Xbox hardware was quite advanced for its release date (2001). Many PCs at the time still had 100MHz FSB but the Xbox ran at 133MHz. The Xbox also had DDR RAM, not much of it (64MB), but DDR wouldn't be commonplace until the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP platforms a couple years later. Most PCs were still running regular single-channel SDRAM.>Huge risk and passion project by Ed Fries and Seamus Blackley>Bill Gates saying, "This is a f***ing insult to everything I've done at this company.">Seamus Blackley wanted to make Dreamcast 2>xbox was x86, it ran a customized pentium iii and NVIDIA GeForce 4 hybrid with an additional vertex shader unit, higher clocks, and some features from the new architecture. Nvidia built a true high-end GPU for Microsoft>Xbox would have an AMD CPU inside but Bill made a deal with Intel the day before the reveal >It's not running a customized version of Windows, but the Windows kernel. One stripped down to 256kb, including the boot up animation and sound. That design for example required that a lot of things get linked into a game's executable, like network drivers and the entire TCP/IP stack>Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound, it's competitors required the Dolby Pro Logic 2 codecs>Ed Fries and Peter Moore trying to make deals with Japanese devs but those were afraid of Sony's backlash >Xbox was released at $299 in November 2001>Microsoft stopped making the original Xbox because Nvidia wouldn't cut the price of the GPUs or at least not enough for Microsoft's liking, a few years after it got launched>Xbox was codenamed Project Midway (Pearl Harbor was in December 1941, Midway Battle was in June 1942)>Microsoft lost over 4 billion dollars selling the OG Xbox at a loss
>>12807385>Many PCs at the time still had 100MHz FSBI don't really give a shit what you are trying to argue, but this is a dishonest argument to make.>Wow, check out the top end hardware this console had in 2001!>Top end hardware on PC, no, lets look at the average instead, I don't wanna look at the top endThis is called putting your finger on the scale. Rather than look at both sides equally, you ask the audience to look at the other side in a different standard right out of the gate.
I'm so fucking glad Microsoft failed to conquer the gaming industry.
https://desuarchive.org/vr/thread/12787512
>>12807395NTA something above average could be considered advanced … definitionally. But that’s more the “he’s in advanced class” definition, not the “he’s advancing technology” definition … which is an argument you 100% could make for the Xbox in 6th gen based on the HDD and hdmi output alone.
>>12807385Inferior to the PS2 released 1,5 year earlierhttps://blogstation2.wordpress.com/tag/evolution/>The multiprocessor setup of the system allows the PS2 to do so many things at the same time (if programmed well) that the hardware is actually far more powerful than its spec. They say the Xbox is going to be either 600mhz or 1000mhz. The PS2 is only 300mhz. But if you can have your background engine running in 10% CPU and 50% VU1 time, then you have far more power.>And yes, of course there will be more powerful systems in the future. That is how technology works. But the Xbox may not be that system>the Xbox libraries won’t allow you anywhere near the actual hardware, so there is little room for optimisation. Plus, the Xbox doesn’t have the high speed vector units of the PS2, which may be why even the best Xbox games run at 30Hz.>I seriously doubt we would have been able to make Ratchet and Clank run at 60Hz on the Xbox without drastically reducing the number of moving objects. >It’s very difficult to put a number on how far we’ve pushed the PS2 at this point. If I had to estimate, I’d say Ratchet and Clank may use about 50% of the PS2’s maximum potential.
>>12807456This sounds like one of those cope posts about the Saturn being actually the most powerful hardware of the 5th gen
>>12807456>Dev whose games are published by Sony is a PS2 sycophant.What a surprise.
>>12807385What revisionist nonsense is this? I had an Athlon XP in late 2001 with 256 MB of DDR
>>12807508Weren't Athlon's better than Intel at the time?
>>12807514Intel was always and will always be the best. AMD is fag shit.
>>12807398I wish I lived in your timeline man, because in mine they absolutely ruled gaming from about 2006-2013 and completely destroyed it with DLC, DRM, Piss filters, "bloody screen so real" and the complete destruction of single player gaming before self destructing themselves a few years later and leaving gaming as a whole an empty shell of its former self.
>>12807546Get a load of this goyim
>>12807556You are brown
>>12807554>because in mine they absolutely ruled gaming from about 2006-2013How?
>>12807572that's just reality
>>128075723 things really1)they dropped first and were easier to develop and were less expensive than the PS3 so they kind of just won the graphics war by default2)All of the goodwill built up from the halo games3)In 2006 there was this game called Gears of War that literally looked like someone shoveled a bucket of rotten buffalo shit onto your screen but somehow people ate it up. I have no fucking idea how, but apparently it was a big deal.
>>12807385P4 was around at the same time as ps2 but you didn't have a racing game like GT3 on pc. Xbox was less efficient than Gamecube, you have good stuff like Spintercell but some games have worse frame rate than their ps2 versions.>>12807508A lot of normal people still had a pentium 1 with win 98, you didn't have to upgrade unless you got XP.
>>12807385>bribed Nvidia for gpu tech exclusitivy >cpu: just a generic pentium iiiXbox is just a PC with a heavily customized windows and locked for gaming only.
>>12807385>Microsoft lost over 4 billion dollars selling the OG Xbox at a lossSelling consoles at a loss and making it up and making a profit on game sales royalties had been commong strategy for consoles since the early 90's. They wanted royalties on games since they weren't getting anything for games released on PCs, which is why I wondered if they contributed to publishers neglecting PCs in the 00's (something like Halo would most likely have been a PC game without the XBOX).There is also the fact that the point wasn't just the XBOX itself, but the market for decades to come. The strategy for the XBOX was a lot like the PSX.
>64MB RAM in 2001AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>12807385Xbox is literally the Doritos and Mountain Dew of video game consoles
>>12807385My PC was miles better than an xbox, and it wasn't prohibitively expensive either.
>>12807398Original xbox and its vibe would be a very worthy competitor, everything else i agree
Pic related is a Nov 2001 PC ad from bestbuy. The $1400 Compaq was an athlon with 256mb of DDR ram and a gefore 3 GPU. Most PCs at this point were already running shit onboard video in sub-$1000 machines, but a geforce 3 Ti200 was only $99 which would easily play everything in 2001.
>>12807385I thought it had a celeron?
>>12808270>>12808546>>12808657stupid brainlets AGAIN don't realize that consoles are optimized for gaming only and don't have to deal with the background of running a heavy OS. the xbox was orders of magnitude more efficient than the highest end PC.
>>12807405K, but by that same standard, it should be applied to the PC side as well. Not average, ADVANCED. Were advanced PC's in 2001 using 100MHz front side busses? Plus that anon is already trying to argue specs, so switching over to your definition would just be moving the goal posts.OP is still a faggot trying to compare mid-range PC's to just released consoles. It's still finger on the scale faggotry.
>>12808680The Op claimed DDR ram would not be common for PCs for a few more years after Xbox launched. That was clearly wrong. He was wrong about most things as shiwn by the bestbuy ad above. It was also at a time when GPU costs were at a historic low (lower than the 90s) and far more accessible. The late 90s 3D wars were over and technology and pricing were stable. Sound cards were no longer needed as AC97/realtek was standard, ethernet ports were standard, and everything PC related became easier leading to wider adoption in the 2000-2002 of affordable full feature PCs. Entry level PCs offered good gaming experience, games "just worked" with no tricks or fuckery like they did in the 90s, and enthusiast PCs offered a great experience for not a lot more money. The Xbox was just ok. It was far from being an industry changing product and was obsolete after only 4 years.
>front side busIntel P3 had 133MhzAMD Athlon had 266Mhz effectiveIntel P4 had 400Mhz effective
>>12807554>they absolutely ruled gaming from about 2006-2013Sony sold more than 2.5 times more consoles than bharatsoft during that time, i have no idea why you'd think they ruled gaming unless you're living in an american ghetto
>>12810048>bharatsoftgo back to /pol/ racist
>>12810050what racism?
>>12807385Wasn't the GameCube more powerful or about on par?Yeah the ps2 was a weak machine with blurry as fuck video output. People only liked it because it got all the good 3rd party Congrats on beating that
>>12810154>Wasn't the GameCube more powerfulNo, that's what the kiddies wish. It was more powerful than the PS2 but not on Xbox's level.
>>12810161I was american kid with all 3 by the time the 7th Gen was out.I don't remember thinking any of them was that much more powerfulIts clear to see on modern tvs how much blurrier the ps2 was of course, but low res crts really leveled the playing field.If you showed me back to back footage of a game running on Xbox or gc like hitnrun without telling me which is which, I don't think I could tell the difference still
>>12810162Compare both versions of SC Chaos Theory
>>12807385RROD - red ring of death. They used budget components to compete with Sony. The only thing advanced here, is the fantasy involved in your post.
>>12810175You're confusing the XBOX with the X360. Go home >>>/v/
>>12810162This. Very few people had component cables, it was all composite and in my case, RF. I played the original Xbox with an RF cable.
