PDF said: PS3=360>Wii>Xbox>GC>PS2 yay I solved everyone problem.

Fixed there for you :)

HappySquirrel Said: "Because of the additional processing power requirements to display HD graphics it is reasonable to say that the difference in processing power from the PS2 to the Wii is similar to the difference in processing power from the Wii to the PS3/XBox 360." "The Gamecube and XBox would have been 1.5 to 2 times as powerful as the PS2, and the Wii is (at least) twice as powerful as the Gamecube and yet developers used the PS2 as the base to produce many Wii games; on top of this XBox 360 and PS3 games are required to display at HD resolutions which (believe it or not) uses additional processing power." The Ghost of Rubang said: " The GC and XBox weren't only slightly better than the PS2. The PS2 was ridiculously weak in comparison to either of them, but it had the most market share so it had the most games and was the lead dev console. The Wii's just replacing it in every way."

You do realize that that power isn't just blank pixels right? It's not like, you have to use X amount of power just to achieve HD resolutions and then X amount of power to use those pixels, so to say power is lost when rendering HD graphics simply isnt so. And to say that "loss of power" makes the Wii any closer in comparison is extremely foolish.

I ask you how a single core (PowerPC G3 based I believe) processor is close to a tri-core processor or a single core with 7 SPEs? Not to mention the PS3 and 360's processors are both running at far higher speeds, with larger caches, faster FSB, faster RAM, and many times the Video memory.

Say you scored the Wii on SD graphics at 100, then the PS3 and 360 would be at about 4000. Say you scored the PS3 and 360 at 100 on HD graphics, then the Wii would be about 3.

The difference in power is astronomical.

 

"The difference in power is astronomical."

Even assuming your comparison numbers are true (you didn't really back it up), that's not astronomical. Even thought it's not an actual technical term, an astronomical number refers to something with a hell of a lot of digits. The numbers you assumed are 40 (4000/100) and 33.3 (100/3). Those are not even slightly enough to be astronomical differences.

When you put it on a screen you'll shit bricks.

You wrote that the difference in power is astronomical. It was the difference I was looking at. 33 and 40 are not astronomical numbers, therefore if your numbers are true, there is not an astronomical difference in power.

next gen (2006), technically:

_ HD -> PS360
_ internet -> all
_ virtual console -> all
_ motion sensing -> Wii

to me it's pretty much on par level...

Plus why get HD when you don't have an HD TV? puts the console price to $1500 vs $250

Did someone say they like comparison pics!?

Let's compare Final Fantasies!

 

Facial Shot 

Final Fantasy XII (PS2)

 

FFCC: The Crystal Bearers (Wii) 

 

 

Sky shot 

FFXII 

 

FFCC: TCB

^ But which ones are in game??? :P

Let's compare the worst looking PS3 game.

GT5 Prologue:

With the best looking Wii game:

Crusin:

I think I've made my point.

 

Dallinor said: Let's compare the worst looking PS3 game. GT5 Prologue: With the best looking Wii game: Crusin: I think I've made my point.

That picture of Crusin looks more like the N64 version of the game after watching a Wii vs N64 gamplay video of this game.