Gates: And now, Sony, you will die.

[Praxis]

[The Kernel]

Rumor has it (could be completely wrong of course) that the XBox 360 has MSN TV integrated into it for browsing the web.

*shivers in pain*

That would explain what the MSN TV was for though. Testing ground.

Rumored for the hard drive deluxe edition, and not a bad addition either for those that want internet TV access.

I'm curious how these "tools that will make multiplayer online gaming more sociable" will stack up to the Revolution's online "community".

Considering that Microsoft has had years of maturity with Xbox Live and Nintendo has no experience at all besides talk, Microsoft has the advantage going in as far as multiplayer online goes no matter how many buzzwords Nintendo throws around.

Even IF the Aries rumor isn't true on the Revolution, Reggie said that when Nintendo goes online they will do it in a different way so as to bring a community feel to it. Which does fit with the Aries rumor, actually (which among other things makes mention to message boards, buddy lists, etc).

They will have to build an entirely new system from the ground up whereas Microsoft already has a robust system in place for which they can add such features if there is community demand for them. This is not to say that Nintendo cannot develop a compeling online community, but Microsoft has the clear advantage here.

Nintendo is also going to have to contend with the fact that they will have very little third party support going into the next generation as most of it has dried up during the current generation, and given Nintendo's previous history, it is unlikely that they will be designing their system to suit the needs of third party developers rather than their own.

Okay, they're still going with DVD-9? Okay, yea, they're gonna get owned on so badly it's pathetic. When the other two consoles are waiting for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray to sort their positions out(And thus have dozens of Gigs of storage), the X-Brick will be clunking around with multiple disks.

First of all, DVD-9 will easily suit the needs of the next generation of games. Games aren't going to need the sorts of generational increases in disc capacity that they have the last two generations, so DVD-9 will work just fine. The only real reason to put in a high capacity format is to double as a high def DVD player.

As for Sony/Nintendo including the next gen HD-DVD format, this seems unlikely at this point. With the news of a new joint HD-DVD/Blu-Ray specification, it is unlikely in the extreme that it will be a cost effective decision by next year.

Consider looking into the other consoles at E3 this year. If the others have a built in hard drive...

With the built in flash memory capacity of the Xbox 360, all of the gameplay related features of a hard drive can be done with the exception of custom soundtracks and content (not bug) updates. Considering the availibility of a hard drive version of the Xbox, all of the important features will be covered for the consumer that wants them.

And since Microsoft is launching too early for next gen storage (normal DVD's vs 50 GB Blu-Ray disks in the PS3 and HD-DVD or whatever Nintendo chooses to use),

Unlikely and irrelevent to games as mentioned above.

and considerably earlier than the competition (resulting in the weakest graphics)...

The hardware differences between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 are not great at all from all early indiciations. The performance differences look to be a wash, and Nintendo is certainly not about to outperform either Sony or Microsoft in this area.

Yeah, I'd seriously look into the others.

Naturally, you have no ability to remain objective with regards to Microsoft.

They'd have to crack the Japanese market in order to "crush" sony. I just don't think that's going to happen.

The retainment of Team Ninja and the securing of Mist Walker (Sakaguchi is still something of a Japanese gaming rock star) as an exclusive studio, along with several other prominant Japanese developers should help. Although naturally this will be their toughest market.

1) No hard drive makes backwards compatability impossible since ALL games use it for caching
2) Different processor architecture makes backwards compatability nearly impossible
3) Different graphics card brand (ATi instead of NVidia) means that all the XBox 1 NVidia-optimized games may have some trouble.

Backwards compatibility has already been mentioned as an incentive feature on the hard drive version of Xenon. Theoretically it could also be done with the regular version due to the flash cache.

When you consider all three together its about equivilant to using an assault rifle on your foot against your head Laughing

If you are uniformed as to Microsoft's development work in this regard, then yes.

[Praxis]

Considering that Microsoft has had years of maturity with Xbox Live and Nintendo has no experience at all besides talk, Microsoft has the advantage going in as far as multiplayer online goes no matter how many buzzwords Nintendo throws around.

From what we hear Nintendo may be going with GameSpy. Who, despite their sucky GS Arcade application, make good integrated stuff.


For the thing about third party support, actually ever since a new CEO and head of marketting took over they've been making a HUGE point (in the last year especially) about patching third party relations. To the point of labelling the DS the "Developers System" at E3 2004. And according to Aries there is an impressive list of developers lined up, including Capcom, Namco, Konami, Majesco, EA, SquareSoft, and possibly Square Enix (there were more, I'm going from memory), who have dev kits.

First of all, DVD-9 will easily suit the needs of the next generation of games. Games aren't going to need the sorts of generational increases in disc capacity that they have the last two generations, so DVD-9 will work just fine. The only real reason to put in a high capacity format is to double as a high def DVD player.

Microsoft is making 720p and 1080i MANDATORY for all XBox games. Won't that require dramatically more detailed textures, and the more powerful graphics cards require larger environments?

As for Sony/Nintendo including the next gen HD-DVD format, this seems unlikely at this point. With the news of a new joint HD-DVD/Blu-Ray specification, it is unlikely in the extreme that it will be a cost effective decision by next year.

Sony has already announced the inclusion of Blu-Ray on the PS3. Officially.

As for the joint specification...what news? There is talks, but no results yet. No decisions. No agreements.

With the built in flash memory capacity of the Xbox 360, all of the gameplay related features of a hard drive can be done with the exception of custom soundtracks and content (not bug) updates. Considering the availibility of a hard drive version of the Xbox, all of the important features will be covered for the consumer that wants them.

The "built in flash memory" rumor for the XBox 360 was disproven when Microsoft released developer specs. It was not mentioned anywhere. Those rumors have all but ceased as well.

Further, even were it to be true, a flash unit can not be used for caching. It would wear out.

The hardware differences between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 are not great at all from all early indiciations. The performance differences look to be a wash, and Nintendo is certainly not about to outperform either Sony or Microsoft in this area.

From all indicators it looks to be PS3 > Revolution > XBox 360.
Why would Nintendo fail to outperform anyone? So far, rumors (as well as logic) insist the Rev is more powerful than the XBox 360. The GameCube was VASTLY more powerful than the PlayStation 2. Why does Nintendo have to have the worst graphics?

Naturally, you have no ability to remain objective with regards to Microsoft.

Suggesting someone look at the other consoles (I didn't say forget the XBox 360, the PVR capabilities look interesting) is not exactly running around screaming "MS is the devil, buy Nintendo and repent, sinners!"...


Further, I am not bashing the first XBox, am I? As I said earlier in this thread, it pioneered new advances in online consoles (first with built in broadband, PC-like online services), had the best graphics and was the first to get people hooked on the hard drive. The only things I disliked about it are the original controller, and games lineup (the games didn't appeal to me personally).

Backwards compatibility has already been mentioned as an incentive feature on the hard drive version of Xenon. Theoretically it could also be done with the regular version due to the flash cache.

Like I said.
1) There is no flash cache.
2) Even if there was flash, flash memory is worn out if repeatedly read/written too many times, so it is not good for caching.
3) The regular version does not have an x86 processor, STILL no backwards compatability, even IF there was a hard drive. Unless of course an x86 processor is included in the hard drive, which is possible.

[The Kernel]

From what we hear Nintendo may be going with GameSpy. Who, despite their sucky GS Arcade application, make good integrated stuff.

Irrelevent, they still need to develop their own software and community, even if they are using someone elses network.

For the thing about third party support, actually ever since a new CEO and head of marketting took over they've been making a HUGE point (in the last year especially) about patching third party relations. To the point of labelling the DS the "Developers System" at E3 2004. And according to Aries there is an impressive list of developers lined up, including Capcom, Namco, Konami, Majesco, EA, SquareSoft, and possibly Square Enix (there were more, I'm going from memory), who have dev kits.

It's all talk thusfar and nothing else. As for dev systems, that indicates nothing about how many games will be made, whether they will be exclusives or not, or whether they will be made at all. Square had dev kits for the Xbox as well remember?

Microsoft is making 720p and 1080i MANDATORY for all XBox games. Won't that require dramatically more detailed textures, and the more powerful graphics cards require larger environments?

It will increase the space needs, but not tremendously so. And it's not as if they are currently pushing the limits of DVD-9 technology. Do you know of any Xbox games with multiple discs? Hell, both Halo and Morrowind fit onto a single CD (EDIT: as in a 650 CD, not a DVD-9) and they were huge games.

Sony has already announced the inclusion of Blu-Ray on the PS3. Officially.

SCE has, this is true. But since they aren't officially developing the technology, their word isn't law for this decision. Sony as a whole has to consider the cost of implementing the Blu-Ray technology and it might not be worth it, especially if it isn't the next gen high def movie format.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just looking more unlikely.

As for the joint specification...what news? There is talks, but no results yet. No decisions. No agreements.

Nope, but it makes sense and Sony is not going to be concerned with SCE's Playstation schedules when they make that decision.

The "built in flash memory" rumor for the XBox 360 was disproven when Microsoft released developer specs. It was not mentioned anywhere. Those rumors have all but ceased as well.

The deal with M-Systems for integrated flash isn't true? Well, it's not important to backwards compatibility on the hard drive flavor of the Xbox anyways.

Further, even were it to be true, a flash unit can not be used for caching. It would wear out.

Not entirely true, it depends a lot on how the cache is used. Obviously it can't be used as a random place to write data, but it could be used as a texture cache of sorts which would only need to be written once for each use.

From all indicators it looks to be PS3 > Revolution > XBox 360.

Have we seen much about the performance capabilities of the Revolution? As for the PS3, the GPU looks to be more advanced, but aside from possible physics uses, the Cell chip looks to be a bunch of wasted silicon.

Why would Nintendo fail to outperform anyone? So far, rumors (as well as logic) insist the Rev is more powerful than the XBox 360. The GameCube was VASTLY more powerful than the PlayStation 2. Why does Nintendo have to have the worst graphics?

The Gamecube used extremely old technology at the time, the graphics chip is roughly on part with the GeForce 2. The reason it outperformed the PS2 is because Sony made some idiotic design decisions with the hardware with regards to texturing.

Suggesting someone look at the other consoles (I didn't say forget the XBox 360, the PVR capabilities look interesting) is not exactly running around screaming "MS is the devil, buy Nintendo and repent, sinners!"...

I'm going by a lot of past Microsoft bashing on your part here.

Further, I am not bashing the first XBox, am I? As I said earlier in this thread, it pioneered new advances in online consoles (first with built in broadband, PC-like online services), had the best graphics and was the first to get people hooked on the hard drive. The only things I disliked about it are the original controller, and games lineup (the games didn't appeal to me personally).

There is no indication that the Xbox 360 will be a stinker at all, a 9-12 month head start is not going to mean much as far as hardware goes, especially since Microsoft is known to put in much more bleeding edge graphics technology than Sony or Nintendo.

3) The regular version does not have an x86 processor, STILL no backwards compatability, even IF there was a hard drive. Unless of course an x86 processor is included in the hard drive, which is possible.

Are you forgetting that Microsoft has the emulation software capability for PowerPC to x86? This has been known for years, the hard drive version of the Xbox is extremely likely to have backwards compatibility. It's been all but officially announced. But I guess we'll see in a few weeks won't we?

Now excuse me, I'm finished for the evening since I've got to go watch hentai with my girlfriend. I'll be back in the morning to respond further.

[Vympel]

X-Box can suck my balls. Their console sucks, their controller sucks, and the only good game they've got on the thing is Halo and Halo 2. Screw this, I'm going to go pitch a tent outside of that company making the Phantom.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Honestly, to declare Microsoft down for the count is begging to be proven wrong. The PS2's design was outrageously shitty, and it still managed to be the most popular console. Because it was so popular, developers learned to work with its limitations and its games ended up looking and sounding only slightly worse than titles on the Gamecube and X-Box.

There's also very little to compare its specs to. Everyone who crows about the PS3's hardware is either too young to remember the year leading up to the PS2's launch, or wasn't paying much attention to the hype. Sony convinced everybody that it would do everything except give you a blowjob, and that the other companies would have to go back to the drawing board and delay launches by years in order to compete. So I wouldn't trust any PS3 related hype farther than I can throw the country of Japan. And Nintendo has been basically mum about the Revolution.

I do agree that Microsoft could be repeating the mistake that SEGA made three times in a row with the Gensis, Saturn, and Dreamcast (first to market, but technologically inferior). I also think it's very possible that the new X-Box will be the least powerful of the three because of its early launch. But as much as I would love to see Microsoft take a bath, it won't happen. They're too business savvy, too good at manipulating markets, and as much as I hate the company as a whole, their Games division is excellent.

[Stark]

There's also very little to compare its specs to. Everyone who crows about the PS3's hardware is either too young to remember the year leading up to the PS2's launch, or wasn't paying much attention to the hype.

Some of us remember. It was going to be a supercomputer, it was going to be a supermodel.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

...and as much as I hate the company as a whole, their Games division is excellent.

Some of their PC games are good, like Crimson Skies or Dungeon Siege (well, DS is not THAT good but compared to Diablo...). However, IIRC Crimson Skies 2 is for X-box only. I don't know if there are features sacrified by moving from PC to consoles, nor what games will be "X-box only". Imagine playing Dungeon Siege with X-Box controller...

[Xon]

Microsoft is making 720p and 1080i MANDATORY for all XBox games. Won't that require dramatically more detailed textures, and the more powerful graphics cards require larger environments?

It will increase the space needs, but not tremendously so. And it's not as if they are currently pushing the limits of DVD-9 technology. Do you know of any Xbox games with multiple discs? Hell, both Halo and Morrowind fit onto a single CD (EDIT: as in a 650 CD, not a DVD-9) and they were huge games.

Random infodump; DVD seek speeds are so low, and Xbox devs have so much DVD space to play with, it isnt unknown for them keep a copy of the content at the start of the disk and another copy at the end of the disk and then seek for the closest copy when they need to grab stuff off DVD when it isnt cached on the Xbox harddisk

[HyperionX]

Microsoft is making 720p and 1080i MANDATORY for all XBox games. Won't that require dramatically more detailed textures, and the more powerful graphics cards require larger environments?

It will increase the space needs, but not tremendously so. And it's not as if they are currently pushing the limits of DVD-9 technology. Do you know of any Xbox games with multiple discs? Hell, both Halo and Morrowind fit onto a single CD (EDIT: as in a 650 CD, not a DVD-9) and they were huge games.

Are you freaking kidding me? SW:KOTOR takes up 4GBs and AFAIK Halo2 eats almost all of the DVD. And frankly the graphics of those two games weren't THAT great, they were just long-ish games. Now imagine 4-8x more graphical content per level and you'll easily see that some next-gen games will eat up 20-40GBs of data. Xbox360 will be using multiple disks next gen where PS3 won't, a significant annoyance.

IMO Microsoft has made simply too many mistakes and made X360 just too unappeal in order to make a profit. I see at best they simply coast thru this generation with minimal gains. Worst case scenario is that they get "Gamecubed;" profitable and sells well for a while, but it totally fades out when the hype dies.

[Praxis]

From what we hear Nintendo may be going with GameSpy. Who, despite their sucky GS Arcade application, make good integrated stuff.

Irrelevent, they still need to develop their own software and community, even if they are using someone elses network.

Alright, true. Microsoft has an advantage in that they already have an existing system. However, if Nintendo can make an online service with equivilant features to XBox Live, add message board capability and downloadable content and demos as in the Aries rumor, and do it FREE (even if XBox Live 2 is slightly better, you pay for it), would it not be considered a worthy opponent?

For the thing about third party support, actually ever since a new CEO and head of marketting took over they've been making a HUGE point (in the last year especially) about patching third party relations. To the point of labelling the DS the "Developers System" at E3 2004. And according to Aries there is an impressive list of developers lined up, including Capcom, Namco, Konami, Majesco, EA, SquareSoft, and possibly Square Enix (there were more, I'm going from memory), who have dev kits.

It's all talk thusfar and nothing else. As for dev systems, that indicates nothing about how many games will be made, whether they will be exclusives or not, or whether they will be made at all. Square had dev kits for the Xbox as well remember?

Yep, but my point is that they've been really trying so its within the realm of possibility they might regain some. They didn't even try to get third parties last generation.

Microsoft is making 720p and 1080i MANDATORY for all XBox games. Won't that require dramatically more detailed textures, and the more powerful graphics cards require larger environments?

It will increase the space needs, but not tremendously so. And it's not as if they are currently pushing the limits of DVD-9 technology. Do you know of any Xbox games with multiple discs? Hell, both Halo and Morrowind fit onto a single CD (EDIT: as in a 650 CD, not a DVD-9) and they were huge games.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've been told that GTA: SA almost fills up a DVD-9, dual layer?

Aren't there any PC games (maybe Half-Life 2) that use two DVD's?

Sony has already announced the inclusion of Blu-Ray on the PS3. Officially.

SCE has, this is true. But since they aren't officially developing the technology, their word isn't law for this decision. Sony as a whole has to consider the cost of implementing the Blu-Ray technology and it might not be worth it, especially if it isn't the next gen high def movie format.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just looking more unlikely.

But either way they will use some next gen format, whether it be Blu-ray, HD-DVD, or a hybrid, in all likelyhood.

The "built in flash memory" rumor for the XBox 360 was disproven when Microsoft released developer specs. It was not mentioned anywhere. Those rumors have all but ceased as well.

The deal with M-Systems for integrated flash isn't true? Well, it's not important to backwards compatibility on the hard drive flavor of the Xbox anyways.

""Although Microsoft is not obligated to purchase any memory units under the agreement, we believe that this agreement could represent a significant opportunity for M-Systems," said Dov Moran, president and CEO of M-Systems. "

and

Flash memory maker M-Systems has been signed up by Microsoft to provide a high capacity memory unit for the next-generation Xbox console, adding weight to reports that the system will not include a hard drive.

M-Systems is best known for manufacturing USB flash drives which are small enough to attach to keyrings, but the company says that what it is manufacturing for Xbox 2 is a product that does not currently exist, and will be far higher capacity than the 8mb Xbox memory cards.

Since we know the XBox 360 has at least 64 MB memory cards, I would guess that either this deal fell through, or that M-Systems was just developing high capacity memory cards all along.

The developers weren't given any mention of a flash drive in the specs at GDC, either way.

Further, even were it to be true, a flash unit can not be used for caching. It would wear out.

Not entirely true, it depends a lot on how the cache is used. Obviously it can't be used as a random place to write data, but it could be used as a texture cache of sorts which would only need to be written once for each use.

Makes sense. Though it's still not included. But my point stands that it could not be used for backwards compatability, because XBox 1 games are designed to use it like a hard drive (using random places to write data).

From all indicators it looks to be PS3 > Revolution > XBox 360.

Have we seen much about the performance capabilities of the Revolution? As for the PS3, the GPU looks to be more advanced, but aside from possible physics uses, the Cell chip looks to be a bunch of wasted silicon.

No. Historically, though, the order they are launching has always determined graphics prowess, and we've got the XBox 360, then Revolution, then PS3. The Rev launch is likely to be closer to the PS3 than XBox.

(no, I'm not figuring the cell processor into this, like you said its useless out of physics and AI)

Additionally, Aries said that the Revolution is more powerful than the XBox 360, but he has yet to speak with someone with a PS3 dev kit so doesn't know about the PS3.

We were told by Nintendo that the Revolution uses IBM processors and ATi graphics cards, so its a reasonable assumption that they're newer versions of what the xBox has.

Now this could all be wrong, but if history and every rumor points to that order...I'll go with it until I see official specs on all three.

Why would Nintendo fail to outperform anyone? So far, rumors (as well as logic) insist the Rev is more powerful than the XBox 360. The GameCube was VASTLY more powerful than the PlayStation 2. Why does Nintendo have to have the worst graphics?

The Gamecube used extremely old technology at the time, the graphics chip is roughly on part with the GeForce 2. The reason it outperformed the PS2 is because Sony made some idiotic design decisions with the hardware with regards to texturing.

Uh, so is the XBox you know. Geforce 3.

The numbers I see on the internet are like this:
PS2 = 7 million polygons per second
GameCube = 15 million polygons per second
XBox = 17 million polygons per second

assuming no special effects or anything.

The GameCube is second only to the XBox, and not by a vast amount. Look at RE4.

Suggesting someone look at the other consoles (I didn't say forget the XBox 360, the PVR capabilities look interesting) is not exactly running around screaming "MS is the devil, buy Nintendo and repent, sinners!"...

I'm going by a lot of past Microsoft bashing on your part here.

Alright. I will say this.
Yes, I don't like Microsoft.
And as a result, my opinions are probably a little slanted- aka, I'm less willing to forgive Microsoft for a mistake.

But it does not mean my points are incorrect.

Hey, its an improvement, last year I would have been screaming and waving the "Microsoft sucks!" flag throughout this thread I'm trying to be less biased...

Further, I am not bashing the first XBox, am I? As I said earlier in this thread, it pioneered new advances in online consoles (first with built in broadband, PC-like online services), had the best graphics and was the first to get people hooked on the hard drive. The only things I disliked about it are the original controller, and games lineup (the games didn't appeal to me personally).

There is no indication that the Xbox 360 will be a stinker at all, a 9-12 month head start is not going to mean much as far as hardware goes, especially since Microsoft is known to put in much more bleeding edge graphics technology than Sony or Nintendo.

And Microsoft also took a massive hit. From all indications they are trying to make a profit this generation.

Further, look at the way things happened. The XBox and GameCube had a year over the PS2. They obviously would outperform it. Nintendo for some reason decided to launch the GameCube at $200 (selling at a PROFIT), while Microsoft sold at $300 (at a LOSS). Which system has more expensive hardware? Right. XBox by far.

3) The regular version does not have an x86 processor, STILL no backwards compatability, even IF there was a hard drive. Unless of course an x86 processor is included in the hard drive, which is possible.

Are you forgetting that Microsoft has the emulation software capability for PowerPC to x86? This has been known for years, the hard drive version of the Xbox is extremely likely to have backwards compatibility. It's been all but officially announced. But I guess we'll see in a few weeks won't we?

Are you forgetting that XBox games are single threaded, meaning that only 1/3rd of the XBox 360's processing power can be used on emulation? We had a huge discussion on this a while back and the concensus was, its not possible.

And yes, I RUN Virtual PC quite often. Hideous performance.

Now excuse me, I'm finished for the evening since I've got to go watch hentai with my girlfriend. I'll be back in the morning to respond further.

Alright, cya.

[Praxis]

Honestly, to declare Microsoft down for the count is begging to be proven wrong. The PS2's design was outrageously shitty, and it still managed to be the most popular console. Because it was so popular, developers learned to work with its limitations and its games ended up looking and sounding only slightly worse than titles on the Gamecube and X-Box.

I agree fully. I'm only saying that I think Microsoft made too many mistakes on it, not that it will not sell. Microsoft has a history of selling crappy products at outrageous prices

(before someone bashes me, I'm referring to Windows, NOT the XBox. XBox was fine.)

There's also very little to compare its specs to.

Considering the 1-year-gap between the PS3 and XBox, unless Sony moves their hardware launch up, Sony would have to be a bunch of blithering IDIOTS to have weaker hardware...
I'm ignoring all the Cell processor hype- Sony is using a standard NVidia graphics card. Except it's going to be a year newer than the ATi in the XBox.

I do agree that Microsoft could be repeating the mistake that SEGA made three times in a row with the Gensis, Saturn, and Dreamcast (first to market, but technologically inferior). I also think it's very possible that the new X-Box will be the least powerful of the three because of its early launch. But as much as I would love to see Microsoft take a bath, it won't happen. They're too business savvy, too good at manipulating markets, and as much as I hate the company as a whole, their Games division is excellent.

Nitpick: Wasn't the Genesis several times more powerful than the SNES?

[Praxis]

There's also very little to compare its specs to. Everyone who crows about the PS3's hardware is either too young to remember the year leading up to the PS2's launch, or wasn't paying much attention to the hype.

Some of us remember. It was going to be a supercomputer, it was going to be a supermodel.

Yeah, I remember, the hype numbers were so high they outperform MODERN supercomputers


Oh, everyone. New pic of the XBox controller.



http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/8172/Xbox ... rs-Online/


Too bad. The other picture spawned rumors that the round thing might be a trackball (which would be cool for browsing the web, maybe even FPS). This disproves that, sadly

EDIT: Oh yeah, this is a prototype. Whew.

[Hamel]

I do agree that Microsoft could be repeating the mistake that SEGA made three times in a row with the Gensis, Saturn, and Dreamcast (first to market, but technologically inferior). I also think it's very possible that the new X-Box will be the least powerful of the three because of its early launch. But as much as I would love to see Microsoft take a bath, it won't happen. They're too business savvy, too good at manipulating markets, and as much as I hate the company as a whole, their Games division is excellent.

Nitpick: Wasn't the Genesis several times more powerful than the SNES?

Vgmuseum.com sez:

Genesis:
Motorola 68000 at 7.61 MHz
64 KByte of ram

SNES:
2.68 and 3.58 Mhz, changable speed
128 Kbyte of ram

Of course, we all know about the Genesis' inferior color and sound capabilities. What the system lacks in visuals it makes up for in... Sonic running through a level faster than he ever could on an SNES In all seriousness, though, Genesis games seemed to have fewer problems with slowdown. In the end, however, the SNES was the superior system.

[White Haven]

...I'm seeing fewer buttons. Doesn't that tank backwards compatiblity right there?

[HyperionX]

The black and white buttons are now on top as trigger buttons.

[Max]

That other pic was a prototype... it was corded too, the controllers will be wireless...

[salm]

Whoever invented the PS controller was a fucking genious. All other controllers suck.

[The Kernel]

Alright, true. Microsoft has an advantage in that they already have an existing system. However, if Nintendo can make an online service with equivilant features to XBox Live, add message board capability and downloadable content and demos as in the Aries rumor, and do it FREE (even if XBox Live 2 is slightly better, you pay for it), would it not be considered a worthy opponent?

No. For that you also need killer titles, and Nintendo has no experience with online gaming either. Once again, not impossible, but they don't have the homefield advantage here.

Yep, but my point is that they've been really trying so its within the realm of possibility they might regain some. They didn't even try to get third parties last generation.

Of course they tried to get third parties, don't be stupid. They failed to get significant third party support because of several reasons which include the fact that Nintendo doesn't provide the sort of development and marketing support for third party games that Sony and Microsoft do, and it hasn't been announced that this will change.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've been told that GTA: SA almost fills up a DVD-9, dual layer?

Aren't there any PC games (maybe Half-Life 2) that use two DVD's?

I have no idea about GTA: SA, but think about it this way, PC's are still stuck using the CD for 99% of the games released and it is not an inferior platform. At worst you might see more Xbox 2 games shipping with two discs, this is hardly much of a disadvantage.

But either way they will use some next gen format, whether it be Blu-ray, HD-DVD, or a hybrid, in all likelyhood.

You're forgetting the cost aspect. Blu-Ray is a great idea to include in a console, but it's going to be tough to justify to the Sony board why their new Blu-Ray (or whatever it's going to be called) players are having their sales tanked in order to sell a game console. Remember what happened to the price of DVD players when the PS2 came out?

As for Nintendo, history has shown that they don't like to pay a lot for their systems, and they won't be able to get a next gen player put in for as cheap as Sony anyways, so I don't see them using one as being very likely.

I could be wrong about this, but consider that never in the history of home theater (the target market for Blu-Ray/HD-DVD) has anything reached the dirt cheap price levels needed for inclusion in the PS3/Revolution.

Makes sense. Though it's still not included. But my point stands that it could not be used for backwards compatability, because XBox 1 games are designed to use it like a hard drive (using random places to write data).

True, but considering that the Xbox 360 is going to have much more memory then the Xbox 1, backwards compatibility could be achievied in theory without the hard drive by sectioning off the memory for different uses (making the software think that the extra memory is actually HD space rather than RAM) but this would depend on the amount of space that is partioned for Xbox developers on the hard drive.

Anyway, it is easy to see that for the hard drive version of the Xbox 360, backwards compatibility is all but certain. Not a bad idea either, providing backwards compatibility gives an incentive feature for buying the higher end model.

No. Historically, though, the order they are launching has always determined graphics prowess, and we've got the XBox 360, then Revolution, then PS3. The Rev launch is likely to be closer to the PS3 than XBox.

If the Xbox had launched nine months before the PS2 with its design philosophy of using bleeding edge PC components, it would have been more powerful then the PS2. Consider that.

Additionally, Aries said that the Revolution is more powerful than the XBox 360, but he has yet to speak with someone with a PS3 dev kit so doesn't know about the PS3.

There are many ways to gauge performance and until I see some hard numbers on the hardware inside the Revolution, this is all speculation.

We were told by Nintendo that the Revolution uses IBM processors and ATi graphics cards, so its a reasonable assumption that they're newer versions of what the xBox has.

No it isn't. The Gamecube used an IBM processor and an ATI graphics chip too, that doesn't mean it is as bleeding edge as the one in the Xbox. Most of the hardware was generationally a year old at that point.

Now this could all be wrong, but if history and every rumor points to that order...I'll go with it until I see official specs on all three.

That's my point, history does NOT support your argument.

Uh, so is the XBox you know. Geforce 3.

Which is FAR more advanced than the Geforce 2. What point are you trying to make here?

The numbers I see on the internet are like this:
PS2 = 7 million polygons per second
GameCube = 15 million polygons per second
XBox = 17 million polygons per second

You think peak geometry is the limiting factor for console GPU's?

Let's explore the differences between the Xbox GPU and the graphics chip in the Gamecube shall we? The Xbox GPU uses a core with programmable shaders, and is capable of applying two textures per pipeline. The "Flipper" is a fixed function T&L chip that can only apply a single texture per pipeline. The only reason "Flipper" has any reasonable graphics prowess at all is because of Nintendo's forward thinking decision of including integrated 1-T SRAM into the design (something not lost on Microsoft I might add, eDRAM is slated for use in the Xbox 360's GPU).

assuming no special effects or anything.

Pretty big assumption considering that shader effects, per-pixel lighting, real time shadows, etc, are all used liberally in Xbox games. Look what happened when they ported Splinter Cell to the Gamecube, a game that liberally uses such graphics features for it's gameplay (and it's not like it was a poorly done port either, they squeezed everything they could out of the Gamecube).

The GameCube is second only to the XBox, and not by a vast amount. Look at RE4.

An exclusive game that can cut such graphics features found is games like Splinter Cell, and no one will notice because it's not on any other system.

And Microsoft also took a massive hit. From all indications they are trying to make a profit this generation.

You call a $200 million loss per quarter a "massive hit" for Microsoft?

In any case, sure they are trying to make a profit this time around. Cutting the hard drive on the base unit and going with a better licensing deal for the graphics tech is a big part of that. But no way is Microsoft going to build an inferior machine just to save money, they don't need to and they still aren't in a position of total dominance.

Further, look at the way things happened. The XBox and GameCube had a year over the PS2. They obviously would outperform it. Nintendo for some reason decided to launch the GameCube at $200 (selling at a PROFIT), while Microsoft sold at $300 (at a LOSS). Which system has more expensive hardware? Right. XBox by far.

That's exactly the reason why Nintendo is unlikely to put very advanced hardware in the Revolution.

As for Microsoft selling the Xbox at a loss, yes indeed they did. So did another company with a little thing called the PS2. Selling consoles at a loss is a time honored business practice that works extremely well, Microsoft's problem is that the loss was too great. This time around they are going to shrink that quite a bit with the lack of a hard drive and a more favorable GPU arrangement.

Are you forgetting that XBox games are single threaded, meaning that only 1/3rd of the XBox 360's processing power can be used on emulation? We had a huge discussion on this a while back and the concensus was, its not possible.

The concensus of who? Are you qualified to ascertain this? From what I've seen of your tech knowledge, I'd say no.

In any case it doesn't matter that only one of the CPU cores can be used, all Microsoft would need to emulated with the CPU is the performance of a 733 Mhz Celeron.

And yes, I RUN Virtual PC quite often. Hideous performance.

Indeed. I suppose the differences between a custom built emulation for Xbox with no system overhead and your version aren't capable of being understood by you.

Once again, backwards compatibility is not a given, but it's extremely likely and technologically possible.

[Chardok]

Hold on one frigging second. Okay. So the New Xbrick May need multiple disks...umm...so what? it takes 3 seconds to change out the disks? why is that such a huge sticking point? I mean, are there significant performance hits by using DVD format as opposed to this Blu-Ray or whatever it's called?

[Praxis]

EDIT:

Alright, true. Microsoft has an advantage in that they already have an existing system. However, if Nintendo can make an online service with equivilant features to XBox Live, add message board capability and downloadable content and demos as in the Aries rumor, and do it FREE (even if XBox Live 2 is slightly better, you pay for it), would it not be considered a worthy opponent?

No. For that you also need killer titles, and Nintendo has no experience with online gaming either. Once again, not impossible, but they don't have the homefield advantage here.

You don't consider Super Smash Bros or Metroid Prime being online as killer titles?

Yep, but my point is that they've been really trying so its within the realm of possibility they might regain some. They didn't even try to get third parties last generation.

Of course they tried to get third parties, don't be stupid. They failed to get significant third party support because of several reasons which include the fact that Nintendo doesn't provide the sort of development and marketing support for third party games that Sony and Microsoft do, and it hasn't been announced that this will change.

Bad wording, they didn't put a lot of effort into it is what I meant.

------

You know what? I typed all this up and hit submit, and then I realized- whats the point if this part of the arguement? There is absolutely NO WAY to know which will be better, so there is no point in arguing it.

So forget the above.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've been told that GTA: SA almost fills up a DVD-9, dual layer?

Aren't there any PC games (maybe Half-Life 2) that use two DVD's?

I have no idea about GTA: SA, but think about it this way, PC's are still stuck using the CD for 99% of the games released and it is not an inferior platform. At worst you might see more Xbox 2 games shipping with two discs, this is hardly much of a disadvantage.

I consider it a significant disadvantage. (BTW, Star Wars Battlefront shipped on 3 CD's, and that was a major annoyance).

We might see lower resolution videos instead of HD (I mean, with Blu-Ray you can have multiple full length SD films or a full length HD film IN ADDITION to the game...). Less special features. Etc. Look at the GameCube. When the GameCube came out I excused it with "well, we get faster loading times, and no game will use that much space in this generation..." oops. RE4, multiple disks.

But either way they will use some next gen format, whether it be Blu-ray, HD-DVD, or a hybrid, in all likelyhood.

You're forgetting the cost aspect. Blu-Ray is a great idea to include in a console, but it's going to be tough to justify to the Sony board why their new Blu-Ray (or whatever it's going to be called) players are having their sales tanked in order to sell a game console. Remember what happened to the price of DVD players when the PS2 came out?

As for Nintendo, history has shown that they don't like to pay a lot for their systems, and they won't be able to get a next gen player put in for as cheap as Sony anyways, so I don't see them using one as being very likely.

Eh? The GameCube used DVD disks as well, they just spun the disks backwards to prevent piracy.

If a hybrid format comes along, Sony will probably use that, otherwise they've already stated Blu-ray will be in it. I think it would be silly not to use next gen storage. Worse case, just use the vastly cheaper HD-DVD.

Makes sense. Though it's still not included. But my point stands that it could not be used for backwards compatability, because XBox 1 games are designed to use it like a hard drive (using random places to write data).

True, but considering that the Xbox 360 is going to have much more memory then the Xbox 1, backwards compatibility could be achievied in theory without the hard drive by sectioning off the memory for different uses (making the software think that the extra memory is actually HD space rather than RAM) but this would depend on the amount of space that is partioned for Xbox developers on the hard drive.

Anyway, it is easy to see that for the hard drive version of the Xbox 360, backwards compatibility is all but certain. Not a bad idea either, providing backwards compatibility gives an incentive feature for buying the higher end model.

IF the hard drive version includes a Pentium 3 processor, yes. I wouldn't say "certain", just possible and maybe likely.

No. Historically, though, the order they are launching has always determined graphics prowess, and we've got the XBox 360, then Revolution, then PS3. The Rev launch is likely to be closer to the PS3 than XBox.

If the Xbox had launched nine months before the PS2 with its design philosophy of using bleeding edge PC components, it would have been more powerful then the PS2. Consider that.

The PS2 had a stupid design, however. Further, that is a completely screwed up arguement. How do you know that the XBox would have been more powerful than the PS2 if it had launched TWO YEARS before it actually did?

The Dreamcast did that and look what happened to it.

And the philosophy of using PC components does not automatically make it more powerful, otherwise the XBox 360 would be using x86 processors. As it stands, EVERY COMPONENT in the XBox 360 is customized. And that's BETTER. Thats why the GameCube (selling for $200 at a profit) kept up with the XBox ($300 at a loss). Though the XBox was more powerful, it was not that much more powerful, nowhere near the price difference. Why? Nintendo used customized versions of high end PC components. Customized IBM processor. Customized ATi graphics chip.

Guess what- Microsoft is doing the same thing in the 360. Want me to dig up the patent for the customized graphics card?

Additionally, Aries said that the Revolution is more powerful than the XBox 360, but he has yet to speak with someone with a PS3 dev kit so doesn't know about the PS3.

There are many ways to gauge performance and until I see some hard numbers on the hardware inside the Revolution, this is all speculation.

Agreed, but so are your points.

We were told by Nintendo that the Revolution uses IBM processors and ATi graphics cards, so its a reasonable assumption that they're newer versions of what the xBox has.

No it isn't. The Gamecube used an IBM processor and an ATI graphics chip too, that doesn't mean it is as bleeding edge as the one in the Xbox. Most of the hardware was generationally a year old at that point.

Only due to the fact that the GameCube had a MUCH lower price point. Yet performance was actually barely behind the XBox.

There is no indication of the Revolution being the 'cheap' system this time around.

And BTW, although the GC used IBM and ATi, the XBox used Intel and NVidia. My point is that the Rev and X360 are using the same stuff this time, except Nintendo is coming later, so which logically should be faster ASSUMING the same price point?

Now this could all be wrong, but if history and every rumor points to that order...I'll go with it until I see official specs on all three.

That's my point, history does NOT support your argument.

Yes, it does. Your attempt at disproving that history supports me was making up some theoretical scenario of how if the XBox had launched two years earlier it would STILL have been more powerful, which is ridiculous. There is no way to know that.

XBox > GameCube > PS2 > Dreamcast. Guess what order they launched in? And the GameCube at a lower price point at that.

[quuote]

The numbers I see on the internet are like this:
PS2 = 7 million polygons per second
GameCube = 15 million polygons per second
XBox = 17 million polygons per second

You think peak geometry is the limiting factor for console GPU's?
[/quote]

No, but it is one measurement.

Let's explore the differences between the Xbox GPU and the graphics chip in the Gamecube shall we? The Xbox GPU uses a core with programmable shaders, and is capable of applying two textures per pipeline. The "Flipper" is a fixed function T&L chip that can only apply a single texture per pipeline. The only reason "Flipper" has any reasonable graphics prowess at all is because of Nintendo's forward thinking decision of including integrated 1-T SRAM into the design (something not lost on Microsoft I might add, eDRAM is slated for use in the Xbox 360's GPU).

Again, due to the fact that the XBox cost 50% more at launch and MS was selling at a loss.

Every indication this time around is that MS is selling for a profit, and the Revolution appears to not be going the cheap way this time around with all the features we've been hearing of.

And Microsoft also took a massive hit. From all indications they are trying to make a profit this generation.

You call a $200 million loss per quarter a "massive hit" for Microsoft?

compared to the other companies, yes. Compared to their total bank account, no.

Further, look at the way things happened. The XBox and GameCube had a year over the PS2. They obviously would outperform it. Nintendo for some reason decided to launch the GameCube at $200 (selling at a PROFIT), while Microsoft sold at $300 (at a LOSS). Which system has more expensive hardware? Right. XBox by far.

That's exactly the reason why Nintendo is unlikely to put very advanced hardware in the Revolution.

Ah, so now we're making the assumption that Nintendo is making a 'cheap' system, after their last one failed. Right.

As for Microsoft selling the Xbox at a loss, yes indeed they did. So did another company with a little thing called the PS2. Selling consoles at a loss is a time honored business practice that works extremely well, Microsoft's problem is that the loss was too great. This time around they are going to shrink that quite a bit with the lack of a hard drive and a more favorable GPU arrangement.

But the loss on the PS2 was nowhere near that of the XBox. Sony's total numbers were positive.

Are you forgetting that XBox games are single threaded, meaning that only 1/3rd of the XBox 360's processing power can be used on emulation? We had a huge discussion on this a while back and the concensus was, its not possible.

The concensus of who?

A number of board members much smarter than me.

Are you qualified to ascertain this? From what I've seen of your tech knowledge, I'd say no.

I know considerably more about CPU's than GPU's, but even then, it wasn't me that came to that conclusion.

HyperionX...

So what? You're trying to emulate a 3-way, out-of-order execution x86 chip with a (relatively) short pipeline (what the P3 in the Xbox is) with a 2-way in-order deeply pipelined PPC chip (what the CPU in the Xbox2 is). Let me explain. The CPU in the Xbox2 is a very simple design and is "skinny," meant for very high clockspeeds, but will have bad IPC (instructions per clock). The P3 on the other had is a much wider design and is more complex, slower in clockspeed (theoretically, since they're different generations of chips) but has good IPC. Somethings will be very suited to the first way but other things will be much more suited on the second CPU. In short they're fundamentally difference designs, and even though the PPC may be moving at 3Ghz and the P3 at 733Mhz, there should still be some cases where the P3 will win. Emulating this will be an ugly, buggy mess I seriously doubt they can do.

Seeing how you know so little about CPU designs I'll let this go. But in short, you're wrong, period. You're not looking at a PPC 970 (the G5 in the Mac), not even a G4. No, you're looking at a very simplistic 2-way in-order CPU. The last "2-way in-order" intel chip was the original Pentium (the "586"), a 15 year old chip. All modern CPUs (like the P3) are all at least 3-wide and are out-of-order processors. Hard as it is to believe, the "celeron" in the Xbox1 is technologically more advanced that the PPC chip in the Xbox2 with the exception of much higher attainable clockspeeds and use of SMT for the PPC chip. Unfortunately, SMT is useless in emulated single-threaded processes, and so is the multi-core aspect of the X2-CPU.

IPC for the X2-CPU isn't much superior than the X-CPU if not in fact worse. If you had to pick a CPU to emulate a P3 the PPC chip in the Xbox2 is perhaps the worst choice you could possibly pick; They're totally different chips with totally difference design philosophies. The X2-CPU was really meant for great multi-thread apps whereas the P3 was meant for blazing fast single-threaded apps. The wide, out-of-order nature of the P3 means it is very good at integer computations, in fact in somes cases possibly better than the PPC, whereas the PPC was really meant for huge float point computing power with weak integer. It's one hell of a mismatch, then put an emulator on top of this. Can you say "ouch"?

Lot more quotes where that came from.

In any case it doesn't matter that only one of the CPU cores can be used, all Microsoft would need to emulated with the CPU is the performance of a 733 Mhz Celeron.

Point 1: The XBox does NOT have a Celeron. It's a half cached P3.
Point 2: Right, so you expect ONE of the XBox 360 processors (3 GHz @ 2 IPC) to emulate the XBox 1 processor (733 MHz @ iirc 6 IPC). Yeah.

And yes, I RUN Virtual PC quite often. Hideous performance.

Indeed. I suppose the differences between a custom built emulation for Xbox with no system overhead and your version aren't capable of being understood by you.

Once again, backwards compatibility is not a given, but it's extremely likely and technologically possible.

No, I realize the difference, but read above.

[Shinova]

Hold on one frigging second. Okay. So the New Xbrick May need multiple disks...umm...so what? it takes 3 seconds to change out the disks? why is that such a huge sticking point? I mean, are there significant performance hits by using DVD format as opposed to this Blu-Ray or whatever it's called?

Not a big deal to us, but consider the average patience span of the average console gamer.

[Chardok]

Not a big deal to us, but consider the average patience span of the average console gamer.

Well, you do have a p-OOH BIRDIE!

I'm sorry; huh?

Oh, right. well, I mean, even with games on the PS1 that were multiple disks, the swaps were so infrequent as to be of no consequence. Maybe that's just me. As it is currently, I will be buying the next gen 'box simply for the sheer joy and anticipation of future Halo titles; PC be damned. I'll buy it too. but that's just how big of a rabid bastardly halo fanwhore wank meister that I am. Masterchief uber alles, Bitches.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Hold on one frigging second. Okay. So the New Xbrick May need multiple disks...umm...so what? it takes 3 seconds to change out the disks? why is that such a huge sticking point? I mean, are there significant performance hits by using DVD format as opposed to this Blu-Ray or whatever it's called?

Not a big deal to us, but consider the average patience span of the average console gamer.

Attention span, Space Cadet...

[The Kernel]

I consider it a significant disadvantage. (BTW, Star Wars Battlefront shipped on 3 CD's, and that was a major annoyance).

The majority of consumers don't. And most Xbox 360 games will be a single disc, with big games stretching to two discs.

We might see lower resolution videos instead of HD (I mean, with Blu-Ray you can have multiple full length SD films or a full length HD film IN ADDITION to the game...). Less special features. Etc.

FMV in games in becoming an anachronism, almost all cinema today with the exception of Final Fantasy is being done in the game engine.

As for a full length HD film on a GAME disc, I don't see what situation you would see that in.

Look at the GameCube. When the GameCube came out I excused it with "well, we get faster loading times, and no game will use that much space in this generation..." oops. RE4, multiple disks.

Gamecube discs have significantly less space than DVD-9 offers, and even so, most of the games are single discs.

Eh? The GameCube used DVD disks as well, they just spun the disks backwards to prevent piracy.

Which has what to do with this? DVD was years old at that point, not brand new.

If a hybrid format comes along, Sony will probably use that, otherwise they've already stated Blu-ray will be in it. I think it would be silly not to use next gen storage. Worse case, just use the vastly cheaper HD-DVD.

HD-DVD is cheaper from a MANUFACTURING standpoint. But that doesn't mean that Nintendo will have to pay nothing to use it if they want to put the Revolution on the market with first gen devices. Don't you know how this business works?

IF the hard drive version includes a Pentium 3 processor, yes. I wouldn't say "certain", just possible and maybe likely.

It doesn't need a Pentium III processor.

The PS2 had a stupid design, however. Further, that is a completely screwed up arguement. How do you know that the XBox would have been more powerful than the PS2 if it had launched TWO YEARS before it actually did?

Because, if you follow the design philosophy of the Xbox, it would have had a 400 Mhz processor and a GeForce 2 GTS. This hardware is more than sufficient to kick the crap out of the PS2.

The Dreamcast did that and look what happened to it.

The design philosophy behind the Dreamcast and the Xbox are radically different.

And the philosophy of using PC components does not automatically make it more powerful, otherwise the XBox 360 would be using x86 processors. As it stands, EVERY COMPONENT in the XBox 360 is customized. And that's BETTER. Thats why the GameCube (selling for $200 at a profit) kept up with the XBox ($300 at a loss). Though the XBox was more powerful, it was not that much more powerful, nowhere near the price difference. Why? Nintendo used customized versions of high end PC components. Customized IBM processor. Customized ATi graphics chip.

This is a prime example of why you have no idea what you are talking about. The Xbox 360/Revolution are using custom IMPLEMENTATIONS of PC technology, not custom designs. Xbox 1 had custom impelmentations too, the GPU was a GeForce 3/4 hybrid (it has an extra shader unit), the CPU is neither a Celeron nor a PIII and the chipset is original. But these are all ridiculously cheap to design compared to a brand new architecture.

It is the same with the Gamecube. The "Gecko" processor is an off the shelf IBM integrated PowerPC chip while "Flipper" was designed for the PC integrated space (which was later scrapped when ATI bought ArtX).

It is the highly customized hardware that is the problem. Sony tried this with the PS2 and that is exactly why it has such shitty hardware. The GS in the PS2 has to recieve it's T&L off chip and has no support for multi-texturing in hardware with a single pass, nor does it support any sort of special effects, while the PC equivalents at the time did. And the PS2 design cost Sony BILLIONS in R&D.

This is exactly why Sony is going with a modified nVidia chip for the GPU in the PS3. Are you aware of the fact that Sony was originally going to manufacture their own GS for the PS3? They scrapped it when they realized they couldn't do nearly as good a job for nearly as cheap as nVidia which is why the Cell isn't a very good fit for the PS3.

Guess what- Microsoft is doing the same thing in the 360. Want me to dig up the patent for the customized graphics card?

Idiot, it's not a new graphics core, it's a modified version of an ATI desktop core with integrated cache. You obviously have no idea on the cost differences between modifying an existing architecture and creating a brand new one.

Agreed, but so are your points.

Mine are based on historical precedent. They may be speculation, but they are informed speculation.

Only due to the fact that the GameCube had a MUCH lower price point. Yet performance was actually barely behind the XBox.

Are you forgetting the hard drive? The integrated ethernet? Dolby Digital Live? A better GPU?

There is no indication of the Revolution being the 'cheap' system this time around.

Nintendo has NEVER subscribed to the dumping console philosophy. There is no indication of them changing this.

And BTW, although the GC used IBM and ATi, the XBox used Intel and NVidia. My point is that the Rev and X360 are using the same stuff this time, except Nintendo is coming later, so which logically should be faster ASSUMING the same price point?

If you assumed the same cost for console components, then MAYBE. The X factor here is that Microsoft has proved that they don't need finished dev kits until mere weeks before the Xbox 360 launch, whcih was the same thing they did with Xbox 1. Nintendo likes to have their finished hardware done way ahead of time. So actually, the time difference may mean nothing at all.

Yes, it does. Your attempt at disproving that history supports me was making up some theoretical scenario of how if the XBox had launched two years earlier it would STILL have been more powerful, which is ridiculous. There is no way to know that.

Given the same design philosophy, it's a simple matter to calculate.

XBox > GameCube > PS2 > Dreamcast. Guess what order they launched in? And the GameCube at a lower price point at that.

Which has nothing to do with my argument.

No, but it is one measurement.

A rather simplistic one too that has little bearing on the results. The PS2 has a sixteen pipe graphics chip just like the GeForce 6800, does that mean that it is the same speed?

Again, due to the fact that the XBox cost 50% more at launch and MS was selling at a loss.

Every indication this time around is that MS is selling for a profit, and the Revolution appears to not be going the cheap way this time around with all the features we've been hearing of.

Microsoft making a profit means on their Xbox division as a WHOLE, not on the initial Xbox hardware sales. You're an idiot if you think Microsoft has abandoned the concept of dumping consoles.

As for the Revolution, you have no information on the CPU or GPU to show me so you have nothing to suggest it will be dumped, defying generations of Nintendo history.

Ah, so now we're making the assumption that Nintendo is making a 'cheap' system, after their last one failed. Right.

They have never sold a system at a loss. Ever. That's called historical precedent.

But the loss on the PS2 was nowhere near that of the XBox. Sony's total numbers were positive.

Exactly. Which means Microsoft CAN sell their initial consoles at a loss and still make a profit. Which is the whole point behind the dumping strategy.

So what? You're trying to emulate a 3-way, out-of-order execution x86 chip with a (relatively) short pipeline (what the P3 in the Xbox is) with a 2-way in-order deeply pipelined PPC chip (what the CPU in the Xbox2 is). Let me explain. The CPU in the Xbox2 is a very simple design and is "skinny," meant for very high clockspeeds, but will have bad IPC (instructions per clock). The P3 on the other had is a much wider design and is more complex, slower in clockspeed (theoretically, since they're different generations of chips) but has good IPC. Somethings will be very suited to the first way but other things will be much more suited on the second CPU. In short they're fundamentally difference designs, and even though the PPC may be moving at 3Ghz and the P3 at 733Mhz, there should still be some cases where the P3 will win. Emulating this will be an ugly, buggy mess I seriously doubt they can do.

Emulation in general is an ugly, buggy mess. It all depends on how much resources Microsoft has put into the emulation process. Certainly putting in an x86 core to act as the I/O chip a la the PS2 would be ideal, but it's not impossible to emulate backwards compatibility.

Point 1: The XBox does NOT have a Celeron. It's a half cached P3.

A Celeron IS a half cached PIII (at least at the time it was). The only added feature the Xbox CPU has is that it doesn't have half it's caches tags disabled.

Point 2: Right, so you expect ONE of the XBox 360 processors (3 GHz @ 2 IPC) to emulate the XBox 1 processor (733 MHz @ iirc 6 IPC). Yeah.

What the hell are these IPC numbers you are throwing around? Some sort of arbitrary scale? How exactly do you plan to measure IPC?

No, I realize the difference, but read above.

Tell you what, how about we just look at the possibilities here for backwards compatibility?

1) An integrated x86 core to act as the Xbox 1 CPU and using the ATI core to emulate the functions of the nVidia GPU in the Xbox. Considering the hardware similarities, this is the easiest way.

2) Emulation. Typically, emulation requires 10x performance as a rule of thumb. However, this number can vary wildly depending on implementation and how closely tied to the hardware the emulator is. With a purpose-built emulator, it is theoretically possible for the Xbox 360 to have backwards compatibility.

Which method would I choose? I'd go with #1 on the deluxe model and dump backward compatibility on the regular model. But we'll see in a few weeks what Microsoft has in mind.