My theory on the wiis power.

[sc94597]

Username2324 said:

sc94597 said:

Username2324 said:

 

The Wii's specs are only about 50% better than the Gamecubes, so I don't see how this could be true, and you can't say 30-50% of the power is lost because of the High Resolutions (what about registering the motion, and sending audio to the controller for the Wii? That takes power too), that's part of making a beautiful game, so that statement is false as well. I would also like to know where you got your "efficient" part at, everyone knows its up to the developers code, not exactly the hardware, so again, that statement is false. "wii games to look better than PS3 and 360" again completely false, compare multiplatform games, the low resolution and weak power of the Wii becomes extremely noticeable.

People are mad at Wii 3rd part developers because they can't code for the Wii, it's because they have lowsy game ideas. The Wii's potential as already been reached, due to Nintendo not using any new technology. Your comparison of the 3 consoles is very flawed.

Yep cause the wii mote uses as much power as high res and high res textures./sarcasm Efficiency is greatly determined by the hardwares architecture and how many bottlenecks are in that hardware not just how well a dev could produce something. Its like comparing a lower clocked 2ghz cor 2duo ot a 3.6ghz pentium 4 which is better. The more efficient one because it does twice+ of its power in the same time the other processor does one. The only significant multiplatform was CoD 3 and that was a launch game. Who ever said the wii was pushed to its limits. When the wii is running games at 30fps then I will say it is pushed to its limits.

I'm not quite sure I understand your comparison... Your comparing a 2.0Ghz COre 2 Duo to a 3.6Ghz P4, and your saying the P4 is faster? That is not the case, so if that's your comparison you are wrong and your post becomes irrelavent. Or are you comparing the two and saying the Core 2 Duo is faster? If that's the case your still doing a poor comparison, if anything the Core 2 would represent the PS3 and the P4 the Wii, in which case the P4 has many more bottlenecks and the Core 2 is far more efficient. And yes it is up to the developers, because they can take these "bottlenecks" and work around them, put them to their advantage,

You obviously have a poor understanding of CPU's and development, and it shows is your original post how you go from x more powerful to x more powerful.

I mean if you honestly think that any game would look better on the Wii rather than the 360 or PS3 then you are living in a false reality. You don't seem to realize that a fair comparison would be on identical screens, so if the screens were both low-res the PS3/360 would look better, or if they were both HD the PS3/360 would look better.

PS3/360 games will always look better whether there in HD or not. End of thread.

 I saide the core 2 duo is better. The cell as far as I know has alot more bottlenecks than any other cpu and is extremely hard to design for. Also why would you say a cell is a core 2 duo when it is only has 1 core while a core 2 duo has 2. That was just to show  you that being more efficient allows more power per unit of time. I'm talking about alot of the early games the wii could look better I know it won't look better than up to date games. Not all bottlenecks could be developed around. Thats why having less bottlenecks is better because you can't develope around it. I'm not saying the wii is more powerful I'm just trying to make out where it is graphically. I never said they won't look better in sd. I'm just saying that in sd they would look even better than in hd because the devs could use more of that power put in hd for other more important things. You think that i'm trying to say the wii is better but I'm just trying to say that the other consoles aren't going to produce games 8-10 times more graphically powered because of the reasons I stated. /Thread not ended.