dahuman said:
|
I was only talking RAM.
dahuman said:
|
Close enough, LOL JK.
but the gap is still there in terms of both quantity and quality no questions ask.
_crazy_man_ said:
GFLOPS numbers are all over the place (300-600 seem to be a more recent guesses). But anyhow they aren't always the best way to determine actual performance. Like the GC's having a 1/3rd the GFLOPS of the Xbox but being able to hold its own with it in real performance. And with what has been known for some while is the Wii U looks be much like the GC, being highly efficient. |
Like how the 3DS 128 MB FCRAM is way way more efficient then the PS Vita 512 DRAM?
| Kaizar said: Like how the 3DS 128 MB FCRAM is way way more efficient then the PS Vita 512 DRAM? |
WiiU RAM is called ChRAM. It's made of Chocolate.
Kaizar said:
It uses 2010 technology VS. 2004 technology on the 360. yes, 2004 highly powered tech vs 2010 highly efficient tech It has a 2 GB RAM vs. 256 RAM in 360. Wii U has 2GB DDR3 ram and 32MB eDram, 360 has 521MB GDDR3 ram and 10MB eDram, 360's unified GDDR3 ram is optimised to work with Graphics Cards and has a 128bit bus width, while WiiU's DDR3 ram is usually used for OS/CPU work and seems to work with a 64bit bus. It has somewhere from 500 to a little over 1,000 GFLOPs. over 500gflops is a maybe, up to 1tflops is a no It has 5.3 GHz Wireless VS. 2.4 GHz Wireless on the 360. lol, now that's a ridiculous one - those numbers just say how short the waves for transmissions are, the shorter 5GHz are less common to use which is why there is less noise/interferences in that frequency band, but it has shorter range - btw WiiU has both 2.4GHz and 5GHz WiFi So may I ask you what the funky wackos are you talking about? |
answered
It's easy to jump on the bandwagon that Wii U is slower than Xbox 360 / PS3. The problem with that theory is that Frozenbyte, developers behind Trine 2, said they couldn't deliver the same level of graphics quality on PS360 consoles as they could on the Wii U. Furthermore, they also confirmed that there is dynamic resolution scaling on PS3 and 360 to sustain frame-rate vs. locked native resolution on Wii U. To make matters even more complicated, Frozenbyte had to use NVIDIA'S FXAA "cheapest" implementation on PS3, which causes the screen to be covered by a heavy smudging that robs the game's artwork of fine detail and softens the look of foliage dramatically.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-trine-2-face-off
I mean the difference is not even close. Wii U > Xbox 360 > PS3
Wii U
http://images.eurogamer.net/2012/articles//a/1/5/3/3/0/6/4/WiiU_012.png
Xbox 360
http://images.eurogamer.net/2012/articles//a/1/5/3/3/0/6/4/360_012.png
PS3
http://images.eurogamer.net/2012/articles//a/1/5/3/3/0/6/4/PS3_012.png
If the Wii U is less powerful than PS360, how can at least some games like Trine 2 look better on it? And this is before developers even learned the ins and outs of the Wii U. Apparently, Nintendo was not able to provide Wii U development kits to developers until mid of last year and that unlike PS360 consoles, the GPU is more "pronounced than the CPU, but it doesn't mean the CPU is weak":
We won't really know what the full capabilities of the Wii U are until 3-4 years into the console's life. Hopefully Wii U can at least run cross-platform titles that will appear on PS4/720.
Granted, I do not believe that the Wii U 1st party games will be able to keep up with PS4/Xbox 720 1st party games on a graphical level. The 35W max power consumption is a sure giveaway that it simply cannot be a high-end console. Even if the Wii U is fully utilized, I believe the PSU is only rated at 70-75W? I still believe that long-term, the best looking Wii U games will top the best looking PS360 games. The greatest challenge around the Wii U will lie in its 3rd party support. Even if the Wii U were "x times" more powerful than PS360, it seems right now developers are not that interested in developing for it due to its low userbase; and perhaps other barriers to entry that exist between Nintendo and 3rd parties.
^ I'm not sure who says the WiiU was slower than the PS360, but I agree that that statement is wrong. The GPU in the WiiU is definitely more powerful than what the old HD consoles offer. What is debatable is how big the difference is and whether or not games that are designed to heavily use the CPU are as easy to port over.
| Lafiel said: What is debatable is how big the difference is and whether or not games that are designed to heavily use the CPU are as easy to port over. |
Thank you for bringing it up. I've been trying to mention that about such things as Metro, but some people didn't understand the point I was making about a small handful of 3rd Party developers, Like Metro & others.
I should add that at the end of the day the Wii U will eventually have its CPU clocked higher as the years keep going by. It's no different then the first time release of such systems as PSP & PS3 & 360 & 3DS were the power consumption & overheating become factors to underclock the CPU on pre-install firmware. But they become so much more better with the more firmware updates they go thru, well not so much the PSP.
| BlueFalcon said: It's easy to jump on the bandwagon that Wii U is slower than Xbox 360 / PS3. The problem with that theory is that Frozenbyte, developers behind Trine 2, said they couldn't deliver the same level of graphics quality on PS360 consoles as they could on the Wii U. Furthermore, they also confirmed that there is dynamic resolution scaling on PS3 and 360 to sustain frame-rate vs. locked native resolution on Wii U. To make matters even more complicated, Frozenbyte had to use NVIDIA'S FXAA "cheapest" implementation on PS3, which causes the screen to be covered by a heavy smudging that robs the game's artwork of fine detail and softens the look of foliage dramatically. We won't really know what the full capabilities of the Wii U are until 3-4 years into the console's life. Hopefully Wii U can at least run cross-platform titles that will appear on PS4/720. Granted, I do not believe that the Wii U 1st party games will be able to keep up with PS4/Xbox 720 1st party games on a graphical level. The 35W max power consumption is a sure giveaway that it simply cannot be a high-end console. Even if the Wii U is fully utilized, I believe the PSU is only rated at 70-75W? I still believe that long-term, the best looking Wii U games will top the best looking PS360 games. The greatest challenge around the Wii U will lie in its 3rd party support. Even if the Wii U were "x times" more powerful than PS360, it seems right now developers are not that interested in developing for it due to its low userbase; and perhaps other barriers to entry that exist between Nintendo and 3rd parties. |
I believe the Power consumption was confirmed to be 70 or 75 for gaming and 40 for everything else. (Wii U)
And yeah, it has always been about 3rd Parties making a system, which will never change thankfully.
But Sega is already putting exclusives on it like "R Thief and the Emperor's Treasure 2" and I'm pretty sure Nintendo Direct showed some stuff LOL, but yeah we still need to see more during the reminder of the year. I guess E3 2K13 should be perfect to see the situation about 3rd party software.
Kaizar said:
It uses 2010 technology VS. 2004 technology on the 360. It has a 2 GB RAM vs. 256 RAM in 360. It has somewhere from 500 to a little over 1,000 GFLOPs. It has 5.3 GHz Wireless VS. 2.4 GHz Wireless on the 360. So may I ask you what the funky wackos are you talking about? |
The Xenos in the X360 uses a completely different sharder architecture, AMD moved to using a lot more far less capable "stream proccesors" so that comparison is meaningless. Each Xenos shader can perform 10 floating-point ops per cycle where as R700 uses units consisting of 5 "stream proccesors" and each unit can execute 5 floating point ops + 1 other operation per cycle, for a total of 6 ops per cycle per 5 stream proccessors. http://www.elitebastards.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=584&Itemid=31&limitstart=2
Wii U has 2GB of RAM (1GB is reserved for the system tho) at 12.8GB/s plus 32+4MB of eDRAM vs X360's 512MB of 22.4GB/s + 10MB eDRAM.
The 2.4 GHz block technically has longer range than the 5GHz block so not really an advantage, and it's just used for streaming to the pad something the X360 doesn't do at all.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
