2% is absurd. The games would look like Doom if that was the case.

Any time someone throws out a % number for any console you can immediately know they are talking out their ass. Computers just don't work like that, there is no usage meter for an entire system. Now if they wanted to say we are only using x% of memory, or y% of the the PPUs then we are dealing with numbers that can actually be attained...but are still worthless in figuring overall system power.

A system bottleneck basically means that whichever part has the highest usage % is the usage % for the entire system...because as soon as it maxes out the rest of the computer is going to be waiting for it to do its job so they can do theirs. But if you want to go even further than that there are always new programming tricks and techniques being developed that can do things faster than the current standard (and sometimes better)...so if there is no way to tell if you're even doing things efficiently in the first place how can you tell how much performance constitutes the maximum?

Answer: You can't, generally speaking these numbers are given based on a single component and they don't translate from one game to the next because the techniques used in coding are almost always different, even when using similar/same engines. So not only are % numbers BS to begin with, but even if someone were to somehow give an accurate number it wouldn't mean anything in context with other games.

PS - No game is designed to use 100% for the simple reason that a game will not always use the same % throughout the course of gameplay. Chaotic combat situations use more of the hardware than a serene and peaceful scene, so there must be some extra unused juice in the hardware to prevent framerates from dropping below acceptable levels during the scenes that need it.

Why do people keep regurgitating this shit?

Anyone who was somewhat knowledgeable during the PS2s launch would've been able to tell you that games would look considerably better with time. They wouldn't have been able to give you a precise figure on where games would end up, but a pretty good estimate of what the PS2 was capable of, and you saw predictions of exactly that nature in 2000.

As for Vram, you just don't understand the issue. The Dreamcast had more, but it was an "old" style console in the sense that it loaded all a levels assets into RAM. The PS2 was built around the concept of streaming, so instead it would load textures and other data as it needed it, in which case VRAM didn't limit the console but texture fillrate did - so 4mb was more than enough. Really, so should just drop that as it makes it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. 

Also, lol @ this bullshit number. 

The question doesn't just stand at how much has been tapped (pretending one could even say). You also need to know how much effort it will take to tap those reservoirs. A good system can get by on less than a more powerful system that's a bitch to work with.

Saying a game is using x% of a console's power this early in the life-cycle is definately kind of dumb. If any of you were shown screens of GOW2 in 2002 and told that this game would be on the PS2, you'd have said that it isn't possible for that kind of a game to run on the PS2.
obviously it was. point made

Also, Coglestop, where did you get the idea that the PS3's GPU is inferior to the 360's? I thought they were about the same. (PS3's is 50MHz. faster. *shrugs*)

Uncharted supposedly used 30%. This game uses maybe 2%. I'd believe it.

 Really?  In that case I have a Sony brand pet rock and solar-powered flashlight i'd like to sell you!

I like how people are still shitting on him even though it's a multiplatform game.....

GOW2 used 96% of the PS2's power. I don't recall there being any framerate problems there, despite how hectic some of the battles got.