By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Wii 'U'nder powered?

Dr.Grass on 08 June 2011
Rhonin the wizard said:
thetonestarr said:

All we know about the Wii U's technical specs are that:

-it uses a Power7 CPU
-it uses flash memory

Now, the Power7 CPU can be anywhere from approximately equal to the 360 (on the very low end), to as much as four times more powerful (on the extreme high end).

And flash memory as the main storage means much faster load times, which is a technical benefit as well.

Anything beyond that is 100% pure speculation and shouldn't be given any heed to. There were a million rumors about the WiiU and still are, and most of them have already been proven false. Don't add to the shitpile.

The GPU will be a custom AMD Radeon HD GPU. The source is a press release. And here's one for the CPU.


@thetonestarr Thanks for pointing that out. I can't believe some of the hate I'm getting for making a simple thread. Why are people so high-strung out there!?



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 08 June 2011
Dr.Grass said:
HappySqurriel said:
From what has been displayed in the HD-Experience demo, the Wii U seems to be able to display graphics at a level where it would be difficult/impossible to create something significantly better without hardware that was an order of magnituded more powerful.

If the rumours are true and the Wii U is using an R700 it should be able to render polygon and texture detail at close to the limits that 1080p can display, and the main difference between the Wii U and systems that come after it will be the lighting and effects. With how far lighting effects have come we're hitting the limits of what can be done under a local-illumination system and we will need to move to a global illumination lighting model to really see a major change; and the successors to the HD consoles would need to more powerful than any system we can currently buy to pull that off and, unless they release in 2015 or later, this would mean that they would be very expensive.

What on earth does that mean!?

I implore you to go watch Avatar on Blu-Ray on a nice big TV and tell me that anything we've ever seen in real time comes close to that.

At 1080p there are (roughly) 2 Million pixels per frame, the R700 can probably render between 90 and 180 Million polygons per second with better lighting and texturing (per polygon) as the HD consoles. When you increase polygon output beyond this level most of the polygons you're adding to the scene will be smaller than a pixel and will not contribute to the scene.

By the way, the primary difference between Avatar and what might be possible with hardware similar to the R700 is lighting effects ... Crysis has tons of environmental detail but doesn't come close to resembling pre-rendered movies because its lighting is far less realistic.



Dr.Grass on 08 June 2011
HappySqurriel said:
Dr.Grass said:
HappySqurriel said:
From what has been displayed in the HD-Experience demo, the Wii U seems to be able to display graphics at a level where it would be difficult/impossible to create something significantly better without hardware that was an order of magnituded more powerful.

If the rumours are true and the Wii U is using an R700 it should be able to render polygon and texture detail at close to the limits that 1080p can display, and the main difference between the Wii U and systems that come after it will be the lighting and effects. With how far lighting effects have come we're hitting the limits of what can be done under a local-illumination system and we will need to move to a global illumination lighting model to really see a major change; and the successors to the HD consoles would need to more powerful than any system we can currently buy to pull that off and, unless they release in 2015 or later, this would mean that they would be very expensive.

What on earth does that mean!?

I implore you to go watch Avatar on Blu-Ray on a nice big TV and tell me that anything we've ever seen in real time comes close to that.

At 1080p there are (roughly) 2 Million pixels per frame, the R700 can probably render between 90 and 180 Million polygons per second with better lighting and texturing (per polygon) as the HD consoles. When you increase polygon output beyond this level most of the polygons you're adding to the scene will be smaller than a pixel and will not contribute to the scene.

By the way, the primary difference between Avatar and what might be possible with hardware similar to the R700 is lighting effects ... Crysis has tons of environmental detail but doesn't come close to resembling pre-rendered movies because its lighting is far less realistic.


SO essentially it can still improve after this 'limit' is reached(?).

What I do know is that I see a lot of jaggies, flat textures and room for more detail, and better lighting even on the best looking current gen games. So from where I'm looking there is much room for improvement.



Mr.Y on 08 June 2011
Dr.Grass said:


@thetonestarr Thanks for pointing that out. I can't believe some of the hate I'm getting for making a simple thread. Why are people so high-strung out there!?


You sound pretty high-strung yourself. I think you need to calm down, sir.

I suggest watching this relaxing video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4SGjPLV5mw



NJ5 on 08 June 2011
Dr.Grass said:
HappySqurriel said:
Dr.Grass said:
HappySqurriel said:
From what has been displayed in the HD-Experience demo, the Wii U seems to be able to display graphics at a level where it would be difficult/impossible to create something significantly better without hardware that was an order of magnituded more powerful.

If the rumours are true and the Wii U is using an R700 it should be able to render polygon and texture detail at close to the limits that 1080p can display, and the main difference between the Wii U and systems that come after it will be the lighting and effects. With how far lighting effects have come we're hitting the limits of what can be done under a local-illumination system and we will need to move to a global illumination lighting model to really see a major change; and the successors to the HD consoles would need to more powerful than any system we can currently buy to pull that off and, unless they release in 2015 or later, this would mean that they would be very expensive.

What on earth does that mean!?

I implore you to go watch Avatar on Blu-Ray on a nice big TV and tell me that anything we've ever seen in real time comes close to that.

At 1080p there are (roughly) 2 Million pixels per frame, the R700 can probably render between 90 and 180 Million polygons per second with better lighting and texturing (per polygon) as the HD consoles. When you increase polygon output beyond this level most of the polygons you're adding to the scene will be smaller than a pixel and will not contribute to the scene.

By the way, the primary difference between Avatar and what might be possible with hardware similar to the R700 is lighting effects ... Crysis has tons of environmental detail but doesn't come close to resembling pre-rendered movies because its lighting is far less realistic.


SO essentially it can still improve after this 'limit' is reached(?).

What I do know is that I see a lot of jaggies, flat textures and room for more detail, and better lighting even on the best looking current gen games. So from where I'm looking there is much room for improvement.


But HappySqurriel is talking about current cards, not the current gen of consoles.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
Dr.Grass on 08 June 2011
Mr.Y said:
Dr.Grass said:


@thetonestarr Thanks for pointing that out. I can't believe some of the hate I'm getting for making a simple thread. Why are people so high-strung out there!?


You sound pretty high-strung yourself. I think you need to calm down, sir.

I suggest watching this relaxing video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4SGjPLV5mw

Way to go to earn yourself back some respectability. If angerful admonishment isn't the appropriate response to your wild contribution then I don't know what is. Aggression is often the best way to deal with the situation, and while I consider myself a person who is very much in control of his moods, I do allow myself the indulgence of getting angry at certain things.

Now politely f&5k off.

EDIT: Sorry I take that back. There is just too much derailing going on here.



Dr.Grass on 08 June 2011
NJ5 said:
Dr.Grass said:
HappySqurriel said:
Dr.Grass said:
HappySqurriel said:
From what has been displayed in the HD-Experience demo, the Wii U seems to be able to display graphics at a level where it would be difficult/impossible to create something significantly better without hardware that was an order of magnituded more powerful.

If the rumours are true and the Wii U is using an R700 it should be able to render polygon and texture detail at close to the limits that 1080p can display, and the main difference between the Wii U and systems that come after it will be the lighting and effects. With how far lighting effects have come we're hitting the limits of what can be done under a local-illumination system and we will need to move to a global illumination lighting model to really see a major change; and the successors to the HD consoles would need to more powerful than any system we can currently buy to pull that off and, unless they release in 2015 or later, this would mean that they would be very expensive.

What on earth does that mean!?

I implore you to go watch Avatar on Blu-Ray on a nice big TV and tell me that anything we've ever seen in real time comes close to that.

At 1080p there are (roughly) 2 Million pixels per frame, the R700 can probably render between 90 and 180 Million polygons per second with better lighting and texturing (per polygon) as the HD consoles. When you increase polygon output beyond this level most of the polygons you're adding to the scene will be smaller than a pixel and will not contribute to the scene.

By the way, the primary difference between Avatar and what might be possible with hardware similar to the R700 is lighting effects ... Crysis has tons of environmental detail but doesn't come close to resembling pre-rendered movies because its lighting is far less realistic.


SO essentially it can still improve after this 'limit' is reached(?).

What I do know is that I see a lot of jaggies, flat textures and room for more detail, and better lighting even on the best looking current gen games. So from where I'm looking there is much room for improvement.


But HappySqurriel is talking about current cards, not the current gen of consoles.


Yeah I got that.



Lucas-Rio on 08 June 2011

Zelda demo already looks like better than all 360/PS3 games I have seen

 

 



megaman79 on 08 June 2011

WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE ACTUAL TRUE HD GRAPHICS FOR THE ACTUAL CONSOLE YET.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

Dr.Grass on 08 June 2011
Lucas-Rio said:

Zelda demo already looks like better than all 360/PS3 games I have seen

 

 


That does look nice, but better than the Killzone 2 video we got about 7 years ago? Doubtfull.