Viper1 said:
Viper1 said:
Player1x3 said:
Viper1 said:
Not as big as the jump from PS2 to PS3. That was just an insane jump that will not likely ever be repeated.
I believe we will see a similar jump from ps3 to ps4, but that's another topic
I do know that a game designed wholly from the ground up on Wii U with the intention of being highly graphical in presentation developed by a team with some years of experience on the system with sufficient budget and resources would defintely stand out graphically above what is seen on PS3/X360.
Ok, so why is that none of the U exclusive games look nowhere near as good as some of the best 7th gen games? On Ps3, on all launch games you could see a clear difference between last gen and next gen? That's not the case with U. That was really my original point.
Quantifying how much more is where things get difficult. Not just in simply not knowing the peak potential yet but in the mere fact that "how much better" tends to be subjective to each viewer.
I agree.
Go back and read that first post you quote me on. Read if carefully. Notice the context of what is being said. Then compare that circumstance to the one I just described above. It's such a vastly different situation. Again, they can and eventually will look better. How much better is unknowna nd may depend on whether developers want to put in the extra work to show it. Nintendo stated recently that the reason that NSMBU is in 720p rather than 1080p is because it would cost a lot more to develop the game in 1080 yet it wouldn't change the amount of sales at all....so why bother? If this remains the situation for most developers on Wii U, we may not see many games that really push the system until the PS4/X360 arrive.
I agree that they will eventually look better. Im just not sure the difference would be ''generation ahead'' big, like it should be.
|
|
I'll give a full reply to this later. Just marking it now so I know to come back when I have time.
|
Squilliam said:
Yes the Wii U is efficient but that does not in any way make it powerful. The next generation consoles from Microsoft and Sony are going to be both more efficiently designed and more powerful than the Wii U and this is likely in the order of 4-6 times. So from this perspective it is appropriate to say that people won't really care that the Wii U is more capable than the Xbox 360 and PS3 especially given the fact that a significant proportion of the advantage will be wasted on the new development paradigms which come about as more performance is made available as a baseline.
|
Neither of those companies have designed an efficient console...ever. How in the world do you assume they'll start now and be more efficient than the very efficiently designed Wii U?
PS2 was a beast spec wise. As is the PS3. Can either console use all that power? Not at all. Not even close. Look at the GC. The way the console moves data is efficient. Devs could tap the full power of the console without leaving wasted clock cycles along the way. That's efficiency.
|
Neither? Not efficient? Given tradeoffs they are both very efficient in what they do. The same trade-offs apply to Nintendo. Given the results on screen and the ability for instance for the consoles to perform multiple different workloads at different stages of the piplelines they can achieve very high utlilization of their resources, if they couldn't they simply would not have been more than the sum of their parts as we have seen by the performance achieved by developers as compared to inefficient architectures like the PC.
Both Microsoft and Sony have the option of using faster memory which enables them to use more data per frame, is this not efficient? They also have the option of using lower clocked Jaguar cores which use very little power and does this not make them efficient? They also have the option of combining the GPU and CPU onto the one die and again is this not efficient and this is something Nintendo didn't do.
