how much powerful is the ps2 compare to the dreamcast??

I always been curious about this, do you think the dc can do a ps2/gc/xbox game? sufle

No way.

The DC was tapped out by the first wave of games, and TEAM NAMCO even said it when SC released.

You see, the DC was really two 64bit chips running together. It could only render about 3 million polygons per second (Real World) vs. the PS2 (25 million) etc.

Suer, Sony said they could render 75 million, but real world drops them down, just like the DC's 9 mill. Either way, it ran Modifed CD's!

It did do AA well, but really it was an enhanced N64.

THe PS2 is made fun of here, but really it came out a full year before Xbox and GC and it managed to stay in the game, and that says alot about them.

I waited for the Xbox myself because it had the textures, polys last gen.

[QUOTE="sufle"]I always been curious about this, do you think the dc can do a ps2/gc/xbox game? XTy

No way.

The DC was tapped out by the first wave of games, and TEAM NAMCO even said it when SC released.

You see, the DC was really two 64bit chips running together. It could only render about 3 million polygons per second (Real World) vs. the PS2 (25 million) etc.

Suer, Sony said they could render 75 million, but real world drops them down, just like the DC's 9 mill. Either way, it ran Modifed CD's!

It did do AA well, but really it was an enhanced N64.

THe PS2 is made fun of here, but really it came out a full year before Xbox and GC and it managed to stay in the game, and that says alot about them.

I waited for the Xbox myself because it had the textures, polys last gen.

The GC can only do 12 million with textures and lighting so I doubt the PS2 is even near that 25 Million.

[QUOTE="XTy"]

[QUOTE="sufle"]I always been curious about this, do you think the dc can do a ps2/gc/xbox game? com2006

No way.

The DC was tapped out by the first wave of games, and TEAM NAMCO even said it when SC released.

You see, the DC was really two 64bit chips running together. It could only render about 3 million polygons per second (Real World) vs. the PS2 (25 million) etc.

Suer, Sony said they could render 75 million, but real world drops them down, just like the DC's 9 mill. Either way, it ran Modifed CD's!

It did do AA well, but really it was an enhanced N64.

THe PS2 is made fun of here, but really it came out a full year before Xbox and GC and it managed to stay in the game, and that says alot about them.

I waited for the Xbox myself because it had the textures, polys last gen.

The GC can only do 12 million with textures and lighting so I doubt the PS2 is even near that 25 Million.

[QUOTE="sufle"]I always been curious about this, do you think the dc can do a ps2/gc/xbox game? XTy

No way.

The DC was tapped out by the first wave of games, and TEAM NAMCO even said it when SC released.

You see, the DC was really two 64bit chips running together. It could only render about 3 million polygons per second (Real World) vs. the PS2 (25 million) etc.

Suer, Sony said they could render 75 million, but real world drops them down, just like the DC's 9 mill. Either way, it ran Modifed CD's!

It did do AA well, but really it was an enhanced N64.

THe PS2 is made fun of here, but really it came out a full year before Xbox and GC and it managed to stay in the game, and that says alot about them.

I waited for the Xbox myself because it had the textures, polys last gen.

[QUOTE="sufle"]I always been curious about this, do you think the dc can do a ps2/gc/xbox game? XTy

No way.

The DC was tapped out by the first wave of games, and TEAM NAMCO even said it when SC released.

You see, the DC was really two 64bit chips running together. It could only render about 3 million polygons per second (Real World) vs. the PS2 (25 million) etc.

Suer, Sony said they could render 75 million, but real world drops them down, just like the DC's 9 mill. Either way, it ran Modifed CD's!

It did do AA well, but really it was an enhanced N64.

THe PS2 is made fun of here, but really it came out a full year before Xbox and GC and it managed to stay in the game, and that says alot about them.

I waited for the Xbox myself because it had the textures, polys last gen.

Saying the DC was a enhanced N64 is one of the most idotic statements I've ever heard. How could you even say such things? In most cases N64 couldn't pump out better visuals than the PSX.

i still wonder why the dreamcast failed

it had the graphic almost as good as PS2

it was the first system to feature online gaming

it just didnt have that good games i guess

i still wonder why the dreamcast failed

it had the graphic almost as good as PS2

it was the first system to feature online gaming

it just didnt have that good games i guess

johnnyblazed88

Unfortunately, for the masses being good alone doesn't cut it, it has to be believed that it's good before they accept it.

The Dreamcast felt flat on it's back on it's lifetime. The 10 million or so everybody is always claiming it sold are very misleading. Why? because most of those units were sold at mass clearance sales, most of the times for less than half it's original retail price. Making the Dreamcast a worst failure than the Mega-CD.

From what I've noticed. It is until IGN and the other media started with their Dreamcast revival campaigns that the general public started to notice the system, and lo and behold, all of a sudden the Dreamcast became like the best console there ever existed for most of these people. Simply because it became rather popular to think that way.

i think the dreamcast was stronger than the ps2.

*lulz typo

well i saw socom 3 and i was like LMFAO @ N64 graphics. then i played soul calibur and virtua fighter 3 andf i was like omg that's so darn smooth. all this was in this gan about a year ago i'd like tp remind.crunchUK

SOCOM 3 was from 2005, not 2007.

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]well i saw socom 3 and i was like LMFAO @ N64 graphics. then i played soul calibur and virtua fighter 3 andf i was like omg that's so darn smooth. all this was in this gan about a year ago i'd like tp remind.RotaryRX7

SOCOM 3 was from 2005, not 2007.

i see... so games get magically erased from humanity after a year?

[QUOTE="RotaryRX7"]

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]well i saw socom 3 and i was like LMFAO @ N64 graphics. then i played soul calibur and virtua fighter 3 andf i was like omg that's so darn smooth. all this was in this gan about a year ago i'd like tp remind.crunchUK

SOCOM 3 was from 2005, not 2007.

i see... so games get magically erased from humanity after a year?

No, but just because you see them doesn't mean that it's the year they were released. If that worked, I would be looking at Killzone 2 a lot right now, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

Like you said at the end of your comment "this was this gen about a year ago". So I was just informing you that SOCOM 3 was not released during this gen. Not to mention all SOCOM's have never been recognized for graphics lol.

It is until IGN and the other media started with their Dreamcast revival campaigns that the general public started to notice the system, and lo and behold, all of a sudden the Dreamcast became like the best console there ever existed for most of these people. Simply because it became rather popular to think that way.

Panzer_Zwei

that revival movement scked

Dreamcast was definitely less powerful than the PS2; I don't know specs, but i do know towards the end of the Dreamcast some of the games were looking better than some PS2 games

the late ps2 games and gamecube games look alot better than anythıng on dreamcast.

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

It is until IGN and the other media started with their Dreamcast revival campaigns that the general public started to notice the system, and lo and behold, all of a sudden the Dreamcast became like the best console there ever existed for most of these people. Simply because it became rather popular to think that way.

krunkfu2

that revival movement scked

Dreamcast was definitely less powerful than the PS2; I don't know specs, but i do know towards the end of the Dreamcast some of the games were looking better than some PS2 games

People practically were told that the Dreamcast was an amazing system and they shoud go an praise it. And it worked it.

And I don't think any game looked better towards the end of it's lifetime. Not even comparing it with the PS2, but within the own system itself. There was no real gen progression. Like an earlier posted mentioned, it's like the system was already maxed.

i still wonder why the dreamcast failed

it had the graphic almost as good as PS2

it was the first system to feature online gaming

it just didnt have that good games i guess

johnnyblazed88

It had absolutly amazing games. the major issues were ungodly amounts of pirating (it was as easy to pirate DC games as it was PC games from what my friend who pirated games told me) Sony propoganda, the whole 75 million polygons per second and all of that bull ****. and SEGA was having alot of internal problems.

People are complicating things too much.

Just compare Soul Calibur with Tekken Tag.

roughly 1.5 to 2 times as powerful.

dreamcast
cpu - 200 MHz
gpu - 100 MHz
mem - 16MB

ps2
cpu - 300 MHz
gpu - 150 MHz
mem - 32MB

People are complicating things too much.

Just compare Soul Calibur with Tekken Tag.

Panzer_Zwei

vs

roughly 1.5 to 2 times as powerful.

dreamcast
cpu - 200 MHz
gpu - 100 MHz
mem - 16MB

ps2
cpu - 300 MHz
gpu - 150 MHz
mem - 32MB

Yodas_Boy

Its impossible to compare stats number for number, since you are leaving out intricate details such as their TYPES. I.E type of CPU, type and speed of ram, type of GPU etc. Saying it was roughly 1.5-2x more powerful would be accurate if the hardware was identical. But its not.

Dreamcast really failed because there wore no dvd support on it and had bad gameskemar7856

it had like 18 AAA's in it's short life time with a AAAA. how in hell is that bad?!?

Dreamcast specs

PS2 specs

Read signature.romainsimoni

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"]

People are complicating things too much.

Just compare Soul Calibur with Tekken Tag.

laughingman42

*pic*

vs

*pic*

Don't anybody remembers the DC wasn't even able to pull off Model-3 properly? That was one of the SEGA devs main complaints. The DC couldn't even do the old VF3 properly. Bothering to compare it with VF4 would be an excersise in futility.

How about multi-plats made by SEGA themselves? Rez had a lot of frame drops on the DC while it ran at silky 60fps on the PS2. Same with Space Channel Part 2, it was far smoother on the PS2.

The PS2 was about 4-5 times the power of the dreamcast when all is said and done. The dreamcast as mentioned earlier in this topic WAS NOT TWO 64 BIT PROCESSORS, but was 1 128bit risc cpu made by Hitachi which was more powerful than the equivalent speed pc processor at the time. Its GPU was a power vr 2 which could render 9 million polygons per sec basic, but that fell to 3 million with special effects and shading and stuff. It had 8mb video ram and 24 meg of main ram.

The PS2 however had a custom 300 mhz cpu with 2 vector co processors (much like the cell now and its spe's), which greatly increased the power of the cpu when they were all used together. The GPU was custom built by sony and could do 75 million basic polygons per second, which came down to 20-25 million with effects on. YES the gamecube could only do 10 million with effects and this is apparent when looking at metal gear solid on the ps2 vs the twin snakes on the cube. The ps2 version has a much greater polygon count when compared side by side even though it is the older game, and lets not forget Gran turismo, can anybody really see that game being rendered by a gamecube? i rest my case. ( even the wii is bad now and that is supposed to be a gamecube x2.

The other real reason that some of the dreamcast games looked better than most ps2 games, was not because of polygons or raw processing power but because of the resolution of the textures (much higher due to more video ram), plus the fact that the DC could also use texture compression much better than the PS2 could (fit about 30 meg of textures into 8 meg of video memory), mainly due to it being an off the shelf pc video card.

Looking back at soul calibur, arguably one if not the best looking dreamcast game, the polygon count was quite low on the characters and backgrounds, although the resolution of the textures and all of the special effects made the game look awesome when all combined together.

So to sum up, the ps2 was much more powerful than the dreamcast, but because of it's difficult to program hardware and low video memory, it took a great developer to get the most from the system with games such as gran turismo 4 and metal gear solid 3, zone of the enders or moto gp etc etc:)

picslaughingman42

That is Soul Calibur 2...

[QUOTE="crunchUK"][QUOTE="RotaryRX7"]

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]well i saw socom 3 and i was like LMFAO @ N64 graphics. then i played soul calibur and virtua fighter 3 andf i was like omg that's so darn smooth. all this was in this gan about a year ago i'd like tp remind.RotaryRX7

SOCOM 3 was from 2005, not 2007.

i see... so games get magically erased from humanity after a year?

No, but just because you see them doesn't mean that it's the year they were released. If that worked, I would be looking at Killzone 2 a lot right now, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

Like you said at the end of your comment "this was this gen about a year ago". So I was just informing you that SOCOM 3 was not released during this gen. Not to mention all SOCOM's have never been recognized for graphics lol.

yeah but the whole bleeding point is that with CURRENT GEN "standards" of graphics i actually found the dreamcast graphics more tasteful than the ps2 one. YA SEE

[QUOTE="romainsimoni"]Read signature.Panzer_Zwei

Exactly the other way around. It was the perfect example of a console that had to be good and deliver good games for its time to be accepted around the masses. It's still considered a great console by some, not because of hype or blind fanboyism (it didn't have that privilege) but because it had to be genuinely good to be accepted, and it was, by a minority. Today standards are, throwing a piece of hardware/software, creating hype, attracting fanboys and selling no matter how good/bad the initial hardware/software is. Seems pretty easy to me. The Dreamcast didn't have this prerogative to save it.

Thank you and good night.

[QUOTE="Panzer_Zwei"][QUOTE="romainsimoni"]Read signature.romainsimoni

Exactly the other way around. It was the perfect example of a console that had to be good and deliver good games for its time to be accepted around the masses. It's still considered a great console by some, not because of hype or blind fanboyism (it didn't have that privilege) but because it had to be genuinely good to be accepted, and it was, by a minority. Today standards are, throwing a piece of hardware/software, creating hype, attracting fanboys and selling no matter how good/bad the initial hardware/software is. Seems pretty easy to me. The Dreamcast didn't have this prerogative to save it.

Thank you and good night.

Saying that consumers didn't lived up to X product is just plain ridiculous.

regardless of what console was more powerful that didnt change the fact that the DC had some of the most amazing titles Ive ever playedshaggyaz

Meh despite all I could say about this, I have to agree if not only in a point: The Dreamcast did make a very good bang to me in the start of that generation. More so shall I say than any in this one: The supposed greatest console launch in history according to Microsoft.

Well, while CPU and GPU and main memory the PS2 had the advantage. While the dreamcast had more Vram (8Mb versus 4Mb), and also had a modem for net play. Disk capacity was 1.0GB (gigabyte disk) to 4.6GB (DVD5) Price was $199 (dreamcast) and $299 (PS2) at launch.kentaro22

it also had a KB/mouse perpherial. something which current-gen fails at. :D

[QUOTE="kentaro22"]Well, while CPU and GPU and main memory the PS2 had the advantage. While the dreamcast had more Vram (8Mb versus 4Mb), and also had a modem for net play. Disk capacity was 1.0GB (gigabyte disk) to 4.6GB (DVD5) Price was $199 (dreamcast) and $299 (PS2) at launch.crunchUK

it also had a KB/mouse perpherial. something which current-gen fails at. :D