• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

How much more powerful was the N64 compared to the PlayStation anyway?

Clockwork5

Member
Feb 19, 2013
5,464
34
520
Here's some information I found on the two. Strangely, for some reason, I thought PS1 was far superior to N64.

  • Both PS1 and N64 supported CD's, but only N64 supported cartridges, too.
  • While PS1 had 32-bit architecture, N64 had a 64-bit hardware architecture.
  • N64 costs as low as 130$ nowadays, while PS1 costs as low as 190$! At launch, PS1 was sold with the price of 299$, while N64 was being sold at a 249$ price.
  • PS1 is a fifth generation console developed by Sony on December 3rd, 1994, while N64 is Nintendo's third video game console.
  • PS1 had the capability to process 2D graphics separately from its 3D engine on the CPU.
  • Although not edition-specific, it is stated that Sony sold app. 102 million units of PS1, while Nintendo sold app. 32.9 million units of N64.
  • One notable problem that N64 had, in comparison to PS1, was that the N64 had weaknesses that were caused by a combination of oversight on the part of the hardware designers, limitations on 3D technology of the time, and manufacturing capabilities.
  • The best selling game on PS1 was Gran Turismo, while best selling game on N64 was Super Mario 64, which was N64's launch game.
  • Some of the most popular and iconic games on PS1 were Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy VII, Gran Turismo 2, Final Fantasy VIII, Tomb Raider II, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Crash Bandicoot, Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped, Final Fantasy IX.
  • Some of the most popular and iconic games on N64 were Super Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, GoldenEye 007, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Smash Bros, Diddy Kong Racing, Pokémon Stadium, Donkey Kong 64, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Star Fox 64.

    For other info, visit this link: PS1 vs N64 on FindTheBest
Never go to that website again.
 

ocean

Banned
Nov 14, 2013
9,167
0
0
I had them both and enjoyed them immensely. That said, I think it's tricky to compare them in terms of "better" and "worse" since the styles were so different. The N64 might have had a graphical edge (compare Mario 64 to Spyro), but it's not as huge a difference as some people would make it out to be.

That said, PSX games leveraged their storage space to include beautiful pre-rendered backgrounds, FMVs, and quality audio. The result was some truly beautiful scenery. Look back on FFVII - it's jarring as hell to have character models on like 15 triangle blocks total, but dem backgrounds are still amazingly beautiful.

Rogue Squadron on the N64 was such an amazing visual experience for me. I don't think that sort of game could have been pulled off on PSX hardware. But then a lot of multiple-disc games on PSX would likewise have been impossible to produce on N64. I really think that both systems were necessary to fully enjoy that generation.

Amazing that N64 was only US$200 at launch. Even adjusting for inflation, it's still cheaper than any current gen console (including Wii U) was on release!
 

mattp

Member
Jun 10, 2009
7,510
2
0
nj
Not really, Mario 64 DS had much higher resolution textures than Mario 64.

This is what Mario 64's textures look like if you remove the vaseline filter:


You can literally count the pixels

Compare to Mario 64 DS:


Of course, some people might prefer it running on an N64 with the vaseline filter blurring the crap out of the textures, but the DS had a lot more going on in terms of detail.
that's not a fair comparison, though. those n64 textures were designed with the blur filter in mind
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,619
2,046
2,035
www.eurogamer.net
We'll the textures look more detailed on the DS version. Can't someone post Mario DS screenshots with texture filtering if possible?
I really don't think they are. Look closely at the actual texel size between the two. They're extremely close.

The DS textures are very low contrast in comparison to the originals, however, which helps hide the pixelation but I don't think the resolution is really much higher (if at all). Furthermore, Mario is positioned FURTHER away from the wall in the DS shot which would change things.
 

arhra

Member
Nov 4, 2004
2,613
71
1,315
UK
I really don't think they are. Look closely at the actual texel size between the two. They're extremely close.
Looks like there are actually several textures there, on different parts of the terrain. The main part of the grass is fairly comparable to the N64 grass, but there's a more detailed texture for the transition between the grass and dirt with texels that are ~1/4 the size in screen-space.
 

Branduil

Member
Sep 20, 2006
64,608
1
0
Excellent Eriador
The DS has interesting graphics capabilities, as it's Nintendo's second attempt at primitive 3D graphics, and they obviously learned some things from the N64. DS games have dramatically improved framerates, and far better texturing, at the cost of polygons and texture filtering.
 

WillyFive

Member
Sep 17, 2009
28,623
1
0
We'll the textures look more detailed on the DS version. Can't someone post Mario DS screenshots with texture filtering if possible?
Impossible at the moment, DS emulators didn't finally crack a way to render the games in higher resolution until not too long ago; giving it texture filtering is still somewhere in the future as far as I know. Of course, texture filtering will make it look better than the N64 textures because the textures are higher-res.
 

LordOfChaos

Member
Mar 31, 2014
9,699
2,014
815
It's interesting to read some of the Nintendo interviews right after the N64, and at or after the Gamecube launch. They said they learned from its retarded memory architecture that it was more important to have a good "cruising" speed than a great theoretical top speed, and kept that design mentality for all their future consoles.

Apparently they didn't learn from the lower storage space than its competitors though, the Gamecube had less, the Wii had less, even the Wii U has less.

I don't remember where to find that interview, anyone know? Maybe one of the IBM Gamecube CPU interviews?


Ah, here you go, me.

http://www.newsweek.com/its-hip-be-square-159157

"When we made Nintendo 64, we thought it was logical that if you want to make advanced games, it becomes technically more difficult. We were wrong," he admits. "We now understand it's the cruising speed that matters, not the momentary flash of peak power."
 

Herne

Member
Jul 28, 2012
5,725
1
515
Cork, Ireland
It's interesting to read some of the Nintendo interviews right after the N64, and at or after the Gamecube launch. They said they learned from its retarded memory architecture that it was more important to have a good "cruising" speed than a great theoretical top speed, and kept that design mentality for all their future consoles.

Apparently they didn't learn from the lower storage space than its competitors though, the Gamecube had less, the Wii had less, even the Wii U has less.
I wouldn't say the Wii had less, more like the PS3 had more. The Wii's optical disc has the same capacity as a dvd - 4.7/8.54GB - and this is the same as the XBox 360's discs. As for the Wii U, it's discs are the same thing again - this time the same as Blu Ray discs, which the XB1 and PS4 use, at 25GB. I'm not sure if the other two consoles use dual layer discs, but they definitely use single layer and that's exactly the same capacity as the Wii U discs.

It's not as if Nintendo needs that space, though - I believe Super Mario 3D World uses only 1.7GB of space.
 

ascii42

Member
Mar 27, 2007
14,340
2
1,035
Georgia
I wouldn't say the Wii had less, more like the PS3 had more. The Wii's optical disc has the same capacity as a dvd - 4.7/8.54GB - and this is the same as the XBox 360's discs. As for the Wii U, it's discs are the same thing again - this time the same as Blu Ray discs, which the XB1 and PS4 use, at 25GB. I'm not sure if the other two consoles use dual layer discs, but they definitely use single layer and that's exactly the same capacity as the Wii U discs.

It's not as if Nintendo needs that space, though - I believe Super Mario 3D World uses only 1.7GB of space.
XB1 and PS4 can indeed use dual layer discs. PS3 could, and did, as well.
 

Log4Girlz

Member
May 23, 2006
40,794
0
0
I often wonder what the N64 would have been capable of if they addressed the bottlenecks before release and it had CD.
 

Skunkers

Member
Feb 10, 2012
2,156
0
475
I often wonder what the N64 would have been capable of if they addressed the bottlenecks before release and it had CD.
Those are really big if's, and I'd also inject better relationships with third parties; but, those being the case, I suspect they would have crushed that generation in sales. There would have been a small chance Sony would have pulled out of the industry. Nintendo's brand awareness was through the roof at the time, what you're describing would have been an ludicrously powerful system without the costs/size limitations of the N64 we got. Worth noting FFVII probably would have remained an N64 title too. That would have been huge.

This is such an odd "fact" to even try to put out there. It's just outright wrong. How "wrong" can you go? This wrong, right here.
Why single that one out; almost every "fact" on that list is WTF worthy.
 

Oemenia

Banned
Jan 31, 2010
3,259
142
835
Impossible at the moment, DS emulators didn't finally crack a way to render the games in higher resolution until not too long ago; giving it texture filtering is still somewhere in the future as far as I know. Of course, texture filtering will make it look better than the N64 textures because the textures are higher-res.
DSMUME has an AA option that really helps clean up the look of games.
 

Log4Girlz

Member
May 23, 2006
40,794
0
0
Those are really big if's, and I'd also inject better relationships with third parties; but, those being the case, I suspect they would have crushed that generation in sales. There would have been a small chance Sony would have pulled out of the industry. Nintendo's brand awareness was through the roof at the time, what you're describing would have been an ludicrously powerful system without the costs/size limitations of the N64 we got. Worth noting FFVII probably would have remained an N64 title too. That would have been huge.



Why single that one out; almost every "fact" on that list is WTF worthy.
Forgoing CD killed Nintendo. SNES was very popular, Sega dropped the ball with Saturn, Sony was relatively knew and Nintendo had the performance hype, but was negated by lack of CD. Man what a stupid decision on their part.
 
Dec 27, 2007
3,344
0
0
38
Akron, OH
Overall visuals were better on the N64 because of the sheer fact that ps1 titles looked like everything was made from moving sprites(wobbly textures whatever you wanna call it). It truly did make games look like garbage, it was like devs were using tricks to make 3D works, where as the n64 was designed for 3D.

but the PS1 did have richer, bigger budget games, and I suppose you could make the argument that the ps1 was more powerful because it had more ambitious+richer games.

there was nothing like driver on the n64, that game was so sweet on PS1.

not having CD was a crippling factor for the N64
Yeah, that was my opinion of the Playstation from the first time I saw, just Mode 7 made more 3D. Mode 7-ish 3D graphics were ok in 1993 , but 1996 ? Come on, N64 did 3D right (*sigh* how I wish the tech supremacist Nintendo of all but the Iwata era would return).
 

LordOfChaos

Member
Mar 31, 2014
9,699
2,014
815
I wouldn't say the Wii had less, more like the PS3 had more. The Wii's optical disc has the same capacity as a dvd - 4.7/8.54GB - and this is the same as the XBox 360's discs. As for the Wii U, it's discs are the same thing again - this time the same as Blu Ray discs, which the XB1 and PS4 use, at 25GB. I'm not sure if the other two consoles use dual layer discs, but they definitely use single layer and that's exactly the same capacity as the Wii U discs.

It's not as if Nintendo needs that space, though - I believe Super Mario 3D World uses only 1.7GB of space.
But we at least know the other two are capable of dual layer 50GB disks. Nintendo just claimed 25GB proprietary disks (which do seem to line up with the blu ray spec, but still, they made no mention of being able to double that capacity), and I tend to believe that's their max since they never said otherwise. The PS3 I think even had a few games that went to 50GB. Some of the installs for XBO/PS4 games are around 50GB, so I'm thinking they use dual layer as well.

Re Nintendo not needing more, SM3DW needing 1.7GB...That's a Nintendo game. They, and the fans, wanted a console that could get as many cross platform games as possible. If we're already hitting 50GB this early in the generation...And they don't even have decent internal storage space for installs to fall back on.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Sep 5, 2004
66,972
11
1,590
Arakeen
That rare game where you had to wreck stuff with ever more unwieldy vehicles. I loved it so much I forgot what it was called.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,738
3
0
35
Nowhere, PA
That rare game where you had to wreck stuff with ever more unwieldy vehicles. I loved it so much I forgot what it was called.
Blast Corps?

Because that's one of the only RARE games I liked that gen, and still play it to this day

I would STILL drop on a sword for a sequel.*



*
a prop sword!
 

Bulzeeb

Member
Feb 11, 2011
4,321
1
0
Both of those games ran like total ass. I'd also say they are both quite ugly these days. As far as I'm concerned Mega Man Legends 2 has aged better than of those two put together.







mm legends 2 was a great looking and awesome game but if we compare legends 1 to mm64 I'd say that it looks a bit better in the 64

 

Phire Phox

Banned
Dec 20, 2012
5,302
0
0
N64 games would have probably even better than PS1 games if developers didn't have to compress textures to fit on the cartridges.
 

D.Lo

Member
Aug 20, 2006
9,836
0
1,170
Sydney Australia
Meant to post these a few pages back.

http://a.pomf.se/spaoce.webm

http://a.pomf.se/zlcjqi.webm

http://a.pomf.se/vcgvrj.webm

Pardon the interruption.

Sourced from emulation. I'm running them in the pSX emulator, which is allegedly as close to the original hardware as you can get on PC. No higher resolutions, no filtering, no other tricks as far as I can tell (besides being pixel-doubled, obviously).
Crash sharp and colourful, and has very stable 3D for PS1 (less jitter etc than 99.9% of games). But it's in a corridor, specifically designed to hide pop-up and minimise draw distance. There are always sharp corners before and after anything big or detailed.

Spyro is incredibly barren. Compared directly against the Banjo games, it looks half a generation behind.

CTR also has nothing going on compared to DKR.

Shame ND made such technical marvels for the system with such horrid Poochie-esque trashy 90s character designs. Crash is pretty much the worst Sonic ripoff ever made, including Bubsy and Aero etc. Rare were pretty bad too actually, Diddy, Tiny, Lanky etc are also lame, but they got away with it a bit more in BK and Conker due to some nice British humour.

Someone should compare snowboarding games. 1080 was one of the games that showed the N64 was in a league of its own. Coolboarders etc looked like 32X games in comparison.
 

D.Lo

Member
Aug 20, 2006
9,836
0
1,170
Sydney Australia
Never thought I'd live to see the day someone would say Bubsy is better than Crash. I can't even compute that, and I'm a genius.
Bubsy's game sucked but the character was inoffensive and bland 'bad dude 90s attitude'. Crash is all that, plus also looks mentally disabled and mixes in Tasmanian Devil ('he's an out of control extreme wild animal duuuuuuuuude') to be the worst of all worlds.

The ads too. This is the most embarrassing thing to ever happen in the gaming industry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLlCRE9kDVg

Of course ND went on to do the exact same thing with Jak and Daxter, brilliant tech on the weakest hardware of the gen, but terribad designs. They finally did it right in Uncharted.
 

D.Lo

Member
Aug 20, 2006
9,836
0
1,170
Sydney Australia
Can't agree on that one. Going purely by whatever random Youtube footage I could find of each:

http://a.pomf.se/ouvtlh.webm

I'd say they're at least on-par technically (saying nothing of the
hideously garish
art-style DKR has going on).
Yes DKR definitely has horrible art and horrible characters. And CTR has great art and horrible characters.

But DKR has solid 3D, good performance, and lots going on, without any particular tricks like CTR employs (all the 'event' effects are, just like the platformers, carefully tucked between tight corners so you never need to see, for example, both a large draw distance and a huge detailed object at once). And DKR was an early game (first year of N64), While CTR was 5 years into the PS1 lifecycle.
 

Ishida

Banned
Jun 14, 2013
14,298
1
0
Shame ND made such technical marvels for the system with such horrid Poochie-esque trashy 90s character designs. Crash is pretty much the worst Sonic ripoff ever made, including Bubsy and Aero etc.
Never thought I'd see the day.

 
Jun 21, 2013
7,073
0
435
Virginia, United States
The ads too. This is the most embarrassing thing to ever happen in the gaming industry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLlCRE9kDVg
No dude, the ad for Yoshi's Island in the U.S was way way worst:

http://youtu.be/9L7wIQURdjQ

Besides, that Crash ad was kinda funny in a corny kinda way.

I don't mind those things about Crash tho; at least he didn't have a god-awful tv pilot to sully his rep, and the games make up for his "xtreme" attitude. Just like the old Sonic games did for Sega's guy.
 

PaulloDEC

Member
Sep 6, 2012
8,563
1
0
But DKR has solid 3D, good performance, and lots going on, without any particular tricks like CTR employs (all the 'event' effects are, just like the platformers, carefully tucked between tight corners so you never need to see, for example, both a large draw distance and a huge detailed object at once).
Is it really all that important that CTR uses "tricks" to achieve those things though? If the game looks great and performs great, I can't say I really mind if they're achieving it with smoke and mirrors.

And DKR was an early game (first year of N64), While CTR was 5 years into the PS1 lifecycle.
Fair point. I just wanted to challenge the suggestion that CTR "has nothing going on" visually when compared with DKR.

I don't mind those things about Crash tho; at least he didn't have a god-awful tv pilot to sully his rep, and the games make up for his "xtreme" attitude. Just like the old Sonic games did for Sega's guy.
The funny thing about Crash is that the whole poochie/xtreme attitude stuff didn't really exist outside of the advertising. In-game, Crash is rarely anything other than straight-up goofy (with the exception of maybe the motorbike stages in Warped).
 

The Real Abed

Perma-Junior
Mar 21, 2012
19,298
1
0
40
Pennsylvania
You and me, grandma. You and me.

Boo-yah, grandma! Boo-yah!

That commercial just sticks with me until this day. Even as a Nintendo fanboy I found something endearing about a grown man in a Crash Bandicoot costume trash talking old people.
 

D.Lo

Member
Aug 20, 2006
9,836
0
1,170
Sydney Australia
Is it really all that important that CTR uses "tricks" to achieve those things though? If the game looks great and performs great, I can't say I really mind if they're achieving it with smoke and mirrors.

Fair point. I just wanted to challenge the suggestion that CTR "has nothing going on" visually when compared with DKR.
Yes, if we're discussing system capabilities, not the games. Basically DKR does what it does with ease and without tricks - hence it's showing the capability of the N64. CTR is brilliant design to overcome the limitations of the PS1, so create a facsimile of what the N64 could do with ease.

Kind of like how Burning Rangers does transparencies on Saturn - it's a fancy trick to get done what the PS1 does easily. Doesn't prove the Saturn is 'as good' at transparencies.

It doesn't affect the quality of the games. CTR is the far better game, even though both are horrifically blatant Mario Kart ripoffs.
 

Jea Song

Did the right thing
Sep 1, 2007
2,331
0
0
The n64 had better graphics polygon wise.

Couldn't do CG cut scenes nor FMV well.

Had higher resolution. No pixelated 3d or distortment, but blury textured in its place.

Resident evil 2 looked better on ps1 for example
 

Dawnbuster

Member
Dec 22, 2013
341
0
0
No dude, the ad for Yoshi's Island in the U.S was way way worst:

http://youtu.be/9L7wIQURdjQ

Besides, that Crash ad was kinda funny in a corny kinda way.

I don't mind those things about Crash tho; at least he didn't have a god-awful tv pilot to sully his rep, and the games make up for his "xtreme" attitude. Just like the old Sonic games did for Sega's guy.
Wow I forgot that ad existed. Someone at the ad agency was really into Monty Python's Meaning of Life ... because it's a complete ripoff of one of that movie's most famous scenes.
 

timetokill

Banned
Oct 19, 2004
32,839
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
Yeah, that was my opinion of the Playstation from the first time I saw, just Mode 7 made more 3D. Mode 7-ish 3D graphics were ok in 1993 , but 1996 ? Come on, N64 did 3D right (*sigh* how I wish the tech supremacist Nintendo of all but the Iwata era would return).
Nintendo was never really into tech supremacy except for the N64 and GameCube, which surprise, surprise, sold worse and worse. The NES and SNES weren't exactly using top-shelf components. Meanwhile, they have won every handheld contest easily, due in large part to reining in hardware power and focusing on things like battery life, durability, and cost. Their competitors all had "stronger" hardware but failed in the key categories.
 

HTupolev

Member
Aug 13, 2012
5,333
0
0
The n64 had better graphics polygon wise.

Had higher resolution.
Resolution options were pretty similar between PSX and N64, and AFAIK N64 wasn't really stomping on PSX in terms of what games were typically using.

It might have felt like the resolutions were higher because the N64 was using much better precisions on sampling operations.
 

Raab

Neo Member
Mar 24, 2014
238
0
0
That one just caught my attention with how off the mark it was. Even someone who's never played the console could look at the thing and figure it doesn't play CD's.

So it's just 100% absurd to try and say otherwise.
maybe this person had a v64? idk
 

Branduil

Member
Sep 20, 2006
64,608
1
0
Excellent Eriador
Resolution options were pretty similar between PSX and N64, and AFAIK N64 wasn't really stomping on PSX in terms of what games were typically using.

It might have felt like the resolutions were higher because the N64 was using much better precisions on sampling operations.
There were a few games that were hi-res with the expansion pack(like Rogue Squadron), but most were the same resolution as PS1 games. The N64 did have a form of edge-antialiasing, which reduced jaggies at the cost of blur.
 

HueyFreeman

Banned
Jul 27, 2011
4,238
1
625
Not really, Mario 64 DS had much higher resolution textures than Mario 64.

This is what Mario 64's textures look like if you remove the vaseline filter:


You can literally count the pixels
This has blown my fucking mind. Had no idea the n64 was using a texture filter like that, though now it's obvious.
 

Rhazer Fusion

Member
May 2, 2006
9,791
1,061
1,360
In my own world.
m.youtube.com
Couldn't it crank out way more polygons per frame? It was just that it had such a weird...memory architecture? that it had to texture those polygons using hideous blurred crap and then somethingsomething fog


I thought it cranked out less polygons than the PSOne which explains why so many of the models and characters looked really boxy and more low poly compared to PSOne games.