Er, no, Ssik, you misunderstood...

I didn't say performance didn't matter (if it didn't, we wouldn't buy new consoles ever). I said the apparent specs don't matter; it's the real world performance that matters. There's a huge difference.

Like I said, the ps2 was supposed to far outstrip the DC (supposed to be able to push twice as many polygons), but due to ram limitations, the practical number ended up being roughly the same (vs the specs, which said the ps2 should've been a lot higher -- except hampered by pixel fill rates and ram... meaning the ps2 COULD push more polys than the DC... at low res with few textures).

And similarly with the Xbox and Cube, it looks like the Xbox has double the processor speed, so it can process twice as much, right? Except the Xbox has a 32 bit cpu vs the 64 bit of the Cube (meaning the real world performanc of the 2 ends up being about the same -- on a standard TV). On a 1080i however, the superior pixel fill rate of the Xbox will become quite noticeable. But on a standard TV? Put Metroid P or P2 or RE4 up against Halo 2, PG2 or Forza... hard pressed to tell the diff on standard NTSC.

The reason you can't trust numbers? Because people can highlight whatever numbers they want, and in the end, it's the single weakest member of the chain that determines performance (ie the bottleneck).

Which means we can't tell squat from the numbers till we actually play the games.

Evil~Toast