Greatest disparity in console hardware per gen?

@tormentos:

You are bringing up a prime example. This is when I'd agree the cd format was in play--when pre recorded audio was used. This is when the N64 often times suffered. However, when the console is not doing such the actual quality of the audio is higher, I believe.

No that's not how it works actually, you literally just made this up because you don't understand what floating point performance is and you have nothing valid to say in return. Floating point performance transcends every piece of hardware the same, it's a unit of measurement and it doesn't matter what hardware architecture, design or class it's from... It's the same unit of measurement as horsepower is for a car, it doesn't matter what your engine is, horsepower is horsepower...

You just destroyed any possibility of you being able to continue this discussion due to your ignorance, incredible... You are impossible to take seriously from now on, I can't believe you actually said that...

@tormentos: So you telling me that the gap between the x1 and ps4 is greater than the ps3 and x360?

Can you show me the links of game reviews that's scored less on the x1 to the ps4 because of performance?

I can link you to some where the ps3 scored lower to the 360 because of performance

No it does not and it show you are a newbie at this neither speed of the processor or floating points have anything to do when it come to comparing different structure,the xbox in the beginning was a 600mhz CPU and a 300mhz GPU,in the final product the GPU was slash 50Mhz and the CPU risen to 733mhz that was because the Pentium 3 which is a general purpose CPU at 600mhz was to slow to feed the NV25 at 300mhz.

Yet the EE was enough at 300mhz to feed the 150mhz GPU,that was because the CPU wasn't general purpose it was specially made for 3D games,it was its main use,it was more specialize and on that regard it smoked the Pentiun 3 inside the xbox even that the xbox CPU more than double it in speed,because it had extra hardware like DSP on it it was just better for 3D than the Pentium 3 was,if you wanted to run an os or browser yeah i am sure the pentium 3 would have smoke it,but since that wasn't the main feature it was made for it was 3d on those regards is beat that pentium 3 even with all its speeds the EE was better feeding the GS than the Pentium 7 was feeding the Nv25.

RSX.

• Floating Point Operations: 400.4 Gigaflops ((24 * 27 Flops + 8 * 10 Flops) * 550)

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps3/RSX

Xenos.

240 GFLOPS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip)

Floating point mean shit they can be artificially inflated to show irrelevant numbers the Xenos wipe the floor with the RSX yet the RSX was say to have more flops,hell the xbox 360 was first introduce as a 1TF machine by using inflated useless numbers,the PS3 as 2TF even more bullshit flops mean shit unless you are comparing the same architecture under the same conditions.

Example 1.84 vs 1.31 because those GPU are from the same family and under the same condition we know the one with higher flops will win.

Bullshit a car with less horse power can fu**ing beat one with more,when it comes to cars torque,grip,weight and aerodynamics count to what the fu** man you really know shit about cars and PC..lol

By your logic a 500 horse power Mack truck should destroy a 120 horse power Hyundai accent on a quarter mile race because well horse power is horse power.

graphics was better on PS1

Read up pal, I've wasted just about enough time on your drivel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS

@The_Last_Ride:

Absolutely not. The best visuals on n64 are far better than anything on psx.

Catridges had less information than CD's dude

1. Xbox 360>PS3>Wii

2. Colcovision>Intellivision>2600

3. Neo-Geo>SNES>Genesis>CD-I>TG16

4.. Xbox>GC>PS2

5. SMS>Xegs>7800>Nes>Sg-1000

6.. N64>PS1>3DO=Saturn>Jaguar>PC-fx

No Dreamcast?

You do realize that the Saturn was more powerful than the PlayStation correct, it was just simply more difficult to code for...

Why did you bold number 6 for Dreamcast?

Cocaine is a hell of a drug man

CD's had 2 main benefits back then as far as development goes. A. higher quality audio and B. being able to have cgi cutscenes. The only genre the N64 was lacking in was RPG's as a result of that. And as far as the cg goes that was no big loss since it's all aged poorly anyway. Not having CD's really hurt the N64 in terms of support, not so much capability.

CD's didn't benefit the Ps1 in the graphics department whatsoever, and the N64 was much, much stronger than the Ps1. On a basic level the Ps1 couldn't do texture filtering, z-buffering (which is why Ps1 polygons warp and shake) anti aliasing, and the N64 had 3x the clockspeed, twice the memory (4x with the expansion pak) and the instant loading of cartridges was highly beneficial from a development standpoint.

Does it not count in the N64/PS1 gen?

No.

Yeah maybe you should stop taking it...

So in number 4?

4.. Xbox>GC>PS2

Might wanna read my edit, you might learn something.

Storage media has nothing to do with graphical capability.

Which game looks WAY better than anything on PS1?

Yes it is bigger unless you have links proving the xbox 360 double the PS3 frame wise and resolution wise,like it is the case with the PS4 and xbox.

And few sites review games based on performance mostly polygon and crappy site like those will do that shit and they have been prove to be hypocrite scores because when the same happen to the xbox now this gen they refuse to lower its score based on the same parameters.

Link me to the xbox 360 games doubling the PS3 performance wise,in fact the PS3 is a more powerful console.

What is there to read in what part it say flop from 1 architecture = flops from another different one.?

I already proved my point the Xenos smokes the RSX yet the RSX has more flops,any one with basic knowledge about GPU knows Flops mean shit when it comes to comparing Nvidia vs AMD GPU.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1130?vs=1035

7790 vs 750 TI

7790 = 1.79 TF

750 TI = 1.72 TF

On that test the 7790 win on 1 game the rest loss them all, how can that be if flops are flops and the 750 TI has less..

Yeah comparing flops in different architectures is bullshit.

I guess the most impressive one's to me would be - Banjo Tooie, Kazooie, Dk64, Conker, Majora's Mask, Paper Mario..

I mean, it wasn't an instant win with N64 hardware, it takes skill to get the most out of anything. Crash team racing looks a hell of a lot better than MK64.

Sorry for being a dick btw.

ps3 was more powerful than 360 but 360 was easier to develop.Now ps4 is more powerful and easier to develop than xbox one.

Earth to tormentos, HELLO, IS ANYONE THERE?

How many times do I have to explain to you that technical hardware capability has nothing to do with the software, you're talking performance output in games given software coding, they're not the same thing... More FLOPS = more powerful, that's not up for discussion, a FLOP is a unit of measurement for the raw capability of a piece of hardware and what it can calculate and how fast, how that hardware is used via software and what is outputted performance wise is a completely different story...

You could have a 5 Teraflop graphics card with horrible drivers and it could be dwarfed by a 2 Teraflop card with excellent driver coding in a performance output capacity, however the 5 Teraflop card is still more poweful... That's the point, the performance output is irrelevant to the capability of the hardware itself...

Why do you not understand that, it's simple, do I need to draw you a diagram....

1996 1997

Mario 64 looks better than FF7, and its a year older than it.

What about games like Resident Evil, Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy VII - IX, etc. Those all looked better imho. I even had a N64 and it didn't look as good as PS1, doesn't mean the games are bad.

A slight update of my previous list:

1. Gen 4: 32X > Neo Geo >>> SCD > SNES = SMD = SuperGrafx = PCE Arcade > PCE
2. Gen 5: N64 > Saturn > PS1 >>> 3DO > Jaguar > CPS Changer > PC-FX > FMT Marty
3. Gen 7: PS3 > X360 >>> Wii
4. Gen 3: SMS >>> NES > 7800 > XEGS
5. Gen 8: PS4 > X1 >>> Wii U
6. Gen 6: Xbox = GCN > PS2 = Dreamcast

@tormentos: Bayonetta on the ps3

I guess you are talking about the one game on the ps4 with double the fps

Tomb raider?

I think that is an example of not enough tine with the hardware and difficult api more than any thing

Yes, earlier multiplats designed for the DC first looked better (like Grandia, RE: CV, and DOA2), for sure, as developers struggled with the alien Emotion Engine, but later on it was a done deal with titles like GTA3, MGS2, FFX, DMC, and even Sega's own NFL 2K series looking much grander in scope. That's not to say the DC didn't have advantages, but those advantages shrank as the PS2 developers came to grip with the PS2 architecture. I would argue the older 1998 released DC had a better showcase during the 2000 PS2 launch year and even a bit beyond, but by the end of 2001, things were looking sour for the DC in comparison.

For example, the PS1 could do things the N64 couldn't do, but that doesn't mean the PS1 = N64. The N64 gets the win. There are differences and subtle advantages to be found on competing console hardware, even when talking SNES vs. Genesis, but ultimately, one console is victorious. The Sega Genesis could do things the SNES couldn't do, but the SNES > Genesis.

I love my DC, but it doesn't have anything that can stand up to NFL 2K, Sega's own football game on both machines, nor Madden 2001+, nor even God of War, Final Fantasy XII, Odin Sphere, Ghost Hunter, Primal, ICO, Onimusha 3, Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal, Shadow of the Colossus, Zone of the Enders 2nd Runner, Metal Gear Solid 2/3, Final Fantasy X, Grand Theft Auto 3, Vice City, San Andreas, Gran Turismo 4, Jak 3, God of War 2, etc. The Dreamcast launched first and was able to showcase 2nd generation software and amazing 1st generation software compared to lousy PS2 launch ports. The DC looked great in those early years, no doubt that 2 year development window paid off...but PS2 got a few years like the DC and things changed.

I chose early PS2 titles originally (like ZOE1, FFX, Gran Turismo 3, GTA3, MGS2, DMC, Onimusha, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, etc) as the DC released in 1998 and the PS2 in 2000, and I wanted to illustrate the DC devs had time to exploit the hardware and when PS2 devs had a simliar amount of time, things turned around for the PS2...and they did.

The DC was architecture was developer friendly and the PS2 was not, that was another hurdle when talking about the hardware. The machines launched a year and half apart which is huge amount of time in console years, giving the DC a major advantage there. If we go beyond the first couple of years, the PS2 outclassed the DC. They weren't equal. Even Sega showed as much with their own development efforts with multiplats on DC and on the PS2 after the DC was discontinued.

PS2 > DC.

Now the genesis is on par with the snes? Blast processing lol

Btw you're mistaken about the Ps2's VRAM. It had 4 mb's of eDRAM, not VRAM. the 32mb's of memory was used for graphics as well.

I mean just think about it for a sec, the gamecube had 3mb's of eDRAM, less than PS2 (but far better than PS2's). By your logic, this would mean the Ps2 has more video memory than the gamecube.

And the 360 is still the better machine than Ps3. I'm actually with you on the dreamcast, it's the better machine overall but the Ps2 was still more powerful. Would've liked to see how far the Dreamcast could've been pushed.

EDIT: on second thought i'm not sure, you may be right about the VRAM thing. I can't seem to find what resolution many Ps2 games run at natively, and there were a lot of jaggies on Ps2 games so the resolution may have rarely been actual 640x480. Ico runs at a terrible 512x224 for example. But I know the gamecube can use all of its main memory for graphics.

Xegs is stronger than both NES and 7800 natively, 7800 is stronger than Famicom natively.

If we are tlaking with all upgraded ahead at the end of allt heir lives including upgrades then it would be XEGS>SMS>NES>7800 and Xegs can be upgraded.

Saturn is not stronger than the PS1.

Xbox >> GC >>>> PS2.

The Xbox had more RAM and a better GPU. It wasn't just 'better textures and less jaggies', that's more this gen. It had better effects and a higher polygon count back when that actually mattered.

And the GC wasn't close either, that's nonsense. I'd like to say it was hindered by having less RAM and a smaller storage, but even the Wii doesn't perform as well.

And here's the thing, I still play Xbox and GC games today, it's so easy to tell. PS2 constantly had performance issues keeping up. If MGS2 was built for the ground up on the Xbox, it would have looked much better. I remember getting the Xbox port and it looked underwhelming.

Tekken 5 was a jag fest. And it really wasn't impressive when you consider it was a 1 on 1 fighter. That means it had a lot of resources at it's disposal. Ninja Gaiden Black looks better with more characters on screen. Dead or Alive 3 was a launch game and it looked arguably better. Then later on DoA Ultimate. Then there's Conker Live and Reloaded.

And outside of poor ports and FMV, the N64 was much more powerful than the PS1.

@HalcyonScarlet:

Starfox and Conker

Guess which one was 60fps? Starfox, and it's from 2002 vs. 2005 for Conker.

Xbox had the numbers but the gamecube was the far more efficient machine. Xbox needed a lot more memory to do the same things as gamecube and clock for clock the gamecube's chipset was superior. The consoles were pretty much even I think, gamecube games were actually more impressive but the Xbox wasn't pushed as much as the cube. RE4 was the best realisic looking game that generation, no game had better looking water than mario sunshine (It had impressive draw distance as well), RS2 and 3 had every advanced effect of that generation (at 60fps), Metroid prime (60fps) etc. etc. Xbox had very advanced games as well but I wanted to focus on the cube there.

Gamecube vs. Xbox

Awesome machines.....

Thank god some one pointed this out in this thread!!

SNES vs. Sega Mega Drive:

The SNES could display more colours, more sprites, and handle background tilemap scaling & rotation, but it was weaker than the SMD in other areas. When it came to scrolling, the SMD was superior. The SMD supported row-scrolling, which means that individual rows of tiles could be scrolled individually, something the SNES lacked. When it came to raw performance, the SMD was also superior, having faster CPU speed and, more importantly, a GPU with faster DMA transfer speeds.... this is what was meant by "Blast Processing" (which was an actual real thing, despite what revisionist Nintendo fans might claim). Not only did this allow faster scrolling, but this even allowed the SMD to handle 3D polygon graphics without any need for special enhancement chips. 3D SMD games like Star Cruiser and Hard Drivin' would be almost impossible on the SNES without enhancement chips. And when the SMD finally got its own enhancement chip, the SVP, it was much more powerful than Nintendo's SuperFX chip.

Conclusion: SNES = SMD

Dreamcast vs. PS2:

The PS2 has poor anti-aliasing and poor texture quality, well below the DC's standards. Even the N64 had better anti-aliasing than the PS2. The PS2's best-looking games still had jaggies and were never able to match the DC's texture quality, despite being around for much longer. The PS2 can push more polygons, but even that was exaggerated. In reality, the PS2 only pushed around 3-6 million polygons per second in-game, barely more than what the Dreamcast could do (which also did around 3-6 million in-game). The biggest advantages the PS2 had was better lighting and physics (the PS2's physics were arguably better than even the Xbox & GC). But on the other hand, the DC has much better texture quality and higher image quality. Overall, both are pretty even.

Conclusion: DC = PS2

Xbox vs. GameCube:

Like with the PS2, the Xbox's specs were heavily over-exaggerated. It couldn't push anywhere near as many polygons as claimed, but at most, pushed 10 million polygons per second in game. On the other hand, the GC pushed far more polygons than its own specs stated, with the launch title Rogue Leader pushing 15 million and its sequel Rebel Strike pushing 20 million, much more than what any Xbox games did. The GC had more raw power. Its PowerPC CPU may have been clocked lower, but it could could push more MIPS than the Xbox's Pentium III (the Xbox 360 later switched over to a similar PowerPC architecture). And while the GC had less RAM, its 1T-SRAM was faster than the Xbox's DDR RAM. The GC's ArtX GPU was also the basis for the ATI Radeon 9700, which revolutionized PC GPUs in 2002. But the Xbox had its own major advantages, with more overall RAM and, more importantly, support for programmable DirectX pixel shaders, which allowed it to pull off more advanced shading effects than what the GC could do with its fixed-pipeline shaders. Overall, both are pretty even.

Conclusion: Xbox = GC

No you MORON more flops doesn't equal more power and i already prove that you can claim your GPU is 100TF is it perform lower than a 1TF GPU what the fu** is the point software is what determine what perform better so you can hold tied to flops = flops fact is it doesn't it mean total crap when it comes to different architectures.

Drivers have fu** to do with it,flops between different architectures mean nothing.

There is no a driver on this planet that would make the xbox one perform better than what it is period.

Really so Sniper Elite 3 doesn't exist.? How about Project Cars.? Up to 13 or 14 FPS faster while also been 1080p vs 900p,BF4 900p 10 FPS faster on PS4 vs 720p xbox one.? MGS5 1080p + Dynamic sky vs 720p dead sky,Pes 1080p vs 720p xbox one,Shadow of Mordor 1080p vs 900p extra foliage,COD Ghots 720p vs 1080p,COD AW 1360x1080p vs 1920x1080 on PS4..

Is not 1 game the great majority of games work better and Bayoneta was a screw up games,those games on xbox one aren't screw up the xbox one has a GPU deficiency and doesn't have a CPU like Cell to make for it,in fact Project Cars uses the xbox one 7th core on its CPU on PS4 it uses 6 and still is faster on PS4.

So aside from a mediocre job in bayonetta is not even comparable,to the cheer deficiency on xbox one,oh and the PS3 was a nightmare it is in fact one of the most difficult consoles to work with unlike the xbox one.

In the end it came down to better textures and less jaggies,considering the PS2 was release before the xbox was even known to exist says it all.

Sony always worked with less Ram and like the xbox 360 and xbox one the PS2 had embedded ram while not the same as full memory it did have 4MB of fast ram on a 2560 bit bus,that is why MGS2 choke on certain scenes because Konami build the game for PS2,the PS2 had faster fillrate and more pipelines than the xbox so certain effects benefit from it,in fact in an interview Kazunori Yamauchi admit that the PS3 could not even replicate some effects of the PS2 because of its slow fillrate.

I dont know if anybody remembers, but when the PS2 first came out, the first thing I did on that was a demo for the announcement. I showed a demo of GT3 that showed the Seattle course at sunset with the heat rising off the ground and shimmering. You cant re-create that heat haze effect on the PS3 because the read-modify-write just isnt as fast as when we were using the PS2.

And the RSX is a more advance GPU than the NV25 inside the xbox,like i already quoted from this site games like Tekken looked outstanding toe to toe with the best the xbox had to offer.

Bullshit even more resources had Dead of alive and didn't look better than anything on xbox,so stop your excuses there were fighting games on xbox to and exclusives to.

Tekken 5 wasn't a jaggies fest and many xbox games suffer from jaggies,in fact GTA3 had more jaggies on xbox than on PS2 i know i owned both.

Yeah now the excuse is poor port it wasn't that the N64 had some horrible bottleneck right.?

@Chozofication said:

@HalcyonScarlet:

Gamecube vs. Xbox

I don't know why they try to pretend the xbox was way more powerful than the Gamecube..

says the construction worker...

xbox and ps2 was biggest difference. Even fifa showed big differences.

They are right, the PS1 may have had a better storage medium, but the N64 was legions more powerful than the PS1 ever was.

"The N64 boasted a 93.7 Mhz 64-bit CPU chip with a 62.5 Mhz RCP and 4MB of RDRAM on board at launch, making it the most powerful console of its generation, on paper at least."

"Sony's 32-bit system paled by comparison, with its 33.8 Mhz 32-bit CPU, nameless graphics chip and 2MB of main RAM, but specs alone fail to tell the whole story. "

Link

The PS1's CD-ROM had much more storage capacity, but at the same time, it was also much slower than the N64's cartridges.

So... you are proving my point?

The N64 was a more powerful machine. The PS1 had the advantage of the storage medium, but the N64 was a more powerful machine. Nothing changes that. What you are saying is like saying a Pentium III is more powerful than an i5, simply because the Pentium III comes equipped with a Blu Ray Drive. It's nonsensical.

Great post but I think you underestimate the Xbox gpu somewhat. For it's time, the Xbox had a pretty tasty graphics chip, the nv2a, which is about on par with the geforce 4 4200ti. Compared to the gamecube gpu, the nv2a is made with a smaller process size, has a higher transistor count, higher core frequency, has more gflops and better pixel and texture rates. Not saying that the GCN doesn't have any cpu advantage over the modified pentium 3 in xbox though.

I also think the ps2 overcame it's aliasing problems to a great extent after a couple of years. It was hard to code for if I'm not mistaken. Ratchet and Clank 2 and Grand Turismo 4 come to mind, both looked great at the time and ran at 60 fps.

I am pretty sure Doom 3 pushed the Xbox to it's limits.

Why else did they have to scale the game so far back that it's settings were below the lowest PC settings and the levels were cut up to smaller pieces.

1. PS3 ~= X360 >>>> Wii

6. Xbox > Game Cube > PS2.

Game Cube includes a GPU with 8 programmable SIMD integer units + MIPS based command processor + 3D raster hardware.

PS2's graphic processor solution is not even a proper GPU i.e. it's similar to CELL with similar DSP garbage. No sane PC GPU vendor designs their GPUs like PS3's CELL nor PS2's EE.

The original XBox has the Crytek's original FarCry1 which is a precursor PC's Crysis.

@Jag85:

NVIDIA GeForce NV2A in the original Xbox is superior to GC's GPU. GeForce FX has NVIDIA's VLIW moment and they switched back to SIMD based GeForce 6 which is superior to Radeon 9700.

Radeon HD 2900-to-5000 series was ATI's VLIW moment and switched back to SIMD based AMD GCN(Graphics Core Next). Xbox 360 has SIMD based GPU i.e. 1 scalar + SIMD 4 format instead of pre-GCN Radeon HD's VLIW5 or VLIW4.

Intel Pentium III pushes more effective MIPS when compared to PowerPC i.e. X86 instruction set gets decoded into one-or-many RISC operations i.e. X86's instruction compression advantage.

PowerPC 7x0/G3 wastes it's 3 instruction issue slots with simple instructions, while Pentium III's 3 X86 instruction issue slots yields more than 4 to 5 RISC operations. The problem with Pentium III is it's X87 FPU since it's not fully pipelined which is not a problem for AMD K7 Athlon. Pentium III has to rely on Intel SSE for it's FPU operations. By the time of AMD64 aka X86-64, SSE2 has replaced X87 FPU ISA.

The PowerPC adventure is dead.

Uhhh, FLOPS is most definitely a measure of the performance of hardware, only 1 though.

You could say that hardware between different architecture works differently, which is totally true. But to get a measure of how each GPU would work in both architecture's you would probably start by comparing the FLOPS of each.

Good example is the one you used earlier, Xenos chip vs the RSX. The RSX had more FLOP than the Xenos but the system(Important part there) worked better with the Xenos.

If you could swap the two chips between the two systems without any issues, then the Xenos would perform likely worse in the PS3 and the RSX would perform better in the Xbox.

Number 6 is wrong, hardware wise the Gamecube was more powerful than the Ps2, it was about halfway between the PS2 and the xbox but you forgot to list the dreamcast as well.

@tormentos: All those games were screw ups on the xbox one just like bayonetta was on the ps3

I'm using your own reasoning

Also shadow of mordoor was patched to be 1080p on the xbox

I can also list games that run better on the xbox one

How do you explain that?

@tormentos said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

Xbox >> GC >>>> PS2.

The Xbox had more RAM and a better GPU. It wasn't just 'better textures and less jaggies', that's more this gen. It had better effects and a higher polygon count back when that actually mattered.

And the GC wasn't close either, that's nonsense. I'd like to say it was hindered by having less RAM and a smaller storage, but even the Wii doesn't perform as well.

And here's the thing, I still play Xbox and GC games today, it's so easy to tell. PS2 constantly had performance issues keeping up. If MGS2 was built for the ground up on the Xbox, it would have looked much better. I remember getting the Xbox port and it looked underwhelming.

Tekken 5 was a jag fest. And it really wasn't impressive when you consider it was a 1 on 1 fighter. That means it had a lot of resources at it's disposal. Ninja Gaiden Black looks better with more characters on screen. Dead or Alive 3 was a launch game and it looked arguably better. Then later on DoA Ultimate. Then there's Conker Live and Reloaded.

And outside of poor ports and FMV, the N64 was much more powerful than the PS1.

In the end it came down to better textures and less jaggies,considering the PS2 was release before the xbox was even known to exist says it all.

Sony always worked with less Ram and like the xbox 360 and xbox one the PS2 had embedded ram while not the same as full memory it did have 4MB of fast ram on a 2560 bit bus,that is why MGS2 choke on certain scenes because Konami build the game for PS2,the PS2 had faster fillrate and more pipelines than the xbox so certain effects benefit from it,in fact in an interview Kazunori Yamauchi admit that the PS3 could not even replicate some effects of the PS2 because of its slow fillrate.

I dont know if anybody remembers, but when the PS2 first came out, the first thing I did on that was a demo for the announcement. I showed a demo of GT3 that showed the Seattle course at sunset with the heat rising off the ground and shimmering. You cant re-create that heat haze effect on the PS3 because the read-modify-write just isnt as fast as when we were using the PS2.

And the RSX is a more advance GPU than the NV25 inside the xbox,like i already quoted from this site games like Tekken looked outstanding toe to toe with the best the xbox had to offer.

Bullshit even more resources had Dead of alive and didn't look better than anything on xbox,so stop your excuses there were fighting games on xbox to and exclusives to.

Tekken 5 wasn't a jaggies fest and many xbox games suffer from jaggies,in fact GTA3 had more jaggies on xbox than on PS2 i know i owned both.

Yeah now the excuse is poor port it wasn't that the N64 had some horrible bottleneck right.?

@Chozofication said:

@HalcyonScarlet:

Gamecube vs. Xbox

I don't know why they try to pretend the xbox was way more powerful than the Gamecube..

Yes, I fully imagine PS3's RSX is better than the NV25. Don't know if you meant the Xboxs NV2A. Especially given that the RSX came out 5 years later.

The Xbox performed to a better standard more consistently. It probably wasn't just down to the GPU. It had more RAM, bigger storage and the benefits of a HDD over the GC. And I fully acknowledge that the Xbox probably had the worst CPU out of the three.

In my experience games just looked better on the Xbox. Also, the GC and Wii GPU seems incapable of performing any AA ability.

Even if the Xbox wasn't vastly more powerful, it showed better performance in more games.

But as for the PS2, no, it was well known for being significantly weaker than the other two.