TheWretched
Regular
He doesn't say that at all...
This is the point. Although PS2 was slower in most areas compared to the Xbox, it did however make up for it with a MASSIVE bandwidth advantage (an area, in which the Xbox was bottlenecked). This put both consoles much closer together than one might assume (plus the fact that most development actually took place on PS2 in the first place).
It's similar today. PS3 and 360... most people will tell you, that the 360s GPU is leaps and bounds faster than RSX. But most games don't look much different (especially today). There's the odd case of lower fps (on either side, mind you) or missing stuff (shadows, AO...). But overall. the differences are, imho, pretty negligible (unless they heavily influence gameplay, like latency etc, but that usually is not the case, except for RE5 and others).
We could see one console have a 50% GPU flop count advantage and yet the rival excel in other areas, or the more flop console be gimped by a hardware bottleneck.
This is the point. Although PS2 was slower in most areas compared to the Xbox, it did however make up for it with a MASSIVE bandwidth advantage (an area, in which the Xbox was bottlenecked). This put both consoles much closer together than one might assume (plus the fact that most development actually took place on PS2 in the first place).
It's similar today. PS3 and 360... most people will tell you, that the 360s GPU is leaps and bounds faster than RSX. But most games don't look much different (especially today). There's the odd case of lower fps (on either side, mind you) or missing stuff (shadows, AO...). But overall. the differences are, imho, pretty negligible (unless they heavily influence gameplay, like latency etc, but that usually is not the case, except for RE5 and others).