windbane on 13 December 2007
| fazz said: Woah there souixan, the GC didn't used DDR3, it used 1T-SRAM or something like that. The Wii is the one using GDDR3 RAM on a 128-bit bus width (few words: the same as the PS3 and 360) Also, nobody knows yet the ACTUAL clock rates of CPU, GPU and RAM of the Wii. And we still don't the actual architecture of the GPU which could be the same as the GC's, but it could be the same as the 360's too. Mario Galaxy is a good example of graphical achievement on the Wii, it uses many shader effects that I'm certain where not possible on the GC... and it still runs flawlessly at 60 frames per second. So in short, the Wii is far above any console of the past generation. And no, the Wii doesn't makes the GC games perform any better. |
Graphically Galaxy pales in comparison to PS3 and 360 games. According to Wikipedia, which cites sources:
Processors:
- CPU: PowerPC-based "Broadway" processor, made with a 90 nm SOI CMOS process, reportedly† clocked at 729 MHz[46]
- GPU: ATI "Hollywood" GPU made with a 90 nm CMOS process,[47] reportedly† clocked at 243 MHz[46]
Several dvelopers have compared it to XBox. The Wii is not far better than last-gen systems.
I'm not sure why people have to argue this. Just accept the graphics and move on. The games can still be fun.
