| Katakis08 said: >>Wii has a bit weaker graphics That is a little bit understated :D Wii uses graphics hardware from 2000/2001 equivalent to a GeForce2 MX 200. It doesn't have shader and it's far away from HD resolutions. But the average Wii consumer doesn't care, he only wants to play Mario Kart with his children from time to time ;) |
First off, the Geforce 2 was a graphics card from 1999/2000 and produced graphics to what was produced on the PS2 ... The Gamecube/XBox were more similar in performance to the Geforce 3 which was a 2000/2001 graphics card, and the Wii is more powerful than the Gamecube and is (probably) more similar to the Geforce 4 in real world performance.
Secondly, the Flipper/Hollywood processor uses a TEV unit to produce the same kind of texture effects that can be produced using pixel shaders. The TEV unit is very similar to pixel combiners which were used before graphics card manufacturers moved towards a programmable pixel pipeline ... The reason why the moved away from pixel combiners was that there was no standardization and how you produced an effect was different between manufacturers, and could even be different from one generation of graphics card to the next.
Now, there is no doubt that there is a very large gap between the HD consoles and the Wii but rarely do graphical comparisons treat the Wii fairly. Often the Wii games chosen are (practically) identical to a PS2 game and there has been no effort to push the Wii’s hardware, and these games are compared directly against a HD console game that is pushing the system’s hardware while reducing the resolution and struggling to maintain a solid 30fps.
If you were to be entirely unfair in the other direction, and did a direct comparison between a 1080p PS3 game that ran at a steady 60fps and a 480p Wii game that ran at 24fps I bet the graphical difference would look like it was a matter of resolution.
