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?

curl-6 on 28 February 2014
Hynad said:
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 comments 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. -__-

The Wii U can handle higher resolution textures than PS3/360, but most devs just re-use the same low res textures for their Wii U ports, hence copy-pasting.



Around the Network
Hynad on 28 February 2014
curl-6 said:
Hynad said:
curl-6 said:

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 comments 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. -__-

The Wii U can handle higher resolution textures than PS3/360, but most devs just re-use the same low res textures for their Wii U ports, hence copy-pasting.

Indeed. It uses the same "low" resolution textures from those console's assets, and it STILL has difficulty running these games smoothtly.



starworld on 28 February 2014
curl-6 said:
Hynad said:
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 comments 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. -__-

The Wii U can handle higher resolution textures than PS3/360, but most devs just re-use the same low res textures for their Wii U ports, hence copy-pasting.

that doesn't make any sense on pc you can easily switch high resolution on any 360/ps3 port, why would it be different for wiiu, it takes no effort to do so, unless it probably slows down performance thats why they leave them as is.



curl-6 on 28 February 2014
starworld said:

that doesn't make any sense on pc you can easily switch high resolution on any 360/ps3 port, why would it be different for wiiu, it takes no effort to do so, unless it probably slows down performance thats why they leave them as is.

Didn't slow down performance on Trine 2 or Need for Speed. Both in fact performed better on Wii U despite the upgraded graphics.



curl-6 on 28 February 2014
Hynad said:

Indeed. It uses the same "low" resolution textures from those console's assets, and it STILL has difficulty running these games smoothtly.

See my answer above. And if you two are going to gang up on me, please check to make sure you're not both asking the same qustions.



Around the Network
starworld 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.

both xbox and wii had there advantages, although i never heard of the cpu being better, do you have a source for that. as for the end result xbox  games clearly looked better to me, and it life was clearly cut short never really getting into its full potentail.

 

 me.



curl-6 on 28 February 2014
starworld said:

both xbox and wii had there advantages, although i never heard of the cpu being better, do you have a source for that. as for the end result xbox  games clearly looked better to me, and it life was clearly cut short never really getting into its full potentail.

Their CPUs were around the same  clockspeed, but Wii was PowerPC while Xbox was Pentium based; PPCs are well known to outperform Pentiums at the same clock speed. Wii's CPU also had twice as much L2 cache.

I've never seen an Xbox game that looked as good to me as Mario Galaxy, and Wii didn't reach its full potential due to so few devs even trying to push it.



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

that doesn't make any sense on pc you can easily switch high resolution on any 360/ps3 port, why would it be different for wiiu, it takes no effort to do so, unless it probably slows down performance thats why they leave them as is.

Didn't slow down performance on Trine 2 or Need for Speed. Both in fact performed better on Wii U despite the upgraded graphics.

you know if the hardware power is close this kind of thing happens different games play to different hardware strengths, if wii u ports wre always superior and you have 2 that were inferior, i would agree with you but the majority are inferior, devs that have promised the wiiu version being the best have failed, cause they proabably had too much trouble cause the lack of power and said forget this is not woth the headache, you have the samething happen with 360 and ps3.



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

both xbox and wii had there advantages, although i never heard of the cpu being better, do you have a source for that. as for the end result xbox  games clearly looked better to me, and it life was clearly cut short never really getting into its full potentail.

Their CPUs were around the same  clockspeed, but Wii was PowerPC while Xbox was Pentium based; PPCs are well known to outperform Pentiums at the same clock speed. Wii's CPU also had twice as much L2 cache.

I've never seen an Xbox game that looked as good to me as Mario Galaxy, and Wii didn't reach its full potential due to so few devs even trying to push it.

Seriously, on that one, I'm with you. The Wii, while not a complete gen above, was more capable than the XBox. No question about this one.
But the same applies to the Wii U compared to the PS4 and 360. Same ballpark, even if it's a slightly better in some aspects (GPU) while being weaker in other (CPU). Of course, the added RAM helps, but since the graphics memory bandwitdh isn't that different than what's found in the PS3 and 360, the end result isn't that much of a step up.



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

both xbox and wii had there advantages, although i never heard of the cpu being better, do you have a source for that. as for the end result xbox  games clearly looked better to me, and it life was clearly cut short never really getting into its full potentail.

Their CPUs were around the same  clockspeed, but Wii was PowerPC while Xbox was Pentium based; PPCs are well known to outperform Pentiums at the same clock speed. Wii's CPU also had twice as much L2 cache.

I've never seen an Xbox game that looked as good to me as Mario Galaxy, and Wii didn't reach its full potential due to so few devs even trying to push it.

Seriously, on that one, I'm with you. The Wii, while not a complete gen above, was more capable than the XBox. No question about this one.
But the same applies to the Wii U compared to the PS4 and 360. Same ballpark, even if it's a slightly better in some aspects (GPU) while being weaker in other (CPU). Of course, the added RAM helps, but since the graphics memory bandwitdh isn't that different than what's found in the PS3 and 360, the end result isn't that much of a step up.

i have to desagree with you on this one, xbox could do much better textures, image quality and lighting, they both had there advantages, i'm not sure which is better.