After the PS2, Consoles stopped being better with graphics than PC, and the situation has not changed for more than a decade.
I wager to differ. The OG Xbox for example, but certain X360 with Perfect Dark Zero was a notch above what you could find in PC gaming in 2005.
However, PC's even back then had the benefit of resolutions - high end rigs hitting 1920x1200, for example. The same was also true in the OG Xbox days, where top end PC's reached 1600x1200. Visually wise however, The X360 trumped them all with its universal shader hardware, a year before the 8800 GTX was introduced. I like to think that this is why the X360 usually ended up performing better in the beginning and as the last-gen kept on going, because the X360 design was just ''clean'' - 3 core processor, 512 MB GDDR3, Universal shader GPU and EDRAM. Compared to the PS3, it was far easier to work with.
Haha what? Console Graphics were never better than PC. They just had more games because PC ports were less common. But games like Unreal, Tribes II, and Civ III looked a lot better than anything on consoles in 2001.
Like explained above, this is highly likely due to the significant resolution differences between PC and consoles, not to mention AA and AF that got useable starting from the 9700 Pro. (Before that, AA/AF had a significant performance penalty on most GPU's.)
The amiga 500 was released the same year as the nes and absolutelu blew it away. Home computers have always been more capable than consoles.
Home computers, assuming you are talking about the ones like the Amiga 500 (So keyboard in case) are quite outdated now, sans the few oddities that incorporate PC components in a keyboard case, effectively creating a home computer. They are usually consisting of netbook level components, however.
Sorry man I do not agree.
Care to elaborate why? I mean, if you pull out that response IRL, you will also be asked why you don't agree with it, at the least. This is just an easy way out.
There's a rather nice article on the PS2 and a rather ambitious PS2/Xbox crossplatform title.
https://xania.org/201003/swat-ps2-renderer
Hah, looks like im not the only one aware of this. I linked that some months ago in a ''most impressive PS2 visuals'' thread. Argonaut did something exceptional here, coming up with a light baking process that gave incredible results reminscent of Mirror's Edge albeit years earlier. And ofcourse, some scenes with little lights look exceptionally poor aswell. But that lighting system with the baked stencil shadows, that game could easily hold up today when run on 4K. Its just
that impressive visually.
Nintendo 64 better than a PC? It couldnt even get a Quake 1 port without compromises.
Are you sure you aren't confusing yourself with the Saturn port (which was a feat by itself)? Quake 64 had colored lighting and its the only 5th gen port to use the original engine. Quake 2 64 was based off of this.
The NES, not famicom, was released in 1985, the same year the Amiga was released (NOT 1987). In fact, the amiga released about a week after the earliest known NES test releases happened.
And the Amiga's custom chips were completed in 1983.
I wish you would have mentioned
The Mindset computer from 1984, which was essentially the foreshadowing of what Amiga and Atari ST would become. What i would give for some gameplay of Vyper..
In the universe that someone can afford it? I mean, it's not that ridiculous.
Its almost twice as expensive as an X and undoubtely in a form factor that cant match what either a Pro or an X are doing. The only real caveat is the Jaguar based CPU platform at play here.
The Xbox GPU was more powerful than Nvidias most powerful GPU.
Only for a few months in North America only. In 2002, when everyone else got the Xbox, ATI released the Radeon 9700 Pro. A GPU far beyond expectations and could run some budget shooters from City Interactive (And Exodus From The Earth) on it, which were 2008-2010 titles. It had quite exceptional longevity.
