Console Comparison - DC vs GC vs Xbox
Here is a comparison using proportional graphs to help show the differences between the
Dreamcast and the new generation consoles from Nintendo and Microsoft. The use of
proportional graphs will help highlight the differences in power between these three consoles,
and will help show what level of increases were made in each area from the DC generation to
the current generation. Note that the comparisons below are based on maximum quoted
specs, and the effective results can be a lot lower in game situations.
General Specifications
| General Specifications | SEGA
Dreamcast |
Nintendo
Gamecube |
Microsoft
Xbox |
| First Introduction | November 1998
(Japan) |
September 14,
2001 (Japan) |
November 2001
(North America and Japan) |
| US Release Date | September 9th, 1999 | November 5th, 2001 | November 8th, 2001 |
| CPU | 200 MHz
Hitachi SH-4 |
485 MHz
IBM PowerPC |
733 MHz
Intel PIII (1) |
| L2 Cache on CPU | 0 KB | 256 KB | 128 KB |
| GPU | 100 MHz
VideoLogic PVR2 |
162 MHz
ATI "Flipper" |
250 MHz
nVidia |
| Total External + Internal Memory | 26 MB | 43 MB (2) | 64 MB |
| Game Media | 12 cm
GD-ROM disk 1 GB |
8 cm
optical disk 1.5 GB |
12 cm
DVD-ROM disk 4.7 GB |
| Hard Drive | none | none | 10 GB |
| Communications | 56k modem
(US model) |
modem & LAN expansion | ethernet connector |
| US Introduction
Retail Price |
$199 | $199 | $299 |
CPU - MIPS
DC (360
MIPS) vs GC (1125 MIPS) vs Xbox (1985 MIPS)
 |
DC
200 MHz Hitachi SH-4.
GC 485 MHz IBM PowerPC. Xbox 733 MHz Intel PIII. Note: the MIPS rating is based on Dhrystone 2.1, which is a benchmark used to compare the integer capability of each CPU, and not the floating point ability. GC result provided by Nintendo, and the Xbox result taken from 733 MHz PIII results found on the net. CPU advances appear to be modest compared to the GPU advances, as you can see with the fill-rate graphs below, where the DC is a much smaller square. |
| The Xbox GPU also has two Vertex Shaders (processors) which can do a lot of work that the CPU would have to do. The GC does not have these special graphics processors. | |
Rendering Bandwidth - GigaBytes/sec
DC (0.8 GB/s) vs GC (2.2 GB/s) vs Xbox (5.6 GB/s)
 |
All
rendering on the DC is from a dedicated graphics memory, while on the GC
and Xbox, the rendering chip has to share bandwidth with the CPU.
To estimate how much bandwidth the GC and Xbox have for rendering, these calculations were used: GC: total main memory bandwidth is 2.6 GB/s - 0.8 GB/s (CPU bandwidth) + 0.4 GB/s (on-chip texture cache advantage, on-chip frame (draw) buffer and Z-buffer advantage, 1T-SRAM faster access advantage, sound chip has separate buffer and larger 256 KB CPU cache) = 2.2 GB/s Xbox: total main memory bandwidth is 6.4 GB/s - 0.8 GB/s (CPU bandwidth) = 5.6 GB/s |
| Note:
the above calculations are just rough estimates to give us some ideal on
how the consoles compare to each other.
The GC's 1 MB frame (draw) buffer with it's 7.68 GB/s bandwidth is effective for supporting multi-sampling anti-aliasing. Has to use two 640 x 240 buffers though to achieve this, as the frame buffer's memory is limited to 1 MB. Problem with this, is that the resolution will look not as sharp. The frame (draw) buffer's 7.68 GB/s bandwidth is also very effective for supporting environment mapping allowing real environment reflections on objects, water surfaces, glass, etc. Most environment mapping on the DC was faked using a small texture that roughly represented the environment. As you can see with the above fill-rate graphs, both the GC and Xbox have much greater increases in fill-rate over the DC, then they do in bandwidth. Rendering is driven by how much bandwidth is available. |
|
Total Memory - MegaBytes
DC (26 MB)
vs GC (43 MB) vs Xbox (64 MB)
 |
The
smallest increase in all these graphs from the DC generation to the current
generation is in memory! It is quite surprising considering how cheap memory
has become, and the fact the new consoles increased polygon and multi-texturing
requirements are going to need a lot of memory. Both GC and Xbox should
have at least twice as much memory then what both Nintendo and Microsoft
have decided on.
GC's total memory is 40 MB, but I also included the texture cache and frame buffer memories, since they do add to the total as textures can be "locked" in the cache, and the frame (draw) buffer, and Z-buffer saves having them in main memory. The GC stores it's frame (display) buffer in main memory. |