jetrii said:
ssj12 said:
jetrii said:
ssj12 said:
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.
|
No, it is nothing like the Xbox 360 vs Playstation 3. First of all, the SNES had double the memory of the Genesis and 8 times the audio memory. As a result, system memory had to be used for audio. Genesis could have a maximum of around 80 sprites on the screen at a time while the SNES could have around 128 with 4 very high resolution (at the time) backgrounds. SNES was also capalble of advanced matrix operations which the Genesis could only acomplish if it neglected everything else on the screen. SNES vs Genesis is more like the PS2 Vs Dreamcast than anything else.
However, I can see how someone lacking real technical knowledge would land to this faulty conclusion.
ssj12 said:
Khuutra said:
Gnizmo said:
| ssj12 said:
sure it wasnt imported? I do know many pawn shops imported it to the US around that time.
|
Absolutely positive. The games were in English.
|
I can reconfirm this via a quick Virtual Console list, if need be.
|
I just looked it up. It was. The Master System II wasnt.
|
The Sega Master System II was also sold in North America, it just should pretty poorly and was killec very quickly. I owned one.
|
We arent comparing Genesis versus the SNES. We are comparing the Genesis to the FIRST Nintendo console.
Why did you bring the SNES into this when the SNES went against the Saturn?
|
AH, my mistake, it was a long day at work. Guess I misread NES and SNES :D
|
Still I did explain my lack of knowledge on older consoles. Oldest console I actually fully taken the time to look up the tech was the GameCube because someone wanted to know the GPU's name. heh
I have looked up information its just been a few years since i did. The Ps3 and 360 architectures I have read manuals on how to program for them and how things work. The Wii is similar to the GC in lot of ways if i remember right.
Edit: While you were comparing the SNES I was focusing on NES vs Genesis with my original post. So you were off to begin with.
