PS2 vs GameCube - power

Which system had better graphics and specs.

I always wondered this considering the GC had such small discs

but seemed to look as good or better.

- This is similar to my other thread so I will remove this if someone is gonna get mad

I just learned a lot from you guys about how the graphics and the processors were I kinda wanted to hear what everyone said for these too

Which system had better graphics and specs.

I always wondered this considering the GC had such small discs

but seemed to look as good or better.

- This is similar to my other thread so I will remove this if someone is gonna get mad

I just learned a lot from you guys about how the graphics and the processors were I kinda wanted to hear what everyone said for these too

killerneub

gamecube had better tech and better looking games.

ps2 294 mhz cpu

gamecube 486 mhz cpu

ps2 147 mhz gpu

gamecube 162 mhz gpu and the gamecube chips were more advanced as well.

ps2 still had some games up there with the cube like shadow of the colosseus, jak 3 and god of war 2(didn't think the ps2 was capable of that lol)

RE 4, Metroid, Legend of Zelda come to mind.

RE 4, Metroid, Legend of Zelda come to mind.

fend_oblivion

to be specific, all the ones that i can think of that look better than ps2 games are - super mario sunshine, wind waker, twilght princess, metroid prime, metroid prime 2, the gamecube version of resident evil 4 looks way better than ps2, paper mario 2, and f zero. really only ps2 that can hold a candle to these is shadow of the colosseus, but it had framerate dips so... cant wait for team ico collection 8)

Dont forget both star wars rogue squadron games, they both look awesome

Dont forget both star wars rogue squadron games, they both look awesome

JuarN18

:x how could i forget those?

Gamecube had better looking games overall but the PS2 had just as good looking games as the Gamecube.

Metal Gear Solid 3 and God Of War II look just as good as Metroid Prime and Resident Evil.

Gamecube had better looking games overall but the PS2 had just as good looking games as the Gamecube.

Metal Gear Solid 3 and God Of War II look just as good as Metroid Prime and Resident Evil.

TheColbert

I don't know about GoW2 (never played it), but MGS3, while a great looking PS2 game, isn't on quite the same level as those GameCube titles.

Which system had better graphics and specs.

I always wondered this considering the GC had such small discs

but seemed to look as good or better.

- This is similar to my other thread so I will remove this if someone is gonna get mad

I just learned a lot from you guys about how the graphics and the processors were I kinda wanted to hear what everyone said for these too

killerneub

Actually disc size doesn't matter as over 90% of a CD or DVD is just useless plastic anyway that's just there for the label. The Gamecube format is proprietary in it's coding but shaves off a lot of that extra waste.

GameCube

better CPU, better GPU, better RAM...

/thread

Actually disc size doesn't matter as over 90% of a CD or DVD is just useless plastic anyway that's just there for the label. The Gamecube format is proprietary in it's coding but shaves off a lot of that extra waste.

Videogamefan123

A single layer DVD can store 4.7GB (a dual layer version stores 8.54GB). A GameCube disc could only store 1.5GB. Size.. in terms of diameter.. definitely matters with an optical disc. And that is why Wii uses regular sized discs.

[QUOTE="killerneub"]

Which system had better graphics and specs.

I always wondered this considering the GC had such small discs

but seemed to look as good or better.

- This is similar to my other thread so I will remove this if someone is gonna get mad

I just learned a lot from you guys about how the graphics and the processors were I kinda wanted to hear what everyone said for these too

theuncharted34

gamecube had better tech and better looking games.

ps2 294 mhz cpu

gamecube 486 mhz cpu

ps2 147 mhz gpu

gamecube 162 mhz gpu and the gamecube chips were more advanced as well.

ps2 still had some games up there with the cube like shadow of the colosseus, jak 3 and god of war 2(didn't think the ps2 was capable of that lol)

Tech wise, GameCube wins easy.

And here is a game that shows the difference nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hLnSGzKc4o

the soul game that beats the gamecube in graphics is GT4 and its lesser known counter part TT. they both do 1080i only on JP and NA versions.

look

the soul game that beats the gamecube in graphics is GT4 and its lesser known counter part TT. they both do 1080i only on JP and NA versions.

look

bigM10231

Rebel Strike says hello:

[QUOTE="bigM10231"]

the soul game that beats the gamecube in graphics is GT4 and its lesser known counter part TT. they both do 1080i only on JP and NA versions.

look

nameless12345

Rebel Strike says hello:

the soul game that beats the gamecube in graphics is GT4 and its lesser known counter part TT. they both do 1080i only on JP and NA versions.

look

bigM10231

That last pic is a cut scene from the game ,, haha and the first one didn't look that great

the fact that you used even one with a cut scene was kinda cheap

Gamecube, they also were more fun, although I never got to own one or play much on one.

Which system had better graphics and specs.

I always wondered this considering the GC had such small discs

but seemed to look as good or better.

- This is similar to my other thread so I will remove this if someone is gonna get mad

I just learned a lot from you guys about how the graphics and the processors were I kinda wanted to hear what everyone said for these too

killerneub

It's a similar scenerio to this gen, in regards to the ps3 and 360.

The gamecube was more powerful and produced better looking games, but often times multiplatform games looked better on the ps2. I remember when I first got the gamecube, which I purchased before a ps2, and wondering why games like Madden looked better on the ps2. Ultimately however, games like WW and RE4 are proof that the GC was more powerful; in the same way the ps3 is more powerful than the 360.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="bigM10231"]

the soul game that beats the gamecube in graphics is GT4 and its lesser known counter part TT. they both do 1080i only on JP and NA versions.

look

bigM10231

Rebel Strike says hello:

1080i is like what, 540p in reality? Since only every other line is displayed in 1080i.

If you want the strongest consoles of that gen, go for Xbox. That ran some games even in 720p.

[QUOTE="bigM10231"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Rebel Strike says hello:

nameless12345

1080i is like what, 540p in reality? Since only every other line is displayed in 1080i.

If you want the strongest consoles of that gen, go for Xbox. That ran some games even in 720p.

the native resolutions for games in the 6th gen was 480 so this point is moot anyway.

I think it's important to note that PS2 didn't even support hardware T&L and that it was thought for a long time that it couldn't even do bump mapping (something even Dreamcast could do). Some skilled devs later found out ways how to do it on the PS2, but the matter of fact is that PS2 was far from otherworldy tech. The GameCube graphics chip had more in common with the Xbox graphics chip than the PS2 one. Like Pixel Shaders for instance (not fully programmable ones, but Pixel Shaders nonetheless). PS2 also had problems with textures and flickering. The only advantage PS2 had was it's raw polygon pushing power, but there is nothing the PS2 could do that the GameCube couldn't.

gamecube was released later so it was a slightly more powerful unit, but it didnt have (much) online, usb storage (like to save photos in GT4 you can use a usb drive). but to me the graphics look nearly identical in games like Soul Calibur2 (one of the few games that i've played on both consoles). Some people are just VERY BIASED towards anything nintendo, so i find it VERY hard to believe the graphics on ANY GC game are THAT much better than a ps2 game. And some claim graphics on the GC are better than the xbox, but they would be incorrect.

I own GT4, have played it in 1080i, and while it looks really good, it is still lacking somewhat. The high resolution is nice, but it doesn't have the depth that a lot of Gamecube games have. Come to think of it, a lot of the best graphics of the gamecube might even rival that of the xbox, imo.

Mario Sunshine is the most underrated game of last gen--graphics and gameplay, imo. Detailed, smooth, and large environments w/a lot of effects that are becoming more prominent this generation.

***Thanks to the poster that reminded me of Rebel Strike. I forgot how good that game looks.

^ GameCube especially excelled at water effects. It's no wonder they built a whole Mario game around it.

gamecube was released later so it was a slightly more powerful unit, but it didnt have (much) online, usb storage (like to save photos in GT4 you can use a usb drive). but to me the graphics look nearly identical in games like Soul Calibur2 (one of the few games that i've played on both consoles). Some people are just VERY BIASED towards anything nintendo, so i find it VERY hard to believe the graphics on ANY GC game are THAT much better than a ps2 game. And some claim graphics on the GC are better than the xbox, but they would be incorrect.

Talldude80

I have spent significant time playing all three consoles. PS2 just does not compare to the GameCube. It has the worst graphics of the three systemsby a large margin. A VERY small handfull of games that push the system to the absolute limit look nearly as good as some GameCube games but still fall short. You can tell a game was programmed on the PS2 and ported to the GameCube theinstant it boots up, the graphics are so far below Cube games. The average Cube game is far superior to the average PS2 game. It's nearly twice as powerful a system you would expect that to be so. As far as gamecube vs xbox graphics, most xbox games look better. Some of the best Cube games look as good as xbox games, but those are the cube titles that really push the system. The cube graphics chip set can do thing that the xbox or PS2 can't also. Like the water in Mario Sunshine could only be done on the cube. As far as game library that's another matter, but graphics are no contest.

GC twice as powerful as PS2? LOL no.....

Heres my rundown on the PS2...........

PS2 - Lots of performance (for it's time) in a highly flexible (but limited overall) package. Large eDRAM die made higher resolutions (up to 1080i) a possibility. HUGE raw vertex and pixel fillrate. As far as the CPUs go, the PS2's Emotion Engine main processor was probably as powerful as the Xbox and GC CPUs put together but....much of the EE's capabilities was dedicated to geometry transformations, specifically on it's Vector Unit 1. The PS2 was based on the older model of doing geometry on the CPU/main processor, with pixel fill done on the "GPU". The Graphics Synthesizer's real limit was lack of multi-texturing, so each texture had to be layered on individually, basically cutting the effective pixel fillrate in half with each layer, which in my eyes was the biggest limiting factor for the system vs the competition. With no real hardware texture compression, the 32 MB of main RAM was also a real bane to the system as well. It's to be noted that the PS2, despite it's flaws could do some really impressive things with good programmers. Shadows, even self shadows, could be done with relative ease since they were done on the vector units of the EE, as they are comparable to the vertex units in the Xbox's GPU in usage. Being on the main processor, they could do other things as well, like lighting, physics, and my favorite: FFT (I'll explain later). Normal and bumpmapping was a possibility too (due to vertex processor similarity), but I think it was the lack of proper texture compression (effects space) as well as no texture units that kept the effect limited to a very small list of games, though I've noticed quite a few games with reflection mapping done with extremely high quality (which is really just a different effect). The Gran Turismo games on the PS2 come to mind as making effective use of this ability. Despite the flaws, the PS2 was extremely unique because of the EE, allowing supreme flexibility that was unfortunately hampered by other things like the lack of multitexturing and low RAM capacity. One of my favorite examples of something that we never really saw on other systems (AFAIK) was Fast Fourier Transformations. What are they? The best example of them would be water surface wave simulations. Example: Ghosthunter and it's awesome reactive water surface physics. It was a powerhouse of a game as far as showing off what the PS2 could do. As anyone can tell, the PS2 was complicated. In many ways, the PS3 embodies many of the same characteristics, but highly expands on those characteristics to make it more friendly to developers more used to the dedicated CPU + GPU model.

Ghosthunter and it's awesome reactive water surface physics. It was a powerhouse of a game as far as showing off what the PS2 could do.

mouthforbathory

Uh, that water looks no better than Wave Race 64.

[QUOTE="mouthforbathory"]Ghosthunter and it's awesome reactive water surface physics. It was a powerhouse of a game as far as showing off what the PS2 could do.

Heirren

Uh, that water looks no better than Wave Race 64.

. HUGE raw vertex and pixel fillrate. As far as the CPUs go, the PS2's Emotion Engine main processor was probably as powerful as the Xbox and GC CPUs put together mouthforbathory

[QUOTE="mouthforbathory"]. HUGE raw vertex and pixel fillrate. As far as the CPUs go, the PS2's Emotion Engine main processor was probably as powerful as the Xbox and GC CPUs put together bigM10231

see the megahertz myth on wiki sir. In fact the gamecube cpu was the strongest, then the ps2 falling slightly behind then last was the xbox. which was just a pentium 3 cpu @ 733 and was less advanced than the other two.

[QUOTE="bigM10231"]

[QUOTE="mouthforbathory"]. HUGE raw vertex and pixel fillrate. As far as the CPUs go, the PS2's Emotion Engine main processor was probably as powerful as the Xbox and GC CPUs put together theuncharted34

see the megahertz myth on wiki sir. In fact the gamecube cpu was the strongest, then the ps2 falling slightly behind then last was the xbox. which was just a pentium 3 cpu @ 733 and was less advanced than the other two.

What Wiki are you looking at? Some fan-made one? Because the specs already specified are the ones on Wikipedia. XBox is the strongest, followed by Gamecube, followed by PS2, and finally Dreamcast at the bottom of last-gen.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="bigM10231"]the GC and Xbox cpu combined makes 1.19GHz when the ps2 has only 300MHz. the cpu of GC: 465MHz. CPU of xbox 733MHz. the GPU for ps2 is 147MHz VS the GC at 162MHz and Xbox at 233MHz

Emerald_Warrior

see the megahertz myth on wiki sir. In fact the gamecube cpu was the strongest, then the ps2 falling slightly behind then last was the xbox. which was just a pentium 3 cpu @ 733 and was less advanced than the other two.

What Wiki are you looking at? Some fan-made one? Because the specs already specified are the ones on Wikipedia. XBox is the strongest, followed by Gamecube, followed by PS2, and finally Dreamcast at the bottom of last-gen.

for the last time... I was talking about cpu's and I was reffering to the way some people seem to think that the more hz. (300 vs 733) makes one cpu or gpu stronger than the other. cpu wise gc>ps2>xbox. graphics chips on the other hand xbox>gamecube>ps2. I've done my research. Overall gc=xbox>ps2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

there ya go :P

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="mouthforbathory"]Ghosthunter and it's awesome reactive water surface physics. It was a powerhouse of a game as far as showing off what the PS2 could do.

mouthforbathory

Uh, that water looks no better than Wave Race 64.

Yes, the jet skis create wakes, which then in turn can affect the other riders. These riders hitting the wakes, in turn affect these wakes.

Saying that PS2's "Emotion Engine" was superior is laughable. Even if in some aspects it had a "hidden advantage", it was still worse than GameCube's CPU. And the most processing power clearly belonged to the Xbox, which had a Celeron 733. Also the "emotions" on faces were already displayed in Dreamcast games like Shenmue.

And in GPU terms there is no contest for the PS2. PS2's graphics chip doesn't even have a T&L unit and can't even do normal mapping, so it's clearly inferior to the GameCube's GPU and Xbox's GPU.

ahhh game cube those where the days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

there ya go :P

theuncharted34

Okay, but that says nothing about PS2 being first and XBox being last because of it. You pulled that part out of the air. That page is talking about the differences between Macs and Windows-Based PCs.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

there ya go :P

Emerald_Warrior

Okay, but that says nothing about PS2 being first and XBox being last because of it. You pulled that part out of the air. That page is talking about the differences between Macs and Windows-Based PCs.

"gc>ps2>xbox" In terms of the cpu. this is what I said. Not ps2 being first. thw ps2's Emotion engine was using tech from 1999 and the xbox was using the pentium 3 from 1998. The Emotion engine was more sophisticated, and could handle vertex and graphics calculations (like the cell, but on a smaller level) and finally gamecube is the most advanced. Satisfied?

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

there ya go :P

theuncharted34

Okay, but that says nothing about PS2 being first and XBox being last because of it. You pulled that part out of the air. That page is talking about the differences between Macs and Windows-Based PCs.

The Emotion engine was more sophisticated, and could handle vertex and graphics calculations

In the end that ment nothing. gameCube and Xbox could do everything the PS2 did and GameCube's best games looked better while Xbox had games that wouldn't even run on the PS2.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Okay, but that says nothing about PS2 being first and XBox being last because of it. You pulled that part out of the air. That page is talking about the differences between Macs and Windows-Based PCs.

nameless12345

The Emotion engine was more sophisticated, and could handle vertex and graphics calculations

In the end that ment nothing. gameCube and Xbox could do everything the PS2 did and GameCube's best games looked better while Xbox had games that wouldn't even run on the PS2.

I guess everyone reads what they want to read xD / thread.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

The Emotion engine was more sophisticated, and could handle vertex and graphics calculations

theuncharted34

In the end that ment nothing. gameCube and Xbox could do everything the PS2 did and GameCube's best games looked better while Xbox had games that wouldn't even run on the PS2.

I guess everyone reads what they want to read xD / thread.

It's got nothing to do with what people are reading. XBox was the king of power and graphics last generation. It's a fact, not an opinion. That doesn't mean it's the best system because graphics don't mean everything. But it was the most powerful. You've got your facts wrong, period.

GPU

Xbox>GC>>>PS2=DC

CPU

GC>PS2>Xbox>>>DC

Ram

Xbox>>>GC>PS2>DC

Overall

Xbox>GC>>>PS2>DC

Pretty much as simple as that. I might have the CPUs a bit wrong, as I don't completely remember.

&

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

In the end that ment nothing. gameCube and Xbox could do everything the PS2 did and GameCube's best games looked better while Xbox had games that wouldn't even run on the PS2.

Emerald_Warrior

I guess everyone reads what they want to read xD / thread.

It's got nothing to do with what people are reading. XBox was the king of power and graphics last generation. It's a fact, not an opinion. That doesn't mean it's the best system because graphics don't mean everything. But it was the most powerful. You've got your facts wrong, period.lt;/p>

No, he's mostly right about the CPUs. RE4 was supposedly slated for a port to the Xbox, but the system was incapable of it because the game pushed the PS2 and GCs CPUs to their limits. The Xbox ran a 780 mhz pentium celeron, which would be absolutely destroyed by the 480 mhz powerpc that the GC used. Add onto that the Xbox was built very similar to a PC so it didn't exactly use 100% of its power like the PS2 or GC. They were all somewhat close, and the XBox was more powerful overall, but not in the CPU department.

&[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

I guess everyone reads what they want to read xD / thread.

magnax1

It's got nothing to do with what people are reading. XBox was the king of power and graphics last generation. It's a fact, not an opinion. That doesn't mean it's the best system because graphics don't mean everything. But it was the most powerful. You've got your facts wrong, period.lt;/p>

No, he's mostly right about the CPUs. RE4 was supposedly slated for a port to the Xbox, but the system was incapable of it because the game pushed the PS2 and GCs CPUs to their limits. The Xbox ran a 780 mhz pentium celeron, which would be absolutely destroyed by the 480 mhz powerpc that the GC used. Add onto that the Xbox was built very similar to a PC so it didn't exactly use 100% of its power like the PS2 or GC. They were all somewhat close, and the XBox was more powerful overall, but not in the CPU department.

I find it quite hard to believe that XBox couldn't handle Resident Evil 4, but PS2 could. And have you seen FarCry? FarCry puts RE4 to shame in the graphics department.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

&[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

It's got nothing to do with what people are reading. XBox was the king of power and graphics last generation. It's a fact, not an opinion. That doesn't mean it's the best system because graphics don't mean everything. But it was the most powerful. You've got your facts wrong, period.lt;/p>Emerald_Warrior

No, he's mostly right about the CPUs. RE4 was supposedly slated for a port to the Xbox, but the system was incapable of it because the game pushed the PS2 and GCs CPUs to their limits. The Xbox ran a 780 mhz pentium celeron, which would be absolutely destroyed by the 480 mhz powerpc that the GC used. Add onto that the Xbox was built very similar to a PC so it didn't exactly use 100% of its power like the PS2 or GC. They were all somewhat close, and the XBox was more powerful overall, but not in the CPU department.

I find it quite hard to believe that XBox couldn't handle Resident Evil 4, but PS2 could. And have you seen FarCry? FarCry puts RE4 to shame in the graphics department.

The CPU doesn't handle graphics, at least not directly, and Xbox far cry definitely didn't put RE4 to shame, unless you're talking about PS2 RE4.

Just a quick comparison

Far cry

RE4

Yeah... I'd say RE4 looks considerably better.

Of course the Xbox could handle RE4, don't be silly. If they ported it over to the Xbox, it would look the best out of all versions.

And Xbox ran CPU intensive games like Operation Flashpoint: Elite and Half-Life 2. Those wouldn't run on the PS2 with it's fabled "Emotion Engine".

Wow, that pic looks bad. That has to be from a low-end PC version. Here's an XBox shot: