RazorDragon said:
SubiyaCryolite said:
RazorDragon said:
SubiyaCryolite said:
bigtakilla said:
SubiyaCryolite said:
bigtakilla said:
Fast Racing Neo would disagree with you on the Wii U's ability of running games with 4k textures.
|
4K resolution, not 4K textures. The PS4 does Trine 2 at 4096 x 2960 at 30fps, 1920 x 1080 at 60fps. Wii U does Trine 2 at 30fps and in 720p like the 8-9 year old 7th gen systems and Im suppossed to be impressed? Seriously?
The games the Wii U runs at 1080p right now can run at 1080p on the PS3 and 360 as well. Case in point, Rayman Legends is 1080p60 on all 3 systems. Though if were still exclusive Nintendo fans would use that as "proof" its more powerful.
And while were on the subject of 4K textures, thats possible because of the extra RAM. A 360 with 1GB of RAM would support 4K textures as well. The reason I keep saying 360 + 512MB RAM is to highlight the fairly insignificant "power jump" beytween the two systems. Hardware on the level of a 9 year old system with extra (and slower) RAM and Graphic API extentions thrown on top is not impressive from a technical standpoint, its not. Games and gameplay aside the hardware is WEAK can we stop pretending otherwise.
|
Lol, the if and could argument.
|
Id like to see you flatout deny that an XBox 360 with 1GB or RAM couldnt handle 4K textures. Keep believing in a Wii U secret sauce all you want,the systems been out for about a year now and theres evidence about its real capabilities from both 1st and 3rd party games everywhere. Barely a month with the PS4 and One and we already see them doing things the 7th gen couldn't.
|
Sure, man. More RAM is everything you need to do high res textures in a game. I'm quite sure if you put a Voodoo 2 GPU with 1GB VRAM it would run all games available with the same texture quality as the Wii U, right? That's why a 2GB GT 610 GPU, for example, can run games with better texture resolution than a 1GB GTX 650 can.
PS: I'm joking.
|
Actually it could genious, but at unplayable framerate. You think textures get stored in MHz? Why do high res texture packs require cards to have 1GB or more RAM? A 512MB 9800GTX cant handle Skyrims HQ textures, but a 1GB 9600GT could.
And you just had to choose a Voodoo 2, as if the the Wii Us GPU is soooo much more powerful than the 360s right?
|
The unplayable framerate part is exactly the one I'm talking about. Now get a 1GB 9800GTX and 1GB 9600GT and try making texture resolution go up in any game, you'll lose more performance on the 9600GT than you will on the 9800GT, all other settings equal. That's what I'm talking about, textures don't get stored in MHz, but making use of higher resolution textures isn't a free thing just because you have more RAM, you need more compute power to actually aplly those to a gaming environment.
|
A 512MB 9800GTX cant handle Skyrims HQ textures, but a 1GB 9600GT could.
Is a 1GB 9600 GT more powerful that a 512MB 9600GT? No, its the same card but one can handle higher res textures and the other cant. Do you think theyd perorm the same with skyrims high res textures, honestly? Now why is that so hard to process in regards to WiiU vs XBox 360? What makes you think a 360 with 1GB of RAM cant do what the WiiU is doing now when it barely beats Vanilla 360 as is? When a game like Resident Evil Revelations of all things judders on the system? Do I need to put a link to every damn faceoff involving the Wii U.
No I dont this alone will do
"we can rule out any next-gen pretensions for Wii U"
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed
At the time (before I got the system) I dismissed them but after a year on the market and owning one for myself its painfully obvious. These guys arent fanboys, arent affeliated to any system and actually know what they are talking about so I'll take their word (and my eyes) over anythying else.
