By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Hindsight II: Which Console was REALLY more powerful? Playstation or N64

Seems like a tricky question. Being 2 years newer and 64-bit, the N64 is obviously more powerful, but cartridges SEVERELY limited its potential. CD's were a HUUUUUUGE advantage for the PS1.

In my mind, the best example is FFIX. The animations are unbelievably fluid for a 32-bit game. The N64 just doesn't seem capable of that, I don't know. It seems to me that since they could make pre-rendered scenarios on the PS1, all the horse power went to the character models. Also, FMV's.



Around the Network

The PSOne was super impressive, the N64 felt like a joke to me back in the day when i played, so, PSOne for me.



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

FinalFantasyXIII said:

So based on that thinkology N64 is still better than PC because Cartridge. 

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh K buddy you got me. Have a nice one. :)


Stop. Just stop.



No. The n64 was alot more powerful than ps. The 3d graphics on ps1 were actually terrible. The polygons used to jump and move on the screen. I only played a handful of 3d games on ps1. The others even at the time felt unplayable to me after mario 64. Games like perfect dark, banjo kazooie, turok 2, f1 world grand prix 2, conker, mario 64, 1080 snowboarding, rogue squadron to name a few that were completely not doable on psx and played far better.



artur-fernand said:
Seems like a tricky question. Being 2 years newer and 64-bit, the N64 is obviously more powerful, but cartridges SEVERELY limited its potential. CD's were a HUUUUUUGE advantage for the PS1.

In my mind, the best example is FFIX. The animations are unbelievably fluid for a 32-bit game. The N64 just doesn't seem capable of that, I don't know. It seems to me that since they could make pre-rendered scenarios on the PS1, all the horse power went to the character models. Also, FMV's.


Hunh? Is thiz serious? Ff9 gameplay animations were jerky as hell. Fmv dont count. Its cgi. N64 could do cgi to. Resi 2 which was 2 discs fit on 1 512 mg cart with all fmv cutscenes and better 3 d models. 

 

Psx 3 d games were next to unplayable due to choppy animatikn, bad frame rate and the polygons jumping around. Not to mention n64 with the expansion pack did double the res of psx.



Around the Network

Just so everyone knows.

N64 had triple the ram of psx with the expansion pack. It had double the cpu speed and more than double the data transfer rate. it could do 640x480 res, psx could not and was capable of effects the psx could not do.

Put in perspective. N64 - psx gap was way bigger than ps4 - xbox one. Way bigger.



selnor1983 said:
artur-fernand said:
Seems like a tricky question. Being 2 years newer and 64-bit, the N64 is obviously more powerful, but cartridges SEVERELY limited its potential. CD's were a HUUUUUUGE advantage for the PS1.

In my mind, the best example is FFIX. The animations are unbelievably fluid for a 32-bit game. The N64 just doesn't seem capable of that, I don't know. It seems to me that since they could make pre-rendered scenarios on the PS1, all the horse power went to the character models. Also, FMV's.


Hunh? Is thiz serious? Ff9 gameplay animations were jerky as hell. Fmv dont count. Its cgi. N64 could do cgi to. Resi 2 which was 2 discs fit on 1 512 mg cart with all fmv cutscenes and better 3 d models. 

 

Psx 3 d games were next to unplayable due to choppy animatikn, bad frame rate and the polygons jumping around. Not to mention n64 with the expansion pack did double the res of psx.


"Unplayable"? "Jerky"? You can't be serious. Metal Gear Solid, Crash Bandicoot 3, Spyro, all three FF's... yes, they're all unplayable due to "choppy" animations.

Your post is the very definition of "exaggeration".



The PSX had nice 'movies', but the N64 was clearly way ahead when it came to in-game play. I loved both systems though.



artur-fernand said:
selnor1983 said:
artur-fernand said:
Seems like a tricky question. Being 2 years newer and 64-bit, the N64 is obviously more powerful, but cartridges SEVERELY limited its potential. CD's were a HUUUUUUGE advantage for the PS1.

In my mind, the best example is FFIX. The animations are unbelievably fluid for a 32-bit game. The N64 just doesn't seem capable of that, I don't know. It seems to me that since they could make pre-rendered scenarios on the PS1, all the horse power went to the character models. Also, FMV's.


Hunh? Is thiz serious? Ff9 gameplay animations were jerky as hell. Fmv dont count. Its cgi. N64 could do cgi to. Resi 2 which was 2 discs fit on 1 512 mg cart with all fmv cutscenes and better 3 d models. 

 

Psx 3 d games were next to unplayable due to choppy animatikn, bad frame rate and the polygons jumping around. Not to mention n64 with the expansion pack did double the res of psx.


"Unplayable"? "Jerky"? You can't be serious. Metal Gear Solid, Crash Bandicoot 3, Spyro, all three FF's... yes, they're all unplayable due to "choppy" animations.

Your post is the very definition of "exaggeration".


Basically what we have here is n64 around 3 times more power than psx. Triple the ram, double the cpu speed and double the data transfer. As well as operating at 64 bit as opposed to 32 bit. 

Games that ran ok on psx were not true 3 d games or games with 2 d backdrops. Every ff game was 2d backdrops. Until the battles where the framerate slowed down considerably due to rendering in realtime 3d. Metal gear was an isometric view on the action. Not a free roaming camera etc. Games like perfect dark, conker, turok 2, banjo kazooie, f zero x, killer instinct gold all were so much more technically impressive than any psx it wasnt even fair. Play cool boarders 3 then 1080 snowboarding. It was like playing snes vs psx.



The N64 really had some beautiful games but Spyro on the PS1 was up there..

 

I know this is emulated and has a higher resolution than on PS1 but this is how I saw it playing it in 1998. xD