Well, here's my layman's understanding of the Xbox GPU (NV2A), culled from the faint memory of various articles, presentations, press releases, etc.: The NV2A shares the same core feature set as the Geforce3 The NV2A has a few additional features than the Geforce3 The NV2A has two vertex shaders, the current version of the Geforce3 has only one The twin vertex shaders, combined with the lack of an AGP bus, allow the NV2A to animate 125milpps This apparently translates into: 85milpps/70milpps/20milpps in real world performance with various degrees of lighting and texturing My theory as to why the games may not look as good as we think they should is the usual combo of acclimation to new hardware, lack of time, and far too many devs choosing to play it safe and code their software to a safe minimum. EA in particular, from the screenshots I've seen of their Xbox games (which look indistinguishable from PS2 shots), seems to be taking this route. Some devs, of course, are already doing outstanding work, IMO. There were a few games on display from small Japanese developers at spring TGS that looked impressive enough. Overall, though, we have'nt seen anything with that Raven/Robot tech demo polish to it. In the end, I agree that there may be little visual distinction between Gamecube and Xbox, however, for all the talk of Gamcube's texturing ability, so far Xbox has shown off some nice looking hi-res textures that I've yet to see on any GC games.