Gaming systems usually have fairly poor CPU's but the hardware is dedicated to gaming and nothing but gaming and the games are coded for that exact set of hardware and optimized. These people have no clue what they are talking about. For example, a 1.4 GHz G4 could usually only emulate maybe a 300 MHz Pentium 3. No, the reason we don't have a good PS2 emulator is because:Ī) The PS2's processor had an overlycomplex design that makes it hard to write an emulatorī) You usually need 10x the power to emulate something. That's not a personal insult, I don't know who these members are, just reading the text is cracking me up. OMG those have to be some of the funniest, most stupidly ignorant posts I've read all week. Morons! I have yet to eat, so my tact restraints aren't in place. The same is also true for the 7800 varient in the PS3. Recall how the PS3 was being praised as being so powerful, because it could fold like a maniac? Anyways, the 8600 in a MBPro, if set up for folding, is way faster than a PS3's cell. Where do you find these people? I'm guess they're kids?Ī MacBook Pro with a 8600 GT is more powerful than a PS3 or 360 across the board. These are probably the same guys/kids, that assume a PS2 is better off than a Wii. A GameCube had way more power at its disposal than a PS2. The best part about their ignorance, is how they're glorifying the weakest console if its generation. General computing on any console is just too slow, even if a console is faster than a PC. The PS2 only has 32 megs of ram, that's just not enough. If you were to run OS X, or even XP on a PS2, it would be slower than dirt.

But on the other hand today's PCs in general have so much more power at their disposal, that the loss in performance to the OS is negligible.

The advantage of a console, is that it's a dedicated gaming rig and they do have less overhead, so they can do more with less. Anyways, on average, today's PCs are way more powerful than any game console.

Sure, a PS2 is faster than a Pentium 2 or a 386.

Pcsx2 emulator too fast