XCNuse
...i highly doubt anyone here has a fast enough computer to accomplish what a PS2 (or xbox at that) can do.
you may think ' oh.. well the PS2 has ONLY 350Mhz cpu speed.. my computer has 3GHz..'
thats not the case, a computer does tons more things in the background, and has many other things going on at the same time compared to the PS2.. unless you had a pure 'dedicated' computer for a game like GT4.. it would basically turn out the same as a PS2.. without any GPU, no interface.. nothing.. it would just run the game and nothing else
This is just wrong. Windows isn't the most efficient thing in the world, but it certainly doesn't drain 80% of your resources. I see you also included the Xbox in your assumption which makes it very easy to disprove. Most people would agree that the Xbox is at least slightly superior to the PS2 on the hardware side of things, and it is a Microsoft machine running a Coppermine-based Celeron 733 (Socket 370, 133 MHz FSB, 128K cache, 180nm SL5S core).
Now, let's look at some benchmarks on Tom's Hardware, strictly comparing CPUs. The tests used a GeForce 6800 GT (16-pipe 350 MHz as opposed to the 4-pipe 233 MHz GF3 in the Xbox) so things are CPU-limited. The Xbox has a DX8 GPU so let's look at DX8 benchmarks for Unreal Tournament 2004 (1280x1024x32bpp)
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-15.html
Pentium III 800 (faster and more cache than the Xbox CPU) = 36.3 FPS
Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (Northwood) = 87.6 FPS
Athlon XP 2500+ (1.8 GHz Barton) = 95.9 FPS
Athlon 64 2800+ (1.8 GHz Newcastle) = 125.2 FPS
Pentium 4 660 (3.6 GHz Prescott) = 139.4 FPS
Pentium 4 EE 3.46 GHz (Gallatin) = 146.6 FPS
Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4 GHz Newcastle) = 156.1 FPS
Athlon 64 FX-55 (2.6 GHz Clawhammer) = 171.7 FPS
The Athlon XP 2500+ was a fairly cheap and common CPU about two years ago, and it spanks the Xbox by 3X in basic game performance (without considering overclocking, which was really the reason it was popular).
Such a narrow comarison certainly isn't without its flaws, but common sense dictates that most of the performance gain you get from a console is simply because the main part of the game is essentially fixed at 640x480 at 30 FPS (or 640x240 at 60 FPS depending on how you look at it), while even the crappiest PCs are able to run games at over 800x600 these days. I'm very impressed that GT4 can work in 1080i, but that's still nothing compared to a cheap system like a Sempron with an old GeForce Ti 4200 which can run older games of comparable complexity at 1600x1200 hitting over 30 FPS.
GT4 is very pretty. I'm honestly shocked that they managed to improve the graphics as much as they did on the PS2, but new PC games have visual effects a PS2 could never do.