sc94597 on 24 June 2008
| Mifely said: The PS2 was not the weakling its imagined to be. Its main CPU was slower than that of the GameCube, but it had two vector processors to supplement it, and the GC didn't. The PS2 and GC were arguably very similar in horsepower, despite the fact that the GC's power was much more accessible to your average developer. You never saw awe-inspiring titles like God of War 1/2, and Shadow of the Colossus on the GC, despite its faster main CPU (okay you might argue that Starfox: Adventures, the latter Zelda and some of the Rebel Strike line were close... but I don't think you could actually claim them to be "better" looking... just "as good", or nearly so). I would argue that your list correlates just as much to "installed base" as it does to the inverse of computing power -- since installed base goes up with earlier console releases, and CPU power goes down with earlier releases (when considering competition), this makes sense. |
You are forgetting that the ps2 had to due many more things that that its gpu wasn't capable of which loses the advantage of a faster cpu examples being texture compression, and being able to do make effects on a polygon in 1 go rather than 8 which the ps2 had to. This means it had to compensate with using the cpu to do these things. Also the gamecube was capable of alot more things because of the TeV units. So yes the gamecube was considerabely more powerful than the ps2. YOu see this in multiplat games like Re4. I would say that the gamecube did everything the xbox could, but couldn't produce as much polygons because of it's limited ram compared to the xbox.
