What's stronger?

Okay, I'd just like to know, graphically speaking, what was stronger? The PS2 or the Cube? I went to Wiki and i said the PS2 was 294MHz and the Cube was 485MHz. Does MHz mean how strong it was graphically?

Im not really sure, I would assume the Cube is more powerful as it was released much later. However the PS2 requires more space to hold the games then the cube. Im realy not too sure though, any corrections would be appreciated.

The Gamecube is more powerfull than the PS2, it's a lot closer to the Xbox.

Umm... MHz is an unity of sound, right? I don't see how powerful it could be, only with the quality of it's sound system.

MHz is the processor type. Well, no it isn't. MHz is the unit used to measure how fast the processor is. It stands for MegaHertz. It's kinda like MBPS, or KBPS (Mega and Kilobytes per Second) which is Internet connection speed.

GHz is Gigahertz, or 1k Megahertz. Most present-day computers have 2.6GHz processors above.

The Commodore64 Computer (As shown here has like, 7.5 KHz processor >_>

Bet you can guess what KHz is. KILOHERTZ <3

I think it's hurtz, but I have no clue.

This is just what I know, it has nothing to do with which is stronger.

what was stronger? The PS2 or the Cube?

<3

Lol.
Answer only when you're sure guys!
Yes, GC is definately more powerful than PS2.
MHz show the speed of a processor but not always it's power.

I always thought that the PS2 was stronger than the gamecube. When I've played the games on both systems I felt that as well. For instance when I compare Metal gear solid 3's graphics to say resident evil 4's graphics I felt that MGS3 was better. Guess I was dead wrong.

Originally Posted by Zukuru

I always thought that the PS2 was stronger than the gamecube. When I've played the games on both systems I felt that as well. For instance when I compare Metal gear solid 3's graphics to say resident evil 4's graphics I felt that MGS3 was better. Guess I was dead wrong.

Those are two different games, the makers of re4 could have been lazy. Two games compared do not accurately show the power comparison of different systems. Make sense?

Originally Posted by MLNick

Those are two different games, the makers of re4 could have been lazy. Two games compared do not accurately show the power comparison of different systems. Make sense?

BLASPHEMY. RE4 is one of (if not the) cube's most graphically awesome games.

The Gamecube had far superior hardware to the PS2, and wasn't terribly far behind the X-Box.

Quite a few games that were released on both the PS2/Cube had lower polygon counts on the PS2, Tales of Symphonia had fewer things on-screen at any given time, etc.

The Cube was more powerful, albeit the Cube was more limited. Plus the PS2 had more gadgets, and such. Plus two USB ports.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

The Gamecube had far superior hardware to the PS2, and wasn't terribly far behind the X-Box.

Quite a few games that were released on both the PS2/Cube had lower polygon counts on the PS2, Tales of Symphonia had fewer things on-screen at any given time, etc.

He has a point. Also note the Playstation Version of Tales of Symphonia was released a year after the Gamecube version.

No Mhz dose not mean its graphical strenght. But although I HATE to addmit it I think the ps2 has got the better graphichs quality.

Originally Posted by AhMeD

No Mhz dose not mean its graphical strenght. But although I HATE to addmit it I think the ps2 has got the better graphichs quality.

No. It didn't. As already said, the Gamecube was far superior to the PS2.

Originally Posted by AhMeD

No Mhz dose not mean its graphical strength. But although I HATE to admit it I think the ps2 has got the better graphics quality.

No it didn't, it is a weaker machine... mhz measure how much data the CPU can process in a second (or something ) but also measure the the GPU, then there's all so memory and GPU memory to take into account... as well as efficient architecture...

Not that it matters because the cube is more powerful in every department...

If you thought PS2 games might look better in general, but the best PS2 graphics can't top the best cube graphics.

They generally look better in general because the PS2 had more games developed specifically for it than the cube did, so even though it was more powerful developers rarely took advantage of it's full potential... and arguably never did (RE4 looked brilliant... even see it slow down... it ran silky smooth all the time).

It's probably a lot closer to the Xbox than people thought, also I have heard rumours that Nintendo released modest specs for some reason and that the machine is a lot stronger on aper than what we think... this was to reflect their philosophy... same as how they wouldn't tell us anything about the Wii's specs.

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

Get reading, kids. I don't think I've ever seen so many techno-retards.

First off, the CPU is obviously not the only measure of a console's graphical output. Development tools, memory, video memory and processor speed, architecture, physical size of the hardware, and a good deal more things all contribute to a console's potential "power." Every component has to be designed with every other component in mind to ensure efficiency of power, ease of programming, etc..

Though I cannot delve into a more detailed, technical analysis of both the PlayStation 2's and GameCube's hardware (I just don't know enough about this stuff), I can state with certainty that the GameCube is a good deal more powerful than the PlayStation 2 and is capable of stunning graphics. It is also extremely easy to develop for. However, the GameCube hardware is more limited in what it can and cannot do - advanced shader effects such as normal mapping are impossible on it, and developers have had to rely on a number of clever programming "tricks" in order to obtain their desired results (Resident Evil 4 is a good example of this). Next to the XBox, the GameCube doesn't really quite compare. The XBox is essentially a computer, and the GameCube just can't touch it in terms of maximum potential graphics output. Graphics like those seen in Halo 2, Fable, and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory really are not obtainable on the GameCube hardware.

Of course, this entirely ignores art style, developer experience, etc.. The GameCube is capable of some absolutely beautiful visuals - Twilight Princess, for example - but most of these games are not beautiful because of the sheer horsepower behind them. Nintendo's A-team has been developing for the GameCube for years and knows all of its ins and outs. Twilight Princess is a culmination of all of their efforts, and while it's arguably not the absolute best the console has to offer, it's still one damn good-looking game.

XBox developers have usually had a head start over GameCube developers due to its ease of development. Developing on the XBox is very similar to developing on a PC, and so developers are very easily able to apply their knowledge of PC hardware and software to the XBox, which means that it's that much easier to obtain better graphics on the XBox than the GameCube for most development teams, as the PC is most often (but of course, not always) the platform a developer is most familiar with. Furthermore, developing for a PC is a lot harder than developing for a console due to the endless number of hardware and software combinations possible. An application has to work on literally almost any configuration, and you have to be a damn good programmer to be able to do this with good results. If a PC developer switches over to a console, their experience with the PC - managing memory and other resources, etc. - is going to result in their programming being far more efficient, clean, and better overall.

Another thing to consider are budgets. Multi-platform games are usually developed for the most powerful platform and then other versions of the game are scaled down in order to work properly on the remaining hardware. Usually, this means that a development team is going to focus most of their efforts on the dominant platform of the two - last generation, it was the PlatStation 2 and not the GameCube versions of games that usually received the most attention.

The Splinter Cell series really shows this off nicely: although the XBox versions of the games are always on the cutting-edge when it comes to graphics, the PlayStation 2 and GameCube versions have always suffered. In the case of the GameCube games, they are based off of the PlayStation 2 versions and made only to work on the hardware. It is obvious playing one of these games on the GameCube that it is a very shoddy port developed for inferior hardware, as, among other things, the graphics often do not match up with other games on the platform, despite the low framerates. Anyone familiar with the GameCube will know that games developed for it can look great while still maintaining a solid framerate, but almost every third-party multi-platform title for the GameCube seems to do just the opposite.

A notable exception to this seems to be the Prince of Persia series, which look great, run smoothly and play comparably on every console, with only minor differences. This is especially apparent in the first title, The Sands of Time; some people even consider the GameCube version to look the best of the three, due to its sharper textures and brighter colour palette. However, later games in the series seem to favour the XBox and PlayStation 2 versions over the GameCube versions - though that's not to say that the GameCube versions of the games are ugly, or even really inferior.

In any case, I've rambled on a bit too much. Hopefully this has shed some light a bit on what makes "good graphics."

So what you are saying is that somebody stoledz Nintedo's megarherts and gave them to Microsox so that hey could make a speaker with 1337 mhz?