Talk:History of video game consoles (sixth generation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of video game consoles (sixth generation) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Baldur's Gate series Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Contents 1 Reccomendation 2 New Categorization Idea 3 GameCube / Xbox finished? 4 Handhelds v Consoles 5 Redirect? 6 Consoles of the sixth generation era 7 Criticism of Video Games 8 "The darkest era" 9 era ? 10 Move Request 11 Super Smash Brothers Melee is a milestone? I say Soul Calibur 12 GBA Micro 13 Franchises 14 Dreamcast Representation 15 Console sales 16 Images 17 Sales Figures 18 Nintendo iQue 19 Picture of the controllers 20 Tapwave Zodiac 21 Gamecube isn't number two. 22 Xbox is not more powerful then PS2 23 Start of the 6th generation 24 The "Number of Bits" section 25 Initial Console Sales 26 "Dreamcast games were released until 2004..." 27 The only ever? 28 The Wii should be in this section 29 The only ever? 30 Gamecube is ~8% more powerful than the Xbox 31 Generation defining features 32 Gizmondo a sixth generation handheld?

[edit] Reccomendation

• Just checked this, it seems that the seventh generation contains the DS, PSP, and so on, which seems reasonable enough to me. Nevertheless, I'll put up something in videogames project's talk page so we can sort out a concensus.

Sockatume 23:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reckon a few screenshots from the pivotal 6th-generation games are needed. Halo, Final Fantasy, whatever. --203.214.6.180 11:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Categorization Idea

There is a lot of criticism for calling this the 128-bit era as it doesnt make any sense and the bit width has become not very relevant. I propose simply calling the 32/64 bit era as the "3D era" and then this era can be the "3D era generation 2". Alternative ideas are along the lines of the "Online Era"... what do you all think? 17:57, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think I prefer my idea (big surprise there ;) ) firstly because all of the eras have the nth generation in the title, in bold, already, and secondly because there's no guarantee of an obvious thing to name an era after. Online's hardly been a universal part of this era to boot (only a relatively small number of gamers play online on consoles. Sockatume 18:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have move the article to the discussion page, please continue your discussion there.

What's the justification for calling this a "dark era?" Just because a lot of games weren't good doesn't cut it - every era has had a lot of bad games and a lot of good games. This seems to be opinionated and not factual. Khanartist 22:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is there any such thing as the "128-bit era?" The Nintendo Gamecube uses a 32-bit implementation of the PPC architecture, and the Microsoft X-Box runs on a 733MHz Pentium !!! Coppermine, a 32-x86 implementation. The only 128-bit console currently in production is the Sony Playstation 2, which is also the least powerful, hardware-wise, of the three consoles currently on the market. The Sega Dreamcast was 128-bit, but left the scene after a mere 2 years. 64-bit consoles can be inferior to 32-bit consoles, and vice versa. Instead of grouping eras by "bit," it would be more realistic consoles were grouped by market competition at the time. An abbreviated example would be "SNES and Genesis," "Sony Playstation and Sega Saturn," "Nintendo 64 and Sony Playstation," "X-Box, Gamecube and PS2." Until memory in a console is beyond 4GB, 32-bit is quite sufficient. The X-Box, the most capable of the consoles, has only 64MB of RAM and as mentioned previously, is 32-bit. The next move in the console market will be from mostly 32-bit (X-Box and Gamecube) to 64-bit, not to/from 128-bit to the ludicrious 256-bit.

While the content is alright, I haven't found any outside source that refers to the XBox GC and PS2 part of some 128-bit era. I believe the PS2 had a 128-bit co-processor but the other two are 32-bit architectures. The Dreamcast is the only true 128-bit console. The whole "bit" thing was a marketting ploy that was only a real indicator of more powerful systems from 4-bit up to 32-bit. Calling the next-gen systems 256-bit is bonkers. I'm not sure what the best way to resolve this is. While it doesn't make any sense to call this a 128-bit era (and no outside sources do this that I can see)... I do consider it an era of some sorts. Anyone have any suggestions?

Current era?

Masken 12:21, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

Using the classification current era would leave a problem as soon as the "next generation" came along, and leaves the past eras still open to classification.

MSTCrow 05:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

---

The 256-bit era title sounds a bit excessive. Don't think anybody will call it that. Most people won't know what you are talking about it you say "the 256-bit era". I had never seen that term before until coming here. Although this makes me sound like a Sony fanboy, casual gamers will probably relate more if you say "The Playstation 3" era or "the Playstation 4 era" instead of saying "256-bit era" and "512-bit era" respectively. Even saying "The Playstation 2 era" probably provides less confusion than "128-bit era" although personally I don't have any problems with the title "128-bit era". 256-bit era on the other hand.....

I have often seen people calling the 128-bit era the "next generation console" era. Everything else had a bit rating:

• 8-bit era
• 16-bit era
• 32/64-bit era
• "next generation console" era

However what do you then call the so-called 256-bit era?

--Prion 18:24, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The 256-bit era will be the "next generation" when it's out. And then the 512-bit era will be next generation when it comes out, and so on. It's like asking "which day of the week is tomorrow?" -Sean Curtin 19:47, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Fair enough. I had always assumed that some people called it the next generation era because after the 32/64-bit era, the bit rating somewhat became irrelevant (i.e. it was no longer an indication of graphical power. The 32-bit Xbox is the most powerful, the Dreamcast - the only true 128-bit system out of the four is the least powerful, the PS2 is partially 128-bit but less powerful than the 64-bit GameCube, etc.) As well as the fact that now the majority of systems had multiple processors and bus paths that could each differ in terms of bits.

But will the post-128-bit era really be the 256-bit era? Are the PS3, N5 (Revolution) and Xenon (Xbox2) really going to be using any 256-bit components? At this point there's probably not much specifications released for the PS3 cell and N5 CPU. The Xenon will use a G5 PowerPC CPU which I don't think is going to be 256-bit. --Prion 12:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All of the consoles of the next generation (IE, ones after the 128-bit era) will be using nearly the same CPU, all made by IBM. None of them will be 256-bit. A 256-bit architecture wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for a console. Timbagas 07:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

The Sega Dreamcast was the first console of the era and turned out to be Sega's fourth and final video game console

Fourth? Uh... Master System, Genesis, Game Gear, Sega CD, 32X, Saturn, Nomad, Dreamcast... I think I might be missing a couple in there... And I also believe the title of "128-bit era" is a bit misleading, though I can't think of any names that would work better, so I'll just STFU. Garrett Albright 02:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Extemrely late replay -> The only consoles listed in your list are the Master System, the Genesis, The Saturn, and the Dreamcast. Game Gear and Nomad are handhelds. Sega CD and 32X are add-ons for the Genesis. I wouldn't call those consoles. K1Bond007 20:23, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GameCube / Xbox finished?

It still says the GameCube is from 2001-present, yet they don't sell new GameCubes in the UK anymore... I haven't seen new Xboxs for sale lately either. Does this count software? I think they have new games coming out for them. JaffaCakeLover 14:56, Oct 8, 2006 (GMT)

I think it's really counting new licensed software available for those systems in the respective regions, and not hardware production or selling. Notice how the Japanese Dreamcast timeline is still living as there are new licensed games planning to be released for the system in that country. In fact, I doubt there could new games planned to be released for the Xbox in Japan, so its Japanese timeline is really over. Mr Wesker 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are still new titles being released for the GameCube (and I think it IS still possible to buy them new, certainly in the UK). Alternately, there are no XBOX's being manufactured anymore, however they're still available too. Regardless of whether it's discussing the sale of new hardware or licenced software being produced, the PS2 is going to be around for a long time, so I've no idea what the point of these dates are at the moment! Total Eclipse 08:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There will still be some titles released for the PlayStation 2. The range in the article said 2000-2006 for Japan and the U.S., but this is incorrect, so I changed it to "2006-present." Sony consoles will last on the market longer than their Nintendo counterparts. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Handhelds v Consoles

Personally I think the list should be split between handhelds and consoles. Does anyone disagree? Also why is the talk page moved to Sixth era of gaming, but not the article itself? I know theres a dispute ongoing still about this, but if the article is at 128-bit, so should the talk page. K1Bond007 20:21, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect?

I believe this article should be moved to "Sixth-generation era" and "128-bit era" should be redirected to it. For reasons stated above, referring to this as the 128-bit era is absurd. First, bit width is neither a statement of performance nor an expression of technical advancement. Second, few current systems implement 128-bit processors, and so whereas previous generations could be fairly accurately grouped by bit width, calling the current generation "128-bit" doesn't make any real sense. I had never heard of the current generation referred to this way until I came to this page. It shows a lack of understanding of the technical issue.

A redirect would be easy and cheap! You could still type in "128-bit era" and get to the same article. Would it be a big problem if I do this? I'd really like to hear good arguments for retaining the current title. TomTheHand 16:43, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the naming scheme doesnt make much sense at 128-bit, and I've never heard this term used in the industry. Timbagas 07:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please do a redirect I have never heard it refered to as the "128-bit era" either. The last bit count that was trumpeted was for the Nintendo 64. "Sixth-generation era" is better but I think I would prefer a naming system based on some time period. Asteron ノレツァ 19:33, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consoles of the sixth generation era

I was looking over the list of consoles of this era, and I noticed that there are entries for systems such as the Famicon (the ORIGINAL NES in the US) which were SOLD during this era, but which are certainly not OF this era. I'd think that all consoles which did not originate during this era should be removed. Similar changes would need to be made to other era articles. What does everyone think about this? TomTheHand 20:33, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I also think PSP and DS aren't apart of this generation. Or maybe the DS is, but the PSP isn't. Anyone have a stance on this? K1Bond007 17:34, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Moving along then I moved them to 7th gen. I just recently added Game Boy Micro to this article since it's a restyled GBA. Its time ends when GBA ends. K1Bond007 22:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Video Games

"It should be noted, however, that much of the criticism of video games on these grounds comes from nongames, and such controversies are hardly unique to the sixth generation, and go back at least as far as 1994 with Mortal Kombat and Night Trap."

What is a "nongame", and how does it criticize? FireWorks 04:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "The darkest era"

I have never heard of this term. Sounds like subjective hyperbole to me. Remove? Shawnc 15:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

At least clarify. Does dark refer to the dark nature of the content, or to how it's objectionable? Or that the games are just badly made (dark ages)? And who are the "some" that refer to it in this way? Assuming that "dark" means "objectionable", then it's the critics that are mentioned later (and should probably replace "some"). But I can't tell if hardcore gamers also refer to it as the "darkest" era (or if the section was just originally created by someone who is very much against violent video games). FireWorks 04:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's subjective or hyperbole, but it may imply something other than what it's intended. How about changing it to "A controversial era"? This generation did bring about a lot more critcism than previous generations did, mainly due to GTA3+. K1Bond007 05:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind renaming it to A controversial era without quotations. Shawnc 10:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] era ?

All these talks about era are rubbish. I removed the era subsection titles with more sensible names. Xiaodai 06:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Shawnc 12:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move Request

• Because sixth generation era is overly generic, and for consistency with the other History of video games articles such as History of video games (32-bit / 64-bit era) 132.205.46.163 21:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Request fulfilled. Rob Church ^Talk 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super Smash Brothers Melee is a milestone? I say Soul Calibur

While I am a big Nintendo fan, and I thought SSBM was a great game, I can't see how it's a milestone. It was a sequel that essentially refined the established aspects of its predecessor. It sold fairly well, but not significantly. If that's a milestone, I would submit that Soul Calibur (Dreamcast) was as much of a milestone. It was the game that sold the Dreamcast and thus ushered in this generation. It was also arguably the first time that the home experience exceeded the arcade experience.

The milestone section is inherently POV, IMO. Generally they may be considered "milestone", but not for the reasoning that is listed. GTA didn't bring back controversy. It's always been there since the creation of Doom. Halo was hardly the first title with "limited weapon slots". I can't really think of any reason why SSB:M would be considered a milestone since it's not really groundbreaking in anyway - see SSB. The section should be removed. Almost any game that sells well or that is critically acclaimed could be considered a "milestone"—and there were a lot during the 6th gen. I'm sure the success of these games can be worked into the article in some way rather than a list of what some believe to be a "milestone" in video games. K1Bond007 19:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GBA Micro

Is the GameBoy Advance Micro Seventh Generation? It was released after the DS, which is undoubtably seventh gen, but it's effectively just a redesigned GBA, sixth gen. I'm not sure whether it should be moved or not. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The GB Micro is a sixth gen system. Just as the resdesigned PSOne is still part of that era, and the resdesigned SNES is part of its own era (and not the "32 bit era), the GBA Micro is part of the same generation that the original GBA and the SP belong to. When designating a system generation, consider the main game focus that will be played on that system. Daniel Davis 14:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

[edit] Franchises

Several of the games listed shouldn't be in that catagory, a franchise means more than one, and Ico, Crimson Skies, Skies of Arcadia and others are single games. --Visual77 05:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed Silent Hill from the 'Franchises started' category as the series already started in the previous generation.

Should a game be left in the Franchises Started category if it's sequel is merely in the works? I think God of War and Disgaea should both be removed, along with some others, because while they are part of a franchise tha is in progress, neither one has a released sequel. --Visual77 02:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Ico- it's not so much a single game- it already has a prequel out (Shadow of the Colossus). Not sure what to consider the series, but for brevity one would consider the games to be the "Ico" series, since SOTC was originally going to be NIco. Daniel Davis 23:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dreamcast Representation

The Dreamcast does not recieve representation in the "Sixth Generation consoles" header with an image and time dates. If someone with sufficient skills could add it, I'd be much obliged.

[edit] Console sales

The console sales is very dated. I've heard that GameCube has actually surpassed XBox this generation in North American, and definately world wide. The figures quoted do not include Japan, which GameCubes outsell even XBox360s.

• Ars Technica Open Forum thread

If you go to that link, you'll see the discussions about NPD's data as well as other data. I don't know if the data is good enough, or if we can find better data. These three posts in particular have something to say on the issue:

• One
• Two
• Three

Any chance we can get real information, or at the very least indicate it's data information that pertains only to English Speaking countries or something? (If it's the NPD's number. I just realized I didn't look at the numbers.)

- Indefual 06:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

GameCube sold a little more than 20m units worldwide. Unluckily, it is only possible to compare against the amount of shipped Xbox consoles, not against real sales. -- ReyBrujo 07:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This article could really use an example of what graphics look like in this generation. 67.70.154.184 15:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article needs some images on the right near the top as an example of these games. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.128.17.50 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Sales Figures

I visited this page for the sole reason of seeing the sales figures of the 6th generation consoles, ir how many units each of Dreamcast, Ps2, xbox, and gamecube were sold worldwide. This is, I feel, a glaring ommision to this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.133.209.129 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Nintendo iQue

I don't see any reference of the Nintendo iQue. Computerjoe's talk 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

the iQue isn't a separate console. it is a recreation of the N64 to try and stop excessive piracy of N64 games in China. and i think its fifth gen. J.L.Main 03:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the controllers

Hey could someone please update that photo of the three controllers side by side? It depicts the old "duke" xbox controller from when they originally released the xbox. The controller S model should be depicted preferably. 207.118.184.170 19:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tapwave Zodiac

I've added the Tapwave Zodiac handheld to this page, as it rose and fell in the time frame of the "sixth generation". I'm not sure if it's entirely appropriate here, as it has overall hardware specifications more in line with what are considered to be "seventh generation" handhelds.

Dekaritae 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamecube isn't number two.

Gamecube was listed as number two in sales on the article and Xbox as number three, but as you can see by the world wide sales Xbox is ahead by about 3 million copies sold... Make sure this stays as is.

12.182.43.173 01:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox is not more powerful then PS2

Several times in this article it is stated that the Xbox is a more powerful system then the PS2 (especially with regards to the system's CPU's). This is simply not true. Did somebody just compare the operating frequencies of the two CPU's and come to the conclusion that a higher number is more powerful? First of all the designs are so different that they can not accurately be compared with one being "more powerful". Each CPU is better then the other at certain tasks. Secondly between the two the PS2's CPU is designed as a game system processor, where the Xbox's CPU is designed as a general purpose CPU. The Xbox's CPU is much less efficient at executing game code then the PS2's CPU. In practice the two CPUs have been roughly equally efficient. Games can be written to be more optimized (more powerful) on the PS2 with the proper effort. However many game studios forgo the effort and phone-in the programing programing leading to a less efficient final result. the Xbox on the other hand has a general purpose CPU that is generally simple to program for, but lacks the capability to optimize the game code like with the PS2's CPU. The bias towards the Xbox should be removed from the article. There is no clearly "more powerful" system between the two.

--12.36.118.167 20:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC) the Goat

I see what your saying, but the xbox and GC still rape the PS2 in terms of power. Look at screenshots. The real debate is between GC and xbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Can Not (talk • contribs) .

rubbish, what he said originally is correct. Mathmo 11:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Anandtech described the Xbox as having the equivalent of a GeForce 3, the GameCube as similar to the Radeon 7200, while the PS2 lacked any sort of T&L. GoldDragon 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to take expand on your limited example which supports my position. For years T&L processing was handled by the computer/console's CPU. T&L calculations are very specific and a general purpose CPU is not designed for that function. On a conventional computer the T&L processing on the CPU can become a bottleneck limiting performance. The PS2's CPU was designed with this in mind. They included extra processing units in the CPU that are very efficient when processing things like T&L. The xbox and GC on the other hard are both built around general performance CPU architecture which are not as efficient at executing T&L calculations. Therefor the designers of those systems included extra hardware to take up the slack. It is like using a 18-wheeler or a honda civic to transport 10 tons of sand. The civic is easier to drive, has a higher top speed, and can certainly transport sand in the trunk. So it should complete the task first right? Wrong the 18-wheeler will win because it is designed to handle the task and is much more efficient when used correctly. The Goat 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice, but it doesn't explain why the xbox and GC are capable of displaying better graphics in pretty much every logical gaming environment. You can argue about cars and sand all you want, but the screenshots and gameplay videos speak for themselves. The xbox and GC are more powerful than the PS2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Analyzing screen shots is extremely subjective. I am talking about facts. Please give some objective evidence. You might have an argument that xbox was easier to program for so many game developers designed games for xbox and ported inferior versions to the PS2. Many examples of that happened mostly with American developers such as EA who release every game on multiple systems. But that is a different topic. This discussion is about the hardware power of each system. By the way, what is a "logical gaming environment"?The Goat 20:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

While screenshots are not always accurate or facts, xbox screenshots are consistantly better then their PS2 counterparts. The PS2 also lacked AA. Hardware component X for the PS2 may be more powerful than the xbox's version of that component, but the xbox is clearly a more powerful system. An overwhelming majority of Gaming Enthusiasts "know" that the xbox is more powerful than the PS2. Unless the PS2 secretly has a magic lazer cannon or amazingly powerful unusable raw potention, I have no reason to believe what you are saying. Do you have any technical documentation or a source to back up your claim that the PS2 is more powerful than the xbox? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Please start actually reading what I am writing. I never said PS2 is more powerful. My whole argument is that the two use such different architectures that you can't make the statement that one is more powerful then the other. I am saying that they are equal. How do game enthusiasts "know" something based on a measurement that is 100% subjective? Furthermore, to directly address the point you made, the the PS2 does not lack anti aliasing support. Why do you keep making false statements? Sony (unlike MS) did not mandate that game developers must use anti aliasing. And for good reason the anti aliasing used in the n64/xbox/GC/ps2 ruins all the detail of the graphics. Personally I think xbox screen shots all look blurry compared to the crisp graphics on ps2 screen shots. But I realize that is my subjective opinion. If subjectiveness was the basis for which system is more powerful then ps2 wins hands down after all many more ps2 systems have sold therefor gaming enthusiasts must "know" it is more powerful.The Goat 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason the PS2 lacks AA is because AA requires processing power. If the PS2 were to attempt to render any of it's higher-end games with added AA, it's framerate would keel over and die. I further believe you have no idea what you are talking about because you claim AA does not make digitally rendered images look better. The following chart is borrowed from the AA's wikipedia page.

(a)	(b)	(c)
	Figure 1

(a) is no AA, (b) is with AA, and (c) is with a different AA. If you honestly believe (b) or (c) are in some way "blurry", then I agree you are entitled to your own opinion. If you do not find (b) and (c) to be blurry at all, but less Jagged, then you realize the importance of this effect. You would then realize that AA does not cause your video quality to be blurry, but it is more likely that your TV is causing the blurryness. I know this because TVs are already too blurry for my personal preference. The PS2 does not actually need AA. It is not ment for use with an HD TV. However, if you were to use a PS2 with an HD TV, you would realize the presence of massive jaggies in comparison to the xbox's picture quality. Just incase you did not know, you compare screenshots by seeing how they would look on the highest quality screen, prefferedly the same screen unit. You do not compare them by putting them on an old tv from the 1980s. A 1980s TV would make the PS2's graphics look far more competitive with the xbox's graphics. However, an HD TV would not. I have not made any false statements as far as I know. I assume that was directed at the AA bust. The reason I said the PS2 lacked AA is not because it could not do it, but because it does not do it. That last statement is sort of like saying a low end Dell computer is more powerful than a super computer because it has sold 100x as many units. This is not about grabbing ilrelevent facts such as sales to divert the fact that you're wrong and can't prove otherwise, this is about how the xbox is more powerful than the PS2 and the screenshots are clear evidence. "I never said PS2 is more powerful." is what you said. "Xbox is not more powerful then PS2" is the arguement. The architectures being different does not make it unfair to compare them. You can easily compare them with performance tests. The xbox excels farther at it's target goal than the PS2, therefor it is more powerful. Is there an arguement to that? Does the PS2's 6.2 GFLOPS (relative to the xbox's 2.9 GFLOPS) suddenly make the PS2 more powerful? Does a meaningless benchmark magicly make the PS2 better at doing something that the xbox is actually better at doing? No it does not. The xbox consistantly exhibits better performance, therefor it is nothing but logical to say it is more powerful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 01:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

This is my last response because you refuse to make any logical arguments. I will summarize and clarify what I have already said. The AA technique that xbox (and n64/GC/ps2) uses makes the image blurry. There are many many different AA techniques. High quality AA techniques are good but demand significantly more power then any console system (xbox360 & PS3 included) have. My opinion is based on seeing actual game play on my 1080p LCD TV. Please reread the statement "Xbox is not more powerful then PS2". That doesn't mean the converse is true (PS2 is more powerful then xbox). I have never said that. System power has nothing to do with "excelling at target goals". Both systems had the exact same target goal: make money for their parent company. And there is no question the PS2 wins there. But that is not what this conversation is about. BTW my statement that PS2 sold more units therefor it is more powerful was an example of the logic you are basing your argument on. Notice where I said "If subjectiveness was the basis . . ."? That shows I was making a counter logic example. Clearly you like the xbox better then the PS2. Which is great. I have no problem with that. But factually speaking, hardware wise, the xbox is not more powerful then the PS2 despite many people seeing "733Mhz CPU" and thinking xbox must be more powerful.The Goat 16:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Don't be silly. My hypothesis is not based on theoretical numbers, or how badly I missunderstand them, my hypothesis is based on results. Your argument is based on unknowns and hope. GG. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Start of the 6th generation

"This era began on November 18, 2001 (with the release of both the Xbox and GameCube)."

This statement is incorrect... I'd change it... but I'm not sure about the exact dates... if the Dreamcast is part of the 6th generation... then according to the dreamcast launch dated list on it's page, wouldn't the start date be... November 27, 1998 or at the very least with the addition of the first true contender in the 6th generation, the PS2...--Biggman15 18:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say the Dreamcast wasn't a contender, it lost, but it was a contender. So I think the Dreamcast is probably the best date.DarkGhost89 00:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change it for now... and see if we get any more oppinions...--Biggman15 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say the 6th generation started with the Dreamcast in 1998, but keep in mind that its a transition period going all the way to late 2001. Only mid 2002 and later could you consider things truly competitive, with more games and no console shortages. GoldDragon 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Number of Bits" section

Something seems wrong with that section. The start of the paragraph states that the Dreamcast is the last console to base its marketing on the bit/byte system. Later in the paragraph it is stated that the Dreamcast and the PS2 are the last console to base its marketing on the bit/byte system. Seems like a contradiction to me, anyone agree? Dionyseus 00:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Initial Console Sales

Just curious, anyone know what the initial sales of the PS2, Xbox, and GCN were?--68.81.46.199 01:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Dreamcast games were released until 2004..."

Not true, in fact, games were still (and still are!) being produced for the Dreamcast, it even says it on the wiki page! Could someone fix this? Lailaiboy 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The only ever?

In the milestone part it says that Soul Calibur is the only game to recieve perfects from GameSpot, IGN and Famitsu but Ocarina of Time also has.RammaYB 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wii should be in this section

Since the Wii is a Gamecube with an addon, I propose that it be classified as 6th generation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.218.137 (talk • contribs).

Sorry, we do not work this way. -- ReyBrujo 19:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as far as I know, does not encourage the spread of made up information. --Can Not 01:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The only ever?

Read carefully it says "only game of it genre", Ocarina of Time wasn't a fighting game. 1:26, 15 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.14.12 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Gamecube is ~8% more powerful than the Xbox

Gamecube vs. Xbox

Microsoft’s numbers are based on RAW performances, which is based on what the console can do without any form of application running.

GCN: 90 million polygons/second (1 light)
Xbox: 116 Polygons/second (no light)-could be strips, or smaller polyps.
Xbox: vertex and pixel shaders (AKA, color combined)
GCN: Flipper LSI TEV (AKA color combined)
Xbox internal GPU bandwidth: 10GB/second (eDRAM and Main RAM have latencies of 20 ns)
GCN internal GPU bandwidth: 20-25GB/second (1T-SRAM has latencies of 3-6 ns)
Xbox maximum texture layers: 4
GCN maximum texture layers: 8
Xbox maximum hardware lights: 4
GCN maximum hardware lights: 8
Xbox maximum local lights: 8
GCN maximum local lights: 8

That is what each console can do in the GPU area. Now this is where most people that do not have the knowledge about a computer, are leaded to believe that a bigger number is better.

Gamecube CPU: 485 MHz

The GCN CPU is a PowerPC based RISC processor, with L1 64 KB and L2 256 KB cache. The Xbox's is an Intel x86 based CISC processor, with L1 32 KB and L2 128 KB cache. RISC processors outperform any CISC processor well over 2:1 if you go by MHz. That's also when there are more-to equal cache sizes. The Xbox's CPU cache is drastically cut from the normal P3's. Only the x86-64 architecture can really compete with the RISC processors per MHz due to more transistors or registers or units on each die. The Xbox is based off x86-32.
So in fact, the GC runs at 960MHz, performance wise!!

Xbox CPU: 733MHz: This is not any CPU; it is actually a PIII/Celeron chip. For more information, look above. This processor also has LESS transistors/registers/cache than the RISC counterpart.

Gamecube Graphics Processor: 162MHz (Read above of what GameCube’s graphics can process. This chip uses the fastest RAM on the planet 1T-SRAM). The power of this card can be compared to the Radeon 9550 128 MB GDDR3 and 9600 XT 256 MB GDDR3. Flipper has 4 Pixel Pipes with 1 Texture units; coupled with the fast RAM and double the hardwired effects; it doesn’t have to waste any extra clock ticks.

Xbox Graphics Processor: 230 MHz (This chip's power would be in-between the GeForce 4 and GeForce FX5200. It has 4 Pixel Pipes with 2 Texture Units, but due to its memory limitations AND texture limitations it has to waste an extra 2 clock ticks when more is applied per scene.

Gamecube Memory: 43 MB of 1T-SRAM (It’s the fastest and most advanced RAM. Don’t forget Cube shares its memory with a Z-Buffer 3 MB, GPU 24 MB, and sound 16 MB). The latency is around 3 ns to 6 ns. Wii has even better developed 1T-SRAM which runs at around 1.4 ns.

Xbox Memory: 64 MB (Xbox uses DDR RAM. it has to share it around the whole system like a PC, same as GC, but due to 30 ns timings, it can cause bottlenecks. It does provide better memory bandwidths, but if bottlenecks occur at the beginning of the whole cycle, then surely the bandwidth in the GPU or DSP or CPU will occur, and hinder system performance.

Gamecube Memory Bandwidth: 2.6 gb/sec RAW and near efficient real world figures.
Xbox Memory Bandwidth: 6.4 gb/sec RAW

Gamecube Polygon Performance: ~22 Million Polygons/sec WITH all effects.
Xbox Polygon Performance: ~20 M polygons/sec

Gamecube Audio Channels: 256 2D/3D channels
Xbox Audio Channels: 256 2D/3D channels WITH Dolby Digital

Pentium 3:
Bus Interface Unit to System Bus = 32 bit * 133 MHz = 1.0 GB/s
Bus Interface Unit from chip: 23 + 2.9 = 25.9 GB/s
L2 Data cache to L1 Data cache: 256 bit * 733 MHz = 23 GB/s
L2 Instruction cache to L1 instruction cache = 32 bit * 733 MHz = 2.9 GB/s

Gekko:
Bus Interface Unit to System Bus = 64 bit * 162 MHz = 1.33 GB/s
Bus Interface Unit from chip = 11.6 GB/s
L2 Data cache to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 MHz = 3.88 GB/s
L2 Instruction cache to L1 instruction cache = 32 bit * 485 MHz = 1.94 GB/s
DMA controller to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 MHz = 3.8 GB/s
Fill buffer to L1 Data cache 256 bit * 485 MHz = 15.52 GB/s
Write Gather Pipe from Load/Store Unit 64 bit * 485 = 3.8 GB/s

But GC has data compression, which Xbox doesn’t have, which results with more work in the north-bridge to allow data compression.

Gekko’s data compression
Data compression of 4:1 average data compression:
Bus Interface Unit to System Bus = 64 bit * 162 MHz = 1.3 GB/s * 4 = 5.2 GB/s
Bus Interface Unit from chip = 11.6 GB/s * 4 = 46.4 GB/s
L2 Data cache to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 MHz = 3.8 GB/s * 4 = 15.2 GB/s
L2 Instruction cache to L1 instruction cache = 32 bit * 485 MHz * 4 = 7.76 GB/s
DMA controller to fill buffer 64 bit * 485 MHz = 3.8 GB/s * 4 = 15.2 GB/s
Fill buffer to L1 Data cache 256 bit * 485 MHz = 15.5 GB/s * 4 = 62.2 GB/s.
Write Gather Pipe from Load/Store Unit 64 bit * 485 = 3.8 GB/s * 4 = 15.2 GB/s

The Gekko architecture is suited much more for streaming a large amount of data then the Pentium 3.

And finally, L2 and L1 cache must be taken into account. The native RISC code on the Gekko makes the instructions bigger then the CISC counterpart, let’s say around 30% larger.

Pentium 3:
L1 Instruction cache: 16 Kbytes * 1.30 = 20.8 Kbytes
L1 Data cache: 16 Kbytes
L2 Instruction cache: 64 Kbytes * 1.30 = 83.2 Kbytes
L2 Data Cache: 64 Kbytes
Total cache: L1 32 KB’s and L2 128 KB’s

In the data caches, transient data, or data making its way back up to the bus interface unit, displaces memory coming into the CPU core. So the above figures are generous, the actual amount of cache dedicated to storing data to be sent to the CPU core is around half that number.

• 10 fill buffers with undisclosed sizes.

Gekko
L1 Instruction cache: 32 Kbytes
L1 Data cache: 32 Kbytes
L2 Instruction cache: 128 Kbytes * 0.70 = 89.6 Kbytes
L2 Data cache: 128 Kbytes * 4 = 512 Kbytes
Total cache: L1 64 KB and L2 256 KB

Transient data does not displace data coming in, so the numbers above are solid. The outgoing data is stored in these buffers:

• 128 Byte Write Gather Pipe for streaming over Memory bus, which yields 512 Kbytes with compression.

• 32 byte fill buffer between L2 and L1 data cache, and L1 data cache to the DMA.

• 15 entry DMA queue, each moving 4 Kbytes for 60 Kbytes, or 240 Kbytes with compression.

The L2 data cache actually available to the Gekko is around 10 times greater then the amount available on the Pentium 3. The Gekko makes use of this bandwidth when operating in vector mode. --Kendoka Han 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Kendoka_Han

Sorry, this is considered original research, unless you can cite some reliable source claiming this. -- ReyBrujo 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of Han_Solo from G4 forums? --Kendoka Han 05:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Kendoka_Han

Forum posts aren't reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is going to end in the same way as the PlayStation 2/ XBOX comparison. Be it the hardware specs, the overall GFLOPS count, or the output system (be it a CRT TV or a LCD Monitor, with either composite or component connections), the XBOX games still look and play with more quality, both in graphics performance (number of polygons, textures, lighting, shaders and anti-aliasing -which is in fact very different from the blurry bilinear filtering of the Nintendo 64-) and framerate, than it's PS2 and GameCube versions (maybe the one reason of the limited GCN performance is the same as the 64; lack of sufficient storage capacity, 1.5 Gigabytes are not enough for most games, and they need to access more data at the same time, hence the bottleneck). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.250.20.160 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Generation defining features

I'm wondering if there shouldn't be a mention\section like this. This generation was the begging of online gaming (existed on PC, yes, but consoles were catching up and each had a modem of some kind), wireless gaming (arguably initiated by the wavebird) and multimedia experience (DVD playback was a desired feature, for some reason, when it came to the xbox and PS2). --Thaddius 15:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gizmondo a sixth generation handheld?

Is this correct? It was released at around the same time as the DS and the PSP. Samx 22:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC) It's not, the PSP and DS are seventh gen., but since they're released at the time of the sixth gen. even though handhelds are totally diff. has led people to belive their sixth gen. They have so much more power than the GBA that its not funny that there here. Uber555 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)