Which console had the most efficient design for its time?

You can pick a console from any generation you want. I'm specifically talking about its overall design, not specifically its performance per watt.

Here is my personal choice for a non slim model of a console.

Smaller than a Famicom, but about as powerful as a Sega Genesis. A true engineering masterpiece.

PS2 Slim

Wii Original

Right out the box? Wii U. It has nice graphics while using next to nothing for power. Not to mention the standby mode uses almost no power and its highly efficient while streaming. I really think that it has the best graphics/power consumption ratio out of all consoles in history. Plus design wise its efficient, compact, sleek and unobtrusive.

Atari 2600. :P

Most impressed I've been with a gaming device was probably Vita.

Anyway, when it comes to consoles. Probably Dreamcast

Gamecube and Wii. Wii U as well except for the disc drive always spinning even when not playing the game.

I just don't see how the PS2 slim even works.

I think Gamecube had the best design. The way they stacked it in 3 layers inside was a marvel. Was an amazing design. I agree with others that Wii, and Wii U have awesome designs also, its hard to pick between the 3.

Gamecube.

It worked all the time. Had some amazing games. And would still work like a champ after being tossed down a flight of stairs, even a few times.

It's aesthetics leave a lot to be desired, but functionality is key in the gaming world. Something console manufacturers these days are forgetting.

That is my biggest gripe about Wii U. I know its pre baking so that it loads faster, but I still don't like it. I'd rather have a longer load time and less wear on the disc drive myself.

Exactly. Hopefully it's something Nintendo fixes eventually.

the gamecube. the gamecube is the best designed console ever and is the pinnacle of what a console should be.

it was easy to develop for (but hard to master). the disc drive was fast enough to keep the rest of the system fed with data (that and it had a 24MB buffer). the choice of hardware was extremely clever. sure there was more powerful tech out there but it also cost a lot more. there was no bloat and it didnt suck down a lot of juice. it was also built like a tank.

it was the best console for just putting the disc in and getting stuck into a game.

the vita is also worth a mention. a very impressive bit of kit. like the gamecube the choice of hardware for the vita is good, it is built like a tank (well the first version is..i havent tried the newer one so i dont know) and there is no fussing with launching games. speed from the memory cards could be better and getting game card in and out is a bit of a pain but overall its one of the best pieces of gaming hardware sony has built, if not the best.

http://www.bitrebels.com/technology/worlds-smallest-playstation-gaming-console-fits-in-your-hand/

Gamecube yes. That would actually be my choice as it was quite a bit more powerful than the PS2, yet was a perfectly engineered little cube with the faster loading mini-DVD drive. It had other issues, but the hardware was brilliant. It wasn't the hardware design's fault it lost the gen (although perhaps the lack of movie playing DVD capability hurt it). The PS2 was less powerful and much noisier disc drive operation. Obviously PS2 dominated in games, but if we are talking strictly hardware design the Gamecube won by a mile.

Wii, no...just...no. Any console can be "efficient" and not generate heat when it's got ancient garbage components inside of it. Same can be said for Wii-U. The PS4 actually was pretty smart design, using efficent tablet CPU and somewhat powerful APU with 8GB RAM. Obviously now it's starting to be a little clunky (in terms of efficiency) compared to some other devices, so it will be interesting to see how much they shrink the design with PS4 slim whenever that happens.

I'm not sure but the PS4 looks like it would definitely fly a bit further than an Xbox One, when thrown from a window.

The guy holding it is actually 27' tall and it's a normal size console ;)

@emgesp:

My thin gaming laptop. PC is part of GS's system wars.

Gamecube, it did have a handle after all and the stacked design made it have a small footprint. After that I'd say the original Wii with BC.

The GameCube. Fourteen years later, and it still stuns me...

Either the PS2 slim or the Gamecube had the best design. The Wii also was pretty efficient for such a small console

The original phat PS3

Dreamcast - This small & affordable console had the power of a super-expensive, bulky, high-end arcade machine, along with a built-in modem.

GameCube - It was smaller & cheaper than the PS2, yet was powerful enough to rival the bulky & expensive Xbox.

I like how it looks. I only had the original chunky and heavy version.

I'd say the GameCube and PS2 Slim.

The Wii U also gets a vote because I think it uses an abnormally low amount of power, like 75% less than a PS3.

Sega Genesis is still my favorite console of all time. Yeah, Super Nintendo was more powerful but it launched 2 years after Genesis. Of course it was going to be technically better. Genesis held up to it amazingly well considering that. As far as what's most efficient ... hell, I don't know.

NEO GEO.

End of discussion.

Kinda big for a 16 bit console, but if you're getting at the fact that is was identical to the Arcade cabinet in terms of tech I can understand your choice.

smartphones

The GameCube is the first console that came to my mind but the ps2 was very thin and small.

The GameCube and the Vita for me

Oh yeah, forgot to add pictures:

@Jag85 said:

@Jag85 said:

Dreamcast - This small & affordable console had the power of a super-expensive, bulky, high-end arcade machine, along with a built-in modem.

GameCube - It was smaller & cheaper than the PS2, yet was powerful enough to rival the bulky & expensive Xbox.

Oh yeah, forgot to add pictures:

Dreamcast was not too big, but wasn't too small, one thing about it though it was heavy though. Gamecube was light. Of course both were lighter than the Xbox, but I think they threw in a lot of stuff inside the Dreamcast which may explain some of it's issues when used over time.

What do you mean?

lol. It is a tank though, you can't destroy it.

I immediately thought of the GameCube as well. Very cool console design.

I was always a fan of how the original fat PS3 looked and also the latest 360 that looks more like the Xbox One with its vents.

I like the Dreamcast design. Very rugged look and feel to it. It was like you could take it off roading.

PS2. PS4. GameCube.

@kingstablewar: Like have you seen the PS2 slim? It's freakin' super small. How Sony was able to do that just blows my freakin' mind.

Well considering the issues it has they kind of did kind of didn't.

Well personally I prefer the Fat PS2, but I know a lot of people that had the Slim and it still blows my mind that little system can play a hefty game like Devil May Cry 3, Kingdom Hearts 2, or God of War 2.

Interesting to see a lot of people picking Gamecube... I thought I'd be the only one suggesting it.

Dreamcast comes to mind

The Dreamcast was smaller and lighter than the PS2 and Xbox. And my Dreamcast never broke down on me the way my PS1, PS2 and Xbox did. Also, the Dreamcast was pretty light when you take into account just how much it packed inside. It was using the same hardware as the Sega Naomi arcade system, which cost thousands and weighed a ton. And the Dreamcast also had a built-in online modem hardware, and a Windows CE operating system. It packed so much in a small box, and Sega took a financial beating by selling it for an affordable price at a loss.

No it did not have the "same" hardware otherwise it would have actually been able to run VF3 from 1996.

The point is though it was heavier than the Gamecube with a lot less power. DC breaking down is an anecdotal thing so I can't really discuss that, myself and many others have had issues with the DC a lot of the time, I'm happy it didn't have any issues befall you, but that doesn't mean what happened to you is the general; user experience.

But again the point was (also why did you mention xbox?) DC wasn't too small, and the GC was more impressive. Also that modem took up nearly have the inside of the DC's internals and WIndows CE isn't really hardware so not sure why you're including it in terms of "so much in the box" as you did.