As much I love discussing hardware, this may be a bit too much at the moment to start comparing all the systems, but one thing people seem to forget is that newer systems tend to have more advanced (graphics) libraries. Even if two systems look on par on paper, a system that's five or ten years newer can likely do a lot of stuff the older system can't - or do the same with less resources, resulting in better real world performance, even if the theoretical peak values would look the same.
Then also some systems, like Saturn vs. PSX vs. N64 vs. NDS are quite interesting because of their completely different philosophy with their design. Saturn looks a bit different from the other systems because of it's square-shaped polygons - which is also why it has so low polycount relative to other system that are using triangles; Saturn needs to calculate 33% more lines than the other systems for the same polycount. PSX and N64 had similar architecture that both had a non-GPU geometry engine to free GPU resources to other tasks. PSX had some goodlooking games that were made by streaming textures from disc, but the games did not have much graphical effects. N64 had way too small texture memory, but every game had incredible effects for their time. NDS on the other had two screens so it had to output 30% more pixels than the other systems, and it was very much like PSX when it comes to effects, even as otherwise NDS blows the 5th gen systems out of the water. But the differences with the systems makes the hardware interesting.
Ei Kiinasti.
Eikä Japanisti.
Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.
Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.
