Geforce 3 pc's maybe slower than XBOX !

An article I read in Wired magazine seems to imply that those $600 Geforce 3 videocards will not make any currently available PC's as fast as the XBOX. It would seem that if you want the fastest gaming rig possible this year and probably part of 2002 you will have to buy an XBOX. "The XGPU will be able to animate 125 million polygons per second. NVidia's current top chip, the GeForce 2 Ultra, maxes out at 31 million polygons per second, and Xbox-like performance isn't likely to happen on a PC any time soon. " "There's absolutely no way you could render 125 million polygons a second across an AGP bus," said Tony Tomasi, director of product marketing at nVidia. "The entire architecture of the XGPU is built around unified architecture where it shares memory with the processor, as opposed to shuttling it across a bus. So that changes the way the whole thing works." No doubt PC's will surpass the XBOX and Playstation 2( 66 to 75 million polygons per second) somtime next year, but it would seem that the consoles will not be so easily dismissed by newer PC hardware as some have expected.

Loosay2 wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >An article I read in Wired magazine seems to imply that those $600 Geforce3 >videocards will not make any currently available PC's as fast as the XBOX.It >would seem that if you want the fastest gaming rig possible this year and >probably part of 2002 you will have to buy an XBOX. > >"The XGPU will be able to animate 125 million polygons per second. NVidia's >current top chip, the GeForce 2 Ultra, maxes out at 31 million polygons per >second, and Xbox-like performance isn't likely to happen on a PC any timesoon. >" > >"There's absolutely no way you could render 125 million polygons a second >across an AGP bus," said Tony Tomasi, director of product marketing atnVidia. >"The entire architecture of the XGPU is built around unified architecturewhere >it shares memory with the processor, as opposed to shuttling it across abus. >So that changes the way the whole thing works." > >No doubt PC's will surpass the XBOX and Playstation 2( 66 to 75 million >polygons per second) somtime next year, but it would seem that the consoles >will not be so easily dismissed by newer PC hardware as some have expected. In theory it could do more polygons. So can the ps2. I highly doubt any x-box game does more than 20 million polygons in it's first year. Sjoerd

Here's a link to the article you probably read: <http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,41849,00.html> I'm not sure why Tony is comparing the Xbox's shared memory to the AGP bus. The Xbox has 64 MB total. The GeForce3 has 64 MB onboard, so all the track textures and sponsorship logos are in the card's memory. [email hidden] (Loosay2) wrote: >An article I read in Wired magazine seems to imply that those $600 Geforce 3 >videocards will not make any currently available PC's as fast as the XBOX. It >would seem that if you want the fastest gaming rig possible this year and >probably part of 2002 you will have to buy an XBOX. [...] >"There's absolutely no way you could render 125 million polygons a second >across an AGP bus," said Tony Tomasi, director of product marketing at nVidia. >"The entire architecture of the XGPU is built around unified architecture where >it shares memory with the processor, as opposed to shuttling it across a bus. >So that changes the way the whole thing works."-- Jon Willeke <[email hidden]>

The X-Box is as likely to ever manage 125 million polygons per second, as my old V3 was likely to manage the 8 million it said on the box. These numbers are all best case scenarios. This 125 million polygons per second will be without texture mapping, without z-buffering, without shading, in 16-bit colour only, in very low res and using entirely static (from frame to frame) geometry. In a real game I'd be surprised to see it manage more than 25-30 million. Anyway, the point of the quote, that the X-Box will out-perform a GeForce 3 (same hardware), is correct. X-Box does have a slower CPU though, compared with what most gaming PC's will be running at the time of the X-Box's launch. I've got a 650 now, which is more or less what the X-Box will have, but by October lots of PC's, including mine will have >1000. X-Box also has very little RAM. Some PC games already struggle with 64 mb, and that's what the X-Box has. Plus all X-Box games will be aimed at kids, so if you're into games with depth which require thought, the PC will always be best. "Loosay2" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > An article I read in Wired magazine seems to imply that those $600 Geforce3 > videocards will not make any currently available PC's as fast as theXBOX. It > would seem that if you want the fastest gaming rig possible this year and > probably part of 2002 you will have to buy an XBOX. > > "The XGPU will be able to animate 125 million polygons per second.NVidia's > current top chip, the GeForce 2 Ultra, maxes out at 31 million polygonsper > second, and Xbox-like performance isn't likely to happen on a PC any timesoon. > " > > "There's absolutely no way you could render 125 million polygons a second > across an AGP bus," said Tony Tomasi, director of product marketing atnVidia. > "The entire architecture of the XGPU is built around unified architecturewhere > it shares memory with the processor, as opposed to shuttling it across abus. > So that changes the way the whole thing works." > > No doubt PC's will surpass the XBOX and Playstation 2( 66 to 75 million > polygons per second) somtime next year, but it would seem that theconsoles > will not be so easily dismissed by newer PC hardware as some haveexpected.

Ok, the majority then. You'd have to admit the PC delivers a different type of game. You'll never see a sim as serious as GPL, N4 or WSC on a console, or an FPS like Project IGI, Thief 1 + 2, System Shock 2, Delta Force series etc. "rrevved" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 14:02:31 GMT, "Simon Brown"<[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Plus all X-Box games will be aimed at kids, so if you're into games with > >depth which require thought, the PC will always be best. > > Simon, all console games aren't aimed at kids. >

There is no doubt that the X-Box will outperform the PC. You have to remember that the X-Box doesn't have any OS overhead (all OS is via ROM), no PCI bus, no AGP bus and true 32-bit access to EVERYTHING! Most of us still use Win9x and we forget that a lot of the code is 16-bit and our CPU spends a lot of its time 'thunking'. Windows 2000 doesn't have any 16-bit code but it's underlying security and sometimes, poor drivers, cause it to be a tad slower than Win9x. Another advantage is all software will be optimized for one set of hardware. No need for a programmer to add branches for non-MMX, MMX, SSE, 3DNow, etc.. Every feature in the unit will be at the programmer's disposal. The other thing most people forget is that for the moment, ALL X-Box games will be 640x480. We're used to 1024x768 on our PC's and the lower resolution will allow faster games. It will be a while before PC's begin to surpass the X-Box and then we'll still have to wait for the software to catch up. As a long time PC gamer, I'm a little disappointed. Mainly because PC gaming is becoming very expensive and fewer and fewer developers are devoting resources to PC development. It also doesn't help when Microsoft can release a kick ass gaming system for $300 and for us to buy the same video card for our PC's will cost $400-500 minimum. For the first time since my Super Nintendo, I might be tempted to pick up a gaming console. Then again...Nah. Michael M "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XJNn6.2379$[email hidden]... > The X-Box is as likely to ever manage 125 million polygons per second, asmy > old V3 was likely to manage the 8 million it said on the box. Thesenumbers > are all best case scenarios. > > This 125 million polygons per second will be without texture mapping, > without z-buffering, without shading, in 16-bit colour only, in very lowres > and using entirely static (from frame to frame) geometry. In a real game > I'd be surprised to see it manage more than 25-30 million. > > Anyway, the point of the quote, that the X-Box will out-perform a GeForce3 > (same hardware), is correct. X-Box does have a slower CPU though,compared > with what most gaming PC's will be running at the time of the X-Box's > launch. I've got a 650 now, which is more or less what the X-Box willhave, > but by October lots of PC's, including mine will have >1000. X-Box alsohas > very little RAM. Some PC games already struggle with 64 mb, and that'swhat > the X-Box has. > > Plus all X-Box games will be aimed at kids, so if you're into games with > depth which require thought, the PC will always be best. >

On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:09:28 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You'll never see a sim as serious as GPL, N4 or WSC WSC is going to be on the PS2.

The XBox will be cheap because Microsoft can afford to lose money on the Console because it makes it's money from royalties on games sold. That's why you will have to buy a remote to get the dvd working, they won't make any royalties on DVD rentals :) Xbox will run at 640X480 but it'll be FSAAed to get rid of the jaggies. ps. When the XBox is released late this year I bet the PC will be at least as fast if not faster (even if they will cost 7X more :p) pps. I bet Xbox games will cost an arm and a leg compared to the PC version. "Jeneral" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DvVn6.6977$[email hidden]... > There is no doubt that the X-Box will outperform the PC. You have to > remember that the X-Box doesn't have any OS overhead (all OS is via ROM),no > PCI bus, no AGP bus and true 32-bit access to EVERYTHING! Most of us still > use Win9x and we forget that a lot of the code is 16-bit and our CPUspends > a lot of its time 'thunking'. Windows 2000 doesn't have any 16-bit codebut > it's underlying security and sometimes, poor drivers, cause it to be a tad > slower than Win9x. Another advantage is all software will be optimized for > one set of hardware. No need for a programmer to add branches for non-MMX, > MMX, SSE, 3DNow, etc.. Every feature in the unit will be at theprogrammer's

Quoted text (7 lines)

> disposal. The other thing most people forget is that for the moment, ALL > X-Box games will be 640x480. We're used to 1024x768 on our PC's and the > lower resolution will allow faster games. It will be a while before PC's > begin to surpass the X-Box and then we'll still have to wait for the > software to catch up. > > As a long time PC gamer, I'm a little disappointed. Mainly because PC

gaming > is becoming very expensive and fewer and fewer developers are devoting > resources to PC development. It also doesn't help when Microsoft canrelease > a kick ass gaming system for $300 and for us to buy the same video cardfor > our PC's will cost $400-500 minimum. For the first time since my Super > Nintendo, I might be tempted to pick up a gaming console. Thenagain...Nah. > > Michael M > > "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:XJNn6.2379$[email hidden]... > > The X-Box is as likely to ever manage 125 million polygons per second,as

Quoted text (9 lines)

> my > > old V3 was likely to manage the 8 million it said on the box. These > numbers > > are all best case scenarios. > > > > This 125 million polygons per second will be without texture mapping, > > without z-buffering, without shading, in 16-bit colour only, in very low > res > > and using entirely static (from frame to frame) geometry. In a real

game > > I'd be surprised to see it manage more than 25-30 million. > > > > Anyway, the point of the quote, that the X-Box will out-perform aGeForce

Quoted text (18 lines)

> 3 > > (same hardware), is correct. X-Box does have a slower CPU though, > compared > > with what most gaming PC's will be running at the time of the X-Box's > > launch. I've got a 650 now, which is more or less what the X-Box will > have, > > but by October lots of PC's, including mine will have >1000. X-Box also > has > > very little RAM. Some PC games already struggle with 64 mb, and that's > what > > the X-Box has. > > > > Plus all X-Box games will be aimed at kids, so if you're into games with > > depth which require thought, the PC will always be best. > > > > >

We'll see. "Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:09:28 GMT, "Simon Brown" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > WSC is going to be on the PS2.

We'll see. > On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:09:28 GMT, "Simon Brown" > WSC is going to be on the PS2.

Like I said, the X-Box will outperform a PC with a GF3. "Jeneral" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DvVn6.6977$[email hidden]... > There is no doubt that the X-Box will outperform the PC. You have to > remember that the X-Box doesn't have any OS overhead (all OS is via ROM),no > PCI bus, no AGP bus and true 32-bit access to EVERYTHING! Most of us still > use Win9x and we forget that a lot of the code is 16-bit and our CPUspends > a lot of its time 'thunking'. Windows 2000 doesn't have any 16-bit codebut > it's underlying security and sometimes, poor drivers, cause it to be a tad > slower than Win9x. Another advantage is all software will be optimized for > one set of hardware. No need for a programmer to add branches for non-MMX, > MMX, SSE, 3DNow, etc.. Every feature in the unit will be at theprogrammer's

Quoted text (7 lines)

> disposal. The other thing most people forget is that for the moment, ALL > X-Box games will be 640x480. We're used to 1024x768 on our PC's and the > lower resolution will allow faster games. It will be a while before PC's > begin to surpass the X-Box and then we'll still have to wait for the > software to catch up. > > As a long time PC gamer, I'm a little disappointed. Mainly because PC

gaming > is becoming very expensive and fewer and fewer developers are devoting > resources to PC development. It also doesn't help when Microsoft canrelease > a kick ass gaming system for $300 and for us to buy the same video cardfor > our PC's will cost $400-500 minimum. For the first time since my Super > Nintendo, I might be tempted to pick up a gaming console. Thenagain...Nah. > > Michael M

On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 15:12:05 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Like I said, the X-Box will outperform a PC with a GF3. Remains to be seen.

"Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Ok, the majority then. Not really. The traditional target market for console games is 16-32 year old males. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

"Kirk House" <[email hidden]> wrote: >ps. When the XBox is released late this year I bet the PC will be at least >as fast if not faster (even if they will cost 7X more :p) In theory, yes. But in practice you won't believe the difference it makes being able to optimize for one specific hardware target. In a very real sense the XBox is twice as fast as a PC with the same amount of processing/graphical power. >pps. I bet Xbox games will cost an arm and a leg compared to the PC >version. A lot of xbox games won't have PC versions. The economics of console development are much more appealing. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

> A lot of xbox games won't have PC versions. The economics of console > development are much more appealing. > > Joe McGinn do some fancy dejuVu/Google search for xbox topics from last year. There Mr. Prognosticator(yours truly) predicted the demise of computer gaming due to the Xbox. pc's will continue but they will be like poor second cousins to the Stars. dave henrie

On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:34:58 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > do some fancy dejuVu/Google search for xbox topics from last year. >There Mr. Prognosticator(yours truly) predicted the demise of computer >gaming due to the Xbox. > pc's will continue but they will be like poor second cousins to the Stars. >dave henrie > Remains to be seen.

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > do some fancy dejuVu/Google search for xbox topics from last year. >There Mr. Prognosticator(yours truly) predicted the demise of computer >gaming due to the Xbox. I wouldn't go that far, but I do agree that it will be the demise of various game genres on the PC. The most successful PC games are things like the Sims and RollerCoaster Tycoon, which have very low hardware requirements. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

John Bradley <[email hidden]> wrote: >First person shooters (ie, Quake) would seem to be ideally suited for >console play, but they're also hampered by the lack of proper >controllers. Maybe it's just me, but I just don't see people using a >mouse & a keyboard while sitting on their couch as something that's gonna >happen soon. Won't be a problem with the XBox. It will have the PantherXL (trackball + joystick combo) which is MUCH more user friendly than the keyboard/mouse. Won't be a problem with the PS/2 either - use your PC USB mouse and the gamepad in your left hand for movement. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment