Very true.

If you take Final Fantasy 7 and 8 on PC which were "upgraded" and re-released on steam, the emulated PS1 copies can still look and sound far better than the native upgraded PC versions.

With that in mind, Nintendo 64 games that are emulated  can also be modded with new textures and effects, so it can cancel that out.




That's Zelda from the Nintendo 64. :)


I think it's hard to argue which console was more powerfull though, on paper the Nintendo 64 was in an entirely different league, in reality you only had to look at Perfect Dark to see what the Nintendo 64 was capable of which was easily the best looking game of that generation outside of the PC.

Perfect Dark could handle multiple light sources, reflective surfaces, translucent textures, bump mapping, anti-aliasing and superior texture filtering, amongst others.

Playstation had a 34 MHz CPU and 2MB of RAM. N64 had a 94 MHz CPU and 8MB of RAM.

The N64 was more powerful. The Playstation just had many more great games.

stop spreading half truths and misinforming people. You dont know what your talking about.

Psx had 2MB of main RAM, 1MB of dedicated video RAM and 512Kb for the sound chip. All low latency relatively good bandwith

N64 had a base unified 4MB pool upgradable to 8MB. I had 500Mb bandwith which was astounding for that era (for comparison PSX main RAM had around 130mb of BW) but it had like650ms of latency

650 FREAKING MS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that is awful and absolutely negated the advantage in the MEM department.

The CPU and Coprocessor where also a pain in the ass.

In no way way PS1 hardware more powerful than N64. The proof is quite simply in the games themselves. Nothing quite on the level of Mario 64, Goldeneye, Turok 2, Banjo-Kazooie, OoT, Perfect Dark, Star Fox 64, Majora's Mask, Diddy Kong Racing, or Conquer, were ever really seen on PS1, because it's hardware just couldn't handle them. The only advantage PS1 had over N64, was the CD format, which is why it managed to lure many third party devs to put their best games (Symphony of the Night, Tekken, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, FF7, etc.) on it. Conversely, N64's only actual drawback was the limitation and cost of the cart format. If N64 had gone with CDs, that gen pretty much would have been theirs.

Sorry, but that is seriously untrue. MANY games on PS1, sans the mass amounts of voice acting, CD music or especially FMV (which was all the rage that gen), could have easily been done on N64. The specific reason many of those games WEREN'T done on N64, was because of cartridge limitations limiting them being able to add those bells and whistles. But most of those games COULD have easily been done on N64 hardware, no contest.

64 had Goldeneye. It wins.

You are wrong read my post above

FACTS

PSX moved about 30% more polygons

PSX could hold more and way bigger textures

PSX had much lower latency RAM

PSX had dedicated video and audio MEM

PSX 35 MIPS

N64 pulled multiple real time hardwired effects that had to be faked on PSX at performance penalty

N64 imagery looked smoother and more solid thanks to those effects

N64 had more RAM

N64 Cpu was clocked 3 times faster

N64 co-processor was clocked at 50 Mhz

N64 125 MIPS

Overall, both designs had BIG flaws that draw them apart from their full potential.

Conclusion is REAL TIME PERFORMANCE IS ABOUT ON PAR.

I cant argue with this.

Agree, but the audio and FMV's were better on PlayStation.

Did someone say 2D Graphics? Did someone say Soundtrack?

PS1>N64

Nothing compares to Castlevania SOTN on the PS1 to what was on the N64. Graphics, Soundtrack, Presentation, Story etc.

Soundtrack = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T69mH5RXwY

Soundtrack = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7i8ZHDNHyM

Soundtrack = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OIyTf297I8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efCa9f6aAj0