This is for those who care about "Next Gen" console graphics

[VanceIX]

amak11 said:

SubiyaCryolite said:

I dont think the PS4 or XBox One are super powerful or anything but a truly accurate representation of the systems should always be given, nothing taken away or added. I dont think the Wii U is trash but I dont hype it up to be something its not either. On any scale it would always lean closer to the XBox 360 than to the XBox One (Usable RAM, GPU power, CPU cores, CPU threads, Memory Bandwidth).

This is why there is a huge descrepency  in my numbers. The difference between my numbers and the actual numbers is that they scale better. The actual difference is pretty huge. You are trying to find an argument in something that isn't here. What's the difference between 700 and 500? Let's just add more consoles to the mix since I did put PS3 at 400 and 360 at 450 and Wii at 350. This puts the PS2 at 200, Gamecube at 275, and Xbox at 300. Let's go back another generation. PS1 at sub 100, N64 at sub 100, Dreamcast at 100.  

This is what I mean when my numbers scale better. They factor in every damn console I can think of and what their graphical abilities were. There is a significant difference between where the Wii U sits at and the PS4 and One sit at and it's smaller numbers to look at. No shmuck off the street is going to look at 1386 and 386 and this is bigger than the other. They'll mostly be confused and this is where marketing comes in to explain the numbers in a way that shmuck can understand

Dreamcast was actually in the same generation as the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube. It was arguably on equal footing with the PS2 in terms of power as well