-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How powerful was the GameCube compared to the PS2 and XBOX ?
- Thread starter DR3AM
- Start date
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
It did, although I'm not sure about the lead version.
Red Blaster
Member
Lawl, games like SSX and GT3 were already showcasing how much more powerful the PS2 was compared to the Dreamcast.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
In terms of raw,pixel/polygon pushing power, and lighting effects the PS2 was a class above the Dreamcast, but what you saw on screen could often look alot nicer on the DC because it had a dedicated 8mb of VRAM for textures with built 4-1 ratio hardware, realtime compression/decompression, which was far superior to the PS2's 4Mb of VRAM, plus the DC's video output was a true interleaved 640x240, upscaled to 640x480, which produced a far nicer end output, compared to the PS2's horrid smorgasbord of render modes...Jet Set Radio for instance could not have been done to the same standard on the PS2 because of the texture RAM limitations, whilst the extra GPU bandwidth on the PS2 allowed REZ to run at 60fps with superior lighting.
nincompoop
Banned
Dreamcast was a full generation behind the PS2 in everything except textures.
Vermillion
Banned
25GB has already been confirmed, so I think he means everything else.
The thing that struck me about GameCube is that its color resolution, lighting effects, and some other post-processing type effects were almost always horrific, even compared to the PS2. The easiest example is Metal Gear Solid 2 versus Twin Snakes. The shadows and whatnot were just terrible, the camera-blur effects were bad, etc.
While it is true that the DC had hardware texture decompression, which was nice, you can't directly compare the 4mb embedded VRAM with the DC's VRAM. The intent of the PS2 VRAM is to stream textures from main memory - think of the PS2 as having 32mb unified memory vs. the split memory in the DC.
maquiladora
Member
Always liked this pic.
I see, you are an expert for lighting!
"but GC and PS2 did insane lighting effects even better than what modern systems do today."
What the fuck am I reading? First, I'm pretty sure the PS2 had an external PSU just like the Cube.
More importantally though, insane lighting effects on the PS2? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! :lol :lol
Lighting was by far the PS2's weakest area. Even the N64 would give the Ps2 a run for it's money in that department.
Got it one.
Yes, I believe so despite Sony buying a time exclusive deal ( same with PoP).
Why would you do that?
Member
PS2 Fat IIRC has internal power supply (the same kind of connector as a PC's power supply). The Slim has external.
That said, I highly doubt the size of the power supply was that big in those systems, but I haven't seen for myself.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
Always liked this pic.
Lol..amazing to think that a high end gaming laptop today, has more CPU/GPU power than this lot put together.
sixteen-bit
Member
I doubt it. The GCN version has the fewest languages on the disc for one thing.
This is the reason why i loved last gen and will be disappointed in next gen.
last gen each system has its strength and you could feel the difference just by looking at games. but this is not the the case with ps360 and the result will diminish next gen.last gen owning all consoles felt awesome because they were different where as now you just but a console for exclusives
Cube had shaders. They weren't as flexible as programmable shaders though.
But in the right hand (i.e. Factor 5), they can really make the hardware shine.
For me this a good thing. The value of the console will be based more on the quality of the software rather than the hardware. It becomes a matter of taste rather than fidelity.
Throwaway123456789
Member
Soul Calibur 2? Spartan: Total Warrior?
For some reason, I'm recalling these two games looking better on GameCube than on the two other consoles. I'm probably wrong though.
I was going to mention GUN.
The cables would've been expensive as heck back then. On the fly digital to optical conversion with no latency bundled on every cable?
Simple: Span it on two disks.
Xbox > GameCube >> Dreamcast > PS2
The Xbox was overall the most obvious powerful system of the lot, it was basically a PC at the time made into a console. The GameCube on the other hand was less powerful yet tweaked to perfection so in the right hands it could hold it's own against Xbox games.
As for the PS2 & Dreamcast this one is a bit more of personal taste but this is how I remember the two systems.
PS2
Jagged edges
Meh load times
Dull colour pallet
Developers complaining it was a pain to work with
Always had the worst looking versions of games
Dreamcast
Sharp graphics & textures
Vibrant colourful games
Fast load times
Smooth framerates
Now before everyone gets too excited, that's NOT exactly what they actually are. That's just how I tend to remember those 2 consoles when it's mentioned. Say what you want about the Dreamcast but up until Sega pulled the plug the Dreamcast was more than holding it's own visually, I remember games like DOA looking worse on PS2 compared to Dreamcast. Some are quick to label MGS2 the Dreamcast killer but I don't know, I preferred Shenmue II's ambitious & busy looking streets with a bunch of unique NPC's than MGS2's boring bird's eye view small corridors filled with guard clones.
Again I think Dreamcast was a developer's dream whilst PS2 was more powerful in terms of raw specs much like the GameCube & Xbox.
Long story short, make your system developer friendly because raw power don't always mean better looking titles.
The Xbox was overall the most obvious powerful system of the lot, it was basically a PC at the time made into a console. The GameCube on the other hand was less powerful yet tweaked to perfection so in the right hands it could hold it's own against Xbox games.
As for the PS2 & Dreamcast this one is a bit more of personal taste but this is how I remember the two systems.
PS2
Jagged edges
Meh load times
Dull colour pallet
Developers complaining it was a pain to work with
Always had the worst looking versions of games
Dreamcast
Sharp graphics & textures
Vibrant colourful games
Fast load times
Smooth framerates
Now before everyone gets too excited, that's NOT exactly what they actually are. That's just how I tend to remember those 2 consoles when it's mentioned. Say what you want about the Dreamcast but up until Sega pulled the plug the Dreamcast was more than holding it's own visually, I remember games like DOA looking worse on PS2 compared to Dreamcast. Some are quick to label MGS2 the Dreamcast killer but I don't know, I preferred Shenmue II's ambitious & busy looking streets with a bunch of unique NPC's than MGS2's boring bird's eye view small corridors filled with guard clones.
Again I think Dreamcast was a developer's dream whilst PS2 was more powerful in terms of raw specs much like the GameCube & Xbox.
Long story short, make your system developer friendly because raw power don't always mean better looking titles.
Die Hard: Vendetta has developed with GC as the leading platform but that's because it was meant to be an exclusive.
As usual. First post nails it.
DonMigs85
Member
The PS2 graphics chip had very high fillrate and memory bandwidth, but lacked hardware T&L, texture compression and multitexturing in a single pass. Overall the GameCube's chip was more robust and efficient and could push more polys than GS despite having a much lower peak fillrate. Sometimes the embedded 1T-SRAM could also give it an edge over Xbox, which was very bandwidth-limited. For example Soul Calibur II and Sonic Heroes ran smoothest on the Cube.
nincompoop
Banned
Gamecube was the lead platform for Sphinx and the Cursed Mummy. Great game BTW
Cow Mengde
Banned
Oh yeah, forgot about Soul Calibur 2. Not sure about the other games.
Para bailar La Bomba
Banned
MVP Baseball 2005 looked great at 720p
The Xbox was a beast but Microsoft sold each unit for a pretty big loss.
On the flip side, wasn't Nintendo able to sell the Gamecube for $199 and still make a small profit on each one? If so, that is the impressive part given the power of the system. I guess the lack of a hard drive and DVD drive saved them some money though.
On the flip side, wasn't Nintendo able to sell the Gamecube for $199 and still make a small profit on each one? If so, that is the impressive part given the power of the system. I guess the lack of a hard drive and DVD drive saved them some money though.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Be prepared to see more of this next gen. System on a chip and all that
Para bailar La Bomba
Banned
Good point. The fact they weren't paying royalties to the DVD Group (although it was technically a DVD) was very significant for Nintendo.
Dreamcast's MIP mapping correctly accounts for a texel's distance and slope; the PS2 (and PSP?) is the one with the broken MIP mapping.
Naomi 2's processors used less silicon yet delivered far more performance than PS2's. IMRs, especially those that are naive, are hopelessly outclassed by PowerVR.
Naomi 2's processors used less silicon yet delivered far more performance than PS2's. IMRs, especially those that are naive, are hopelessly outclassed by PowerVR.
Which is why they put the chip in the component cables instead of the console itself. They didn't have to eat the cost per-console.
MS and Sony don't even include HD-capable cables with their systems anymore for non-special editions.
DAMM was a pretty nice looking game.
Godzilla DAMM/Save the Earth Double Dose Of Godzilla90s vs King Ghidorah - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpIAmWWCszQ&list=PLF10D5849D1EEFB17&index=63&feature=plpp_video
Godzilla Triple Threat DAMM/STE/Wii - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CeUsCZpChY
DAMM Gamecube Godzilla 2000 vs Mecha-Ghidorah - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkCbdio9suQ&list=PLF10D5849D1EEFB17&index=61&feature=plpp_video
Save The Earth XBOX ing Ghidorah vs Space Godzilla - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgdY93I1Ydc&list=PLF10D5849D1EEFB17&index=34&feature=plpp_video
Save The Earth PS2 King Ghidorah vs Godzilla 2000 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoI5L769hhU&list=PLF10D5849D1EEFB17&index=51&feature=plpp_video
RobotChant
Member
Sony was the king of hype and bluster back then. 66million polygons, Emotion Engine; they lacked the catch phrases this gen. I think Nintendo only claimed 12million for the GC.
Nobody explaining why in detailed scientific terms?
Console programming is extremely complex. The ps2 had its own proprietary assembly language that was necessary to program the vector units, and make sure everything is programmed in parallel for maximum efficiency, otherwise, developers only got less than 50% of the ps2 power. Which was what happened last gen.
This video explains things with sources and citations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TBct24_ZNQ
The gamecube was also neglected last gen. Proof is seen with Star Wars Rogue Squadron which had large scale bump mapping on everything and it was a launch and early Gamecube game. Developers of rogue squadron stated that were using only 50% of the gamecube YET later gamecube games never used bump mapping on such a scale and scope again. Why? Costs? Efficiency? Laziness? Who knows now and no one cares.
It's not just about ram and processor speed, consoles are like complex clockwork, every piece matters in order to make it tick. Video game ports to mulitple consoles are NOT a good gauge of one console's superiority but rather an indication of which consoles programmers are more skilled at. Which is why sometimes 360 ports look worse on ps3 and Vice versa. Programmers are not all-knowing and skilled at everything.
The video explains things better. Bottom line was that the xbox was almost twice as powerful as the GC and PS2. The xbox was basically a beefed up pentium 3 with bump mapping capabilities, and in a world full of PC programmers, the xbox was also the easiest to program for last gen.
The ps2 and gamecube on the the otherhand were complicated, especially the ps2(think programmers were just lazy on the GC side, it shouldn't have been too hard to program for the GC) which required mind boggling amounts of assembly programming. The ps2 and GC were about equal in potential, The gamecube is slightly stronger than the ps2. We will never see these console's full potential , only their half best.
No ps2 developer I know EVER used the ps2 VU0 in micromode (only macro or not at all....waste of silicon) and no gamecube game ever matched or surpassed the large scale environment of rogue squadron filled with flying ships and bump mapping.
And also screw Gran turismo and forza. The best looking racing game last gen was this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt0QGaf7LhI
No racing game last gen rendered 22 cars on the track AT 60FPS with reflections for ALL 22 cars in the wet road AND vapor effects AND rain particles.
The kicker is that according to this document, this game was using less than 50% of the ps2.
http://research.scee.net/files/presentations/PSP/HowFarHaveWeGot.pdf
This pdf research document is a collection of performance analysis of ps2 games 2003 and before. It shows and proves games like, GT3, Primal, Tekken 4, Silent hill 3, MGS2, Zone of the Enders 2nd runner, Jak 2, were all using less than 50% of the ps2. No ps2 game used more than 10% of the VU0 (macro mode). The racing game above, Grand PRix challenge was made in 2002 by the same developers of test drive le mans for the dreamcast. Very talented hard working programmers.
Console programming is extremely complex. The ps2 had its own proprietary assembly language that was necessary to program the vector units, and make sure everything is programmed in parallel for maximum efficiency, otherwise, developers only got less than 50% of the ps2 power. Which was what happened last gen.
This video explains things with sources and citations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TBct24_ZNQ
The gamecube was also neglected last gen. Proof is seen with Star Wars Rogue Squadron which had large scale bump mapping on everything and it was a launch and early Gamecube game. Developers of rogue squadron stated that were using only 50% of the gamecube YET later gamecube games never used bump mapping on such a scale and scope again. Why? Costs? Efficiency? Laziness? Who knows now and no one cares.
It's not just about ram and processor speed, consoles are like complex clockwork, every piece matters in order to make it tick. Video game ports to mulitple consoles are NOT a good gauge of one console's superiority but rather an indication of which consoles programmers are more skilled at. Which is why sometimes 360 ports look worse on ps3 and Vice versa. Programmers are not all-knowing and skilled at everything.
The video explains things better. Bottom line was that the xbox was almost twice as powerful as the GC and PS2. The xbox was basically a beefed up pentium 3 with bump mapping capabilities, and in a world full of PC programmers, the xbox was also the easiest to program for last gen.
The ps2 and gamecube on the the otherhand were complicated, especially the ps2(think programmers were just lazy on the GC side, it shouldn't have been too hard to program for the GC) which required mind boggling amounts of assembly programming. The ps2 and GC were about equal in potential, The gamecube is slightly stronger than the ps2. We will never see these console's full potential , only their half best.
No ps2 developer I know EVER used the ps2 VU0 in micromode (only macro or not at all....waste of silicon) and no gamecube game ever matched or surpassed the large scale environment of rogue squadron filled with flying ships and bump mapping.
And also screw Gran turismo and forza. The best looking racing game last gen was this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt0QGaf7LhI
No racing game last gen rendered 22 cars on the track AT 60FPS with reflections for ALL 22 cars in the wet road AND vapor effects AND rain particles.
The kicker is that according to this document, this game was using less than 50% of the ps2.
http://research.scee.net/files/presentations/PSP/HowFarHaveWeGot.pdf
This pdf research document is a collection of performance analysis of ps2 games 2003 and before. It shows and proves games like, GT3, Primal, Tekken 4, Silent hill 3, MGS2, Zone of the Enders 2nd runner, Jak 2, were all using less than 50% of the ps2. No ps2 game used more than 10% of the VU0 (macro mode). The racing game above, Grand PRix challenge was made in 2002 by the same developers of test drive le mans for the dreamcast. Very talented hard working programmers.
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
Dead or Alive 2.
Also: the PS2s video output was dogshit. Jaggies, muddy colours, the finish image just looked awful.
Para bailar La Bomba
Banned
They had hype because there was nothing better on the market. This gen they tried the same approach; remember "at Sony we don't cut corners" at E3 2006.
But there was a machine available for a year that did almost the same thing at a lower cost.
soxinthebox
Member
About as powerful as one GCN strapped together
Cow Mengde
Banned
I've never heard of the GC being hard to program for. I heard because it was so easy to program, they could easily port PS2 games without much trouble, that's why we're seeing all the lazy ports. Also, by the time the GC came out, most developers have already gotten a handle on the PS2, so the system was ignored.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Man this thread is making me nostalgia about the console wars in Junior High and early High School
Man... those memories.
Man... those memories.
Funny because back then people were complaining that Nintendo had lost touch with gamers.
I think people forget the amount of hatred Nintendo received from fans and media during that era.
That doesn't seem scientific at all. Even Beyond3D could better explain it but the GC technically had advantages over PS2 in terms of textured polygons. And the GC was actually easier to program for than PS2. It's just nobody in the industry really had the time nor patience to rewrite game code to take advantage of GC's TEV, and instead chose to just go by the PS2 builds without many changes. (Take a look at Tomb Raider Legacy.)
And they still reside here in GAF.
I recall hearing, or rather reading, similar comments at the time. I think the argument that the TEV could have produced results somewhat on par with the best games on the original Xbox is somewhat endorsed by the best-looking games on the Wii, at least the first party efforts that actually do use bloom and bump-mapping to some degree. Still, even the best-looking Wii games still aren't as impressive as the best looking Xbox games in my book.