That just doesn't make any sense. So a Wii using Blu-Rays would have been more powerful than a PS3 using DVD's?

N64: 94 MHz CPU, 4MB RAM (8MB with Expansion Pak)

PSX: 33 MHz CPU, 2MB RAM.

(Maybe Ethomaz can give us more specs)

N64 beat it in power. hell, some games on the PS1 looked worse than 3D SNES games. the PS1 won because of 1 thing: using CDs instead of cartridges.
if only the N64 had a CD drive the console war would be radically different from the way it is today, Nintendo would probably still be the dominant in the home console market, Sony may or may not have made another console, MS probably wouldn't have made the Xbox, SEGA would still be around, etc.
the fact that the PS1 was easier to develop for than the N64 mattered in it's own right, but having to endure a more difficult architecture is worth it if you can develop for the lead console, that's how it was in the 6th gen with GC vs. PS2 (GC was WAY easier to develop for than PS2, it had basic PowerPC architecture {first console to have that actually} and the PS2 had a foreign one that required you to learn a whole new developer language), where despite the difficulties in developing for PS2, devs still made games for it over the GC just because the dominant Video game brand back then was "Playstation"

Bwahahaha !

Yes, that is exactly what I said, !

really hard to say i think overall were on par, which says little about N64. by numbers it should be clearly ahead. but it wasnt. only big efforts could show the edge on N64 s part, and the texture department was a lose lose. a bi lose.

depends on if you did like warping polygons and ugly pixels, or streched textures at 20fps more

No competition. I had both, and multiplats looked considerably better on N64. I could tell the difference even though I was in primary school at the time. Mortal Kombat 4 and other third party games looked a lot smoother on the N64. PSX ..... not so much.

N64 was more powerful, but overall Playstation had more games I wanted to play. I loved Mario 64, Zelda Ocarina of Time, Mario Kart, Donkey Kong, but PS had Resident Evils, Final Fantasy's, Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Silent Hill, and I got more into mature games since I was in my late teens then. Had both systems, but played the PS a lot more.

what.

how the hell can you come to that conclusion from that orniletter's post.

N64 was a lot more powerful. Even Super Mario 64, the first game of the N64, looked better than most PS1 games. Also, look at Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, DK64 and other exclusives, the difference is huge. You can compare multiplataform games too, like Shadow Man, and you will see that N64 version looks way better. The only advantage that PS1 had was the use of CDs, although it was bad for loading times, it allowed more complex games and nice cutscenes.

Obviously !

Duh !!

Denk doch mal nach, OnkelDagobert !

Based on what I know, other than the larger file size offerered by CD-ROMs, the PlayStation was outmatched by the N64 in most areas. Not by a vast degree, but it's what you'd expect from 1994 hardware vs. 1996 hardware.

PS1: 32 bit CPU at about 34 MHz, 2+ MB of RAM, 24 channels of audio

N64: 64 bit CPU at about 94 MHz, 4+ MB of RAM, 100 channels of audio

The PSOne's better looking games are more the result of developers and FMV's than the console being that powerful.

Oh, and textures. For some reason, the N64 had trouble with more complex textures.