freedquaker said:
Regardless, the bandwidth of the edram on WiiU is the LEAST of the worries inside the machine. There are countless other limitations of the machine. Its a relatively efficient implementation of a decade old (or older) technology (CPU is over a decade old, GPU is half a decade old etc...) |
may seem unnecesary for you, but not for the developers
here
http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/05/20/e3-2005-microsofts-xbox-360-vs-sonys-playstation-3?page=3
"""
E3 2005: Microsoft's Xbox 360 vs. Sony's PlayStation 3
With Sony's specs out, Microsoft has sent us its a comparitive analysis. What's the outcome?
Bandwidth
The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s. The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.
Why does the Xbox 360 have such an extreme amount of bandwidth?
Even the simplest calculations show that a large amount of bandwidth is consumed by the frame buffer. For example, with simple color rendering and Z testing at 550 MHz the frame buffer alone requires 52.8 GB/s at 8 pixels per clock. The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches.
The PS3 uses Z and color compression to try to compensate for the lack of memory bandwidth. The problem with Z and color compression is that the compression breaks down quickly when rendering complex next-generation 3D scenes.
HDR, alpha-blending, and anti-aliasing require even more memory bandwidth. This is why Xbox 360 has 256 GB/s bandwidth reserved just for the frame buffer. This allows the Xbox 360 GPU to do Z testing, HDR, and alpha blended color rendering with 4X MSAA at full rate and still have the entire main bus bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s left over for textures.
CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.
However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the PlayStation 3.
"""
doesnt need it uh?
and how come ports work fine on wii u if doesnt have a bandwidth on par with 360 edram or more?(dont introduce the frmaerate cuase that has more to do with the cpu and the framerate aint that different to the 360, just more ineastbale n most of the ports that are lazy, but not in ports were some optimizations were done like need for speed)
the machine may have limits with traditional approach of rendering polygons just like that, but using tesselation you can achieve better graphics, and we have to wait and see, of course that bandwidth and latency are important things to take into account besides power. Even if wiiu is about 400 or 500 gigaflops that should be enough cause AMD already showed that by trading off about 30% performance of your gpu or 33fps you can achieve about 400x more polygons with tesselation
come on dude, everybodyknows that gus need bandwidth lots of bandwidth, be it low, medium or high end that doesnt change
and remember, shinen can store a 1080p framebufferin 16MB of edram on wii u, so if xbox 360 needs the shole 10MB for the 720p, wouldnt that mean wii u edram packs more bandwidth?(do the math, if 1080p=16MB then 720p=7.11MB)
