Xbox vs. Geforce 4 ti4600's graphics capabilities

[Insidious]

Anyone who owns an X-Box (not article reading parrots) can easily answer this question.............

Not even a contest when compared to a GF3 and a decent PC ....... let alone the GF4 4600


X-box is a great console (as consoles go) but if you had seen them both in action, would never have even been curious enough to start this thread.

 

[ElFenix]

xbox has far less OS overhead than any PC, has far more effective bandwidth available due to the graphics core residing on the northbridge, and, oh yeah, they can code directly to the hardware, rather than coding to some API. any xbox game coded directly to the metal is going to run far faster on xbox than any current PC. just moving software from a high end PC (last summer's high end pc, so GF3 and p3 1GHz or p4 or athlon tbird 1400s, which is still a really good rig) to an xbox dev kit resulted in 40% more frames. and thats still through an API. optimizations for xbox can push that higher.

 

[Insidious]

<< to an xbox dev kit resulted in 40% more frames. and thats still through an API. optimizations for xbox can push that higher. >>



Frames of what? 640 X 480 X 16? I would love to see some documentation of this testing. (actually I am very curious because this is in direct contradiction with what

I see (not what I have read) when I use the X-Box)

Please understand, I am not trying to start a flame war, or insult you......... I would really like to learn more

Thx,

-Sid

 

[MrWhiteUK]

Just thought I'd point out that a Geforce 4 ti4600 alone has a grand total throughput of 0 Polygons per second. These figures people are throwing around are they maximum theoretical for the card or is this as part of a system?

If I had to put my money on one, I would say the Xbox could produce a higher polygon throughput than a high-end pc w/ GF4.


I think people need to look at videos like this one;
Video Clip

 

[Hector13]

<< I think people need to look at videos like this one;
Video Clip >>



The clip looks great and what not, but for all I all know it could have been fully pre-rendered (it seemed like a cut scene)

 

[ElFenix]

<< Frames of what? 640 X 480 X 16? I would love to see some documentation of this testing. (actually I am very curious because this is in direct contradiction with what I see (not what I have read) when I use the X-Box >>

probably standard xbox resolution/color depth. the info came from a lecture given by the guy who wrote the dashboard for xbox, not sure what game he was refering to, and i don't have it in print. but that was his claim, and i see no reason for him to lie about it. are you saying its actually slower than the PCs they were deving on last summer before actual xbox dev kits became available?

 

[MrWhiteUK]

<< The clip looks great and what not, but for all I all know it could have been fully pre-rendered (it seemed like a cut scene) >>


It is all real-time (apparently) you even see the in-game HUD at several points in the video.

 

[Rectalfier]

Those are in game graphics. Another game I can't wait for is Project Ego. Check out the link.

Link

 

[Hector13]

<<

<< The clip looks great and what not, but for all I all know it could have been fully pre-rendered (it seemed like a cut scene) >>


It is all real-time (apparently) you even see the in-game HUD at several points in the video. >>



There is no reason why the "in-game hud" couldn't be used in a cut scene. I have no idea, as I have never seen this game (is it released?) and I don't have an xbox. To me, it just seemed like this was a cut scene and not in game action (I find it hard to believe that the camera angles change like that do in that video, or that there is actual dialog between the characters like that during the game).

 

[Athlon4all]

This isn't exactley a fair comparision. y? Because the Xbox was only designed to run at low bandwidth situations where as the GF4 Ti4600 has all this mem bandy for resolutions like 1600x1200. Now, in terms of the core (NV2A vs. NV25). The NV2A is a NV20 with a 2nd Vertex Shader, nothing more, where as the NV25 is a NV2A+ nView+Quad Caches+AccuView AA+LMA II.

 

[MrWhiteUK]

I think for the most part it is the intro to the game but still is rendered in real-time. There are what seems like ingame shots for the last 10 seconds or so of the video.

 

[Adul]

guess we wil have to see it in person to believe

no that looks in game to me. That is what happens when you use all the features of a graphics chip without regard to legacy systems.

 

[Pariah]

You're comparing a $300 console to a $300-400 video card. Sounds like a fair comparison. If your budget is $300, I guarantee you the Xbox will have significantly better graphics, because a GF4 sitting on your desk won't do much. A fully decked out gaming PC sure as hell better be better than an XBox, considering it costs at least 4-5 times more for the whole setup not including TV/Monitor. The 2 are designed fr completely different mediums, so why waste time trying to figure out which is better? The answer is both and neither.

 

[Insidious]

Exactly!

that last post hits it right on the head!

Pariah has brought the IMPORTANT information forward.

You may nalyze one piece of any system in attempts to compare and support beloved opinions,

but it is the system as a whole that counts and X-Box (allbeit a great console) can't hold a candle

do a decently spec'd. and set-up gaming PC with a GF3 video card, let alone a GF4

Go to best buy and play on the demonstrator if you don't actually own an X-Box (which of course leads to the question

how can you feel confident in your "analysis" if you don't even have one?)

I believe you will see what matters and desist.

If not, I'll be happy to trade my X-Box for your gaming PC

 

[Hector13]

<< Exactly!

that last post hits it right on the head!

Pariah has brought the IMPORTANT information forward.

You may nalyze one piece of any system in attempts to compare and support beloved opinions,

but it is the system as a whole that counts and X-Box (allbeit a great console) can't hold a candle
>>



What you fail to realize is that the thread was about which video chipset is better, not which system. While I agree that the video performance definitely depends on other components in the system (ie memory bandwidth and what not) there is no reason why you can not compare the video performance of each system. Price isn't an issue. Its like asking which is a faster car, a Porsche or a yugo. Sure the porsche costs a crap load more (and the increase in speed alone is probably not worth the increase in price) but that doesn't mean its not the faster car.

 

[Insidious]

when he asked about the X-Box, that sounded like we were talking about the X-Box which is a system, not a single component.


I had the Yugo : Porsche thing in mind when I said "no contest" in my first post.


I am totally comfortable with the notion that some X-Box components may better suited to console gaming than some PC components. (Just don't see

the relevance since NONE of the components operate on a stand alone basis.)

anything else I have "failed to realize"?