Well now tell me how many processor cycles per second each one can do. Megahertz is not a very good way to judge a computer's (or console's) speed anymore.MilkMonster wrote:............processor ......... graphics....................... memory
GC....... 485 MHz............ 128-bit, 162MHz............ 40MB
PS2.......295MHz..............128-bit, 150MHz............ 40MB
dosent look like half ass to me
*NOT EXACT BUT THIS MUST BE HOW IT WORKS*
The PS2 takes smaller chunks of data at once and uses its full power to calculate it all in 7 cycles. On the other hand the GC takes larger chunks and has to convert that in 22 cycles. This would put the PS2 in the same boat, or a faster one, as the GC. Now if they hit a pipeline bubble, such as a misread of the disc, the PS2 only wastes 7 processor cycles on the bad data, while the GC wastes 20. This puts the PS2 ahead.
(I got this info from a comparison between the G4 and the Pentium 4, which uses those exact numbers. The numbers for the consoles probably differ from the ones I listed.)
Plus what's the L2 procesor cache for each system? Video memory? Coprocessor? Do they use 32 or 64 bit processors? (NOT the 128 bit graphics, that just describes graphic appearance) Just megahertz and memory alone don't make or break a comparison.
(Plus add in the PS2's hard drive, networkability, DVD playback, and it leaves the GC in the dust for actual <i>functional, <b>PRACTICAL</i></b> features.
Nintendo Reolution: Gaming a la carte.
