Greatest disparity in console hardware per gen?

  • 107 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for drekula2
drekula2

3349

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#1 drekula2
Member since 2012 • 3349 Posts
  1. PS3 > X360 >>> Wii
  2. PS4 > X1 >>> Wii U
  3. SNES > Genesis
  4. N64 > PS1
  5. SMS > NES
  6. Xbox > PS2 > GCN

I know 1, 2 and 6 are where they need to be, but not sure on 3 4 and 5.

Avatar image for tushar172787
tushar172787

2561

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By tushar172787
Member since 2015 • 2561 Posts

@drekula2: it's not about their hardware, it's the game's optimization.

Avatar image for Legend002
Legend002

13405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 1

#3 Legend002
Member since 2007 • 13405 Posts

Actually it was Xbox>GC>>PS2

Avatar image for Pikminmaniac
Pikminmaniac

11512

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#4 Pikminmaniac
Member since 2006 • 11512 Posts

@drekula2 said:
  1. PS3 > X360 >>> Wii
  2. PS4 > X1 >>> Wii U
  3. SNES > Genesis
  4. N64 > PS1
  5. SMS > NES
  6. Xbox > PS2 > GCN

I know 1, 2 and 6 are where they need to be, but not sure on 3 4 and 5.

You got #6 wrong. GCN was considerably more powerful than PS2.

Avatar image for Ant_17
Ant_17

13634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#5 Ant_17
Member since 2005 • 13634 Posts

6 is wrong dude. PS2 in last place , please.

Avatar image for primorandomguy
Primorandomguy

3368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#6 Primorandomguy
Member since 2014 • 3368 Posts

The 360 was easier to develop for.

Avatar image for bobrossperm
BobRossPerm

2886

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 BobRossPerm
Member since 2015 • 2886 Posts

PS3/360 and Wii. A generation apart. Also PS4/One and WiiU but the generational jump isn't as dramatic.

Avatar image for GarGx1
GarGx1

10934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#8 GarGx1
Member since 2011 • 10934 Posts

Since when did console gamers care about hardware?

Avatar image for Bruin1986
Bruin1986

1629

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Bruin1986
Member since 2007 • 1629 Posts

From within a single generation, the greatest disparity I think was with Xbox, GameCube and PS2. The GameCube was substantially stronger than the PS2 and the Xbox was substantially stronger than the GameCube. The Xbox was like "half a generation" stronger than the PS2, granted it launched a year before the other two.

Avatar image for Ant_17
Ant_17

13634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Ant_17
Member since 2005 • 13634 Posts

@GarGx1 said:

Since when did console gamers care about hardware?

I think since we can't have a console war without the fat bastard PC.

Avatar image for speedfreak48t5p
speedfreak48t5p

14411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 62

User Lists: 0

#11 speedfreak48t5p
Member since 2009 • 14411 Posts

Pretty sure the gamecube was more powerful than the PS2.

Avatar image for Link3301
Link3301

2001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 103

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By Link3301
Member since 2008 • 2001 Posts

@drekula2 said:
  1. PS3 > X360 >>> Wii
  2. PS4 > X1 >>> Wii U
  3. SNES > Genesis
  4. N64 > PS1
  5. SMS > NES
  6. Xbox > PS2 > GCN

I know 1, 2 and 6 are where they need to be, but not sure on 3 4 and 5.

I'm pretty Gamecube was quite a bit more powerful than ps2.

Avatar image for deactivated-57d8401f17c55
deactivated-57d8401f17c55

7221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#13 deactivated-57d8401f17c55
Member since 2012 • 7221 Posts

360 was the better machine compared to PS3, being far easier to develop for and it has more available memory, and faster loading.

As everyone said, gamecube is far more capable than PS2. In fact, it's at least on Par with the Xbox.

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

17779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 osan0
Member since 2004 • 17779 Posts

as mentioned the GC was more powerful than the PS2.

the difference between the X360, PS3 and wii is also bigger than the difference between the X1, PS4 and wiiu.

Avatar image for Jag85
Jag85

19379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 219

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By Jag85
Member since 2005 • 19379 Posts

  1. Gen 4: 32X > Neo Geo > SCD > SNES = SMD/Gen = SuperGrafx = PCE Arcade > PCE
  2. Gen 5: N64 > Saturn = PS1 >>> 3DO > Jaguar > 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

Avatar image for dynamitecop
dynamitecop

6395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 dynamitecop
Member since 2004 • 6395 Posts

Here is a corrected list in the proper order for systems that were mainstream, also the original Xbox was many, many, many, many times more powerful than the GameCube, it's actually the largest hardware disparity of any console generation ever from a raw technical standpoint. On Microsoft's end it was complete overkill, they didn't ever completely push the system to its limits but it was an unquestionably powerful machine.

  • Xbox >>> GC > PS2 > DC
  • PS3 > 360 >>> Wii
  • PS4 > XBO >>> Wii U
  • N64 > Saturn > PS1
  • SNES > Genesis
  • SMS > NES
Avatar image for the_last_ride
The_Last_Ride

76371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 122

User Lists: 2

#17 The_Last_Ride
Member since 2004 • 76371 Posts

@drekula2 said:
  1. PS3 > X360 >>> Wii
  2. PS4 > X1 >>> Wii U
  3. SNES > Genesis
  4. N64 > PS1
  5. SMS > NES
  6. Xbox > PS2 > GCN

I know 1, 2 and 6 are where they need to be, but not sure on 3 4 and 5.

PS1 was more powerful than N64 because of the CD's could hold more information

Avatar image for deactivated-57d8401f17c55
deactivated-57d8401f17c55

7221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#18  Edited By deactivated-57d8401f17c55
Member since 2012 • 7221 Posts
@Jag85 said:
  1. Gen 4: 32X > Neo Geo > SCD > SNES = SMD/Gen = SuperGrafx = PCE Arcade > PCE
  2. Gen 5: N64 > Saturn = PS1 >>> 3DO > Jaguar > 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

What makes you think Ps3 was more capable than 360? Best case scenario the cell just bridged the gap between the Ps3 and 360's gpu's. Then you have the Ps3 using more memory for the OS, having split memory, 360 having eDRAM, much faster loading from the disc and full game installs.

Also I agree the dreamcast is the better machine compared to Ps2 because of its ease of use and superior video output, but the Ps2 is still a more capable machine having more memory and a much more poweful cpu.

Avatar image for jereb31
Jereb31

2025

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 Jereb31
Member since 2015 • 2025 Posts

@tushar172787 said:

@drekula2: it's not about their hardware, it's the game's optimization.

Optimization comes down largely to the talent of the development team at the time of the making of the game. It does not represent the theoretical maximum of what the hardware and hence the game was/is capable doing on said hardware. Therefore comparing hardware is the most accurate way of determining whether a system is more powerful than another, not comparing the a game which could be coded better one system compared to another.

Avatar image for playharderfool
playharderfool

2085

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By playharderfool
Member since 2009 • 2085 Posts

@GarGx1 said:

Since when did console gamers care about hardware?

long before lemmings started hiding behind PC to damage control for xbox not having superior hardware compared to other consoles.

Avatar image for SolidTy
SolidTy

49991

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#21 SolidTy
Member since 2005 • 49991 Posts

@Jag85 said:
  1. PS2 = Dreamcast

No, c'mon now.

PS2> DC

Sega's own NFL 2K multiplat and VF4 proved that.

However, DC did have an edge with AA, especially during the PS2 weak launch. Then games like GTA3, MGS2, and FFX came along.

Avatar image for deactivated-5d6bb9cb2ee20
deactivated-5d6bb9cb2ee20

82724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 56

User Lists: 0

#22 deactivated-5d6bb9cb2ee20
Member since 2006 • 82724 Posts

The GameCube was far more powerful than PS2

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
jg4xchamp

64037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#23 jg4xchamp
Member since 2006 • 64037 Posts

Hey guys did you know the gamecube was more powerful than the PS2?

Avatar image for clyde46
clyde46

49061

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 clyde46
Member since 2005 • 49061 Posts

@playharderfool said:
@GarGx1 said:

Since when did console gamers care about hardware?

long before lemmings started hiding behind PC to damage control for xbox not having superior hardware compared to other consoles.

Or when Cows were hiding behind the PC last gen... Everyone hides behind the PC.

Avatar image for Ghost120x
Ghost120x

6056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 Ghost120x
Member since 2009 • 6056 Posts

If we want bring handhelds in the mix, psp was on a whole level past DS.

Avatar image for crashnburn281
CrashNBurn281

1574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#27 CrashNBurn281
Member since 2014 • 1574 Posts

Biggest gap was Xbox>>GC>>>PS2

Avatar image for DocSanchez
DocSanchez

5557

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#28 DocSanchez
Member since 2013 • 5557 Posts

@jg4xchamp: I did not know that thanks.

Avatar image for Jag85
Jag85

19379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 219

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By Jag85
Member since 2005 • 19379 Posts

@fuckface32 said:

Here is a corrected list in the proper order for systems that were mainstream, also the original Xbox was many, many, many, many times more powerful than the GameCube, it's actually the largest hardware disparity of any console generation ever from a raw technical standpoint. On Microsoft's end it was complete overkill, they didn't ever completely push the system to its limits but it was an unquestionably powerful machine.

The link is highly inaccurate. No Xbox game ever went beyond 10 million polygons per second in-game, far less than Microsoft's over-exaggerated specs. On the other, GameCube games were able to push 15-20 million polygons in-game (like the Rogue Squadron series), far more than Nintendo's own under-estimated specs. The GameCube had a more efficient PowerPC CPU, faster 1T-SRAM, and more efficient ArtX GPU (which was later the basis for the groundbreaking ATI Radeon 9700 GPU for PC). But on the other hand, the Xbox had more overall RAM and its GPU supported programmable DirectX pixel shaders, allowing it to pull off more advanced effects. Overall, the Xbox and GC were more or less even, with GC having the better performance and Xbox having the more advanced effects.

@SolidTy said:

No, c'mon now.

PS2> DC

Sega's own NFL 2K multiplat and VF4 proved that.

However, DC did have an edge with AA, especially during the PS2 weak launch. Then games like GTA3, MGS2, and FFX came along.

It wasn't just anti-aliasing, but the PS2 also lacked other graphical features that the DC had, like texture compression, hidden surface removal, and DirectX support. The PS2 was able to push more polygons, but it had jagged edges due to the lack of anti-aliasing, and more importantly, inferior texture quality due to the lack of texture compression. And despite having more overall RAM, it had half the VRAM that the DC had. As a result, the PS2 was never able to match the texture quality of the Shenmue series, for example. But on the other hand, the PS2 was capable of pushing more polygons and better physics, so both were more or less even.

Also, a lot of multi-plats looked better on the DC, like DOA2, Grandia II, and RE Code Veronica. And there's no reason to believe the DC wouldn't be able to handle VF4 just as well, since the far superior arcade version was running on similar Naomi 2 arcade hardware (which was like a DC, but a lot more powerful).

Avatar image for drekula2
drekula2

3349

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#30 drekula2
Member since 2012 • 3349 Posts

@fuckface32 said:

Here is a corrected list in the proper order for systems that were mainstream, also the original Xbox was many, many, many, many times more powerful than the GameCube, it's actually the largest hardware disparity of any console generation ever from a raw technical standpoint. On Microsoft's end it was complete overkill, they didn't ever completely push the system to its limits but it was an unquestionably powerful machine.

  • Xbox >>> GC > PS2 > DC
  • PS3 > 360 >>> Wii
  • PS4 > XBO >>> Wii U
  • N64 > Saturn > PS1
  • SNES > Genesis
  • SMS > NES

Thank you!!

Avatar image for Salt_The_Fries
Salt_The_Fries

12480

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31 Salt_The_Fries
Member since 2008 • 12480 Posts

@Jag85: Not even Chronicles of Riddick which ran in actual proper HD? or Doom 3?

Avatar image for Gue1
Gue1

12171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By Gue1
Member since 2004 • 12171 Posts

Number 6 was more like this

Xbox> >GCN >>>PS2

That generation the PS2 was by far the weakest.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33784

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33784 Posts

@drekula2 said:
  1. PS3 > X360 >>> Wii
  2. PS4 > X1 >>> Wii U
  3. SNES > Genesis
  4. N64 > PS1
  5. SMS > NES
  6. Xbox > PS2 > GCN

I know 1, 2 and 6 are where they need to be, but not sure on 3 4 and 5.

2.PS4 >>X1 >>>>Wii U.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
deactivated-57ad0e5285d73

21398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
Member since 2009 • 21398 Posts

Neo Geo over the SNES/Genesis/TG16.

Avatar image for dynamitecop
dynamitecop

6395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By dynamitecop
Member since 2004 • 6395 Posts
@tormentos said:
@drekula2 said:
  1. PS3 > X360 >>> Wii
  2. PS4 > X1 >>> Wii U
  3. SNES > Genesis
  4. N64 > PS1
  5. SMS > NES
  6. Xbox > PS2 > GCN

I know 1, 2 and 6 are where they need to be, but not sure on 3 4 and 5.

2.PS4 >>X1 >>>>Wii U.

Egh I wouldn't go that far, it's only about a 40% GPU discrepancy which only makes the PlayStation 4 1.3X times as powerful when the CPU discrepancies are factored in, it doesn't sound that much more powerful when you change the metric of measurement, percentages have a deceiving quality. We're not talking about performance here, we're talking about raw hardware capability, that of which the differences between the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One are actually quite minute.

They're called the twins for a reason, get off your Xbox One hate bandwagon, I know it ruffles your feathers for whatever reason and you're in love with the PlayStation 4 but your glaringly obvious bias makes you look extremely stupid.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33784

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33784 Posts

@Gue1 said:

Number 6 was more like this

Xbox> >GCN >>>PS2

That generation the PS2 was by far the weakest.

NO.

Xbox> GC > PS2 > Dreamcast

First of all the first console of that gen was the Dreamcast second the PS2 wasn't by far the weakest it was weaker but not by far MS games were never 2 times better looking than PS2 ones,in fact it most cases it was better textures,less jaggies the difference,the top looking games on xbox didn't by far win over God Of war 2 or Tekken 5 which this own site on their review tag as a game that belong more on the xbox than PS2 graphically it was that great looking.

And why do people completely ignore the Dreamcast man history is there the weakest was the Dreamcast and considering it arrive in Holiday 1998 vs the PS2 on spring 2000 it was a give why,just like the xbox and GC which arrived 20 months after the PS2 that is almost 2 years after then PS2 so it was a given that it should be more powerful both.

When the xbox was unveil and first talk on March 10 2000,the PS2 was already out.

@fuckface32 said:

Here is a corrected list in the proper order for systems that were mainstream, also the original Xbox was many, many, many, many times more powerful than the GameCube, it's actually the largest hardware disparity of any console generation ever from a raw technical standpoint. On Microsoft's end it was complete overkill, they didn't ever completely push the system to its limits but it was an unquestionably powerful machine.

  • Xbox >>> GC > PS2 > DC
  • PS3 > 360 >>> Wii
  • PS4 > XBO >>> Wii U
  • N64 > Saturn > PS1
  • SNES > Genesis
  • SMS > NES

The xbox wasn't even 1 time more powerful than the GC let alone many,that is total bullshit the best looking GC games stand toe to toe with the xbox best,and even the PS2 had a few games that challenge the xbox which was even more insult to injury the xbox was over hyped by MS to hell and beyond but it never deliver the 2 times in game performance of the PS2 let alone the Gamecube oh and to think the PS2 and GC had less memory.

When it comes to image quality and character models, you'd be hard pressed to find a better looking PlayStation 2 game than this. Tekken 5 looks simply astounding--way above and beyond what you would think the PlayStation 2 is capable of. The character models are smooth and lifelike, with skin tones and textures that make them look alive, as opposed to the plastic-looking fighters found in some other games. The backgrounds are widely varied, and some of them are even breathtaking. Again, it's the sort of stuff you'd expect from a high-end Xbox title or a great-looking PC game--not something you'd expect from the PlayStation 2 hardware.

This is gamespot review back on the day when Gamespot was Gamespot and a had a huge credibility.

The xbox wasn't over kill it had just more ram and a more powerful GPU which wasn't more powerful than the PS2 in all regards and MGS2 proved,some things were still done better on PS2 thanks to its Memory embedded on the GPU which gave it a few advantages.

And if you consider that it arrived almost 2 years after the PS2 it mean total shit,is not like MS had the xbox on launch day alone side the PS2,they arrived almost 2 years latter 20 months to be exact that is not revolution is evolution the PS4 and xbox one came one alone side the other the same month and the PS4 has been able to pull double frames and more than double the resolution in games,this disparity is an on the SPOT one on 2 consoles that launched the same month the xbox vs ps2 wasn't the same,it was like expecting the dreamcast to be on par with the PS2 it just wasn't possible the PS2 also release more than a year after the DC.

Another comparison is the N64,Saturn PS1,it wasn't in all cases like that,look at Resident evil on N64 vs the PS1.

Avatar image for dynamitecop
dynamitecop

6395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By dynamitecop
Member since 2004 • 6395 Posts

@tormentos said:
@fuckface32 said:

Here is a corrected list in the proper order for systems that were mainstream, also the original Xbox was many, many, many, many times more powerful than the GameCube, it's actually the largest hardware disparity of any console generation ever from a raw technical standpoint. On Microsoft's end it was complete overkill, they didn't ever completely push the system to its limits but it was an unquestionably powerful machine.

  • Xbox >>> GC > PS2 > DC
  • PS3 > 360 >>> Wii
  • PS4 > XBO >>> Wii U
  • N64 > Saturn > PS1
  • SNES > Genesis
  • SMS > NES

The xbox wasn't even 1 time more powerful than the GC let alone many,that is total bullshit the best looking GC games stand toe to toe with the xbox best,and even the PS2 had a few games that challenge the xbox which was even more insult to injury the xbox was over hyped by MS to hell and beyond but it never deliver the 2 times in game performance of the PS2 let alone the Gamecube oh and to think the PS2 and GC had less memory.

Someone doesn't understand the difference between hardware capability and performance figures, they're not intrinsic, the Xbox was multiple times more powerful in a hardware capacity, over ten times, easily the largest hardware discrepancy of any console generation... It's funny seeing you downplay this right now yet the PlayStation 4 versus the Xbox One is magic in your eyes... We're talking hardware here, not how software is handled or taken advantage of on said hardware...

120 Gigaflops of floating point performance vs. 10.5 Gigaflops = 11.42x

1.84 Teraflops of floating point performance vs. 1.31 Teraflops = 1.40x

Quit fooling yourself, you're a joke.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178810

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178810 Posts

The biggest gap was last gen with the Wii trailing far behind the 360 and PS3.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
deactivated-57ad0e5285d73

21398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
Member since 2009 • 21398 Posts

@GarGx1 said:

Since when did console gamers care about hardware?

lol, since it all started. Consoles pushed everything forward, along with the arcade scene. GPUs stemmed from that market, not the pc.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33784

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33784 Posts

@fuckface32 said:

Egh I wouldn't go that far, it's only about a 40% GPU discrepancy which only makes the PlayStation 4 1.3X times as powerful when the CPU discrepancies are factored in, it doesn't sound that much more powerful when you change the metric of measurement, percentages have a deceiving quality. We're not talking about performance here, we're talking about raw hardware capability, that of which the differences between the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One are actually quite minute.

They're called the twins for a reason, get off your Xbox One hate bandwagon, I know it ruffles your feathers for whatever reason and you're in love with the PlayStation 4 but your glaringly obvious bias makes you look extremely stupid.

Yes i do.

You put the PS3 > xbox 360 now the disparity between those 2 was never double resolution or double frames.

The PS4 has commanded than lead and more vs the xbox one so it can't be PS4> xbox one,the PS3 isn't 40% stronger than the xbox 360.

So PS3 > xbox 360.

PS4 >> Xbox one.

CPU mean nothing between the 2 and games like project cars prove that,is a CPU intensive game and runs better on PS4 oh it uses 7 cores on xbox one and 6 cores on PS4 and still is faster by up to 14 FPS while also having a 1080p vs 900p advantage,that advantage amount to more than 50% in fact 1080p vs 900p is 44% higher resolution and 5 FPS more on a game that is running at 35 FPS vs one running at 40FPS is 15% so basically the PS4 disparity was almost 60% and that is using 35 vs 40 in some places the gap grows as high as 13 or 14 FPS which would be like 70% or more.

1080p vs 720p is more than 100% pixel difference and 60 vs 30 is 100% gap.

Get our damn calculator out any game that is 1080p on PS4 and 900p on xbox one already is showing a 44% gap in resolution,if it is combined with frame advantage is even more,or other effects.

No matter what the PS3 and xbox 360 were barely apart the xbox one and PS4 are more than that apart and they both use the same CPU sony one is more efficient to do having a less complex hardware and been more straight forward there is more than speed to it and Project Cars prove that 7 cores on xbox one vs 6 on PS4 and still the PS4 wins.

Avatar image for dynamitecop
dynamitecop

6395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 dynamitecop
Member since 2004 • 6395 Posts

@tormentos said:
@fuckface32 said:

Egh I wouldn't go that far, it's only about a 40% GPU discrepancy which only makes the PlayStation 4 1.3X times as powerful when the CPU discrepancies are factored in, it doesn't sound that much more powerful when you change the metric of measurement, percentages have a deceiving quality. We're not talking about performance here, we're talking about raw hardware capability, that of which the differences between the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One are actually quite minute.

They're called the twins for a reason, get off your Xbox One hate bandwagon, I know it ruffles your feathers for whatever reason and you're in love with the PlayStation 4 but your glaringly obvious bias makes you look extremely stupid.

Yes i do.

You put the PS3 > xbox 360 now the disparity between those 2 was never double resolution or double frames.

The PS4 has commanded than lead and more vs the xbox one so it can't be PS4> xbox one,the PS3 isn't 40% stronger than the xbox 360.

So PS3 > xbox 360.

PS4 >> Xbox one.

CPU mean nothing between the 2 and games like project cars prove that,is a CPU intensive game and runs better on PS4 oh it uses 7 cores on xbox one and 6 cores on PS4 and still is faster by up to 14 FPS while also having a 1080p vs 900p advantage,that advantage amount to more than 50% in fact 1080p vs 900p is 44% higher resolution and 5 FPS more on a game that is running at 35 FPS vs one running at 40FPS is 15% so basically the PS4 disparity was almost 60% and that is using 35 vs 40 in some places the gap grows as high as 13 or 14 FPS which would be like 70% or more.

1080p vs 720p is more than 100% pixel difference and 60 vs 30 is 100% gap.

Get our damn calculator out any game that is 1080p on PS4 and 900p on xbox one already is showing a 44% gap in resolution,if it is combined with frame advantage is even more,or other effects.

No matter what the PS3 and xbox 360 were barely apart the xbox one and PS4 are more than that apart and they both use the same CPU sony one is more efficient to do having a less complex hardware and been more straight forward there is more than speed to it and Project Cars prove that 7 cores on xbox one vs 6 on PS4 and still the PS4 wins.

Even after I said it you still don't understand hardware =/= software.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HARDWARE DISCREPANCIES, HARDWARE....

Avatar image for Epak_
Epak_

11911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42 Epak_
Member since 2004 • 11911 Posts

@bobrossperm said:

PS3/360 and Wii. A generation apart. Also PS4/One and WiiU but the generational jump isn't as dramatic.

Wii U is a gen behind, there's no doubt about that.

Avatar image for gameofthering
gameofthering

11286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#43  Edited By gameofthering
Member since 2004 • 11286 Posts

@tormentos: Yeah, seems like many people forget about the Saturn and Dreamcast :(

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33784

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33784 Posts

@Heirren said:

Neo Geo over the SNES/Genesis/TG16.

Now there is a gap i may say is the biggest,Snes,genesis,master system and nes all had horrible port of Arcade games,but the neogeo not only have arcade perfect games,but also the arcade it self was a powerful system for 2d games with great sprites and super vibrant colors,i still play Samuray Shawndown 1 and the colors animation were over capcom CPS2 arcade board,in image quality and animation SS kick SF ass.

It was hugely expensive but damn for what you were getting a full arcade it was nothing really.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
deactivated-57ad0e5285d73

21398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45  Edited By deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
Member since 2009 • 21398 Posts

@The_Last_Ride said:
@drekula2 said:
  1. PS3 > X360 >>> Wii
  2. PS4 > X1 >>> Wii U
  3. SNES > Genesis
  4. N64 > PS1
  5. SMS > NES
  6. Xbox > PS2 > GCN

I know 1, 2 and 6 are where they need to be, but not sure on 3 4 and 5.

PS1 was more powerful than N64 because of the CD's could hold more information

That gets bloated. Having a licensed soundtrack is more powerful? Having pre recorded samples is more powerful? The CD format was also a hindrance which limited the use of dynamic audio. I also believe that the actual audio output of the N64 is higher than the psx.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33784

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33784 Posts

@fuckface32 said:

Even after I said it you still don't understand hardware =/= software.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HARDWARE DISCREPANCIES, HARDWARE....

Hardware discrepancies is what drive software ones...

A properly code game will never run better on xbox one,because the PS4 has a R265 and the xbox one a R250X,to add insult the xbox one has only a small pool of fast ram,on a cumbersome hardware were full HSA can't be achieve because the CPU can never see the Data once it is on ESRAM,which is what probably drive the PS4 to has faster frames to even with a slower CPU.

Avatar image for FoxbatAlpha
FoxbatAlpha

10669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 FoxbatAlpha
Member since 2009 • 10669 Posts

Let me make this simple:

Xbox One>Xbox 360>Xbox>everything else

Avatar image for dynamitecop
dynamitecop

6395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48  Edited By dynamitecop
Member since 2004 • 6395 Posts

@tormentos said:
@fuckface32 said:

Even after I said it you still don't understand hardware =/= software.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HARDWARE DISCREPANCIES, HARDWARE....

Hardware discrepancies is what drive software ones...

A properly code game will never run better on xbox one,because the PS4 has a R265 and the xbox one a R250X,to add insult the xbox one has only a small pool of fast ram,on a cumbersome hardware were full HSA can't be achieve because the CPU can never see the Data once it is on ESRAM,which is what probably drive the PS4 to has faster frames to even with a slower CPU.

I'm not debating that, I was debating the dramatic nature of how you present the hardware of PlayStation 4 versus that of the Xbox One, it's a difference absolutely, but overall and in the grand scheme of things, it's a very small one, 1.3X times small. That's essentially the difference between the Sega Saturn and the original PlayStation. The PlayStation 3 for example was considerably more powerful than the Xbox 360, a lot more powerful, however given the complex and convoluted nature of coding for cell they were never able to achieve its hardware potential thus they ended up being nearly evenly matched when it came to real world gaming.

That is what I am saying overall, the software is not the point of discussion here, it's the capability of the hardware itself. There's a reason people have made super computers out of stacked PlayStation 3's and not Xbox 360's...

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33784

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49  Edited By tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33784 Posts

@Heirren said:

That gets bloated. Having a licensed soundtrack is more powerful? Having pre recorded samples is more powerful? The CD format was also a hindrance which limited the use of dynamic audio. I also believe that the actual audio output of the N64 is higher than the psx.

I don't think it was about that only alto sound was of better quality on PS1,music on PS sounded better the bitrate on N64 had to be low to keep size something the PS disc have to spare not to mention full motion videos.

Loading Video...

As soon as you see it you see how fire is pull down on N64 greatly and is less vivid to it look more like smoke than fire,as you enter the store pause at 4:22 look at the faces the N64 does a crappy job that is because the N64 had problems with moulding things like chin on round objects the face look like a balloon with ears and hair the jaggies are even more pronounce on the N64 version to.

Size limit greatly what the N64 could do and the machine it self had some pretty nasty bottlenecks,textures talking it was great but then at times those same textures became blurry,have you play Mario kart when you win and the camera make a close up everything blurs the fu** up.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33784

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33784 Posts

@fuckface32 said:

Someone doesn't understand the difference between hardware capability and performance figures, they're not intrinsic, the Xbox was multiple times more powerful in a hardware capacity, over ten times, easily the largest hardware discrepancy of any console generation... It's funny seeing you downplay this right now yet the PlayStation 4 versus the Xbox One is magic in your eyes... We're talking hardware here, not how software is handled or taken advantage of on said hardware...

120 Gigaflops of floating point performance vs. 10.5 Gigaflops = 11.42x

1.84 Teraflops of floating point performance vs. 1.31 Teraflops = 1.40x

Quit fooling yourself, you're a joke.

No dude not even MS dare say that 10 times it total bullshit and fanboy made up crap,flops are totally irrelevant when it comes to different structures,comparing flops between different hardware is useless,comparing flop in the same hardware is not.

So 1.84TF vs 1.31 can yield a difference much bigger than from 120gflos vs 10.5 Gflops because those are different hardwares.

So the only joke here is you who think the emotion engine by sony is the same structure or worked like a intel Pentiun 3.

Flops means shit when you talk about different structures.. Class dismiss...