Dreamcast vs Original Xbox

[curl-6]

DonFerrari said:

curl-6 said:

Dreamcast catches up and takes the lead in the poll; once numerous votes behind Xbox, it now leads by 1.

I never compared Soul Calibur to GTA. I simply chose the best graphics available on the Dreamcast.

And GT4 doesn't actually render in 1080i, it only upscales to it, its rendering resolution is just 448p according to Digital Foundry.

PS2 was closer to DC than to Xbox graphically in my opinion; the latter's more modern GPU, equipped with DX8 tier programmable shaders, allowed for results like Conker Live and Reloaded, Chronicles of Riddick, and Halo 2 that were a class apart from what either PS2 or DC could ever hope to produce.

You are comparing Soul Calibur to "most of PS2 library". Which in essence again is picking a very close and controlled environment of a fighting game and comparing to the biggest open world and everything in between. If you had just done something like "SC vs Tekken 5" or similar comparison that would at least make sense. Next should we compare FFX during CGI on PS2 versus Code Veronica in DC?

The problem is that performance and hw aren't opinion, they have the hard numbers. You just like DC more so you try to favor it in comparison.

There aren't many games that would look better than FFX on GC or Xbox, but that doesn't mean both weren't considerably more powerful than PS2.

My contention was only ever that while PS2 is naturally more powerful as a system that released over a year later, DC can hold up impressively well as it was so capable for its age.

Xbox though benefited from advances in shader technology that arrived too late for both DC and PS2 and made a significant difference to graphics.

Like DC, PS2 could still hold up in its own right. The difference made by programmable shaders though made PS2's overall graphical makeup look more similar to DC than to Xbox.