JakDaSnack said:
bonzobanana said:
Turkish said:
Not sure. gpu+cpu:
PS4: ~1.95/2TFlop (32ROPs, 1152 stream processors,
Xbone: 1.4TFlop (only 16 ROPs on gpu so 720p will be very common, 768 stream processors)
WiiU: estimates range from 300 to 600TFlop (8Rops, 320 stream processors)
There are as many ROPs and stream processors on the PS4 vs Xbone gap as the Xbone vs WiiU gap. The gap between PS4 and Xbone is ~500Gflop, Wii vs Xbone can be 800Gflop at minimum |
wii u estimates start at 176 gflops and go up to 352 gflops, however the fact is the wii u gpu likely has a wii gpu integrated into it and this gpu may run at higher speeds in wii u mode to generate the gamepad screen when independent of the main screen. At best it probably adds 30 gflops performance to the main gflops performance of the wii u. The performance level we have seen from wii u makes it highly likely the performance is at the lower level 176gflops. However architecture differences means this will perform probably 30% plus minimum over the older architecture of the 360 gpu. Roughly speaking the wii u gpu is about the same performance level as 360/PS3 but has an enhanced feature set and has 32MB of ultra fast embedded memory. So its is bottleneck free almost. However still it performs below 360 and PS3 on most ocassions due to a slow CPU and low main memory bandwidth.
LIkely wii u architecture is something like a mobile Radion 6400M. Mobility architecture is extremely likely due to less heat issues even when fabricated at a low cost 40nm process as used in the wii u.
For the wii u to take so little power and produce so little heat that only needs a small fan it has to be a fairly low performance gpu. Not only that but you have to factor in the low bandwidth memory chips used which are less than 360 and PS3. It would be pointless fitting a higher performance gpu with such limited memory bandwidth. Lets not forget in the wii u that memory bandwidth has to be shared by both gpu and cpu. The 32MB of embedded memory certainly helps but its clear there would be huge restrictions on a more powerful gpu.
|
Then how is Nintendo able to create something like X or Bayonetta 2? Those games look significantly better than anything on the 360/ps3.
|
Neither of those games look significantly better from what I've seen. Bayonetta 2 isn't that impressive and X looks a mixture of both good and bad graphically. However even if we accepted those games do look a bit better (I certainly don't) then you have to factor in an enhanced gpu feature set, an additional 1/2GB of gaming memory, a 32MB embedded ultra fast memory and a game engine that will be tailored to the strengths and weaknesses of the wii u. I.e. a game engine that is less demanding on cpu resources. We have yet to see how X for example implements its physics engine, AI, weather effects etc. We may find the game engine is fairly primitive, more of an uprezed xenoblade chronicles rather than a game engine that matches the best of 360 and PS3 that have higher CPU resources.
I like this video from the ps3. It shows so much going on in weather, lighting etc. It shows the cell being utilised to perform a large number of onscreen effects. I've seen nothing like that on wii u so far and X looks crude in comparison. In fact x looks like a fairly primitive engine not dis-similar to the original wii xenoblade chronicles just improved textures and higher res. I'm not convinced X represents an immersive living world as seen in games like Skyrim on 360. Perhaps someone can specifically point out something that is impressive with X. What resolution will it run at as well? I wouldn't say X vs Xenoblade is much different to Dragon quest x wii u to Dragon quest x wii. Similar graphic improvement but engine looks fairly dated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_bRdhtqGIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_wnLmYn5IE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tibQtCUzKv0
