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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U's eDRAM stronger than given credit?

Hynad on 28 February 2014

I don't see how any of those Bayo 2 screens look any better than the GoW3 pics.

They both look to be on par with each other technically.

The differences are at best very subtle.

In fact, GoW3 has much less jaggies, to be honest. And its lighting solution is more convincing.



Around the Network
starworld on 28 February 2014
Hynad said:

I don't see how any of those Bayo 2 screens look any better than the GoW3 pics.

They both look to be on par with each other technically.

The differences are at best very subtle.

In fact, GoW3 has much less jaggies, to be honest. And its lighting solution is more convincing.


i was about to repley till i saw you edit, but unless your vewing super sampled shots of bayo 2, GOW3 looks much better, its not even close.you actually have to viiew the picsin full resolution.



Hynad on 28 February 2014
starworld said:
Hynad said:

I don't see how any of those Bayo 2 screens look any better than the GoW3 pics.

They both look to be on par with each other technically.

The differences are at best very subtle.

In fact, GoW3 has much less jaggies, to be honest. And its lighting solution is more convincing.


i was about to repley till i saw you edit, but unless your vewing super sampled shots of bayo 2, GOW3 looks much better, its not even close.you actually have to viiew the picsin full resolution.

Yes, but GoW3 runs at a fluctuating 30-60fps, while Bayo 2 is said to run at a "constant" 60fps.  You have to take that into account to be fair.



mutantsushi on 28 February 2014

I want to see Nintendo fanatic get "Wii U is more uber than PS3 goddammit!!!" tattooed on their forehead.



starworld on 28 February 2014
Hynad said:
starworld said:
Hynad said:

I don't see how any of those Bayo 2 screens look any better than the GoW3 pics.

They both look to be on par with each other technically.

The differences are at best very subtle.

In fact, GoW3 has much less jaggies, to be honest. And its lighting solution is more convincing.


i was about to repley till i saw you edit, but unless your vewing super sampled shots of bayo 2, GOW3 looks much better, its not even close.you actually have to viiew the picsin full resolution.

Yes, but GoW3 runs at a fluctuation 30-60fps, while Bayo 2 is said to run at a "constant" 60fps.  You have to take that into account to be fair.

I undertsand what your saying but the graphics advantage for GOW3 is huge, this is gameplay vs cut scene. bayo 2 looks the same as othere 60fps slashers on 360/ps3, although i think DMC4 and ninja gaiden 3 razers edge look much better.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 28 February 2014
SubiyaCryolite said:
I don't understand the assumption that no game has been built from the ground up for the Wii U? Galaxy 1 and 2 lead the charge for the Wii and 3D World is arguably the best looking WiiU game so why doesn't it count? I can say the same about Kart 8

Because 3D World may look pretty, but its small, simple worlds aren't exactly maxing out 1GB of RAM.

It's not designed to push tech.



curl-6 on 28 February 2014
starworld said:
curl-6 said:
bonzobanana said:

No one has claimed we have seen the wii u full power clearly developers learn to maximise a console's performance over time. The point is with the wii u that increase will be small because there is no technology in the wii u that isn't being utilised.  It's not like the cell its just a basic very low cost console running at low speed made up of low end components.  The reason Nintendo put low cost 12.6GB/s memory chips in the console is because that is a good match to the gpu and cpu performance level.  Cache may maximise use of memory bandwidth but you can never have more memory bandwidth than the memory chips are capable of. 3 primitive 32bit risc cpu's running at 1.25ghz and a very low end modern dx10/11 gpu at 550mhz with a 32MB memory pool is in no way a high performance console able to compete with ps4 or xbox one. I'ts lean and efficient but only to the point that it manages to perform close to ps3/360 levels despite utterly weak components.  Yes the gpu architecture is superior to 360/PS3 but the wii u is starved of cpu resources so effectively for the majority of games with normal cpu requirements the wii u performs below 360 and PS3. This is clearly demonstrated by every game that has higher cpu requirements it seems.

This is the same fanboy nonsense we had with the wii where people claimed it was more powerful than current games demonstrated, it was nonsense then and continues to be nonsense with the wii u. There was no golden horizon for wii and there won't be for wii u.

Look at how wii u games are performing now and you will see what the wii u is capable of. Denying reality and pretending developers are lazy and future games will be much better is an argument without substance or reality. I've yet to see PS4 or Xbox one owners be so detached from reality it seems to be a mental illness that only nintendo fanboys get who seem to need to defend Nintendo's cheap ass attitude to hardware. 

Those of us who said Wii was more powerful than games of the time demonstrated were proven right by titles later in its lifespan like Conduit 1 & 2 and Jett Rocket.

We were right about Wii, and we will be right about Wii U as well.

And the evidence of dev laziness is crystal clear; all the Wii U ports that don't have superior textures, (so any that aren't Need for Speed or Trine 2) are obviously lazy, because the system has more than twice as much RAM.

This is pure none sense, chronicals of riddick, doom 3, ninja gaiden, rallisport 2, splinter cell choase theory, and soul calibur 2 720p look much better then those games you mentioned, forget about them looking much better, nintendo fans always expected the wii to blow away gamecube and xbox graphically, yet it never happened,

The reason for why ports don't have superior textures, is because developers are struggling even match 360/ps3 performance on those ports, so adding better textures will only drop the performace, that's why you don't see superior textures in those ports

Jett Rocket could not be done on Xbox. For that matter, neither could the Mario Galaxy games.

Wii fans said its graphics would improve beyond what was seen in 2006-2008, and we were proven right. Likewise, Wii U will have games that go beyond anything seen so far.

And Need for Speed and Trine 2 had no problem increasing texture resolution, effects quality, and performance over PS3/360. Because those devs actually put in a little something called effort.



starworld on 28 February 2014
curl-6 said:
starworld said:
curl-6 said:
bonzobanana said:

No one has claimed we have seen the wii u full power clearly developers learn to maximise a console's performance over time. The point is with the wii u that increase will be small because there is no technology in the wii u that isn't being utilised.  It's not like the cell its just a basic very low cost console running at low speed made up of low end components.  The reason Nintendo put low cost 12.6GB/s memory chips in the console is because that is a good match to the gpu and cpu performance level.  Cache may maximise use of memory bandwidth but you can never have more memory bandwidth than the memory chips are capable of. 3 primitive 32bit risc cpu's running at 1.25ghz and a very low end modern dx10/11 gpu at 550mhz with a 32MB memory pool is in no way a high performance console able to compete with ps4 or xbox one. I'ts lean and efficient but only to the point that it manages to perform close to ps3/360 levels despite utterly weak components.  Yes the gpu architecture is superior to 360/PS3 but the wii u is starved of cpu resources so effectively for the majority of games with normal cpu requirements the wii u performs below 360 and PS3. This is clearly demonstrated by every game that has higher cpu requirements it seems.

This is the same fanboy nonsense we had with the wii where people claimed it was more powerful than current games demonstrated, it was nonsense then and continues to be nonsense with the wii u. There was no golden horizon for wii and there won't be for wii u.

Look at how wii u games are performing now and you will see what the wii u is capable of. Denying reality and pretending developers are lazy and future games will be much better is an argument without substance or reality. I've yet to see PS4 or Xbox one owners be so detached from reality it seems to be a mental illness that only nintendo fanboys get who seem to need to defend Nintendo's cheap ass attitude to hardware. 

Those of us who said Wii was more powerful than games of the time demonstrated were proven right by titles later in its lifespan like Conduit 1 & 2 and Jett Rocket.

We were right about Wii, and we will be right about Wii U as well.

And the evidence of dev laziness is crystal clear; all the Wii U ports that don't have superior textures, (so any that aren't Need for Speed or Trine 2) are obviously lazy, because the system has more than twice as much RAM.

This is pure none sense, chronicals of riddick, doom 3, ninja gaiden, rallisport 2, splinter cell choase theory, and soul calibur 2 720p look much better then those games you mentioned, forget about them looking much better, nintendo fans always expected the wii to blow away gamecube and xbox graphically, yet it never happened,

The reason for why ports don't have superior textures, is because developers are struggling even match 360/ps3 performance on those ports, so adding better textures will only drop the performace, that's why you don't see superior textures in those ports

Jett Rocket could not be done on Xbox. For that matter, neither could the Mario Galaxy games.

Wii fans said its graphics would improve beyond what was seen in 2006-2008, and we were proven right. Likewise, Wii U will have games that go beyond anything seen so far.

And Need for Speed and Trine 2 had no problem increasing texture resolution, effects quality, and performance over PS3/360. Because those devs actually put in a little something called effort.

many games on xbox could not be done on wii because xbox actually had shader support.

need for speed and trine 2 are enhanced ports, they were not released as the sametime, so its not fair to compare those to othere developers, which had to work on several versions at the sametime, and thats only 2 games out of 10, your not a developer, different games, different problems arise, but clearly developers are having problems running ports on wiiu, considering how cheap a pc card costs that could run 360/ps3 with out effort, maybe you should look at your beloved nintendo for not making it easy for developers to run 360/ps3 ports cause that really required no effort if they wanted too.



curl-6 on 28 February 2014
starworld said:
curl-6 said:

Jett Rocket could not be done on Xbox. For that matter, neither could the Mario Galaxy games.

Wii fans said its graphics would improve beyond what was seen in 2006-2008, and we were proven right. Likewise, Wii U will have games that go beyond anything seen so far.

And Need for Speed and Trine 2 had no problem increasing texture resolution, effects quality, and performance over PS3/360. Because those devs actually put in a little something called effort.

many games on xbox could not be done on wii because xbox actually had shader support.

need for speed and trine 2 are enhanced ports, they were not released as the sametime, so its not fair to compare those to othere developers, which had to work on several versions at the sametime, and thats only 2 games out of 10, your not a developer, different games, different problems arise, but clearly developers are having problems running ports on wiiu, considering how cheap a pc card costs that could run 360/ps3 with out effort, maybe you look at your beloved nintendo for not making it easy for developers to run 360/ps3 ports cause that really required no effort if they wanted too.

Many Wii games couldn't run on Xbox because Wii had more RAM, a stronger CPU, and a GPU better suited to multitexturing and high polygon counts.

NFS and Trine 2 are not so much enhanced ports as proper ports; they actually took advantage of the hardware instead of just copy + pasting PS3/360 assets and doing the bare minimum of optimization. They actually bothered to utilise its extra RAM and stronger GPU, which other devs were too lazy to bother with.



Hynad on 28 February 2014
curl-6 said:
starworld said:
curl-6 said:

Jett Rocket could not be done on Xbox. For that matter, neither could the Mario Galaxy games.

Wii fans said its graphics would improve beyond what was seen in 2006-2008, and we were proven right. Likewise, Wii U will have games that go beyond anything seen so far.

And Need for Speed and Trine 2 had no problem increasing texture resolution, effects quality, and performance over PS3/360. Because those devs actually put in a little something called effort.

many games on xbox could not be done on wii because xbox actually had shader support.

need for speed and trine 2 are enhanced ports, they were not released as the sametime, so its not fair to compare those to othere developers, which had to work on several versions at the sametime, and thats only 2 games out of 10, your not a developer, different games, different problems arise, but clearly developers are having problems running ports on wiiu, considering how cheap a pc card costs that could run 360/ps3 with out effort, maybe you look at your beloved nintendo for not making it easy for developers to run 360/ps3 ports cause that really required no effort if they wanted too.

Many Wii games couldn't run on Xbox because Wii had more RAM, a stronger CPU, and a GPU better suited to multitexturing and high polygon counts.

NFS and Trine 2 are not so much enhanced ports as proper ports; they actually took advantage of the hardware instead of just copy + pasting PS3/360 assets and doing the bare minimum of optimization. They actually bothered to utilise its extra RAM and stronger GPU, which other devs were too lazy to bother with.

That copy pasting thing you mention every two comment is stupid. Codes can't be copied from the 360 to the PS3, so why do you think they could be copied from either of them to the Wii U? You clearly have not idea how porting works. -__-