode and how all that works, and when your relatives talk about GameCube hardware, it makes your head hurt. I understand all that "technobabble".
Ahh, clever. I didn't think of those two.
"You don't understand"
and
"They don't understand"
Of course you would understand, since you're the "allmighty big G!!"
Well you realize that even though Journalists MIGHT not know about gaming hardware (they just might, since you don't know a single one of them you can't reasonably prove me wrong on that) the people they interview DO.
Remember, this is summarizing interviews and press conferences spanning several past issues. Go look them up yourself if you really want to prove me wrong that badly.
And for that matter, why haven't you showed your face in the clubs yet? Are you really that scared of being exposed as a fraud infront of hundreds of people at once?
Does it haunt your dreams to have Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft fans laughing at your stupid ass while you cower with your list of bent facts?
clubs.1up.com/do/
club?pager.offset=0
&clubid=43428
That's the link. Now I'm challenging you to show us that you're not just a teenager with a big mouth and a cousin who works at IBM.
PS - I could easily talk about kernle, PEARL, C++, and any other code you wanted, because I, like everyone else, have Google.com
If you're so smart, tell me something about coding that google can't. Why don't you write us a code sometime?
Post a Comment
<< Home