The PS2 had DVD. Even with the better power of the Gamecube, the PS2 ruled.

 

The question wasn't which one you think ruled but it was which one was more powerful. Also saying it ruled just cause of the DVD...

======================================================================================

Well practically the Gekko (the CPU of the Gamecube) wins since it easy to code for and follows through, but in theory the Emotion Engine of the PS2 could do a lot more but due to the fact that its very difficult to code for it doesn't come as good. Graphically the Gamecube is better no question asked the Flipper is more powerful then the PS2's graphics synthesizer (it has faster memory even then that of the Xbox in fact graphically its just as powerful as the Xbox's), it also features a simplified implementation of textures and a great output for them, which makes it texture wise superior even to the Xbox.

PS:Even the dreamcast had more power in certain areas then the PS2.

 

Kids like him believing Sony's PR BS are the reason Dreamcast stopped selling. If PS2 would've had the texturing capability and AA of the Dreamcast, it would've been the best looking console of its generation.

The only way a PS2 game can look better than a Gamecube game is through the magic of a select number of game studios (Kojima and Polyphony Digital). But in general Gamecube games simply look a lot better.

 

Gamecube has faster hardware with better capabilities. There's nothing more to it, really.

 

The question wasn't which one you think ruled but it was which one was more powerful. Also saying it ruled just cause of the DVD...

================================================== ====================================

Well practically the Gekko (the CPU of the Gamecube) wins since it easy to code for and follows through, but in theory the Emotion Engine of the PS2 could do a lot more but due to the fact that its very difficult to code for it doesn't come as good.

I remember Julian Eggebrecht saying something about that in a interview back in 2001-2002, that that PS2 Emotion Engine was a lot harder to code for, and that programming language(s) the Gamecube used were more user friendly.

Graphically the Gamecube is better no question asked the Flipper is more powerful then the PS2's graphics synthesizer (it has faster memory even then that of the Xbox, in fact, graphically its just as powerful as the Xbox's), it also features a simplified implementation of textures and a great output for them, which makes it texture wise superior even to the Xbox.

EDIT I didn't know the Flipper GPU was just as powerful, if not moreso . oO

PS:Even the dreamcast had more power in certain areas then the PS2.

Also something I never realized; sure, I realized that the Dreamcast had anti-aliasing, but more power in certain areas....? Whoa....oO

 

You seemed to misunderstand something, Gekko is more like a CPU, the Flipper is the cip that handles graphics. Also i wouldn't say it had more potential, their about the same, the Gamecube handles textures better and has faster memory but lacks a bit in T&L department (if they would have consulted ati a bit this could have been avoided), while xbox's one is good overall (especially at using shaders) except those two elements i mentioned that the gamecube excels (not that it performs bad but not at the level the GC does).

 

You seemed to misunderstand something, Gekko is more like a CPU, the Flipper is the chip that handles graphics. Also i wouldn't say it had more potential, they're about the same, the Gamecube handles textures better and has faster memory but lacks a bit in T&L department (if they would have consulted ati a bit this could have been avoided), while xbox's one is good overall (especially at using shaders) except those two elements i mentioned that the gamecube excels (not that it performs bad but not at the level the GC does).

Oops. Made that correction in my last post. Still, who would've thought it was that powerful. At least I have evidence to shut that youtube wiener up.

 

Also something I never realized; sure, I realized that the Dreamcast had anti-aliasing, but more power in certain areas....? Whoa....oO

I read so before as well, but it's just in a mathematical shootout, again, all statistics. There's no denying that the PS2 can handle more complex scenes polygon / particle wise, as it has more and faster memory. However Dreamcast is much easier to program for, so even lesser talented studios can get decent graphics out of it, while on PS2 that would imply there's no AA and PSX-level textures. Can't find the page which had a great comparison plus calculations though.

 

the gamecube is more powerfull, the gpu is the same as a radeon 9700

 

The PS2 GPU was faster than the Dreamcast one. It also had the means to produce more polygons if the scenery was not filled with lots of textures and the likes, so in practice there wasn't such a great gap compared to the Dreamcast GPU in that department, although PS2 was still better. Another plus is the special effects it could do that Dreamcast could not.


Now, the Dreamcast could do higher resolution textures compared to both the PS2 and the Gamecube. The difference was huge if you connected the system to a computer monitor through VGA, especially since the Dreamcast could render at 640x480p natively while the rest could output about half that resolution. Now add anti-aliasing and texture filtering to that and you end up with the graphics looking better on the Dreamcast.

You can replicate those end results by turning your PS2 on while it is attached to a TV (preferably a CRT) and comparing it to a Dreamcast emulator running on your PC (preferably using a CRT monitor and 640x480 resolution).
Run the same game on both and compare the results.... yeah, Dreamcast ends up looking better.


Similar results exist on other departments of the systems too (sound, cpu, etc.) but mentioning them would make the thread ridiculously long.

Lemme just say that the Dreamcast development tools did not have the time to mature and extend the potential of the machine. On the other hand, this is one of the reasons the Dreamcast was emulated so easily (relatively at least).
The only piece of software that did some really funky stuff with the Dreamcast hardware was Windows CE... no wonder whatever used that has some serious problems running on emulators, even if it "works".

 

the gamecube is more powerfull, the gpu is the same as a radeon 9700

No, it's not the same.

 

the gamecube is more powerfull, the gpu is the same as a radeon 9700

It's more like an underclocked Radeon 9000, nowhere near a 9700.

 

Why not simply say Radeon 9250 then, since it was a lower clocked Radeon 9000.

So far as I know though, it's quite different than any desktop GPU.

 

9000 family, there .

 

The flipper doesn't really have anything to do with ATi cards, ARTX started working on it before they where a part of ATi, but if you where to find something similar to it, on ATi's side that would be the 7500. ARTx is also the same team that made the core for the 9700-9800 that's why the confusion with those boards, but its not like they based their work of the flipper.

 

specs aside, any1 with 1/2 a brain can see that GC [i consider fairly = to xbox1] are superior to ps2, which i regard as a ps1.4, it's current continued popularity perplexes me, only it's huge game library/marketing has saved it.

 

Like I said, the DVD.

Why buy a Gamecube if the PS2 could play DVD's? Remember this was back in 2000 when the DVD market was all the rage. Torrenting hadn't even been invented yet (It came out a year later, and still was not used on a large scale).

Nintendo simply shot itself in the foot.

 

Like i said DVD's are irrelevant to the discussion they have nothing to do with raw power, check the first post cause the topic seems to be unclear to you...


PS: though you buy a gaming console to mainly play games not DVD's :dead:...

 

Like I said, the DVD.

Why buy a Gamecube if the PS2 could play DVD's? Remember this was back in 2000 when the DVD market was all the rage. Torrenting hadn't even been invented yet (It came out a year later, and still was not used on a large scale).

Nintendo simply shot itself in the foot.

Because the gamecube had good game, like Tales of Symphonia; there was a PS2 port, but it was released only in Japan. What about Paper Mario and the Thousand Year Door? Windwaker? Metroid Prime? The very claim that the Gamecube didn't haveanygood games at all is just plain dumb. Let's just agree to disagree; both systems had their good and their bad games. There. I said it. Oh, and the Gamecube had anti-aliasing, 24-bit Z-buffering, bi/trilinear and anisotropic mipmapping, 6:1 texture compression, 20,200,000 polygons/per sec with lighting and textures applied. Does having a game on DVD versus a mini DVD automatically the game in question better/more enjoyable?

 

They weren't exactly mini DVD's its a similar tech but not the same thing, for one thing the GC variant allows a faster reading/access speed.

 

truth is, the ps2 has had more than enough time to perfect it's games dev, yet the long dead xbox/GC still outshine it everytime, u would think by now it would have surpassed, or at least equallized them, but no, it's 'untapped power' is non-existant or dormant.

 

You have more storage space on the DVD
You would be surprise how many people bought PS2's (and PS3's) not for gaming but simply for the DVD/ blueray playback. Anyway, if discussing raw power, the Gamecube is more powerful. But what is the use of power if the power cant be harnessed?
The Game cube was crushed by the PS2. All that stuff about the numbers is good. But for the life of me I can't remember one exceptional or highly rated game that debuted on the Gamecube, while I can for every other system. The GC had weak third party support.

Now on topic, the Game cube overall is more powerful hardware wise.. Now let's move on, shall we.

 

Yeah Metroid Prime for instance was so bad... oh and Resident Evil Remake and Resident Evil Zero meah what nasty games... Didn't knew you where such a fanboy of the PS2... (i mean sorry if it offends you but you burst into a thread which just questioned performance and try to show of as the PS2 as the superior machine even if it has nothing to do with the thread).

 

thank god there is dolphin to enjoy gamecube sweetness in hd

 

The question of which console was more powerful kept me awake all last night. Honest it did.

No wait....that was Portal 2. The answer for which was more powerful, the ps2 or the gamecube, is "who cares"