Pemalite said:
bonzobanana said:
Yes a fair cop. I'd forgotten just had bad the wii was. Still loved many of its games though. 12 gflops gpu vs around 250 gflops for ps3 or xbox 360 is over 20x difference. Even the original xbox was over 20 gflops.
|
The amount of flops ends up being ultimately irrellevant.
The fact that the Gamecube and Wii used a GPU made by ArtX (It's not an ATI or AMD design) and based around the TEV, means it's not directly comparable to the 360 and Playstation 3 anyway.
For one, fixed function hardware tends to be able to achieve higher utilization levels as it's a known quantity to developers and not as flexible.
Plus... The Wii typically rendered at a lower resolution anyway so it's rendering demands were far less... And was actually pretty proficient at texturing.
To be honest though, I wouldn't be surprised if the difference was less than 20x in some instances but greater than 20x in others, really depends on the load... More modern games of course will perform far better or more modern hardware for obvious reasons.
|
Yes I think most people understand that flops is only a rough guide but it should be roughly in the ball park area and we haven't actually got anything better to compare them by.
I pretty much hated the wii graphically there wasn't much on it that didn't look awful. Mario Galaxy games stood out as very nice because of their artistic style but god forbid the wii tried to do natural realistic graphics beccause it would all go horribly wrong. Lack of digital output too meant a fuzzy image on most tv's even using the component cable. Not a fan of the wii graphically to say the least. Zelda Twilight Princess looked bloody awful to someone who'd got used to ps3 and 360 graphics.
