| novasonic said: Actually, the PS2 was stronger than the Dreamcast. The PS1 was more powerful than the Amiga CD32, 3DO, and Atari Jaguar. |
PS1's main competitor was N64 not the consoles you listed. N64 was much more powerful graphically and even had an expansion pack that allowed it to have higher resolution in certain games - well beyond PS1's graphical capability of the time. PS2's main competitors were Xbox 1 and Gamecube, not Dreamcast (which was discontinued just a year later afer PS2's release). Both Gamecube and Xbox 1 were more powerful than PS2 was.
Also, while the overall processing power of PS3 is arguably superior to Xbox 360 once all the CPU units are utilized effectively, the actual graphics card in PS3 is inferior to Xbox 360 not only in performance but in technology. Xbox 360, despite being a 1 year older console, uses a unified shader graphics architecture (which is the industry standard today), while PS3 uses a fixed pixel/vertex shader pipeline design of the past. That means even this generation PS3 wasn't the hands down graphical power house either, as most cross-platform games run and look better on Xbox 360. Without very serious code optimizations, i.e., offloading certain effects to the Cell, PS3 is actually a less powerful console than 360 is graphically.
