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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - After seeing Bayonetta 2 and 'X' in action today...

 

The PS4's power seems...

Better, but not THAT much better anymore... 241 15.42%
 
Are you crazy?! The PS4 is GOD! 349 22.33%
 
The Wii U is clearly unde... 741 47.41%
 
The PS4 is selling better... 36 2.30%
 
I think I'll be buying a... 191 12.22%
 
Total:1,558
Hynad on 25 February 2014
curl-6 said:
Hynad said:

On the other hand, you have people grasping at every straws possible to come up with reasons why the games released for the Wii U so far haven't placed the console in a class clearly above the HD twins. Assumptions made facts rule for this group. People of this group believe the developers releasing games for the Wii U are lazy and don't give their games any love when making them for the console. And Nintendo don't push their consoles at all. Not even with Pikmin and SM3DW.

Both sides arguing over this because, most likely, they're bored. I know I am.

Not grasping at straws; using common sense and logic.

It's common sense that ports designed for other consoles with different architecture and an extra 6-7 years of dev experience won't show a new system's full power. Especially when they don't even use the system's larger RAM.

It's also clear that Nintendo hasn't pushed the hardware either given that (A) their games so far are simplistic in design and do not prioritise graphics, and (B) they themselves are inexperienced in both HD development and programmable shaders.


Your so called logic and common sense aren't supported  by facts. My assessment is pretty spot on. 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 25 February 2014
Hynad said:


Your so called logic and common sense aren't supported  by facts. My assessment is pretty spot on. 

Despite the fact that you have discontent for me Hynad, is my logic and common sense supported by facts ? 



fatslob-:O on 25 February 2014
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Yea, quite a bit, didn't realize how much theories and facts and assumptions  goes into determining how much power a console has... Hard to tell who is winning though since both of you make valid points as well as odd ones

You could just go to anandtech or toms hardware and ask some questions around those forums to get a better insight ...



curl-6 on 25 February 2014
Hynad said:
curl-6 said:
Hynad said:

On the other hand, you have people grasping at every straws possible to come up with reasons why the games released for the Wii U so far haven't placed the console in a class clearly above the HD twins. Assumptions made facts rule for this group. People of this group believe the developers releasing games for the Wii U are lazy and don't give their games any love when making them for the console. And Nintendo don't push their consoles at all. Not even with Pikmin and SM3DW.

Both sides arguing over this because, most likely, they're bored. I know I am.

Not grasping at straws; using common sense and logic.

It's common sense that ports designed for other consoles with different architecture and an extra 6-7 years of dev experience won't show a new system's full power. Especially when they don't even use the system's larger RAM.

It's also clear that Nintendo hasn't pushed the hardware either given that (A) their games so far are simplistic in design and do not prioritise graphics, and (B) they themselves are inexperienced in both HD development and programmable shaders.


Your so called logic and common sense aren't supported  by facts. My assessment is pretty spot on. 

What you call "facts" are not supported by logic. It is not logical to use the performance of early multiplatform games built for a different architecture as a measuring stick of a new system's true capability, especially when said ports show clear signs of failing to use the newer system's capabilities, such as a lack of higher res textures despite having twice as much RAM.



Jizz_Beard_thePirate on 25 February 2014
fatslob-:O said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Yea, quite a bit, didn't realize how much theories and facts and assumptions  goes into determining how much power a console has... Hard to tell who is winning though since both of you make valid points as well as odd ones

You could just go to anandtech or toms hardware and ask some questions around those forums to get a better insights ...

True but I am not that dedicated/caring enough about the subject matter and the people here that love hardware seems to know a lot of things anyways

And I do double check people's statements sometimes using google but anyway, don't mind me



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

Around the Network
curl-6 on 25 February 2014
fatslob-:O said:

You get the idea ... It's not as black and white as it seems on performance. There ARE applications that are bounded by theorectical performance. Rendering in general is becoming more bounded by the shading power of a GPU. 

That's what I'm getting at. For example, on paper a 1.25GHz CPU sounds slow, but it has other advantages to help compensate for its low clock. Wii U's a system that looks deceptively weak on paper, because it prioritises efficiency over raw horsepower.



fatslob-:O on 25 February 2014
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

You get the idea ... It's not as black and white as it seems on performance. There ARE applications that are bounded by theorectical performance. Rendering in general is becoming more bounded by the shading power of a GPU. 

That's what I'm getting at. For example, on paper a 1.25GHz CPU sounds slow, but it has other advantages to help compensate for its low clock. Wii U's a system that looks deceptively weak on paper, because it prioritises efficiency over raw horsepower.

What advantage ? 



curl-6 on 25 February 2014
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

You get the idea ... It's not as black and white as it seems on performance. There ARE applications that are bounded by theorectical performance. Rendering in general is becoming more bounded by the shading power of a GPU. 

That's what I'm getting at. For example, on paper a 1.25GHz CPU sounds slow, but it has other advantages to help compensate for its low clock. Wii U's a system that looks deceptively weak on paper, because it prioritises efficiency over raw horsepower.

What advantage ? 

Versus Cell/Xenon; higher IPC, out of order execution, shorter pipeline so less penalty for a miss, more cache, audio DSP to offload sound, GPGPU to assist with other tasks.



fatslob-:O on 25 February 2014
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
fatslob-:O said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Yea, quite a bit, didn't realize how much theories and facts and assumptions  goes into determining how much power a console has... Hard to tell who is winning though since both of you make valid points as well as odd ones

You could just go to anandtech or toms hardware and ask some questions around those forums to get a better insights ...

True but I am not that dedicated/caring enough about the subject matter and the people here that love hardware seems to know a lot of things anyways

And I do double check people's statements sometimes using google but anyway, don't mind me

There ARE benefits to this ... You could become one of the better ones in the master race.

Almost no one will ignore your thoughts on the subject and they will not take it as a grain of salt. 



Hynad on 25 February 2014
curl-6 said:
Hynad said:
curl-6 said:

Not grasping at straws; using common sense and logic.

It's common sense that ports designed for other consoles with different architecture and an extra 6-7 years of dev experience won't show a new system's full power. Especially when they don't even use the system's larger RAM.

It's also clear that Nintendo hasn't pushed the hardware either given that (A) their games so far are simplistic in design and do not prioritise graphics, and (B) they themselves are inexperienced in both HD development and programmable shaders.


Your so called logic and common sense aren't supported  by facts. My assessment is pretty spot on. 

What you call "facts" are not supported by logic. It is not logical to use the performance of early multiplatform games built for a different architecture as a measuring stick of a new system's true capability, especially when said ports show clear signs of failing to use the newer system's capabilities, such as a lack of higher res textures despite having twice as much RAM.

Look. You love Nintendo. That much we understand. But the amount of spin you're ready to spout at everyone about the Wii U's capabilities is unreasonable at best. Nintendo went for a low power draw architecture, and the result are for everyone to witness. Even though it has more modern components, they're low power consumption components that, while very efficient for what they draw from, barely manages to outmatch the HD twins (which didn't go for that angle, as they were power hungry beasts) because of that. 


It's rather sad that people like you won't accept that and move on. This doesn't mean the Wii U won't have beautiful games. But when you see all those exclusive games by rather great developers running in 720p without any AA, and struggling to remain at a steady frame rate, even if it's early in the console's lifespan, it doesn't take a quantum physics degree to understand that the Wii U isn't as powerful as you want to believe, Curl.