Which system is more powerful/can produce better graphics: The Wii or PS2???

xxtheycallmedxx

xxtheycallmedxx

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
When it comes to multiplatform games lately,its seems they're either being developed for the 360/PS3 (COD4,Assassin's Creed,DMC4,etc.) or the Wii/PS2(DBZ BT 2 & 3,Harvey Birdman,MLB Power Pros,etc.).I assume this is because the 360 and PS3 are close in terms of power as is the same with the Wii and PS2.

I was hoping that someone with a full understanding of the specs. for both systems could tell me which one is more powerful and which can produce better graphics.I think most people (like myself) automaticllay assume that since the Wii is newer that it is the more powerful system.Is this really the case?Some games look really great on the wii (RE:UC) while others aren't up to par (Ghost Squad,still ALOT of fun though).Although the PS2 is nearing the end,games like Persona 3 show what that system is still capable of.

I know this has alot to do with the ability of development teams who make the games,but I'm sure what they're able to do is limited as well.Any insight you guys have is appreciated because it does get tedious trying to figure out "which is the better version" everytime a multiplatform game for the wii/ps2 comes out.Btw,I'm comfortable with both controllers so I usually go by which has better grahpics when deciding on what version of a game to buy.

Thanks in advance.
 
The Wii has more power. Somewhere a little ahead of the original X-box (which was already ahead of the PS2).

But of course if a game is made for PS2 or PSP and ported to the Wii, the developers aren't going to take advantage of the Wii's extra horsepower.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The Wii has more power. Somewhere a little ahead of the original X-box (which was already ahead of the PS2).

But of course if a game is made for PS2 or PSP and ported to the Wii, the developers aren't going to take advantage of the Wii's extra horsepower.[/QUOTE]

Thread over.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The Wii has more power. Somewhere a little ahead of the original X-box (which was already ahead of the PS2).

But of course if a game is made for PS2 or PSP and ported to the Wii, the developers aren't going to take advantage of the Wii's extra horsepower.[/quote]

Gotcha,Thanks for the info.
 
as far as specs are concerned, the gamecube was the top last generation, so the thought that the Wii is more powerful than the PS2 should be a no brainer.
 
The little 2 square inches of the Wii that is a tiny built-in gamecube is considerably more powerful than the PS2.

The PS2 is more in league with the PSP than the Wii.
 
[quote name='SL4IN']as far as specs are concerned, the gamecube was the top last generation, so the thought that the Wii is more powerful than the PS2 should be a no brainer.[/QUOTE]

Really? I always thought it was Xbox>GC>PS2.
 
[quote name='SL4IN']as far as specs are concerned, the gamecube was the top last generation, so the thought that the Wii is more powerful than the PS2 should be a no brainer.[/quote]

no!

xbox ran at 7xx mhz

gc at 4xx mhz

and ps2 at 3xx mhz


thats right off the top of my head but im sure its right
 
[quote name='Malik112099']no!

xbox ran at 7xx mhz

gc at 4xx mhz

and ps2 at 3xx mhz


thats right off the top of my head but im sure its right[/quote]Processor speed isn't everything. In fact, most of the time it's pretty meaningless.

That being said, I do believe the Xbox had the more robust stats of the 3.
 
The Wii is no doubt. It's a little more powerful than the XBOX1 which was a little more powerful than the PS2.
 
[quote name='daroga']Processor speed isn't everything. In fact, most of the time it's pretty meaningless.quote]


Thats wrong. If it was meaningless then it wouldn't be a facter on the system requirements for PC games.

Dreamcast had a 2xx mhz chip
ps2 - 3xx
gc - 4xx
xbox - 7xx

amazingly, as the speed of the processor goes up the graphics capability of the system does too!

also, if your statement held any water then why does current gen sytems need those multiple cores/processor to look so much better than last gen?
 
Silly topic but I guess if one looks at the more recent PS2 games and compares them with some of the shoddier Wii games, PS2 may seem similar.

Fact of the matter is, the GC and moreso the Wii are both more powerful than the PS2.

Games like Mario Galaxy wouldn't be possible on the PS2 without shrinking the models and blurring up the textures (SMG has some awesome texture mapping).
 
Going back to the OP....

In order to really compare from actual games produced, a couple things need to be remembered:

1. as a console's life cycle goes on the graphics of the games improve as developers get more familiar/learn more tricks to use.

2. The PS2 is nearing the end of the life cycle, the Wii is at the beginning or thereabouts.

3. In order to compare truthfully, it may be best to compare the best looking game out now for the Wii (perhaps SMB: G) to the best game, graphically, that was out on the PS2 after 1 year on the market, so, say released in 1999 or 2000. I'm not sure which game this would be...but I think this would be a good way to compare actual output.
 
[quote name='Malik112099'][quote name='daroga']Processor speed isn't everything. In fact, most of the time it's pretty meaningless.quote]


Thats wrong. If it was meaningless then it wouldn't be a facter on the system requirements for PC games.

Dreamcast had a 2xx mhz chip
ps2 - 3xx
gc - 4xx
xbox - 7xx

amazingly, as the speed of the processor goes up the graphics capability of the system does too!

also, if your statement held any water then why does current gen sytems need those multiple cores/processor to look so much better than last gen?[/quote]

the ps2's chip was only 128MB, but clocked at 294MHz, and that was really pushing the system, which not alot of games did.

The gamecube's was at 423MHz I believe and the xbox's at 733MHz. But it's like daroga said to an extent, while processor power does have some effect on gameplay, processor power is not everything, there are so many other things about the actual hardware that factor into the equation.

edit: and if processor had everything to do with how games looked and ran, then by technology, my current PC should be insignificant to my 360 in terms of frames and how games run, due to the 360 having a Tri-core processor and my PC only having a dual-core. But I can guarantee you, my PC is much stronger (in terms of raw processing power) than my 360.
 
[quote name='Malik112099'][quote name='daroga']Processor speed isn't everything. In fact, most of the time it's pretty meaningless.quote]


Thats wrong. If it was meaningless then it wouldn't be a facter on the system requirements for PC games.

Dreamcast had a 2xx mhz chip
ps2 - 3xx
gc - 4xx
xbox - 7xx

amazingly, as the speed of the processor goes up the graphics capability of the system does too!

also, if your statement held any water then why does current gen sytems need those multiple cores/processor to look so much better than last gen?[/quote]Processor does play a factor. What I meant by "pretty meaningless" is very often the bottleneck in the system is not the processor. Very often your video card, ram total, memory bandwidth, or 1000 other things are the things hampering the system.

Higher Processor speed alone does not equate to better graphics.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']Processor speed isn't everything. In fact, most of the time it's pretty meaningless.quote]


Thats wrong. If it was meaningless then it wouldn't be a facter on the system requirements for PC games.

Dreamcast had a 2xx mhz chip
ps2 - 3xx
gc - 4xx
xbox - 7xx

amazingly, as the speed of the processor goes up the graphics capability of the system does too!

also, if your statement held any water then why does current gen sytems need those multiple cores/processor to look so much better than last gen?[/QUOTE]

Processor speed alone is not everything. The amount of chips and the way they are interfaced can impact the performance of a system more so than clockspeed. To attribute a system's performance solely to its clock rate is meaningless.

Even trying to bring PCs into the picture is pointless as well. Just because I have a 16 core 5 GHz processor means nothing, because I may not have a good GPU to handle graphics correctly. Clock speed does help, but a lot of other factors come into play as well.

Is there really anything to discuss though? We don't know all of the Wii's specs 100%, but we know them well enough to know that the Wii is capable of handling more information than the PS2. Higher clock speeds, more ram capacity, (I'm assuming) faster bus speeds. All that's left is really how much effort a developer really wants to put in the game to take advantage of the hardware that is available.
 
[quote name='daroga']Can't tell an obvious typo when you see it?[/quote]

no...because 128 is more likely a memory size than a processor speed so i dont know if the processor or the memory was over clocked in that statement
 
Yeah, processor speed alone is only one part of the puzzle.

I hate comparing specs period.

The fact of the matter is the best looking X-box games looked better than the best looking GC games. And the best looking GC games looked better than the best looking PS2 games.

Of course by best looking I mean from a technical graphics standpoint (models, polygons, lack of jaggies, textures etc.) not an art design standpoint.
 
[quote name='looploop']Out of curiosity, which xbox games did you think graphically surpassed GC Resident Evil 4?[/QUOTE]

That is kind of tough as RE4 did certainly look vastly better than anything else on the GC. Though I did hate the designed graininess in the graphics. I just like nice clear textures. Film grain drives me nuts in games, had to turn it off right away in Mass Effect for example, as I'll take shiny graphics with more slowdown over grain. :D


I'd probably put Halo 2 ahead of it graphcially at least, maybe Crimson Skies. Maybe some parts of KOTOR, but not the whole game by any means. I'm drawing blanks as I didn't play the X-box much the last year or so of the last gen, so it's been a while.
 
[quote name='looploop']Out of curiosity, which xbox games did you think graphically surpassed GC Resident Evil 4?[/quote]

Ninja Gaiden Black
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory
Burnout Revenge
Doom 3
Half-Life 2
Dead or Alive Ultimate
Forza Motorsport
Chronicles of Riddick
Far Cry Instincts
Psychonauts
Splinter Cell Double Agent
 
[quote name='Malik112099']Ninja Gaiden Black
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory
Burnout Revenge
Doom 3
Half-Life 2
Dead or Alive Ultimate
Forza Motorsport
Chronicles of Riddick
Far Cry Instincts
Psychonauts
Splinter Cell Double Agent[/quote]No frickin' way. I am no big Gamecube fan by any stretch, but I can safely say Resident Evil 4 is the best looking game for that generation of consoles.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']No frickin' way. I am no big Gamecube fan by any stretch, but I can safely say Resident Evil 4 is the best looking game for that generation of consoles.[/quote]

RE4 at its best on the GC doesn't look as good as Riddick did on the xbox.
RE4 looks like the whole game was made in soft focus to hide the jaggy textures.





 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']No frickin' way. I am no big Gamecube fan by any stretch, but I can safely say Resident Evil 4 is the best looking game for that generation of consoles.[/QUOTE]

No way, Ninja Gaiden looks better than RE4 imo.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']No frickin' way. I am no big Gamecube fan by any stretch, but I can safely say Resident Evil 4 is the best looking game for that generation of consoles.[/QUOTE]

RE4 was a very blurry looking game, this is especially apparent if you played in 480p. Also every texture in the game is static (no bullet holes or anything like that, you can't even see your gun's laser sight on anything that isn't destroyable) and there are no physics in the game (everybody reacts to shots and falls down the same). While Resident Evil 4, God of War 1/2, and Metal Gear Solid 3 have the best looking characters on the last generation, Xbox definitely had better looking and more technologically impressive games.

On topic, the Wii is definitely more powerful than the PS2 but Xbox beats them both. Also since the Wii is just a faster Gamecube it is lacking the same graphical abilities (such as pixel shading, which is in both the PS2 and Xbox).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The Wii has more power. Somewhere a little ahead of the original X-box (which was already ahead of the PS2).

But of course if a game is made for PS2 or PSP and ported to the Wii, the developers aren't going to take advantage of the Wii's extra horsepower.[/quote][quote name='SL4IN']as far as specs are concerned, the gamecube was the top last generation, so the thought that the Wii is more powerful than the PS2 should be a no brainer.[/quote]I just want to add that the GCN was generally more graphically capable than the XBOX and both were tons better than the PS2. But it all depended upon the efforts of the developer to see the results. While the general XBOX exclusive title would look better than the average GCN game, the best GCN games really didn't get much competition from nearly any XBOX games. Games like RE4 come to mind towards the end of the GCN life and then even games like RE and Star Wars come to mind from the first six months/launch of the GCN. One of the few games to give the best of the GCN titles a run for it's money would probably be Ninja Gaiden (from what I hear, never played it and only saw screens of it). But there are tons of GCN titles to very few XBOX titles that are on par with those visuals.

Whether you agree or not with my assessment of XBOX vs. GCN is irrelevant though. Because both are way above and beyond the PS2.

So it would be natural to realize that since the Wii is a souped up, pimped out GCN, that the Wii would be extremely more capable than the PS2. Refer to dmaul's second line to see why that usually isn't the case though. Can you say "Quick ca$h ins?"

I wonder why people didn't use PS2's shovelware as proof of technological crappiness...

[quote name='Strell']Thread over.[/quote]
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']I just want to add that the GCN was generally more graphically capable than the XBOX and both were tons better than the PS2. But it all depended upon the efforts of the developer to see the results. While the general XBOX exclusive title would look better than the average GCN game, the best GCN games really didn't get much competition from nearly any XBOX games. Games like RE4 come to mind towards the end of the GCN life and then even games like RE and Star Wars come to mind from the first six months/launch of the GCN. One of the few games to give the best of the GCN titles a run for it's money would probably be Ninja Gaiden (from what I hear, never played it and only saw screens of it). But there are tons of GCN titles to very few XBOX titles that are on par with those visuals.[/quote]

you are out of your fucking mind
 
Apples and oranges...and bananas. I would argue that from the standpoint of overall specs (clock speed, ram capacity, feature set [such as vertex/pixel shaders, audio capabilities]) the Xbox was clearly superior, but as we can all agree, in the hands of a capable developer all three systems could produce amazing results. Even that is subject to the eye of the beholder though, so the whole thing is moot.

If anyone's interested, Anandtech did a breakdown of the hardware in the Xbox and Gamecube, comparing their specs to the PS2 and eachother.
 
[quote name='Allnatural']Apples and oranges...and bananas. I would argue that from the standpoint of overall specs (clock speed, ram capacity, feature set [such as vertex/pixel shaders, audio capabilities]) the Xbox was clearly superior, but as we can all agree, in the hands of a capable developer all three systems could produce amazing results. Even that is subject to the eye of the beholder though, so the whole thing is moot.

If anyone's interested, Anandtech did a breakdown of the hardware in the Xbox and Gamecube, comparing their specs to the PS2 and eachother.[/quote]

comparing graphics between 2 consoles is not apples and oranges....the xbox was clearly more capable than the GC in the graphics department which is proven in tech specs and visuals
 
Well seeing as the Wii is only 2 GC's duct taped together, I'd say the PS2. It was by far the most powerful system last gen, and that's why currently people are still buying it and games for it. I'd say as far as specs go it's somewhere in between the 360 and PS3.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Well seeing as the Wii is only 2 GC's duct taped together, I'd say the PS2. It was by far the most powerful system last gen, and that's why currently people are still buying it and games for it. I'd say as far as specs go it's somewhere in between the 360 and PS3.[/quote]

Hahahaha, excellent :applause:
 
[quote name='Malik112099']you are out of your fucking mind[/quote]You seem like a very angry person. And good job backing up your opinion.

There are many people in this thread who agree with my take and this has been something that has been argued since 2001 and will never be settled in years to come. So just take a chill pill, weirdo. Like I said, that paragraph is irrelevant anyhow and the point is that they are both very close to each other and both are far superior to the PS2 in power.

You really come across like one of the millions of angry little 12 year old XBL playing Halo fans who have not reached puberty yet when you make posts like you did.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']no!

xbox ran at 7xx mhz

gc at 4xx mhz

and ps2 at 3xx mhz


thats right off the top of my head but im sure its right[/QUOTE]

You are stupid. See: The megahertz myth for enlightenment. The GC and XBox are running entirely different processor architectures. You could almost double the GC numbers for an accurate comparison (see: PowerPC).

Edit: Also note the GC had at least double the amount of memory that the XBox had, depending on the cache we're talking.
 
[quote name='snipegod']You are stupid. See: The megahertz myth for enlightenment. The GC and XBox are running entirely different processor architectures. You could almost double the GC numbers for an accurate comparison (see: PowerPC).

Edit: Also note the GC had at least double the amount of memory that the XBox had, depending on the cache we're talking.[/quote]

different architetures or not the xbox was still the most powerful system of last gen and still had the best looking games. You can argue myths and lies and pixels and all that other bullshit all day long.....games speak for themselves and the xbox had hands down the best graphically looking games of last gen. If you don't see that you are blind.
 
[quote name='cdrober']Hahahaha, excellent :applause:[/quote]


i have to agree with you on this having owned 2 last gen systems and played games on all systems if you look at it from a quality of games graphics standpoint the ps2 was a pretty powerful console and had alot of beautiful games that surpassed alot of the games on the competing consoles. hell the god of war series ( especially 2) is the prime example of the quality you couuld get on the ps2.

the gamecube of course had re4 as its greatest looking game ever beyond that metroid prime was nice but far beyond perfect looking. and yeah ninja gaiden on the xbox was awesome and many game made exclusively fo rthe xbox did look great but alot of the ports to the xbox were just prettied up ps2 games.


so if you want to go by great looking games the ps2 had all those systems beat but by tech specs id say the xbox was on top techwise.
 
[quote name='cdrober']Hahahaha, excellent :applause:[/quote]


i have to agree with you on this having owned 2 last gen systems and played games on all systems if you look at it from a quality of games graphics standpoint the ps2 was a pretty powerful console and had alot of beautiful games that surpassed alot of the games on the competing consoles. hell the god of war series ( especially 2) is the prime example of the quality you couuld get on the ps2.

the gamecube of course had re4 as its greatest looking game ever beyond that metroid prime was nice but far beyond perfect looking. and yeah ninja gaiden on the xbox was awesome and many game made exclusively fo rthe xbox did look great but alot of the ports to the xbox were just prettied up ps2 games.


so if you want to go by great looking games the ps2 had all those systems beat but by tech specs id say the xbox was on top techwise.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']different architetures or not the xbox was still the most powerful system of last gen and still had the best looking games. You can argue myths and lies and pixels and all that other bullshit all day long.....games speak for themselves and the xbox had hands down the best graphically looking games of last gen. If you don't see that you are blind.[/quote]Wind Waker > All
 
[quote name='Strell']GO BANANA!
[/quote]
awinnerisyou-37081.jpg
 
This stuff will make your head spin. I think the top game for PS2 for the overall capabilities of the system is Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec. Mid 2007, it was the top selling game for the PS2 at more than 14.8 million copies sold.

It is uncertain the top game for the Gamecube. Nintendo doesn't release those types of metrics. But from all the reviews and game charts, it seems it was Super Smash Bros. Melee at somewhere around 7 million units.

GameCube Technical Specifications:

Found on: http://www.nintendo.com/systems/gcn/specifications.jsp

MPU ("Microprocessor Unit")* : Custom IBM Power PC "Gekko"
Manufacturing process: 0.18 micron IBM copper wire technology
Clock frequency: 485 MHz
CPU capacity: 1125 Dmips (Dhrystone 2.1)
Internal data precision: 32-bit Integer & 64-bit floating-point
External bus: 1.3GB/second peak bandwidth (32-bit address space, 64-bit data bus 162 MHz clock)
Internal cache: L1: instruction 32KB, data 32KB (8 way) L2: 256KB (2 way)
System LSI: Custom ATI/Nintendo "Flipper"
Embedded frame buffer: Approx. 2MB sustainable latency : 6.2ns (1T-SRAM)
Embedded texture cache: Approx. 1MB sustainable latency : 6.2ns (1T-SRAM)
Texture read bandwidth: 10.4GB/second (Peak)
Main memory bandwidth: 2.6GB/second (Peak)
Pixel depth: 24-bit color, 24-bit Z buffer

Image processing functions: Fog, subpixel anti-aliasing, 8 hardware lights, alpha blending, virtual texture design, multi-texturing, bump mapping, environment mapping, MIP mapping, bilinear filtering, trilinear filtering, anisotropic filtering, real-time hardware texture decompression (S3TC), real-time decompression of display list, HW 3-line deflickering filter.

Sound Processor: custom Macronix 16-bit DSP
Instruction Memory: 8KB RAM + 8KB ROM
Data Memory: 8KB RAM + 4KB ROM
Clock Frequency: 81 MHz
Performance: 64 simultaneous channels, ADPCM encoding
Sampling Frequency: 48KHz
System Floating-point Arithmetic Capability: 10.5 GFLOPS (Peak) (MPU, Geometry Engine, HW Lighting Total)
Real-world polygon: 6 million to 12 million polygons/second (Peak) (Assuming actual game conditions with complex models, fully textured, fully lit, etc.)
System Memory: 40MB
Main Memory: 24 MB MoSys 1T-SRAM, Approximately 10ns Sustainable Latency
A-Memory: 16MB (81MHz DRAM)
Disc Drive: CAV (Constant Angular Velocity) System
Average Access Time: 128ms
Data Transfer Speed: 16Mbps to 25Mbps
Media: 3 inch NINTENDO GAMECUBE Disc based on Matsushita's Optical Disc Technology, Approx. 1.5GB Capacity

Input/Output: Controller Port x4
Memory Card Slot x2
Analog AV Output x1
Digital AV Output x1
High-Speed Serial Port x2
High-speed Parallel Port x1

Power Supply AC Adapter DC12V x 3.25A
Main Unit Dimensions 4.3"(H) x 5.9"(W) x 6.3"(D)

vs

Playstation 2 Technical Specifications:

The specifications of the PlayStation 2 console are as follows, with hardware revisions:

* CPU: 64-bit/128-bit "Emotion Engine" clocked at 294 MHz (299 MHz on newer versions), 10.5 million transistors
o System Memory: 32 MB (MiB) Direct Rambus or RDRAM
o Memory bus Bandwidth: 3.2 gigabytes per second
o Main processor: MIPS R5900 CPU core, 64 bit
o Coprocessor: FPU (Floating Point Multiply Accumulator × 1, Floating Point Divider × 1)
o Vector Units: VU0 and VU1 (Floating Point Multiply Accumulator × 9, Floating Point Divider × 1), 128 bit, at 150 MHz.
+ VU0 typically used for physics and other gameplay type things
+ VU1 typically used for polygon transformations, lighting and other visual based calculations
o Floating Point Performance: 6.2 gigaFLOPS (single precision 32-bit floating point)
+ FPU 0.64 gigaFLOPS
+ VU0 2.44 gigaFLOPS
+ VU1 3.08 gigaFLOPS (with Internal 0.64 gigaFLOP EFU)
o 3D CG Geometric transformation(VU0+VU1 parallel): 66 million polygons per second
+ 3D CG Geometric transformations under curved surfaces: 16 million polygons per second
+ 3D CG Geometric transformations at peak movements/effects(textures)/lights(VU0+VU1): 16.7-22 million polygons per second (dependant on if series or paralell T&L)
+ Actual real-world polygons (per frame):500-733k at 30fps, 250-366k at 60fps
o Compressed Image Decoder: MPEG-2
o I/O Processor interconnection: Remote Procedure Call over a serial link, DMA controller for bulk transfer
o Cache memory: Instruction: 16 KB (KiB), Data: 8 KB + 16 KB (ScrP)

* GPU: "Graphics Synthesizer" clocked at 147 MHz
o Pixel pipelines: 16
o Video output resolution: variable from 256x224 to 1280x1024 pixels
o 4 MB (MiB) Embedded DRAM video memory bandwidth at 48 gigabytes per second (main system 32 MB can be dedicated into VRAM for off-screen materials)
+ Texture buffer bandwidth: 9.6 GB/s
+ Frame buffer bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s
o DRAM Bus width: 2560-bit (composed of three independent buses: 1024-bit write, 1024-bit read, 512-bit read/write)
o Pixel Configuration: RGB: Alpha:Z Buffer (24:8, 15:1 for RGB, 16, 24, or 32-bit Z buffer)
o Dedicated connection to: Main CPU and VU1
o Overall Pixel fillrate: 16x147 = 2.352 Gpixel/s (rounded to 2.4 Gpixel/s)
+ Pixel fillrate: with no texture, flat shaded 2.4(75,000,000 32pixel raster triangles)
+ Pixel fillrate: with 1 full texture(Defuse Map), Gouraud shaded 1.2 (37,750,000 32-bit pixel raster triangles)
+ Pixel fillrate: with 2 full textures(Defuse map + specular or alpha or other), Gouraud shaded 0.6 (18,750,000 32-bit pixel raster triangles)
o Multi-pass rendering ability
+ Four passes = 300 Mpixel/s (300 Mpixel/s divided by 32pixel = 9,375,000 triangle/sec lossed every four passes)
* Audio: "SPU1+SPU2" (SPU1 is actually the CPU clocked at 8 MHz)
o Number of voices: 48 hardware channels of ADPCM on SPU2 plus software-mixed channels
o Sampling Frequency: 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz (selectable)
o Output: Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround sound, DTS (Full motion video only), later games achieved analog 5.1 surround during gameplay through Dolby Pro Logic II
* I/O Processor
o CPU Core: Original PlayStation CPU (MIPS R3000A clocked at 33.8688 MHz or 37.5 MHz)
o Sub Bus: 32 Bit
o Connection to: SPU and CD/DVD controller.

* Interface Types:
o 2 proprietary PlayStation controller ports (250 kHz clock for PS1 and 500 kHz for PS2 controllers)
o 2 proprietary Memory Card slots using MagicGate encryption (250 kHz for PS1 cards, up to 2 MHz for PS2 cards)
o Expansion Bay (PCMCIA on early models for PCMCIA Network Adaptor and External Hard Disk Drive) DEV9 port for Network Adaptor
o Modem and Internal Hard Disk Drive
o IEEE 1394 (only in SCPH 10xxx – 3xxxx)
o Infrared remote control port (SCPH 5000x and newer) — IEEE 1394 port removed and Infrared port added in SCPH-50000 and later hardware versions.
o 2 USB 1.1 ports with an OHCI-compatible controller.

* Disc Drive type: 24x (PlayStation 2 format CD-ROM, PlayStation format CD-ROM), 4x (Supported DVD formats) — Region-locked with anti-copy protection. Can't read "Gold Discs" i.e., normal CD-ROMs.

* Supported Disc Media: PlayStation 2 format CD-ROM, PlayStation format CD-ROM, Compact Disc Audio, PlayStation 2 format DVD-ROM (4.7 GB), DVD Video (4.7 GB). Later models are DVD-9 (8.5 GB Dual-Layer), DVD+RW, and DVD-RW compatible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top