windbane said:
Sqrl said:
First of all you lost any credability when you went with "according to wikipedia" which is basically saying "according to some guy who also has a computer". You are far better off citing the sources directly. More disturbing than people defending the Wii's graphics are those who feel the need to demean them. The real problem is the complete lack of hands on or practical experience from most of the people making these claims. The usual internet banter about which console has more oomph is nothing new, and has never gone anywhere. When it boils right down to it most people don't have a clue what the different numbers cited mean. For example one of the most common comparisons used is to compare the Hz of two chips and declare one the victor based on that alone. If this sort of test made any practical sense then AMD would be long dead. But Mhz and Ghz aren't the end all be all of the computing world. And indeed many people have very little knowledge of what these numbers are referring to to begin with. I would actually go so far as to say that in a practical sense high Mhz and Ghz are becoming the enemy of the engineers of these machines as higher clock speeds do in fact equate to higher temperatures. This is why they try to get more done in each clock cycle in addition to actually increasing the clock speed. Just the fact that the Wii was released several years after the Xbox means that its architecture is almost certainly going to be getting more done with every clock cycle than the Xbox...this is just the way processors and indeed computers and electronics in general work. So right out of the gate(no pun intended for those in the know) I can almost gaurantee you that 1 Hz (wii) > 1 Hz (xbox) and instantly that should tell you that any comparison purely based on Hz is going to be faulty without first examining the architectures themselves. Now you might ask ok, how can we modify the comparison to be more accurate? And the answer is that without knowing specifics of the designs the only way to tell is with controlled practical real world comparisons, or otherwise known as: benchmarks. The upside of benchmarks is it helps cut out some of the BS and go straight to the end results, the bad part is that a poorly designed benchmark can provide completely false results. With that said we have very little info to go on for the Wii and the result is that benchmarks and their practical comparisons, flawed as some may be, are the only option. |
I've seen this same thread 50 times. Wii fans will not just admit that it's not a big step up from last-gen. If you don't believe wikipedia then follow the links it provides. Like I said, the information is cited. Wikipedia is not wrong the majority of the time. The information is cited. Check it out. Again, developers have compared the Wii to Xbox. I've played the games on Wii. I was shocked going from Ratchet to Galaxy. Art direction can only do so much. once I got into the game it was fine, but you can tell Galaxy is not on par with anything PS3 and 360 can do. I'm not attacking the Wii's graphics. Just race reality, though. That's all I'm asking. I can see the graphics myself and it's no leap forward from Xbox. That doesn't mean I'm not going to enjoy my Wii. It's just a reason that multiplats from 360/PS3 won't likely be on the Wii. |
I don't think you understand, I am not saying "I simple don't believe your assertion that the xbox is about as powerful as the Wii" I am telling you that common sense and basic understanding of the way computers advance tell anyone with any amount of information that this is false. In my post I specifically pointed out the extreme lack of understanding from people who post on the internet and debate these things, which is why citings from wikipedia are particularly useless. If you wish to make a point using those refrences then please do it, but I am not going to search wikipedia as a generic reference to debate against.
Now, I may not be an engineer payed for designing consoles, but I do understand the principles of and building blocks used within digital design. This last semester I actually built a 4-bit ALU (quite simple really). So I better know at least a little bit about how this stuff works. Again I won't claim to understand every aspect of this stuff particularly since GPUs are very complicated beast compared to a basic ALU, but I think I know enough to be part of an educated discussion on these topics, not many people here can likely say the same....
Now you say you aren't attacking the Wii's graphics, but in reality you are. Pretty much anyone with eyeballs knows that the xbox is not producing the same level of graphics as the Wii...and it had a full life cycle compared to the Wii which is still very early on in its life cycle. Time with the machine is a fairly well documented advantage in graphics so this is fairly counterintuitive to your points.
But really when I read your post it sounds like you are trying to bargain with people...if they will just accept this and move on you would be happy. But as long as you want to assert the Xbox is on par with the Wii I am going to challenge that assertion as it flies in the face of all observable facts...assumed, practical, and otherwise.
As for developers comments, you can find developers who said the Wii was just a fad as well. It doesn't make them right. In most situations I would take a dev's word for it if I felt they were otherwise trustworthy, but for this topic I think specifics are in order.
You are basically using a strawman argument right now. Everybody here is taking issue with the Xbox comparison and you are dodging that by acting shocked that anyone could think that the Wii is on the level of the PS3/360...but nobody is saying that. You are distracting folks from the real issue by propping up this fake argument that nobody is defending.
Perhaps in your reply you could spend a bit of time explaining the details of your Xbox position and site your own sources rather than constantly bringing up the PS3/360 comparison that nobody is making...well except you.
