Played_Out said:
I am not really sure what bearing your comments have on the statement I made, but I am assuming that your comment about PS2's pixel-pushing power is a reference to the system's superior floating-point performance (much vaunted by Sony). While that may be true, it is really only a small part of the overall picture. It is also irrelevant to a debate about the graphical potential of the Wii. |
No, I'm referring to your comment on pixel-pushing power (pixel fillrate). PS2 had 16 (yes, SIXTEEN) pixel pipelines, while both XB/GC had 4... unless you where referring to something else by pixel-pushing power. And still GC/XB games looked better than PS2 games, so it's as relevant as your comment on that matter.
And Wii's GPU architecture seems to be quite different (aside from speed) from GC's (CPU-wise I don't know). If you ever opened a GC and removed the heatspreader of the graphics chip, you would find that everything on it (sound, embedded RAM, I/O, GPU, etc.) was on a single chip. On the Wii is different: the graphics package has been separated into two chips for some reason... and remember no spec has been confirmed by Nintendo, ATi or IBM. We just know about the RAM because you can figure it out by the serial number.
And no, I'm not saying we will see games on equal foot (or better) to the best looking 360/Triple games, but we will see things far above Xbox/GC and closer to 360/Triple.







