Unbiased Facts About the NextGen Consoles -Revisited-

[ssj12]

jetrii said:

ssj12 said:

Gnizmo said:

xman said: 

Ok I admit that was impressive I wonder if the weakest console wins every generation because its the cheapest?

 Weakest console doesn't always win. The Genesis and Dreamcast were both the weakest, and we know how Sega's story ended in the hardware department.

 

umm.. no. Just no. The Dreamcast was stronger than the PS2. The Genesis was stronger than the NES/Atari.

What freedquaker and the others have posted it true, the PS2 was more powerful than the Dreamcast. One of the only advantages the Dreamcas had over the PS2 was its ability to do tile based deferred rendering, and even that was just to make up for its horrible fillrate. And like I've already states, the Genesis was not more powerful than the NES. The genesis had a more powerful CPU than the NES but everything else was subpar. 

ssj12, I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it goes against an opinion shared by others. However, there is no arguing this. This is fact. If you think the Gensis/Dreamcast games look better, than that is a matter of personal preference. Don't drag technology into it.

So pretty much its similar to the PS3 versus 360 now. PS3 has a stronger processor but weaker GPU. Thats exactly what I thought but thanks for backing up what I thought. I do know that the GSX, PS2's GPU, follows a very interesting design that doesnt act like a normal GPU does making it stronger than some GPUs of that time.

Still wasnt it also the same way with the Dreamcast? Stronger processor weaker GPU, thought it was how it was.

Also where is the Saturn in this? Stronger than the SNES or weaker, this I forget.

And why? I have a pretty damn good understand of technology, just not older console hardware past minor things I have read. I do understand the GC, Wii, PS3, and 360 pretty damn well.