By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Mass Effect 3 on 360 > Wii U. Eurogamer Face-Off

Badassbab on 23 November 2012
itsyounghavok said:
the thing that is interesting to me is people expecting the WiiU version of games to look far and away better than they're current iterations, while even the PC versions of games like Blops 2 and ME3 fail to do that. On consoles, Blops 2 looks best on WiiU. ME3 I can't say cause I havent seen it yet, but this is HD to HD here. Its not like SD to HD like it was last gen, the leap really isnt going to be that great, epecially not these days when developers are losing money and closing down left and right with the steep development costs. People expecting the PS4 and 720 to destroy WiiU visually... maybe the exclusives will, maybe not, but multiplats are pobably going to be much like they are now with the PS360U.


On the flip side could you not say next gen doesn't have to worry about the jump from SD to HD which in itself required huge amounts of extra grunt to process. Instead the upcoming gen could just concentrate on native HD res and silky smooth frame rates with richly realised worlds full of high res textures and lavish amounts of state of the art post processing effects.






Around the Network
Netyaroze on 23 November 2012
Aquietguy said:

Yea, but its Nintendo known for making games that look better than the tech demo? Plus Nintendo haters base all this on lower clocked CPU. Which doesn't mean much today with current architecture. The fact is that the Wii U's CPU doesnt have as much responsibility as the PS360's CPU'S so it doesn't have to be clocked as high.


Its not at all about the clock speed. Nobody gives a damn. The CPU is slower even if you would double the clock rate. 

This are facts:

The whole Wii U CPU is build with 45nm. Xbox360 CPU too. Wii U s CPU is three times ! smaller than the Xbox360 CPU. That means that it has far (far) less transistors to work with. The Wii U Cpu is about as big as ONE 360 Core.

 

Ofcourse architecture plays a role but even with a far superior architecture the difference in size is too big to overcome. But we all know the cores are Wii Cores which is based on the GameCube Cpu a design from 1999. Not really superior architecture. That it runs with just 1.5 ghz instead of 3 ghz like PS3/360 is not helpful but even if it did it would still be inferior. 

The CPU in the wii u is so weak it doesn't compare to the 360 CPU. And the Cell is even bigger/stronger.

 

Nintendo has a different design philosophy this time around. They have a far superior GPU wiith some General purpose computing abilities. The GPU will take over the CPU tasks. Which needs optimization. On the GPU side of things the Wii U is far superior to PS360. It has the bigger more modern GPU. But it has to compensate for the Cpu and has to feed a second screen. Also games need to be optimized to take advantage of the Wii Us hardware. The Ram is slower but twice (for games) the size. And the 32mb Edram will help compensate the weakness of the Ram.

The Wii U is the strongest console on the market right now but its not really far stronger just a little due to the CPU. It will however surpass PS3/360 visibly in the next few years maybe there will be an update for Wii U that halfes OS size and opens up another 0.5gb Ram for Games but I doubt 1080p gaming will be possible for graphic intense games of the future. And the weak CPU makes sure it requires a slightly different approach to max out the system. 3rd parties might not do that right away. 

Wii U is an efficency wonder which needs just half the power the 360 needs for similar results. I think that Nintendo designed the Wii U with that in mind. A cool/quiet/small/durable/energy saving version of the 360 with room to surpass it (but not by much). 



HoloDust on 23 November 2012
Netyaroze said:

Nintendo has a different design philosophy this time around. They have a far superior GPU wiith some General purpose computing abilities. The GPU will take over the CPU tasks. Which needs optimization. On the GPU side of things the Wii U is far superior to PS360. It has the bigger more modern GPU. But it has to compensate for the Cpu and has to feed a second screen. Also games need to be optimized to take advantage of the Wii Us hardware. The Ram is slower but twice (for games) the size. And the 32mb Edram will help compensate the weakness of the Ram.


I'm not sure it can be  called "far superior" GPU - taking into acount die size, rumours and AMD's GPU offerings, it's pixel and texel throughoutput is slightly (if any) higher than PS360. Where it does have more juice is shader performance and raw GFLOPS (somewhere in area of 2x) - this will help a lot for tasks such as physics, and some of usual code that is run on PS360 CPU, like audio, will migrate to dedicated DSP. Still, a bulk of game code must remain on CPU, and while I do believe that in time 3rd parties will learn to optimize for WiiU's architecture, it is real shame Nintendo went bit cheapish with CPU and memory bandwith, making WiiU not stand clearly above current-gen consoles from the very start.



richardhutnik on 23 November 2012
Player2 said:

Ps3 worst? Damn, what are those devs doing with the machine with the fastest RAM and the strongest CPU?

When you are using common code, and implementing it, the RAM and CPU isn't a point.  If the PS3 has the worst graphics processor, it is going to look the worst.

Anyhow, this being said, I am hoping that this is not a sign of the Wii U's future.  It does need to compete better.



Barozi on 23 November 2012
Netyaroze said:
Aquietguy said:

Yea, but its Nintendo known for making games that look better than the tech demo? Plus Nintendo haters base all this on lower clocked CPU. Which doesn't mean much today with current architecture. The fact is that the Wii U's CPU doesnt have as much responsibility as the PS360's CPU'S so it doesn't have to be clocked as high.

Wii U is an efficency wonder which needs just half the power the 360 needs for similar results. I think that Nintendo designed the Wii U with that in mind. A cool/quiet/small/durable/energy saving version of the 360 with room to surpass it (but not by much). 

Hmmm I don't think the difference is even that big after the slim versions

http://wiiudaily.com/2012/09/wii-u-specs-2-gb-memory-75-w-power/
WiiU 75W under full load
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/11/19/a-glut-of-wii-u-guts-and-specs-revealed/
WiiU 33W for NSMBU


http://cleantechauthority.com/xbox-360-slim-most-energy-efficient-model-yet/
Xbox 360 Slim 85W while playing Red Dead Redemption
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,764307/New-and-slim-Xbox-360-S-loudness-and-power-consumption-put-older-models-to-shame/Reviews/
Xbox 360 Slim 88W while "gaming"


Unfortunately no one did such a test on the Wii U with a more technically advanced game.



Around the Network
Netyaroze on 23 November 2012
HoloDust said:
Netyaroze said:

Nintendo has a different design philosophy this time around. They have a far superior GPU wiith some General purpose computing abilities. The GPU will take over the CPU tasks. Which needs optimization. On the GPU side of things the Wii U is far superior to PS360. It has the bigger more modern GPU. But it has to compensate for the Cpu and has to feed a second screen. Also games need to be optimized to take advantage of the Wii Us hardware. The Ram is slower but twice (for games) the size. And the 32mb Edram will help compensate the weakness of the Ram.


I'm not sure it can be  called "far superior" GPU - taking into acount die size, rumours and AMD's GPU offerings, it's pixel and texel throughoutput is slightly (if any) higher than PS360. Where it does have more juice is shader performance and raw GFLOPS (somewhere in area of 2x) - this will help a lot for tasks such as physics, and some of usual code that is run on PS360 CPU, like audio, will migrate to dedicated DSP. Still, a bulk of game code must remain on CPU, and while I do believe that in time 3rd parties will learn to optimize for WiiU's architecture, it is real shame Nintendo went bit cheapish with CPU and memory bandwith, making WiiU not stand clearly above current-gen consoles from the very start.

 

Maybe I should have said "undoubtetly superior". Its a clear improvment over PS360. Ofcourse compared to what is possible today the GPU is weak. But I wanted to point out that the Wii U has some redeeming qualities when it comes to hardware power and that it has potential to visibly surpass PS360.

But if the PS4/Nextbox provide a reasonable boost over PS360 than the shortcomings of the Wii U will be obvious to everyone. 



Netyaroze on 23 November 2012

 

Barozi said:
Netyaroze said:
Aquietguy said:

Yea, but its Nintendo known for making games that look better than the tech demo? Plus Nintendo haters base all this on lower clocked CPU. Which doesn't mean much today with current architecture. The fact is that the Wii U's CPU doesnt have as much responsibility as the PS360's CPU'S so it doesn't have to be clocked as high.

Wii U is an efficency wonder which needs just half the power the 360 needs for similar results. I think that Nintendo designed the Wii U with that in mind. A cool/quiet/small/durable/energy saving version of the 360 with room to surpass it (but not by much). 

Hmmm I don't think the difference is even that big after the slim versions

http://wiiudaily.com/2012/09/wii-u-specs-2-gb-memory-75-w-power/
WiiU 75W under full load
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/11/19/a-glut-of-wii-u-guts-and-specs-revealed/
WiiU 33W for NSMBU


http://cleantechauthority.com/xbox-360-slim-most-energy-efficient-model-yet/
Xbox 360 Slim 85W while playing Red Dead Redemption
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,764307/New-and-slim-Xbox-360-S-loudness-and-power-consumption-put-older-models-to-shame/Reviews/
Xbox 360 Slim 88W while "gaming"


Unfortunately no one did such a test on the Wii U with a more technically advanced game.


Thanks for clearing it up. Thats what happens when you don't look up everything. I heard it was about half so often that I just assumed its right. 



Badassbab on 24 November 2012
Barozi said:
Badassbab said:
itsyounghavok said:
When the PS1 launched, its launch titles didnt vastly over power the SNES' best titles. I mean Mario RPG and Chrono Trigger looked better than games like Gex and Alundra. Riddick, Doom 3, RE4, Rebel Strike, they looked just as good as some launch 360 games. Now if your judging end era ps1 to SNES then yes its no comparison, as well as current era ps360 titles to to end era xbox/gc, there is no comparison, but in the beginning it is never a massive leap. I've been gaming since the end of the NES era, this is how things usually go. 2nd gen WiiU games will crap all over the current 360 PS3 line up. Im sure of that.

And on a sidenote, everybody talking about how Sony is some power monster in the console department, you are aware that the PS3 is the 3rd playstation home console right? The first 2 were the weakest in there generations. Sony tried the power move once and it was 600 dollar mess at launch.


That's not quite true. PSOne launch games Ridge Racer, Wipeout, Tekken and Battle Arena Toshinden destroyed SNES FX Racing, and Killer Instinct in the technical department. Same goes with N64, Mario 64 was technically far superior to anything on the 16bit consoles and they were all launch games.

A better comparison would be comparing Half Life 2 or Burnout Revenege on last gen Xbox/PS2 to this gen 360 versions of which they were first or second gen games for the latter. The differece is clear.

In fact until the Wii and Wii U came along, next gen was always vastly more powerful then the gen before it. 

I bought both versions of Burnout Revenge (first on Xbox, then when I got my 360 that version) and the difference was huge for a port. The HD resolution alone made it so much better looking, while keeping it at 60FPS at the same time.
But okay that port got released 5 months after the 360 launch.

Now Project Gotham Racing 3 (a launch title) totally killed every other racing game at that time on a technical level.
PGR 2: http://i2.listal.com/image/794505/936full-pgr2%3A-project-gotham-racing-2-screenshot.jpg
PGR 3 (off screen): http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/pgr3/box1.jpg

Fact is almost (if not) all PS2/Xbox ports looked better on the 360 while all WiiU ports so far seem to be inferior to the 360 versions.
Only Treyarch could actually improve something from the other versions and up the resolution to 720p while at the same time getting into framerate problems....
As for the other games. No bigger draw distance ? Not even some higher resolution textures ?

Digital Foundry has just confirmed the resolution is the same as on the 360 which is to say 880x720. Looks similar to 360 (except gamma) but framerate worse than PS3 version so it goes 360>PS3>Wii U based on performance but 360>Wii U>PS3 based on graphics.






Barozi on 24 November 2012
Badassbab said:
Barozi said:

I bought both versions of Burnout Revenge (first on Xbox, then when I got my 360 that version) and the difference was huge for a port. The HD resolution alone made it so much better looking, while keeping it at 60FPS at the same time.
But okay that port got released 5 months after the 360 launch.

Now Project Gotham Racing 3 (a launch title) totally killed every other racing game at that time on a technical level.
PGR 2: http://i2.listal.com/image/794505/936full-pgr2%3A-project-gotham-racing-2-screenshot.jpg
PGR 3 (off screen): http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/pgr3/box1.jpg

Fact is almost (if not) all PS2/Xbox ports looked better on the 360 while all WiiU ports so far seem to be inferior to the 360 versions.
Only Treyarch could actually improve something from the other versions and up the resolution to 720p while at the same time getting into framerate problems....
As for the other games. No bigger draw distance ? Not even some higher resolution textures ?

Digital Foundry has just confirmed the resolution is the same as on the 360 which is to say 880x720. Looks similar to 360 (except gamma) but framerate worse than PS3 version so it goes 360>PS3>Wii U based on performance but 360>Wii U>PS3 based on graphics.

I was under the impression that previous CoD games were below 720p. So yeah it matched the resolution but has bigger framerate problems (goes at low as 26 at times)



Squilliam on 25 November 2012
Barozi said:

I bought both versions of Burnout Revenge (first on Xbox, then when I got my 360 that version) and the difference was huge for a port. The HD resolution alone made it so much better looking, while keeping it at 60FPS at the same time.
But okay that port got released 5 months after the 360 launch.

Now Project Gotham Racing 3 (a launch title) totally killed every other racing game at that time on a technical level.
PGR 2: http://i2.listal.com/image/794505/936full-pgr2%3A-project-gotham-racing-2-screenshot.jpg
PGR 3 (off screen): http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/pgr3/box1.jpg

Fact is almost (if not) all PS2/Xbox ports looked better on the 360 while all WiiU ports so far seem to be inferior to the 360 versions.
Only Treyarch could actually improve something from the other versions and up the resolution to 720p while at the same time getting into framerate problems....
As for the other games. No bigger draw distance ? Not even some higher resolution textures ?

Actually according to the pixel counters at beyond 3D it is the same resolution as the other consoles whilst having the worst framerate.



Tease.