| Zod95 said:
But when you insistently present insufficient arguments to back up the "way less..." claim, my suspicions grow exponentially (specially when you subtly change it to "less powerful"...of course one system will have to be more powerful but we are talking about significant differences). One thing is the difference between PS3 and X360, which may be the same as between GC and PS2. Here I could make the same hardware analysis as you did with PS1 and N64, and find some 100% differences as you did too, and maybe the best looking PS3 games surpass the best looking X360 games (but not significantly). Another thing is the difference between PS3 and Wii or between PS4 and Wii U. Those are generational differences. Here we don't find minor differences anymore, we find huge differences in hardware (5x / 10x / 20x) and software. And yet, I could find a game on PS2 with better graphics than any Game Cube game but you just stopped replying to that once I came with evidences (another suspicious behaviour from you).
So here is the bottom line: - So far you have just presented the hardware analysis and there are no 5x differences as one would expect from a way more powerful console. - You refused to address the software analysis, where we can clearly see PS2 does as much as or even better than GC. - X360/PS3 are indeed way more powerful than Wii and both hardware and software tell us that. Wii hardware is from a lower order of magnitude and there is no Wii game that rivals with the best looking X360/PS3 games.
And here is my conclusion: you didn't convince me at all. Actually now I am more sure that 5th and 6th gen were generations without big hardware differences.
The matter here is the change of paradigm: before, all console makers attempted to do the best they could (any hardware differences were due to differences in talent or whatever you want to call it), now we have a console maker that chooses to launch 7th gen tech on 8th gen time period, arrogantly thinking they could be as successful as their competitors. It's like the 100m olympic sprint (they all run very fast, some eventually faster than others) but now we have a participant that runs as if he was in the 1500m. This is not about performance differences anymore. This is about different strategies and different attitude. Nintendo refuses to build a powerful console, that's it. And they aren't copying this strategy from any company (other than Zeebo). PS2 was not meant to be a less powerful console. Same thing for the X360. They all did the "100m sprint speed".
Right. Wii is a Game Cube with motion. And these are not just my words. And, by your personal nomenclature, Zeebo isn't from any generation. Also, by your personal nomenclature, N64 (1996) is from a different generation than Dreamcast (1998) which is from the same generation as Xbox (2001). Also, by your personal nomenclature, Atari should have more than 1 console in some generations, since Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Atari 7800 and Atari XEGS came all in the 3rd/4th gen period (but you conviniently don't mention some of them). Your criteria is neither based on tech nor on years nor on companies. You just don't have a solid criteria. It's just your opinion twisting according to your personal wishes. |
ok man. You already know N64 >>>>> PS1 (but media capacity of PS1 is superior)
now let's talk about PS2 and GCN
PS2 CPU:
Clocked at 299MHz (294, firts ones)
FPP: 6.2 GFlops (0.64 FPU + 2.44 VU0 + 3.08 VU1)
150 millions polygons/sec (VU0 + VU1)
Cache Memory: Intruction >16KB - Data > 8KB + 16KB (ScrP)
NGC CPU:
Clocked at 485Mhz
FPP: ~9 GFlops
~200 millions polygons/sec
Cache Memory: 64KB L1 / 256KB L2
PS2 GPU:
147.456Mhz
4MB to video
NGC GPU:
162Mhz
3MB to video (1MB for texture cache + 2MB for Z-buffer)
PS2 Memory:
32MB
GCN Memory:
43MB
And Gamecube had a superior and modern arquiteture. No matter where you look, GCN is superior. As Original Xbox is more stronger than both lol
You said GT4 is the best looking game on 6th gen. Is ok. Your opinion. I still think Mario Galaxy 2 is one of best looking game of all time and it was on Wii. I can't find any decent videos, but Splinter Cell on Gamecube is better than any PS2 game.
And no I don't refure to adress softwere analysis. We all know PS2 is the King of Games (and I'm talking about all time).
Wii as just a better Gamecube, and Nintendo did this because while PS2 sold more than 150mil, Gamecube only sold 22mil.
Wii U is 8th. Nintendo tried to back to "power racing". You can say, and I will follow, that is weaker than PS4/X1, but if you compare to Wii the leap is bigger than PS3/PS4.
