Kwaad you're zzzZZzzzzZZzz, get it.

and yes, i don't give a damn about your worthless opinions.

Being that the Gamecube and XBox were roughly the same power when released and were released within days of eachother why in your (completely unscientific chart) is the Gamecube half as powerful as the XBox?

Oh yeah ... Playstation 3 is selling poorly so you're trying to bash Nintendo ...

Wha? The GC and PS2 were similar in power?  No way.  Not even close.  GC's top games even rivaled and in some cases surpassed Xbox games.  Quit white-washing Sony's history.

Every time Kwaad posts, it is something ignorant and stupid, and I'm surprised he's even allowed to.  In fact I thought he was banned once.   Why was it lifted?  Is it similar to the action of letting an orangutan back into a mall after catching it?  Just to see what the monkey does next?

 The Q6800 is a single processor that costs 3x as much as a PS3.

I bet that a Blue-Gene computer is MUCH MUCH faster than a PS3. Infact, I bet it's thousands of times faster than a PS3. Infact, I bet it's HUNDREDS of thousands of times faster than a home PC.

If you wanna count a *real* computer.

8 blade CELL cluster, 20terrabyte HDD bank, and 1terrabyte RAM.

Now that is a HELL of alot faster than a PS3. I'm speaking about the 1500$ range computers. 

No you are not.

As per your FIRST line

@ Deguello: I have to defend Kwaad in that case. Because GC released some time after PS2, the PC's became better during that time which means the GC's 30 % are better than the PS2's 30 %. Kwaad also mentioned that in his post.

Kwaad writes a lot of nonsense, but before you start arguing with him you should read the stuff properly. Otherways your becoming ridiculous.

But now something about the topic. I think we have discussed the graphics enough already and history told us that the graphics don't decide a console war. So it's not worth discussing those numbers I think.

Hold on.

Why are we doing a thread that compares consoles to P.C's?

Kwaad... (sigh)

This thread is utter garbage. When you talk about something being 50% a fast as the high tech computer of the time you have to talk about what the computer is doing. Example: a bird is 400% faster then a fish (in the air yep, but not in water). The same concept holds for computers... your PS3 does well at parallel processing (3d graphics using parallel processing has been successful) but not all things can be computed efficiently (or at all in some cases... like computing the real number pi) using parallel processing like AI. I could go on, but it would waste my time. 

Console 1 - NES

1.87Mhz

PC's of 1985

 Approx 8Mhz

 Approx 20-25%

Console 2 SNES

 3.58 Mhz

PC's of 1990

Intel released the 33Mhz 486

Approx 10%

Console 3 PS1

33Mhz

PC's of 1994

Intel released the 233Mhz 486

Approx 14%

Console 4 N64

93.75Mhz

PC's of 1996

Intel released the 200Mhz Pentium

(gets tougher to compare here on out, P1 200 is about equiv to 486 400)

Approx 24%

Console 5 PS2

294Mhz

PC's of 2000

AMD released the 1.2 Ghz Athlon

Approx 25%

Console 6 GCN

495 Mhz (Approx equiv to 1Ghz P4)

PC's of 2001

Intel released the 2.0 Ghz P4

Approx 50%

Console 7 XBOX

733 Mhz Celeron

PC's of 2001

Intel released the 2.0 Ghz P4

Approx 25% - 33% Depending on the tech you talk about regarding P4 vs P3

Now, the seventh gen gets tougher.

The PS3's Cell CPU is capable of 204 GFLOPS, while the X360 is Capable of 116.

 I cannot locate GFLOP info for modern processors right now, and the Wii runs at a lower clock speed (reportadly) than the GCN, and i have NOTHING literally to compare it against.

Out of his ass.  In fact, he said that himself.  At least he's honest about it.  :)

Anyway, Kwaad, the total inaccuracy of your numbers aside, what's your point?