gamecube eliminator for psp

is there a gamecube eliminator for psp

uhhhh might be an emulator not sure... but no eliminator??

lol ya thats what i ment sarry

nope.

ok thx

...Like I told a few people on a youtube clip.The psp may be able to barely emulate a dreamcast (but it's unplayable-5fps on 60fps games) but gamecube is out of the question.The psp can't even do ps2-that is technically weaker than a gamecube.

PS2 is more powerful than gamecube actually, and dreamcast is more powerful than both of them.

Replying to #7

Explain how?The specs show the gamecube is more so.And the dreamcast...well the psp can emulate it-yet not ps2 or gamecube.It is alot weaker-ethier that or no one used it's full power.
Post Merge: [time]1256049557[/time]
64-bit[3][4] "Emotion Engine" clocked at 294.912 MHz (launch), 299 MHz (newer models)
(ps2) PowerPC Gekko, 486 MHz
(gamecube) 200 MHz Hitachi SH4 RISC
(dreamcast)Now, in old tech specs from yester year-they showed the ps2 and xbox with specs with most systems off (as in not taking account of pologons running, etc) while nintendo running showing a realistic gc spec.After much research and...common knoledge-xbox was the most powerful.I'm aware they are built differently.And yes these are from wikipedia-but after much searching just incase (when your bored you can do these things-I did many searches over the years-always thought gamecube was tops :( ) it is close or accurate.

Dreamcast had the most powerful graphics engine (not counting xbox) because of the unique way it rendered scenes. I remember the technology being trialed in PCs but it never caught on. (I have a couple of cards for PC that use the technology).While on paper the gamecube maybe the most powerful, it does not have dedicated sound hardware, that is a function of the main CPU. Both the Dreamcast and PS2 have dedicated sound hardware, freeing up the CPU for other tasks. The original spec for the PS2 had the emotion engine running at 400mhz, presumably they reduced that at some point prior to launch.The PS2 has much higher memory bandwidth than the gamecube, this gives it an edge as it is able to use the unused clock cycles on the emotion engine to render graphics, as well as using the dedicated graphics hardware. I don't have any detailed specs for dreamcast memory bandwidth.XBOX does not count because it was a latecomer and typical of microsoft they went for massive overkill on everything, it was the only console in that generation that was anywhere near the gigahertz range (Almost double the speed of the fastest existing console). Consoles did not need that kind of power, and still don't, but microsoft forced everyone else into a clock speed war.Ironically the XBOX was the only console of the four not to support multichannel audio, being limited to two channels only.

LoonylionDreamcast had the most powerful graphics engine (not counting xbox) because of the unique way it rendered scenes. I remember the technology being trialed in PCs but it never caught on. (I have a couple of cards for PC that use the technology).While on paper the gamecube maybe the most powerful, it does not have dedicated sound hardware, that is a function of the main CPU. Both the Dreamcast and PS2 have dedicated sound hardware, freeing up the CPU for other tasks. The original spec for the PS2 had the emotion engine running at 400mhz, presumably they reduced that at some point prior to launch.The PS2 has much higher memory bandwidth than the gamecube, this gives it an edge as it is able to use the unused clock cycles on the emotion engine to render graphics, as well as using the dedicated graphics hardware. I don't have any detailed specs for dreamcast memory bandwidth.XBOX does not count because it was a latecomer and typical of microsoft they went for massive overkill on everything, it was the only console in that generation that was anywhere near the gigahertz range (Almost double the speed of the fastest existing console). Consoles did not need that kind of power, and still don't, but microsoft forced everyone else into a clock speed war.Ironically the XBOX was the only console of the four not to support multichannel audio, being limited to two channels only.

That is what I was talking about-I seen that spec.But those specs of what the system was thoeretically capable of-not including all systems on.Infact-the slim line model is slightly more powerful-and this makes sence.

64-bit "Emotion Engine" clocked at 294.912 MHz (launch), 299 MHz (newer models)

Again from wikipedia.And most of the games-even god of war-can faulter compared to say...star wars rouge squadron or star fox adventures.But the sound...that is one thing that I should have expected.WHat is the bandwidth your on about may I ask-I'm going by specs alone :(Oh...the xbox-the specs I seen mention 733mhz-so it was overkill...Not that it mattered-the games mostly looked like garbage-halo 1 should have been a better example-yet it wasn't until halo 2 that you coudly see what the specs were on about...As for the dreamcast...all the games I saw on it kinda illistrated the fact it wasn't powerful-that and the psp could emulate it-one of the people who made the pc dreamcast emulator tried-he got it running but majour speed and lag was present-I have yet to find the emu but from what I saw-it wasn't worth it...Sorry If I'm skeptical-but I never saw much power from the dreamcast from what I saw-and yes I am on about from gaming examples and tech specs-back then it did look good but after the gc came in I knew everything can be beaten.But then again 10 bucks I'm wrong on all counts-I go by looks and tech specs-the way these things are made is another matter that...I don't specialise in.What I do know-the wii beats the xbox(not by much)-it's specs are within the area (it's a 128 bit console-not like the 256bit monsters)-go figure :P

Memory bandwidth is the rate at which data can be transferred between CPU and ram.

Replying to #11

Ok...Is it possible to show a comparison between the gc and ps2?

PSP struggles N64. So no.Nice question though.