Is the Wii stronger than the original Xbox, if so..

[HappySqurriel]

LordTheNightKnight said:

Viper1 said:
Diomedes, System A being x times more powerful than System B is really not a valid or verifiable metric. I'm saying that it's pointless to say GC was only 5-6 times more powerful than N64 because a consoles power is not an easily quantified numeric metric.

Far too many factors with the various architectures and system components to provide any real meaning between such comparisons.

 

Let's look at actual output, for one. The N64's polygon record was 180k with effects active (there was a 500k potential, but would mean no shading or mapping). The Gamecube's was of course 20 million with Rogue Squadron III.

So that's over 40 times right there. And that's not even taking the full degree of effects growth, texture sizes, framerate, and other things.

 

The real problem with Diomedes 40 times performance claim is that it is a number that was picked up off of maketing material ... and sadly enough, I think he inflated it from the 32 times Sony was claiming. The unfortunate thing is that most marketing claims are the result of cherry picking a single benchmark to make the performance sound as impressive as possible. When you move into real world performance, and multiple areas are demanding that extra performance, the benchmarks become less impressive ...

Polygon performance is a good example of how this works out ... The PS2 had theoritical polygon performance of 66 million polygons per second and the best looking games tended to achieve performance of 6 to 9 million polygons per second on the PS2, while the PS3 has seen a dramatic boost in real world polygon performance it sits at about 60 Million polygons per second which is far below the 240 to 360 Million polygons per second the 40 times processing power would imply.