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

Forums - Nintendo - Another Developer says: Wii U graphics are “on par with PS3, maybe better” *Ediot* Eurogamer has been naughty...

happydolphin on 16 August 2012
pezus said:

Wii was a little better than the Gamecube, spryan...

But Wii never was enough, WiiU is.



Around the Network
happydolphin on 16 August 2012
Darc Requiem said:
selnor said:

 

 


You do realize that Xbox 1 CPU was a glorified Celeron right? Look at the cache on a P3. Look at the Cache on the Xbox CPU. Now look at the cache from a Celeron from that era. Heck even if it was real Pentium 3, it would have been a joke in comparison to GC Cpu. The weakest part of the original Xbox was it's CPU.

This post is so epic I thought it was an old spice commercial.



selnor on 16 August 2012
Darc Requiem said:
selnor said:
lilbroex said:
selnor said:
lilbroex said:
selnor said:

Halo 2 was arguably the best technical achievement of last gen.

Halo 3 andd Reach were lazy in visuals this gen. Halo 4 and 343 are changing that. Halo last gen was a feat of Capability. Halo 1 showed whaat wass capable. Halo 2 showed how to break an Xbox.

No it wasn't. That was Rebel Strike. It achieved more than any game last gen. The second closest to that was Rogue Leader. Its not debateble.

People may have liked Halo and its artstyle more as a matter of opinion, but on a technical level, it wasn't even half way there.

Are you kidding me? Rebel Strike had nowhere near the scale of Halo 2. Nowhere near. I started withh GC last gen, it was lasst gen I left Ninty. I finished Rogue leader on a chipped GC I bought to play US games cause I couldnt wait for UK release. I played Halo about 9 months after that, and was very clearly blown away at that time. The sheer size of the levels, structures and draw distance was clear. RS2 RL wwas a fligt sim that wile looked good clearly lacked any sort of scale comparison to Halo.

You are wrong. Rebel Strike pushed 20 million polygons at 60 FPS with fully bump mapped characters, high level lighting effects, accurately mapped, detailed dynamic shadows, dozens of enemies diverse enemies on screen at once that had there on A.I. with a draw distance scaled more than ever multiplayer map in Halo 2 combined.

The best that any game on the Xbox did was 12 million polygons at 30 FPS with a few moderate effects.

These are facts, not opinions.

The devs tried to port it to Xbox but it couldn't run it without severe downgrades, so they scrapped it.

 

 

 

Just look at the shadows that the wings casts on themselves.

http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/roguesquadron3_073003_02_640w.jpg

Do you even know what power the GC and Xbox had?

GC =

CPU - 486 mhz powerpc.

43 mb non unified memory, 24 mb mosys 1t ram.

GPU - 164 mhz flipper. 648 Mpixels/sec & 648 Mtexels/sec

 

Xbox =

CPU - 32 bit 733mz Pentium 3

64 mb unified ddr sdram runinng in dual channel.

GPU - 233 mhz custom Geforce 3 TI500. 932 Mpixels/sec & 1864 Mtexels/sec.

 

Of course a dev couldnt get RS3 to run on Xbox could they. ROFL.

Oh and games couldd have a larger scale on Xbox due  to loading info to the HDD to allow drawing data from there instead of the disc. Hence why Halo 2 was so massive in scale.

 

ROFL.

Half Life 2 was only possible on Xbox last gen. Which also is arguably the best visuals last gen for console.

 

 

 


You do realize that Xbox 1 CPU was a glorified Celeron right? Look at the cache on a P3. Look at the Cache on the Xbox CPU. Now look at the cache from a Celeron from that era. Heck even if it was real Pentium 3, it would have been a joke in comparison to GC Cpu. The weakest part of the original Xbox was it's CPU.


OK, 'll  help you.

Factual figures. Here argue with these.

CPU MIPS

Xbox - 1985 mips                                GC - 1125 mips

Pixel Fill Rate

Megapixels/sec

Xbox - 932 mp/s                                  GC - 648 mp/s

Megatexels/sec

Xbox - 1864MT/s                                    GC - 648 MT/s

Rendering Bandwidth

Xbox - 5.6 GB/s                                    GC - 2.2 GB/s

Total memory usable

Xbox - 64 mb                                        GC - 43 mb

Texture Space (Compressed Textures) - Megabytes

Xbox - 45mb:270mb                              GC - 12mb:72mb

Textures Per Frame

Xbox - 5.6GB/s:45mb                            GC - 2.2GB/12mb

Xbox - 33.5gb/s of textures                   GC 13.2gb/s of textures

 

These are facts.



happydolphin on 16 August 2012
selnor said:

These are facts.

And fact is, they weren't able to port Rebel Strike on the Xbox. Case in point, it's not all about the hardware when two platforms are highly comparable.

Case closed.



selnor on 16 August 2012
lilbroex said:
selnor said:


Are you serious?

First you state RS3 RS wouldnt run on the factually more powerful Xbox. Thats a fact. Its figures in EVERY category prove it.

2nd You try and tecnically compare a game where Ai is weak at best, and uses FMV for background scenes as IGN's review article will tell you. To a game where you have massive sprawling 3d worlds, what many consider the best AI of its generation and loads of different realtime lighhtsources. Its a known fact that Halo pointed the way for huge levels and worlds due to the HDD being in the Xbox to. Something no other console could do last gen.

The GC had factually inferior power to Xbox.  FACT. Not opinion. Read the specs above.

None of those were FMVs. That is what the game looks like while running. The graphics were just that good.


Go back and reread my post as well as the guy who posted right above you. I quoted the relevent texs because I was fairly certain you would skip over it.

Once again, This is fact straight from the devs. They couldn't get it running on the xbox because it didn't have the power or features.

The shading capability of the GC was far superior to that of the Xbox on top of the CPU. This is not a matter of opinion. This is not going to change. It is the fact of the hardware.

The only area's that the Xbox beat the GC in were storage. It used full scale dvds and it had a bit more ram, but even then, the RAM in the Xbox1 was less than 1/3 the speed of the GC ram. That is why hardly any GC games had load screens. It could stream data off the disc so fast that it didn't need it. I believe that the rate at witch the mini dvds could seek data was also way faster than standard dvds.

These are real world numbers. REAL WORLD.

Factual figures. Here argue with these.

CPU MIPS

Xbox - 1985 mips                                GC - 1125 mips

Pixel Fill Rate

Megapixels/sec

Xbox - 932 mp/s                                  GC - 648 mp/s

Megatexels/sec

Xbox - 1864MT/s                                    GC - 648 MT/s

Rendering Bandwidth

Xbox - 5.6 GB/s                                    GC - 2.2 GB/s

Total memory usable

Xbox - 64 mb                                        GC - 43 mb

Texture Space (Compressed Textures) - Megabytes

Xbox - 45mb:270mb                              GC - 12mb:72mb

Textures Per Frame

Xbox - 5.6GB/s:45mb                            GC - 2.2GB/12mb

Xbox - 33.5gb/s of textures                   GC 13.2gb/s of textures

 

These are facts.





Around the Network
lilbroex on 16 August 2012
selnor said:
lilbroex said:
selnor said:


Are you serious?

First you state RS3 RS wouldnt run on the factually more powerful Xbox. Thats a fact. Its figures in EVERY category prove it.

2nd You try and tecnically compare a game where Ai is weak at best, and uses FMV for background scenes as IGN's review article will tell you. To a game where you have massive sprawling 3d worlds, what many consider the best AI of its generation and loads of different realtime lighhtsources. Its a known fact that Halo pointed the way for huge levels and worlds due to the HDD being in the Xbox to. Something no other console could do last gen.

The GC had factually inferior power to Xbox.  FACT. Not opinion. Read the specs above.

None of those were FMVs. That is what the game looks like while running. The graphics were just that good.


Go back and reread my post as well as the guy who posted right above you. I quoted the relevent texs because I was fairly certain you would skip over it.

Once again, This is fact straight from the devs. They couldn't get it running on the xbox because it didn't have the power or features.

The shading capability of the GC was far superior to that of the Xbox on top of the CPU. This is not a matter of opinion. This is not going to change. It is the fact of the hardware.

The only area's that the Xbox beat the GC in were storage. It used full scale dvds and it had a bit more ram, but even then, the RAM in the Xbox1 was less than 1/3 the speed of the GC ram. That is why hardly any GC games had load screens. It could stream data off the disc so fast that it didn't need it. I believe that the rate at witch the mini dvds could seek data was also way faster than standard dvds.

These are real world numbers. REAL WORLD.

Factual figures. Here argue with these.

CPU MIPS

Xbox - 1985 mips                                GC - 1125 mips

Pixel Fill Rate

Megapixels/sec

Xbox - 932 mp/s                                  GC - 648 mp/s

Megatexels/sec

Xbox - 1864MT/s                                    GC - 648 MT/s

Rendering Bandwidth

Xbox - 5.6 GB/s                                    GC - 2.2 GB/s

Total memory usable

Xbox - 64 mb                                        GC - 43 mb

Texture Space (Compressed Textures) - Megabytes

Xbox - 45mb:270mb                              GC - 12mb:72mb

Textures Per Frame

Xbox - 5.6GB/s:45mb                            GC - 2.2GB/12mb

Xbox - 33.5gb/s of textures                   GC 13.2gb/s of textures

 

These are facts.

No those aren't. Those were theoretical peaks with no context that didn't take features and capabilites into account. The real word results worked out entirely different. Stop posting numbers without understanding what it is that you are looking at.

 

Also , none of those sceenshots were FMVs. That is what the game looks like while running. The graphics were just that good.



selnor on 16 August 2012
happydolphin said:
selnor said:

These are facts.

And fact is, they weren't able to port Rebel Strike on the Xbox. Case in point, it's not all about the hardware when two platforms are highly comparable.

Case closed.


This is a BS statement.

Complete and utter BS. The facts are there. Its like saying my Ford will beat that Ferrari. Because I said  so



lilbroex on 16 August 2012
selnor said:
happydolphin said:
selnor said:

These are facts.

And fact is, they weren't able to port Rebel Strike on the Xbox. Case in point, it's not all about the hardware when two platforms are highly comparable.

Case closed.


This is a BS statement.

Complete and utter BS. The facts are there. Its like saying my Ford will beat that Ferrari. Because I said  so

Dude, you just called in game screenshots CG. That alone said how much you have been educated on about tech and what we are discussing. Please stop.



oniyide on 16 August 2012
spurgeonryan said:
Mr Khan said:
Here we go again...


Even a little better is actually really good I think. Just look at "The Last of Us". Looks amazing on the PS3! If the Wii U can push out stuff like that, but a little better then we are in for a nice treat this gen.

No, not really, being a little better than consoles that have been on the market to 5-6 years is not going to cut it IMHO. Sure thats much better than Wii.



glimmer_of_hope on 16 August 2012

THE CONSOLE HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET!!!

God I am so sick of this Nintendo bashing bullshit! First off yet again, only weak minded graphic whores care about what scale the WiiU games are at.
And yet again, the console has yet to be released. The console hasn't even been tapped into.
So WiiU releases it's first games that look better than PS3.....and that's bad? It took 7 years for PS3 to get to it's full potential and WiiU is there already.



                                  Gaming Away Life Since 1985