I'm sorry to say this, but

[triploop]

Consoles aren't my thing.  But I have heard good things about the X-Box!

Anyway.. what is this about Windows having bad boot time?  WTF?  That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.  My system runs Win2k (don't worry, I run Linux also), and Win2K boots in 30 seconds.  I have a peer-to-peer network with a 98 machine, the 98 machine being the server (so I don't have to be connected).  When I had 9x loaded on my system, it took about 10 seconds to load.  Same with WinME and WinXP.

Linux takes much longer than Win2K to boot up.  So wtf is with associating Winbloze and bad boot time?  That's ludicrous.  Some people bash out of ignorant stupidity.

Anyway... carry on.  

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: triploop ]

[<Zombie9920>]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only bad thing about it so far is the processor (Intel Sucks - They are so slow). Microsoft probably could have made a profit if they put an Athlon 1GHz. And it would be faster too
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would've been a terrible idea to stick an AMD Athlon in the XBox because then it would be a fire hazzard. AMD CPUs run way too hot and they have problems with some games(especially on Via chipsets). I'm sure people wouldn't want thier (...) console to run at 55-60c(hot enough to emmit heat like a little space heater). BTW, the Pentium III is as fast as an equivalently clocked Athlon minus all of the thermal and crashing issues.

Refalm: Content edit. Guests are not allowed to say bad words.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Refalm ]

[<Joshua>]

They should've stuck a Pentium 4 Northwood in the XBox. It totally dominates the Athlon.

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by <Joshua>:
They should've stuck a Pentium 4 Northwood in the XBox. It totally dominates the Athlon.

Looks like you are comparing apples to oranges here and to me the specs look better on the oranges (AMD). Looks like the lower Mhz AMD chips are outperforming the higher Mhz Intel chips.  Why did you only compare with older slower Athalon chips?  And I would like to see a pretty bar graph comparing prices as well.  I'll save you the trouble. This article clearly shows that in Price/Performance comparisons you will pay twice as much for an Intel processor and keeping the cost of the box down was the subject you were responding too.

I would agree that the cooling factor would be more of the issue (more noise with the AMD) and the cost of the cooling system.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

[<Joeseph>]

Look at the top graph(the red and blue one) you (...). The CPUs in Orange and Green(Athlons, classic P4s and Athlon MPs) do not come close to touching the Northwood.

Refalm: Content edit. Guests are not allowed to say bad words.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Refalm ]

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by <Joeseph>:
Look at the top graph(the red and blue one) you (...). The CPUs in Orange and Green(Athlons, classic P4s and Athlon MPs) do not come close to touching the Northwood.

Like I said, what do you have to pay for one of these?  Do you really think they could sell one of those piece of crap X-Crocks for the price one would have to pay with this CPU included? Right now AMD has more bang for the buck.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Refalm ]

[gump420]

quote:Originally posted by <Joeseph>:
Look at the top graph(the red and blue one) you (...). The CPUs in Orange and Green(Athlons, classic P4s and Athlon MPs) do not come close to touching the Northwood.

Compare the speeds of all the chips involved, dumbshit.

Let's see, a 2Ghz chip outperforms a 1.6 and lower?!? No fucking way?!?!?!?

Fucking idiot.

The only thing that SHOULD be done with an XXXX-Box is target practice. Intel architecture in a gaming system?? WHY?!? I don't care WHAT chip you use, Intel/AMD/Cyrix/etc., the architecture is just SHITTY.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Refalm ]

[<Zombie9920>]

Please don't tell me you think that a gaming console should have a RISC processor(Like a G4).
RISC CPUs are not good for 3D Graphics rendering. Seriously, a G4 could not run most of the games the XBOX has to offer/will have to offer very well. The games would have lots of slow downs, FPS stuttering, etc. High speed x86 CISC CPUs can render 3D Graphics quite well because of the way the architecture works.

I have a question for you. Are you by any chance related to Forest Gump?

[jinx_uk]

play station 3 on the way...... should be better than the xbox, after all, m|croshaft do tend to hide there mistakes. What new ones do you think come with the xbox????

[gump420]

quote:Originally posted by <Zombie9920>:
Please don't tell me you think that a gaming console should have a RISC processor(Like a G4).
RISC CPUs are not good for 3D Graphics rendering. Seriously, a G4 could not run most of the games the XBOX has to offer/will have to offer very well. The games would have lots of slow downs, FPS stuttering, etc. High speed x86 CISC CPUs can render 3D Graphics quite well because of the way the architecture works.

I have a question for you. Are you by any chance related to Forest Gump?

Ooh. Clever. You are now bashing me for things I never said. I never said they should use a Risc processor in a gaming system; I did say the Intel architecture is a piece of shit. Two entirely different ideas, although they may appear related to the untrained eye.

Oh, and by the way, high speed x86 CPUs pass the buck to the high speed chip on the AGP card and let it render the graphics, which is the real reason why the Intel architecture has high-speed graphics: through one of the hacks it is famous for. The architecture used in modern PCs is a hack on a hack on a hack . . . carry that out ad nauseam and you'll get the idea. That is why it's a piece of shit, not because of which processor it uses.

[gump420]

Umm, in any case, if G4s suck so bad at rendering, why is rendering graphics exactly what the Macintosh platform is used for???

[Zombie9920]

The G4 is good at rendering 2D images(like video). It's 3D rendering performace isn't anywhere near x86(which is a big reason why there aren't many good games for the Mac). Macs have the GeForce video card+GPU available for them now....but the G4 processor doesn't have the muscle to push the GeForce like 1ghz+ x86 CPUs have. Even with a GeForce 3 a Mac usually can't push any more than 40FPS when rendering 3D images.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

[gump420]

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
The G4 is good at rendering 2D images(like video). It's 3D rendering performace isn't anywhere near x86(which is a big reason why there aren't many good games for the Mac). Macs have the GeForce video card+GPU available for them now....but the G4 processor doesn't have the muscle to push the GeForce like 1ghz+ x86 CPUs have. Even with a GeForce 3 a Mac usually can't push any more than 40FPS when rendering 3D images.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

Actually, the fact that sales for games are much more lucrative on the x86 side than the PPC side is pretty much THE reason that there aren't many games for Mac OS.

In any case, the Mhz has NOTHING to do with it. In the case of communication between two seperate chips (in this case the CPU and GPU) the bus speed is much more important, and Mac systems have much better performance in that area.

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by triploop:

Anyway.. what is this about Windows having bad boot time?  WTF?  That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.  My system runs Win2k (don't worry, I run Linux also), and Win2K boots in 30 seconds.  I have a peer-to-peer network with a 98 machine, the 98 machine being the server (so I don't have to be connected).  When I had 9x loaded on my system, it took about 10 seconds to load.  Same with WinME and WinXP.

Linux takes much longer than Win2K to boot up.  So wtf is with associating Winbloze and bad boot time?  That's ludicrous.  Some people bash out of ignorant stupidity.

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: triploop ]

?
Surely the boot time is determined largely by what needs to be done at the time of booting? Such as loading drivers, checking for connections, making sure all the expected hardware is still there and loading up all those useless crappy background programs that windows is so fond of running. Well done on getting lucky, but my laptop (a 900 Mhz P3 w/ 128 Mb RAM) loads up Win98 in between 3 and 4 minutes. It was the same with WinMe when i had it installed. This is not ignorant stupidity on my part, just the ability to count.
Ok... Carry on.  

[ravuya]

(omg, the front page news story on msnbc.com is all about bill gates giving money to charity... talk about your fronts)

Heh, there are already several projects to port *nixes to the XBox.

Me? Hell, I'd much rather have seen it that the Indrema had lived, it would provide me with an alternative to all the dumbasses (yes, I own a gamecube) on various console gaming forums (I run through them just to see idiots)