PS2 and Xbox Price Drops

[Bizkitkid2001]

I think the PS2 still doesn't look as good as the XBOX but its got the games to back it up. I like all three of the consoles. But the PS2 I think is getting kinda old now. I think I herd something about a PS3 being realesed in 2003 or 2004. Now I think that will realy kick some ***.

I really underestimated the gamecube when it first came out. Now since I play it at my friends house it is a really kick *** system. It has as good graphics as the XBOX does plus some really cool games like Resident Evil. That game I think is one of the best looking games for all three game consoles.

[Jeff253]

Originally posted by uncle_jimbo


According to mostpeople MGS2 is about all the PS2 can do, and MGS2 slows down last I checked, and Getaway still cant match Xboxs detail.

Texture layers per pass :
Xbox = 4
Gamecube = 8
PS2 = 2

-- uncle_jimbo

PS2 = 1. Furthermore PS2 doesn't need this features since 48.6 GB/sec bandwidth, XBOX and Gamecube need it, their frame buffer read/write bandwidth and z-buffer read/write bandwidth doesn't come close to the PS2s.

MGS2 is all the PS2 could do? That is not what the developer of MGS2 Hideo Kojima believes, according to him MGS2 is using less than half of the PS2s power.

Developers aren't even tapping the vector units or even have then locked together for t&l for someone to even think that PS2s power is anywhere near being maxed out.

[Jeff253]

PS3 will be coming out no earlier than 2005. I find it amusing that you think a weaker system than PS2 such as Gamecube could match the XBOX in graphics, but PS2 can't. PS2's problem is that it's difficult to program for, otherwise PS2 will surpass XBOX in graphics. Developers have to just get the VUs locked together and implement texture compression with texture streaming.

[tycoonist]

Originally posted by Jeff253
Furthermore, the specs listed above for the XBOX are old. When the XBOX's GPU was running at 300 MHz, it was then downgraded to 233 MHz. The pixel fill rate listed is for a 300 MHz GPU, as you can see 4800 is divisable by 300. The pixel fill rate of the XBOX is 233 MHz, which would approximately equal 3728. The pixel fill is wrong since 233 x 4 doesn't equal 3728, this means that Microsoft or nVidia has played with this number. Looking at the specs guess what I see "(anti-aliased)", which means that the theoretical pixel fill rate of 3728 results from 4x FSAA. This is wrong, since it is the same pixels being re-rendered for anti-aliasing this will not increase pixel fill rate. Pixel fill rate for the X-box without that "(anti-aliased)" nonesense, which is the way it should be listed, is 933 M/sec or 0.93 G/sec.

Hey, I can't help that my information is old. I got it from good websites, and I can only get what people post.

However, it is quite hard to compare graphics, even with pixel rates and GFLOPS because the game companies don't really release the "true" rates. They offer graphics rates when their system is running with very few graphics on the screen. Their rates go down whenever very graphic-intense games are played.

I'm not going to get into a debate about this. I only replied with some specs. In my opinion, I would never own a P2 or an X-Box. They load too slow (and I have played too many games to see this), and the types of games that came out for the system don't interest me. I grew up with Nintendo, and I will be a Nintendo fan until something MUCH better comes out.

Finally, don't underestimate the Gamecube. It can pump out the same types of graphics as the P2 and the X-Box, and, for the pricetag (which is 50 dollars less than the X-Box and P2) you get as good as a system like the X-Box and the P2.

[flyingV]

Well, in terms of graphics, PC is the best, heheh


There is no point to argue about which one is better, since they all pretty "affordable" now, just get all of them

(I just escaped from a mental hospital) just kidding

[couch potato]

Originally posted by Jeff253
PS3 will be coming out no earlier than 2005. I find it amusing that you think a weaker system than PS2 such as Gamecube could match the XBOX in graphics, but PS2 can't. PS2's problem is that it's difficult to program for, otherwise PS2 will surpass XBOX in graphics. Developers have to just get the VUs locked together and implement texture compression with texture streaming.

i beg to differ. 1 year ago, i bought a PS2 thinking it would rule the world. i liked it, for the most part. there weren't a lot of games i liked for it. i then started looking a xbox, and i wanted it. the games are sweet, and the graphics easily surpassed Ps2's. earlier this year, i sold my PS2 and bought an Xbox. from my experience, Xbox surpasses PS2 in every aspect except the ammount of games for it. and with the new price drops, xbox is definetly better

[couch potato]

Originally posted by flyingV
Well, in terms of graphics, PC is the best, heheh


There is no point to argue about which one is better, since they all pretty "affordable" now, just get all of them

(I just escaped from a mental hospital) just kidding

good point. PC is the best

[BadBadNeil]

Yeah it always happens, a console comes out and matches the PC in terms of graphics for a short period of time but the PC is always evolving. Sure we usually have to put up with buggy releases but we get patches, can choose tons of options, can download new addons and maps, can create mods and models, and we can play on a tv (if we really really wanted to). And then when I don't feel like playing I can save the game, minimize it surf the internet, check my email, do some work, then come back to the game. Gosh check out freakin GTA3, we can even load our own MP3s into the cars!!

The only problem with PCs is that too many ppl have too many different speeds / hardware / software so it makes it difficult to develop.

If PS2 and XBOX were $20 I still wouldn't buy them. If I want to play a console i'll go dust off my old school Nintendo (the best console ever made).

[Bizkitkid2001]

Originally posted by Jeff253
Developers aren't even tapping the vector units or even have then locked together for t&l for someone to even think that PS2s power is anywhere near being maxed out.

How come sony doesn't tell them how to do it? Just because it can have better graphics doesn't meen it does. Like what you said. They havn't even used up all of the PS2s power because its hard to progrma. Whats the use of saying that the PS2 is more powerful when game developers don't know how to even use all the power? WIth XBOX they can use up all of its power and thats why it has better graphics.


Thanks for clearing up the thing about PS3 not coming out before 2005. I wasn't quite shure about that.

[couch potato]

Originally posted by BadBadNeil
Yeah it always happens, a console comes out and matches the PC in terms of graphics for a short period of time but the PC is always evolving. Sure we usually have to put up with buggy releases but we get patches, can choose tons of options, can download new addons and maps, can create mods and models, and we can play on a tv (if we really really wanted to). And then when I don't feel like playing I can save the game, minimize it surf the internet, check my email, do some work, then come back to the game. Gosh check out freakin GTA3, we can even load our own MP3s into the cars!!

The only problem with PCs is that too many ppl have too many different speeds / hardware / software so it makes it difficult to develop.

If PS2 and XBOX were $20 I still wouldn't buy them. If I want to play a console i'll go dust off my old school Nintendo (the best console ever made).

you can put mp3's into the cars of GTA3? HOW!!!