Originally Posted by Edge
First off I think you messed up on your first sentance. And secondly they aren't really comparable: you can't simply say the PS2's CPU is equivalent to a 433 P2 because it's running at 128 bits and has a far different arcitecture, nor is the GPU "equivalent" to a DX7 Radeon VE. The PS2's GPU doesn't even support hardware bumpmapping (something that's been standard in video cards since the Geforce 1), however it's able to pull off some VERY impressive effects because it's so configurable (ever seen the water in Hotshots Golf or the shadows in Silent Hill 3? Those effects are comparable to some of the best looking effects in PC games, despite the fact that PC hardware was designed specifically for those effects). The PS2's hardware is notorious for being poorly designed, but for as much as I don't like it even I'm impressed by some of the things they've done with it. The programmers who did Gran Tourismo 4 and Metal Gear Solid 3 must be gods, I'd LOVE to see what they could do with high-end PC hardware.
Oh, and didn't they say that the GPU in the next generation Xbox will be roughly equivalent to a next generation Radeon card (i.e. after the x800 series)? If so I highly doubt the hardware you have in your computer could really match those consoles
After rereading the first sentence, your right. From what I have read, ATI used the Radeon VE in the PS2. I guess that im wrong. Your right about console developers getting the most out of limited hardware too. It's amazing what console developers can do with 32 and 64mb of memory when Crytek can't make farcry run smooth on 512. I was under the impression that the Xbox2 would be running the R420 chip?