All the older generation was defined by power/graphics.

8-bit era
16-bit era
32/64-bit era

All because you a have a big gap in power/graphics... that's make a generation... that's how the generation are defined.

The very fact that you have to write "32/64-bit era" demonstrates the problem with your claim. Why isn't the N64 considered to be a generation beyond the Playstation?

The N64 had a CPU that could handle 125 MIPS, plus a GPU capable of 100 MFLOPS. The PS had no GPU, and its CPU could only handle 30 MIPS.

So why is the N64 and PS considered to be in the same generation?

Because the power gap between N64 and the previous generation... the gap between Playstation/Saturn to N64 was not that big.

The Wii to PS360 is way way way bigger gap than Playstation/Saturn to N64.

So what? If we define generation by power or graphics, the N64 is clearly beyond the PS/Saturn, and thus, by the definition you put forward, should be considered next-gen to them.

After all, how big a change in graphical power is necessary to make it a new generation? If a console had released that was 4x the power of the Wii, and the 360 was then 5x the power of this new console, would it be grouped with the 360? The Wii?

In short, grouping by power is just not going to work. Power doesn't clearly increase in distinct steps, and effective power is debatable even if official raw power is known. As has been pointed out, the Xbox was something like 3x the raw power of the Gamecube, yet the GC was able to sometimes even outperform the Xbox, when used right. Which one is the more powerful console, in that case?

That's the big problem because the Wii is the first consoles (and now maybe the Wii U) to have a big discrepancy in power to the others consoles... so the industry create sub-divisions in this gen the HD consoles and Wii (the exception) but the gen is yet defined by power.

If you don't have a big change in power then you don't have a new generation because there is no point in create a new generation with the same power than the last generation... the reason to enter in a new generation is to catch the PC in power each 6-8 years.

You can't try to create new definition because the exception (Wii).

Anyway not everybody (even some decelopers) put the Wii in this generation... even Wii U is not the 8th generetation for some guys in the industry... they are exceptions maybe in the middle of the generations.

And now you are locking wrong to the generations... the Xbox had no way 3x more power than GC... in fact they are close enough to say the GC can be a little more power than Xbox.. the Xbox is just 30% more powerful than PS2.

It's like...

PS2: 100
GC: 120
Xbox: 130

Generations are defined by power.

maybe it depends on the point of view
1)power improvement for ps360 gamers

2)release date for nintendo gamers

3)for a real gamer the term next gen is clompletely irrellevant as he is only interessted in games.He may only be angry with nintendo when he is a interessted in great gameplay AND great graphics.

(xbox1 may help us to find the truth:As it was the first xbox it couldn't be called "next" in the chronological term ,but in the term of power.
imagine apple to release a new console as powerful as the Meh U-would it be called next gen?I don't think so.
Now imagine they release a new console more powerful than ps460 -would it be called next gen? I think yes.

First of all, the reason that consoles improve in power is because the power/cost ratio has a moving optimum. If you go below the optimum power point, the overhead costs begin to dominate, and the overall cost per unit of power grows. On the flipside, as you increase the power beyond the optimum, the cost increases faster than the power - that is, it costs more than twice as much to get double the power, for instance.

Think of it this way - it would probably cost more than $10 to manufacture a 1 GFLOP GPU now. Meanwhile, it might cost $50 to manufacture a 500 GFLOP GPU. If you wanted a 1500 GFLOP GPU, however, it would probably cost $200.

Add to this the consumer factor - consumers aren't going to want to spend $1000 on a games console, but on the flipside, they won't spend $50 on a games console that does what the one they already have does.

This is why the consoles improve in power. The fact that the PC is always ahead of consoles demonstrates that "keeping up" isn't even remotely a factor. And the fact that PC ownership doesn't soar in the years preceding a new generation also proves that gamers aren't driven by the latest hardware.

As for the PS2/GC/Xbox numbers, please don't pull numbers from nowhere. We actually have accurate numbers for the three. Here they are (copied from another thread, where I posted it once already):

Gamecube - 1.6 GFLOPS CPU, 9.4 GFLOPS GPU
Xbox - ~3 GFLOPS CPU, ~18.6 GFLOPS GPU
PS2 - 6.2 GFLOPS CPU, GPU isn't really a GPU (adds no computing power to the system)

So, here's the total for each system:

Gamecube - 11 GFLOPS
Xbox - 21.6 GFLOPS
PS2 - 6.2 GFLOPS

This means that the Xbox is more than three times the power of the PS2, and just under double the power of the Gamecube, based on raw numbers. If you factor in that the PS2 therefore didn't have any specialised Graphical operations (as all such operations were being done on the CPU), the PS2 was even weaker (see, for instance, Resident Evil 4 GC vs PS2, for demonstration of this fact).

The only way that the Gamecube came out ahead of the Xbox was due to non-power factors - things like the TEV (or whatever it was called) gave it the ability to do more with less. And this is why, most of the time, the Xbox did better. And there's absolutely no way that the Xbox was only about 30% more powerful than the PS2. It was, on raw numbers alone, a touch under 3.5x more powerful. More, when you factor in things like the presence of SDRAM, and the fact that the PS2 had no graphics logic.

Generations are defined by the dictionary - I suggest you look it up.

A successor, regardless of specs.

Its like a father having a handicapped son....you wouldnt Not call the son the "next generation"? lol cmon

No. These numbers are way innaccurate... even the PS2's Emotion Engine have two VPU units to help with graphics...

Anyway the best and most accurate awser for that.

Xbox and GC are almost tied in graphics perforamance.

Erm... your neogaf thread pretty much proves everything I said.

PS2 outputs 6.2 GFLOPS, with no actual GPU.

Xbox outputs 21.6 GFLOPS, with about 3 GFLOPS (number provided is 2.9 GFLOPS) being the CPU.

GC outputs 9.4 GFLOPS through GPU (CPU output is 1.6 GFLOPS, bringing total to 11 GFLOPS)

Since we're talking total power, I'm 100% correct.

You seem to be focusing on graphical power, and then ignoring half of the graphical power along the way. The neogaf thread involves that guy comparing actual capability, rather than raw power. This is demonstrated by the fact that, in order to get a final value for Xbox, they subtract of pixel shaders. You're not going to try to convince me that pixel shaders aren't part of the graphics, are you?

The neogaf post isn't about graphical power, it's about how many polygons the system can push. Hence the subtraction of the pixel shaders (which aren't polygons) and including the PS2 CPU (which does the polygon work in serial rather than parallel). And hence why they're finding that the GC "outperforms" the Xbox by a moderate amount - because the GC doesn't use pixel shaders. The Xbox usses pixel shaders, the Gamecube relies on polygon count.

So, you were saying?