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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - FAST Racing NEO powered by 2nd generation engine for Wii U supports and uses 4k-8k textures

fatslob-:O on 24 November 2013
megafenix said:
fatslob-:O said:
megafenix said:
ports will always make thw wii u to underpeform unless the developers change te source code to reallocate resources from main ram to cache or edram, and of course, they also have to leave the sound process to the dsp and use the other core of the wii u cpu for other job to speed up things

of course this takes time and effort and must of the dont ,mind doing it

This sounds like damage control for the WII U. 

If the WII U truly had more "power" these ports wouldn't be struggling because a game will automatically take advantage of more powerful hardware such as the PC. It wouldn't take any effort whatsoever if the hardware was truly more powerful. 

Clearly the WII U fails to provide the much needed bandwidth, fillrate, and processing power for games like COD and batman. 

it5 doesnt really matter how powerful it is if the source code doesnt take profit of the system

the port comes fro xbox, so what the source code takes into account?

only 1 mega of cache

only 10 megas of cache

 

even if wiiu has triple of that, the source code doesnt use it since its a port of xbox, all what could have been fitted on teh extra cache and edram does directky to main ram sicne the source code tells the system to do so

 

so, to sollve it, developers have to reallocate the resources, but mmust of them dont mind since are in a hurry

 

ps4 doesnt have to struggle with this since doesnt have edram, just a big gddr5 main ram, so no matter hopw lazy the developers are, the possibility of making a crap port is very unlikely

You need to understand that there are more factors to a games performance rather than memory usage! 

It is not the usage of memory alone that makes the game performs better. There are other things like fillrate which determine how fast it takes to write textures to a surface and how many pixels it can push out or the processing power required to calculate animations and lighting as well but all of those don't matter if it is under utilizied by low bandwidth either. 

The WII U has clearly demonstrated a lack of these elements altogether in some games shown. 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 24 November 2013
MohammadBadir said:
I think it's a bannable offence spamming a thread with 40+ posts from a single user.


The winner goes to megafenix then.



megafenix on 24 November 2013
fatslob-:O said:
megafenix said:
fatslob-:O said:
megafenix said:
ports will always make thw wii u to underpeform unless the developers change te source code to reallocate resources from main ram to cache or edram, and of course, they also have to leave the sound process to the dsp and use the other core of the wii u cpu for other job to speed up things

of course this takes time and effort and must of the dont ,mind doing it

This sounds like damage control for the WII U. 

If the WII U truly had more "power" these ports wouldn't be struggling because a game will automatically take advantage of more powerful hardware such as the PC. It wouldn't take any effort whatsoever if the hardware was truly more powerful. 

Clearly the WII U fails to provide the much needed bandwidth, fillrate, and processing power for games like COD and batman. 

it5 doesnt really matter how powerful it is if the source code doesnt take profit of the system

the port comes fro xbox, so what the source code takes into account?

only 1 mega of cache

only 10 megas of cache

 

even if wiiu has triple of that, the source code doesnt use it since its a port of xbox, all what could have been fitted on teh extra cache and edram does directky to main ram sicne the source code tells the system to do so

 

so, to sollve it, developers have to reallocate the resources, but mmust of them dont mind since are in a hurry

 

ps4 doesnt have to struggle with this since doesnt have edram, just a big gddr5 main ram, so no matter hopw lazy the developers are, the possibility of making a crap port is very unlikely

You need to understand that there are more factors to a games performance rather than memory usage! 

It is not the usage of memory alone that makes the game performs better. There are other things like fillrate which determine how fast it takes to write textures to a surface and how many pixels it can push out or the processing power required to calculate animations and lighting as well but all of those don't matter if it is under utilizied by low bandwidth either. 

The WII U has clearly demonstrated a lack of these elements altogether in some games shown. 

 

you understimate edram to much, unlike xbox, its not just for framebuffer, wiiu has edram also for textures, doing intensive cpu works though l3 cache, etc

 

the problem is that when developers dont make good use of the edram and use to much ram, the main ram bottleneck the gpu and cpu capailities, tahts whats going on

 

imagine an hd8800 with only 128 megabytes of vram

does it matter?cant we just rely on the main ram?



curl-6 on 24 November 2013
gmcmen said:
curl-6 said:
gmcmen said:

And do you think nintendo fans really care, sure they argue about te wiiu being  much more powerful then currentgen, just to to feel better out the wiiu purchase but they really don't care, just look at 3d mario world, its a nice looking game by all means, but nothing close to being top tier when you compare it to 360/ps3, yet nintendo fans feels it nextgen cause its mario, finally in HD, now replace mario and put knack in those mario 3d world pics and everybody would be saying how ugly it is.

No, people say Knack is ugly cos it looks bland, while Mario looks colourful and lively.


honestly both look bland as hell, mario 3d environments looks pretty barren, and the heavy use of bloom feels like its 2006 again. I'm not a fan of all the shaders and depth of field they shit on the screen. It screams "we finally have shaders".  sonic generations looks so much better then both that it makes me sad, i expect mario galaxy 3 to match sonic genertions graphically and if they can do it at 60fps then that would be a dream come true.

i disagree. I think 3D World's use effects like of depth of field and rim shading produce a nicely soft, luminous look that's quite  pleasing to the eye. Big fan of the bold colours and rain effects as well.



gmcmen on 24 November 2013
curl-6 said:
gmcmen said:
curl-6 said:
gmcmen said:

And do you think nintendo fans really care, sure they argue about te wiiu being  much more powerful then currentgen, just to to feel better out the wiiu purchase but they really don't care, just look at 3d mario world, its a nice looking game by all means, but nothing close to being top tier when you compare it to 360/ps3, yet nintendo fans feels it nextgen cause its mario, finally in HD, now replace mario and put knack in those mario 3d world pics and everybody would be saying how ugly it is.

No, people say Knack is ugly cos it looks bland, while Mario looks colourful and lively.


honestly both look bland as hell, mario 3d environments looks pretty barren, and the heavy use of bloom feels like its 2006 again. I'm not a fan of all the shaders and depth of field they shit on the screen. It screams "we finally have shaders".  sonic generations looks so much better then both that it makes me sad, i expect mario galaxy 3 to match sonic genertions graphically and if they can do it at 60fps then that would be a dream come true.

i disagree. I think 3D World's use effects like of depth of field and rim shading produce a nicely soft, luminous look that's quite  pleasing to the eye. Big fan of the bold colours and rain effects as well.




Around the Network
megafenix on 24 November 2013
curl-6 said:
gmcmen said:
curl-6 said:
gmcmen said:

And do you think nintendo fans really care, sure they argue about te wiiu being  much more powerful then currentgen, just to to feel better out the wiiu purchase but they really don't care, just look at 3d mario world, its a nice looking game by all means, but nothing close to being top tier when you compare it to 360/ps3, yet nintendo fans feels it nextgen cause its mario, finally in HD, now replace mario and put knack in those mario 3d world pics and everybody would be saying how ugly it is.

No, people say Knack is ugly cos it looks bland, while Mario looks colourful and lively.


honestly both look bland as hell, mario 3d environments looks pretty barren, and the heavy use of bloom feels like its 2006 again. I'm not a fan of all the shaders and depth of field they shit on the screen. It screams "we finally have shaders".  sonic generations looks so much better then both that it makes me sad, i expect mario galaxy 3 to match sonic genertions graphically and if they can do it at 60fps then that would be a dream come true.

i disagree. I think 3D World's use effects like of depth of field and rim shading produce a nicely soft, luminous look that's quite  pleasing to the eye. Big fan of the bold colours and rain effects as well.


i also like how 3d world looks, this one and mario kart are on my eyes

 



gmcmen on 24 November 2013

i posted those pics just to show you, that mario 3d world world should look much better then what it looks like now, the wiiu is 25x more powerful then wiiu, nintendo can do much better and i'm expecting big things from mario galaxy 3.



fatslob-:O on 24 November 2013
gmcmen said:
curl-6 said:
gmcmen said:

And do you think nintendo fans really care, sure they argue about te wiiu being  much more powerful then currentgen, just to to feel better out the wiiu purchase but they really don't care, just look at 3d mario world, its a nice looking game by all means, but nothing close to being top tier when you compare it to 360/ps3, yet nintendo fans feels it nextgen cause its mario, finally in HD, now replace mario and put knack in those mario 3d world pics and everybody would be saying how ugly it is.

No, people say Knack is ugly cos it looks bland, while Mario looks colourful and lively.


honestly both look bland as hell, mario 3d environments looks pretty barren, and the heavy use of bloom feels like its 2006 again. I'm not a fan of all the shaders and depth of field they shit on the screen. It screams "we finally have shaders".  sonic generations looks so much better then both that it makes me sad, i expect mario galaxy 3 to match sonic genertions graphically and if they can do it at 60fps then that would be a dream come true.

DOF is actually pretty demanding I remembered alot of PC users having issues of truly maxing out a game because of it. 

Some shaders actually give some pretty neat effects such as order independent transparency and some nice navier-stokes based fluid simulation as well as tesselation. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjylP1q5BpU (OIT)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOsegFI3DUE (Some pretty cool fire there. You have to admit. )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYweEn6DFcU (Tiled light culling right there. Gives some nice realtime lighting result, no ?) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQQpCd_vvGU (Some awesome tesselation that uses geometry shaders.) 

The rest is using a compute shader. 



fatslob-:O on 24 November 2013
megafenix said:
fatslob-:O said:
megafenix said:
fatslob-:O said:
megafenix said:
ports will always make thw wii u to underpeform unless the developers change te source code to reallocate resources from main ram to cache or edram, and of course, they also have to leave the sound process to the dsp and use the other core of the wii u cpu for other job to speed up things

of course this takes time and effort and must of the dont ,mind doing it

This sounds like damage control for the WII U. 

If the WII U truly had more "power" these ports wouldn't be struggling because a game will automatically take advantage of more powerful hardware such as the PC. It wouldn't take any effort whatsoever if the hardware was truly more powerful. 

Clearly the WII U fails to provide the much needed bandwidth, fillrate, and processing power for games like COD and batman. 

it5 doesnt really matter how powerful it is if the source code doesnt take profit of the system

the port comes fro xbox, so what the source code takes into account?

only 1 mega of cache

only 10 megas of cache

 

even if wiiu has triple of that, the source code doesnt use it since its a port of xbox, all what could have been fitted on teh extra cache and edram does directky to main ram sicne the source code tells the system to do so

 

so, to sollve it, developers have to reallocate the resources, but mmust of them dont mind since are in a hurry

 

ps4 doesnt have to struggle with this since doesnt have edram, just a big gddr5 main ram, so no matter hopw lazy the developers are, the possibility of making a crap port is very unlikely

You need to understand that there are more factors to a games performance rather than memory usage! 

It is not the usage of memory alone that makes the game performs better. There are other things like fillrate which determine how fast it takes to write textures to a surface and how many pixels it can push out or the processing power required to calculate animations and lighting as well but all of those don't matter if it is under utilizied by low bandwidth either. 

The WII U has clearly demonstrated a lack of these elements altogether in some games shown. 

 

you understimate edram to much, unlike xbox, its not just for framebuffer, wiiu has edram also for textures, doing intensive cpu works though l3 cache, etc

 

the problem is that when developers dont make good use of the edram and use to much ram, the main ram bottleneck the gpu and cpu capailities, tahts whats going on

 

imagine an hd8800 with only 128 megabytes of vram

does it matter?cant we just rely on the main ram?

I'll say it one more time and never again in this thread. You cannot rely the eDRAM everytime becuase it is only used for caching frequently accessed data. There will be a time where the eDRAM misses and that's when the WII U is going to have to access the main memory and only the main memory. The WII U cannot by fed with just 32MB of data, it needs more than that and accessing the main memory is important for that operation. 

There are other bottlenecks in the WII U such as the fillrates and processing power too! The WII U is theoretically all around weaker than the PS360!



curl-6 on 24 November 2013
gmcmen said:
curl-6 said:
gmcmen said:
curl-6 said:
gmcmen said:

And do you think nintendo fans really care, sure they argue about te wiiu being  much more powerful then currentgen, just to to feel better out the wiiu purchase but they really don't care, just look at 3d mario world, its a nice looking game by all means, but nothing close to being top tier when you compare it to 360/ps3, yet nintendo fans feels it nextgen cause its mario, finally in HD, now replace mario and put knack in those mario 3d world pics and everybody would be saying how ugly it is.

No, people say Knack is ugly cos it looks bland, while Mario looks colourful and lively.


honestly both look bland as hell, mario 3d environments looks pretty barren, and the heavy use of bloom feels like its 2006 again. I'm not a fan of all the shaders and depth of field they shit on the screen. It screams "we finally have shaders".  sonic generations looks so much better then both that it makes me sad, i expect mario galaxy 3 to match sonic genertions graphically and if they can do it at 60fps then that would be a dream come true.

i disagree. I think 3D World's use effects like of depth of field and rim shading produce a nicely soft, luminous look that's quite  pleasing to the eye. Big fan of the bold colours and rain effects as well.


Galaxy 1  & 2 push the Wii much harder than 3D World pushes Wii U, yes. I mostly put this down to their inexperience with HD level development and programmable shaders.

But I still think 3D World looks nice: