| fatslob-:O said: Sure the GC may have had prettier textures but ports to it often ended up worse in terms of performance or graphical affects like reduced/missing post-processing and lower resolution meshes/alpha effects or god forbid absent mechanical features such as inverse kinematics like we see in SotC ... (TEV is also fixed function but it has an awful lot of states) GC is waaay overrated in terms of hardware capabilities ... (I would dare argue that each have their own advantages and disadvantages that even them out despite the fact that most ports ran worse on GC) |
Same thing happened with the technically superior Playstation 3, the ports that came from the Xbox 360 often ended up with worse performance and graphics effects. - Many Call of Duty games operated at a lower resolution and/or with significantly paired down alpha effects.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-black-ops-faceoff
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-modern-warfare-3
It happens regardless of hardware capability, some ports are just shit.
I'm not saying the Gamecube didn't have areas where it fell short, but the TEV did manage to pull it's own weight, ArtX did a pretty good job with it... And the games prove it.
| Johnw1104 said: I think people are beginning to forget how much the visuals have improved since the 360/PS3 days. I recall initially being underwhelmed by the leap from those to PS4/Xbox1, but going back to the previous gen now can be quite jarring. |
Especially if you go back to the START of the 7th gen and play games like Kameo, Call of Duty 3, Oblivion... The difference is actually pretty jarring.
| d21lewis said: Again, I'm not the most tech savvy guy in the world but didn't the Wii U have certain amount of its power dedicated to its dashboard and os? |
All consoles do. Well. The dash UI on older consoles would get unloaded due to limited Ram... Which is why the Xbox 360 could get away with only using 32Mb of Ram for the OS and background tasks.
| quickrick said: Wii U has a weaker CPU, and The GPU is about the same, maybe slightly more powerful, RAM is the major advantage, 512mb more. |
GPU is a step up.
Ram is the biggest advantage, many developers were constrained with the paltry amount of Ram on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3.
CPU is the biggest point of contention. In allot of areas it is a more efficient design, but it would certainly loose against the Cell.
Against the 360 CPU however things get muddier.
The WiiU's CPU is a wider core, with a shorter pipeline, out-of-order execution and other enhancements, so it should be able to handle "dirty code" better than the 360... But thanks to it's lower clock, would likely mean it does come up short.
| bonzobanana said: Unless this has changed with a later firmware the Switch still caps its CPU's to 1ghz and only 3 are used for games and this applies to both docked and undocked modes and while these are more capable cpu's than in the 360 and PS3 they easily surpass Switch by the sheer speed they run at, 3.2ghz. While many have said the reason the Switch can't run LA Noire well is its optimised to utilise the PS3's cell processors the 360 did in fact run the game well too and I don't think its unfair to say both 360 and PS3 easily surpass Switch CPU performance. |
Are you suggesting that clockspeed is all that matters to a CPU's performance?
Did you not learn a single thing from Intels Netburst or AMD's Bulldozer era?
The ONLY time clockspeed can be even remotely relevant in gauging a processors performance is when the architecture is identical, even then it becomes tenuous.
| bonzobanana said: Isn't it something like 9,000 mips for wii u, 13,000 mips for Switch (due to the 1ghz limit) but something like 20,000 mips for 360 and maybe 28,000-40,000 mips for ps3. PS4 and Xbone are up to 34,000 - 38,000 mips. If the Tegra CPU's were run at full speed of course it would be different but they aren't they are only run at about half speed in Switch but you can imagine if Nintendo released more cpu performance with a later firmware it would comfortably surpass 360 and be closer to the other consoles. Both PS4 and Xbone never pushed cpu performance in their consoles being only a mild jump from the last gen. There are cheap octacore android tablets that exceed 30,000 mips for cpu performance but of course have much, much weaker gpu performance than Switch. For comparison the current AMD Ryzen CPU can exceed 300,000 mips. Cisc chipsets tend to get more work done per cycle as they have a larger instruction set (generalisation). However mobile chipsets tend to utilise the main cpu for secondary tasks too and don't have as many support processors as non mobile chipsets. So a comparison of mobile vs non mobile without factoring that in would not be fair. So a mobile chipset 10,000 mips is weaker than a non mobile 10,000mips chipset which again is weaker than a cisc 10,000 mips non mobile chipset. I'm just making the point the issues of LA Noire on Switch are extremely likely based on the weak cpu performance especially as the issue effects both docked and undocked. |
MIPS is only relevant if the CPU's being compared are of an identical architecture.
Nor is it representative of a complete processors capabilities anyway.
I mean... There are soundcards with 10,000+ MIPS, you aren't running Crysis on them.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
