# Xbox(v1) compared to Xbox 360



## Qion (May 18, 2005)

I was recently able to make a small-scale comparison of Xbox(v1) graphics vs. Xbox 360 graphics. I placed a Forza Motorsport screenshot from the current Xbox console right beside a screenshot of the upcoming NFS: Most Wanted on the 360, and to me at least, there wasn't significant difference. Tell me what you think.

Forza SS- http://gamesdomain.yahoo.com/xbox/forza_motorsport/screenshots/2

NFS SS- http://gamesdomain.yahoo.com/feature/116420/screenshot/116566


----------



## Reality (May 18, 2005)

The only real problem is that the 360 isn't even finished and all tech Demos for the console were not even running on it.


----------



## HomunQlus (May 19, 2005)

That's right. The screenshots are not from the console, they're coming from PowerMac G5 machines.


----------



## Qion (May 19, 2005)

It seems like with how many releases of pictures they are making, the actual graphics of the 360 couldnt be drastically different from the releases. Or maybe my thinking is clouded...


----------



## nervus (May 21, 2005)

HomunQlus said:
			
		

> That's right. The screenshots are not from the console, they're coming from PowerMac G5 machines.


Indeed they are: for a good laugh read 
this


----------



## nixgeek (May 21, 2005)

Now if only the games would take advantage of the raw power that is the G5 processor in current Macs. 

Sometimes I wonder where the brains of all these gaming companies are.  I guess that's what happens when you become assimilated...


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 21, 2005)

if you read the article above, youl see that the major comment is:  it would be nice to see it on the real hardware, the g5's just can;t cut it with _just_ a geforce 6800....


----------



## Qion (May 23, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> the g5's just can;t cut it with _just_ a geforce 6800....



Hmmm... or an X800? I guess 256MB VRAM just ain't cutting it... LOL


----------



## Pengu (May 24, 2005)

Um. the g5 "sdk" machines that ms used before had a 9800pro or something in them, because they're using an ati gpu in it. so it isn't gonna be a 6800. maybe a x800, but not likely.


----------



## Lycander (May 24, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Now if only the games would take advantage of the raw power that is the G5 processor in current Macs.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder where the brains of all these gaming companies are.  I guess that's what happens when you become assimilated...


Blame Apple's OpenGL implementation, not very game friendly. Afterall, that's where the grunt of a game's work goes on.




			
				Pengu said:
			
		

> Um. the g5 "sdk" machines that ms used before had a 9800pro or something in them, because they're using an ati gpu in it. so it isn't gonna be a 6800. maybe a x800, but not likely.


And that's a very important point because I don't believe the 9800 chip supports Shader 3.0 spec (assuming MS ported DirectX to PPC) I almost want to say that those G5 dev kits had the 6800 card in them just for that shader version so developers could get started early using that shader spec. That would have made more sense, but minus the ATI specific extensions.


----------



## Pengu (May 24, 2005)

> Blame Apple's OpenGL implementation, not very game friendly. Afterall, that's where the grunt of a game's work goes on.



You're assuming the code was equally optimised for PPC/OpenGL/Mac. Most windows games use DirectX, so it isn't out of the question to blame the creators for not properly optimising for a) OpenGL, b) PPC, c)Altivec, d) Multi-cpu

as for the 6800 thing.


> The big news to us is that the XBOX 2 SDK has been seeded to developers on dual Apple Power Mac G5 systems running a custom Windows NT Kernel.
> 
> The Apple Power Mac G5 is based upon two of IBMs 64-bit Power PC processors and features ATi RADEON 9800 Pro (R350) graphics. However the R350 is believed to be an interim solution and will, in due course, be superseded by the forthcoming ATI R420.


----------



## Lycander (May 24, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> You're assuming the code was equally optimised for PPC/OpenGL/Mac. Most windows games use DirectX, so it isn't out of the question to blame the creators for not properly optimising for a) OpenGL, b) PPC, c)Altivec, d) Multi-cpu


You're missing my point. I know I've been beating the "Doom3 Mac port sucked" drum over and over, I'm sorry. But that's a perfect example of a game, designed with OpenGL and NOT DirectX, and was very heavily GPU bound. But given the same video cards, the Mac version performed worst. It was already proven that the culprit is mainly the OpenGL implementation, and the video drivers. Apple designed OSX with a layer of seperation for OpenGL, they also write the graphics drivers, whereas on the Windows platform Nvidia/ATI deliver the drivers.

Do you see what I'm getting at? This is not about "oh DirectX is faster than OpenGL" I'm not saying that at all. The API alone doesn't impact performance, it's how they are implemented and carried out.

EDIT: By the way, hardware drivers execute in kernel space in Windows. All other *nix OSes that I know of do not run drivers in kernel space because a buggy driver would bring the whole system down. That's mainly why people get those "blue screen of death" that everyone makes fun of. But given stable drivers, the bonus is lower latency.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 24, 2005)

the current array of macs, especially powermacs, are optimised for creativity/research - they are much more suited to a huge photoshop file, or working in motion, or scientific research - thats what they're marketed at, that's who the market is. if you want a games machine, build yourself a pc - you said yourself, it runs Doom3 far better than any mac. and i can run illustrator far better than any pc. the way i like it, personally. sure i'd like to play half-life 2, but i can do that on my parents machine, if and when i go home...


----------



## AuDioFreaK39 (Jun 7, 2005)

That picture that you have of the Forza Motorsport demo isn't actually a screenshot from actual gameplay...it is from a movieclip in the game (you know how most video games have a little intro movie at the beginning or something that are just comp-generated graphics in a movie clip not actual gameplay, making them look better than what you are actually playing).  Also, the Need for Speed Most Wanted doesn't even utilize half of the XBOX360's potential, which means that games in the future for the next-gen system will have even better visual quality than what we have seen so far in the first couple weeks of the new system's introduction.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 8, 2005)

halo had graphics which everyone thought was pushing the xbox to it's limits. then halo 2 came out.


----------



## DevilRocks (Jun 8, 2005)

I find it funny how the subject of the thread tottally changed lol. Well i will go back to it, they do pretty much look the same to me. I am not an Xbox person, more of a playstation guy so i dont know alot about it though.


----------



## Qion (Jun 8, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> halo had graphics which everyone thought was pushing the xbox to it's limits. then halo 2 came out.



Yes, very true. I own both games for the Xbox, and I can truthfuly state that I've got killed many a time just trying to check out light relections off my plasma rifle.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 10, 2005)

Gran Turismo 5 baby! Yeah!!!!!!!

Anyone with me? (can't wait for the PS3)


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 11, 2005)

Vision Gran Turismo (GT 5) will once more be a breakthrough on realism in a car racing simulation. Gran Turismo really has earned the subtitle "The Real Driving Simulator".

Other titles I want to see on PS3:

Metal Gear Solid 4
Grand Theft Auto (whatever it'll be called)
Burnout 4
Midnight Club 4
Need For Speed Most Wanted
Warhawk
Killzone

All these titles will blow the XBox 360 away


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 13, 2005)

Killzone will rape Halo...


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 16, 2005)

Stridder44 said:
			
		

> Killzone will rape Halo...



That's right!!

Regarding your sig:
And if Xerox wouldn't have sold their inventions to others (Xerox originally developed the first graphical user interface), Apple would probably be where they are now, Microsoft wouldn't even exist, Linux would be too small for much people to know or it would never have been developed, and Intel would have to rely on Xerox as they would require a chip to run their software on.


----------

