![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Gamespy: We Got Next - Part One (Xbox) [Xbox 2 related]
- Thread starter trudude
- Start date
Won't the 256 mb of ram hurt it when it comes to high res textures? Even if it has great compression I can't see the 256 mb lasting very long. Afterall just look at D3 on the xbox compared to the PC, the 64 meg ram on the xbox just doesn't hold up. Bleh consoles suck anyway.
Ballz2TheWallz
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,352
this isnt a site ment to talk about xbox2...its for computer hardware and thts wht i come here to discuss now if you wanna bitch at me in xboxscene wher emore knoweldgeable people will come in and shut one of us up then fine 
Xbox 1 only has 64 megs of RAM and still it can push impressive textures and GIGANTIC environments....it's not traditional RAM that's in these systems, it's specialized as to where it can handle these graphical tasks and feats extraordinarily effectively. I don't need to provide a link, the proof is in front of your eyes...given the situation that you're looking at a TV screen with an Xbox game running, of course.Sizer said:
AaronP
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Messages
- 11,527
Impressive, but does that just mean that the XBOX 2 will cost 800$?
Maximus825 said:
Maybe it will be like the PS2 (non-slim version) where-as you can just slip it in if you want one.
Anyone notice the "All Xenon games can be played using custom soundtracks.". I wonder how EA will swallow that? Will it be built into the game, or will it be an over-riding feature in the Xenon?
Can't wait til MAY! that is when E3 is SHOWDOWN AT THE CONVENTION CENTER!
Leon2ky said:
$50 more than I payed for the 3DO at launch. lol.
I bet you will see it on shelves for $350 with the HD being another $50-$70. I have no base for those prices, just a hunch.
No mention of the new shoulder buttons for the controller or the removale of the black/white buttons. I hope they put out a large version like the original controllers were. Iz gots da big handz.
lesman said:
What impressive textures? They look like crap to me and its only pushing them at standard tv resolution most of the time. I had an xbox and it sucked so much I ditched it for a canon digital camera. Now that 720p will be standard for xbox 2 games, that 256 mb of ram is going to get filled up pretty fast, you just watch.
MFZ said:
Who cares, console gaming is still fun.
And Console games dont need so much ram, since they are only running a game, while regulaer PCs have an OS, the Game, various background programs and drivers and such. That 256mb of Xbox 2 ram is something like a gig of regular PC ram
AaronP
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Messages
- 11,527
Tiny said:$50 more than I payed for the 3DO at launch. lol.
I bet you will see it on shelves for $350 with the HD being another $50-$70. I have no base for those prices, just a hunch.
No mention of the new shoulder buttons for the controller or the removale of the black/white buttons. I hope they put out a large version like the original controllers were. Iz gots da big handz.
IDK mate, the specs they want to put in that thing is already over 1000$ in PC terms. (or at least pretty darned close to it)
Leon2ky said:
True. But they know they are loosing money on every console anyway. Not one (and by one I mean thousands)Ma and Pa Gamer are going to fork over 400+ dollars for little Johnny and Susy. The "Hardcore" among us will, but not Ma and Pa Gamer. So that would lend me to beleive that it will be priced higher then in years past, but still not at the 3DO level. I could be wrong (most likely) but that price point (350) just seems right.
Hate_Bot said:
This has already been addressed. Take a look at the ram usage of your current gen games - Farcry, HL2, Doom3, whatever. Far, far above 256 megs.
If they can put today's games onto Xbox 2 without sacrificing one iota, I'd be damn surprised. The processing power is there, but not the memory storage. In parts of Doom 3 with ultra quality, 512 megs of texture data alone. And with a computer, you have the system ram and hard drive space as virtual memory as a backup in case you don't have enough vram. With Xbox2, you won't have that sort of backup. EVERYTHING you need at the moment must be on main ram (maybe excluding the 10 megs of super fast ram that will be sucked up driving the high resolution). That means sacrifices. Big sacrifices.
Wait a second... Ignoring the fact that 3.0Ghz PPC chips aren't even close to being released, they would most likely be over $1000 OEM (Probably still around $300 in bulk), how the hell does MS expect to see any profit whatsoever, even when including game sales?
As for the RAM comment, go fire up a Linux box and play some Doom 3/UT/Whatever... If you're running fluxbox/blackbox/etc, you've got the OS using under 30MB of RAM and total RAM usage will still be _enormous_ compared to the 256MB that the XBox is planned to have.
As for the RAM comment, go fire up a Linux box and play some Doom 3/UT/Whatever... If you're running fluxbox/blackbox/etc, you've got the OS using under 30MB of RAM and total RAM usage will still be _enormous_ compared to the 256MB that the XBox is planned to have.
Textures in XBox games are garbage, view cutoff is very very near, and frame rates are hideously bad in most games... WTF are you talking about?
BossNoodleKaboodle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,818
aren't the PPC cores very slow and high IPC chips for heavy floating point calculations usually?
anyone who's truly knowledgable know if these new PPC chips and the Cell one in PS3 are going to be as fast as they say they are? it seems like IBM who makes these chips is wasting time releasing POWER 5 at 1.5GHz if these things are going to be massively multicore and high clock speed, but IBM doesn't make mistakes so i figure its in the reporting
anyone who's truly knowledgable know if these new PPC chips and the Cell one in PS3 are going to be as fast as they say they are? it seems like IBM who makes these chips is wasting time releasing POWER 5 at 1.5GHz if these things are going to be massively multicore and high clock speed, but IBM doesn't make mistakes so i figure its in the reporting
Well, it's true that not all the textures look great on Xbox, but a lot of games' textures on Xbox look really good. Well, of course there's PC games that are out right now that have much better looking textures, but that's using present video technology, Xbox is what is now safe to call "old technology". Textures on Xbox 2 I'm pretty sure will look better than anything found on PC as of now and for maybe the next 6 months or so, with the 256mb of RAM and all. I'm not trying to start any kind of war with anyone at all, so if anyone feels that way, you have my assurance that I'm not, as for everyone else, let's try to keep this whole thing set in a professional manner, meaning no calling anyone "jerk" or any kind of flaming, it would be a lot nicer that way, and the mods wouldn't be obliged to lock this thread. That way we can all keep putting in our opinions and whatnot. Threads ike this are always destined to take "the turn" so let's try to revolutionize the situation and "take a turn" for the better, shall we? This kind of thing leads to people hating each other even though they don't even KNOW EACH OTHER! C'mon, how lame is that? Let's just keep it cool and orderly, if possible, please.MFZ said:
lesman said:
Well it it traditional off the shelf ram in these systems. The XBox is just a motherboard with integrated video and 64MB of shared DDR memory.
I don't see impressive environments or textures in any XBox title. They aren't even comparable to PC games of generations ago, and the lack of memory is directly responsible.
If these specs are real and finalized Microsoft has sealed its console division's fate. The one thing the XBox had going for it this generation was hardware superiority, and it looks like that is even beyond their grasp this time out.
Honestly, that's the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Like I said, they are not comparable to many PC games that are out NOW. Generations ago??!!!OTL said:
Come on, you're just being a smart ass, right? I really hope so, because that is a flat out misrepresentation...purposefully or not, and I'm sure anyone would agree.robberbaron
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2004
- Messages
- 6,101
I know a $1500 PC with 1024mb of ram and a Geforce/Radeon 2004 generation is going to have better graphics, but for having only 32 or 64 mb of ram and costing about $150, you have to say that consoles are pretty damn fantastic at what they do with what they have. And at 640x480 on a tv screen, they still look fairly nice (though now that I have a card capable of AA, I do notice even my gamecube needs AA and AF badly.)
Oh, yeah, I beleive in that link it said that anti aliasing is a must-be on any game created for their next gen system, along with at least 720p support for every game. Hopefully that's the case, as things will look pretty nice! In that case, I hope that's the case!robberbaron said:
lesman said:Honestly, that's the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Like I said, they are not comparable to many PC games that are out NOW. Generations ago??!!!
No misrepresentation on my part. The class of '99 such as Quake III and Unreal Tournament are fine examples of this. The 512x512 resolution textures in these games are twice that used in XBox games, and the environmental detail is comparable, if not better than the XBox's best.
The 3rd party games that have licensed those engines flat out blow away any console games from a technical standpoint. If these next gen consoles were even doing something as interactive, open-ended, and detailed as the five year old Deus Ex, I would be impressed.
Hate_Bot said:
Your OS eats up 700+ mb of ram? Mine sure as hell doesn't. Don't fool yourself, their compression won't be much better than what we have on PC's already. Consoles are for kiddies or people that like playing fighting games. Aside from that there's nothing appealing on a console that a PC doesn't already have and do better - at least not to me anyway.
Well, whatever resolution they used...I'm sure you're right, but textures say on Rallisport Challenge or Halo 1 look better than those found on the games you mentioned. Maybe it's just the bump-mapping and/or shading that makes them look nice, but in any case, compare the overall look of the Xbox games I mentioned to the games you mentioned-the Xbox ones look better. You have to see for yourself, maybe if you or someone you know has an Xbox, look into it. I'm talking about the overall look, not even the texture resolution. It all depends on what you use overall. Here's another argument from me: Look at Resident Evil 4 for Gamecube...that has got to be one of the most detailed games (graphically) that I've ever seen...sure, the texture compression method isn't the best, but the game overall from a simple peek, nothing technical involved for this comparisons sake, looks absolutely stunning! I've seen better textures on other games for say Xbox or PC, but never have I been floored with so much atmosphere, effects and detail that is all combined to create something that looks glorious.OTL said:
TekSomniaK
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,144
This Xbox 2 better have some USB ports to allow for a keyboard/mouse.
robberbaron
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2004
- Messages
- 6,101
KrakenGuy said:
It won't be, otherwise nobody would buy it due to the price.
lesman, I had an XBox. I sold it a week ago because I wasn't impressed with the titles available. They failed to draw me into the game world like even my classic PC games are able to do. A big reason why was not the graphics, but the lack of interaction, open-endedness, and small details in the game environments that make them come alive. Things that consume a lot of system memory
I've also played Rallisport and Halo on the PC at high resolutions, and it was clear from the outset these games weren't meant to be played on a PC monitor. Maybe it's just me, but covering up low-res textures with bump mapping looks hideous. Due to memory and fill-rate limitations you can't bump map everything, and it ends up being a mess of blurry textures and crisp plastic looking things.
RE4 isn't really a valid comparison as there's nothing dynamic about that game's mechanics. The levels lead players down a very narrow path and all AI routines and events are scripted. That's why they can seemingly cram so much into so little, because there wasn't much to begin with.
I've also played Rallisport and Halo on the PC at high resolutions, and it was clear from the outset these games weren't meant to be played on a PC monitor. Maybe it's just me, but covering up low-res textures with bump mapping looks hideous. Due to memory and fill-rate limitations you can't bump map everything, and it ends up being a mess of blurry textures and crisp plastic looking things.
RE4 isn't really a valid comparison as there's nothing dynamic about that game's mechanics. The levels lead players down a very narrow path and all AI routines and events are scripted. That's why they can seemingly cram so much into so little, because there wasn't much to begin with.
About Resident Evil 4...the games mechanics dont have to be dynamic...the overall experience itself is there...the game isn't along a narrow path, there are huge, open environments in many of the areas. As I actually own the game, I've seen this and can safely say what I've said. Maybe it's a personal preference-well, it is, but it can also be from a technical standpoint, but the artistic sense and feeling that RE4 has, the level design and the attention to detail is what makes RE4 so beautiful. Also the constant and *cleverly* placed moments that happen in the game make it so enjoyable and appealing. The game is very long...not compared to a lot of RPG's or other games, but there is very little backtracking, and you're constantly going somewhere new. The environments in most games are static and not very widely varied...maybe the game doesn't need that, but in RE4's case it's wonderful...the games areas vary so much that it's a nice experience just roaming the next type of setting you get to. I don't want to argue anymore really, because we both obviously have our different opinions, and that's completely ok, it's no reason to argue, IMO, so I'm just leaving it at that. We think what we think right? So it's cool.
OTL said:
I'll agree on the RE4 point. If you haven't played this game, you certainly don't know what you're missing. For a system that has a 400mhz processor and 4-years-ago ATI videocard, it still looks better than a hell of a lot of current-gen PC games. And it plays better, too. I don't know how to explain it, but it's an experience like no other. As the previous poster, said. The environments are the best out of any console game, hands down. And the look of it beats the shit out of Halo 2 even. Sure, the texture compression is there, and it runs in 640x480, but on a big screen TV with a huge 6.1 setup, it beats playing a PC game, even on my 2005FPW with a 5.1 z5300e speaker setup. My console gaming and PC gaming are 2 different worlds... different experiences.
My point? If you've seen RE4, you know what a console with limited specs is capable of. I mean... 400mhz. That's less than my media centre PC (550mhz P3), which runs like shit compared to it. It has quadrupled the RAM, and even has a 128mb Geforce 4 Ti4200 in it, which is *technically* supposed to be better than what the gamecube hardware has. But then how do you explain the fact that if they were ever to port RE4 to PC, which of course won't happen, my media centre PC would choke on it (much like the PS2 will), and my gaming PC would need the absolute latest in hardware?
And then why do our N64 and PS1 emulators need PC hardware 10x better than the original hardware to run the emulator? Although (especially with X-box/2) it's very easy to compare it with a PC, consoles are completely 100% dedicated to gaming and are therefore much much more effecient at what they do. Period. That is why they exist.
As for the Xbox 2, if they are going to make it more like a PC than it already is... especially if they release their "3rd teir" version of it, which is a functioning PC with internet/office capabilities then maybe we're in trouble in terms of resource usage, and raw gaming power. But the PS3 and the Revolution (especially Revolution) should still be focused on gaming, and therefore their hardware cannot be directly compared to PCs.
My 2 cents.... Steve
(PS I still think Microsoft is moving WAAAAY too fast into releasing another console... they should keep the 5-year lifespan with consoles intact. I'm already buying them too often as is!)
My point? If you've seen RE4, you know what a console with limited specs is capable of. I mean... 400mhz. That's less than my media centre PC (550mhz P3), which runs like shit compared to it. It has quadrupled the RAM, and even has a 128mb Geforce 4 Ti4200 in it, which is *technically* supposed to be better than what the gamecube hardware has. But then how do you explain the fact that if they were ever to port RE4 to PC, which of course won't happen, my media centre PC would choke on it (much like the PS2 will), and my gaming PC would need the absolute latest in hardware?
And then why do our N64 and PS1 emulators need PC hardware 10x better than the original hardware to run the emulator? Although (especially with X-box/2) it's very easy to compare it with a PC, consoles are completely 100% dedicated to gaming and are therefore much much more effecient at what they do. Period. That is why they exist.
As for the Xbox 2, if they are going to make it more like a PC than it already is... especially if they release their "3rd teir" version of it, which is a functioning PC with internet/office capabilities then maybe we're in trouble in terms of resource usage, and raw gaming power. But the PS3 and the Revolution (especially Revolution) should still be focused on gaming, and therefore their hardware cannot be directly compared to PCs.
My 2 cents.... Steve
(PS I still think Microsoft is moving WAAAAY too fast into releasing another console... they should keep the 5-year lifespan with consoles intact. I'm already buying them too often as is!)
Why are PC users so insecure? Why keep bringing up dumbass points about how when you go into taskmanager, X game uses five billionty megs of ram? Even with all the settings off or low, no pixel shaders, halo still uses almost 100Mb of ram. Someone Go into doom, turn it to 640x480, and lower settings, i garantee you that the xbox version looks better while using less than half the ram. And please.. don't try to tell me UT or Q3 looks better than Halo on the xbox. I love My PC, but right now im a huge xbox supporter because halo 2 on xbl is simply more fun than anything the PC has to offer right now, IMHO (cept mb WOW, but i cant afford it)
Im alittle suprised at the Processor... When the xbox came out, its processor was about half the speed of the top ones available for the PC. If the xbox2 comes out this year, that triple core PPC should be very close to the top PC processors at the time.
Im alittle suprised at the Processor... When the xbox came out, its processor was about half the speed of the top ones available for the PC. If the xbox2 comes out this year, that triple core PPC should be very close to the top PC processors at the time.
Don't start a console vs PC war... lol. This thread would be on its way to getting locked. You do have a point in the PC die-hards being high and mighty, but you ARE at a PC-hardware enthusiast website
I game on both my PC and my console (though I do prefer console most of the time), I can vouch that it's 2 completely different experiences. I'm sure you know what I mean, to those of us who do both kinds of gaming. Though, if FPS games like Halo is all that you play, you're probably better off with a PC anyway. It's the "different" kinds of games you can get on consoles that bring me to play them (i.e. RE4, Zelda, most RPGs, etc)
I game on both my PC and my console (though I do prefer console most of the time), I can vouch that it's 2 completely different experiences. I'm sure you know what I mean, to those of us who do both kinds of gaming. Though, if FPS games like Halo is all that you play, you're probably better off with a PC anyway. It's the "different" kinds of games you can get on consoles that bring me to play them (i.e. RE4, Zelda, most RPGs, etc)
diehard said:
I don't see how you can possibly think any FPS without a keyboard/mouse is fun at all.
p.s. Battlefield 1942 (old game) is still better than anything ever offered on any console. I'm building a new pc this week in anticipation of BF2.
I personally only like consoles for racing games and sports games. Everything else where depth and pinpoint control... pc hands down.
wayne2456 said:The **XBOX2** is going to make all the pc lover's mad
Yeah, because Microsoft said all titles for Xbox 2 will be available for the PC, but they won't be because that would remove all the reasons for buying an Xbox 2.... if Microsoft's ethics stay consistent....