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

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

Turkish on 04 March 2014

people be discussin snes vs megadrive up in here lolz



Around the Network
Miyamotoo on 04 March 2014
starworld said:
curl-6 said:
starworld said:
curl-6 said:
Hynad said:

There were slowdowns in Sonic The Hedgehog games, for Pete's sake. ¬_¬

Ports of games have always looked closer to their original version on the SNES compared to the Genesis. But you're saying devs struggled. They didn't.

Fast paced games with lots happening on screen suffered from more slowdown and flicker on SNES. In early games like Gradius III and Super R Type the framerate plummets when things get busy.

Of course, once devs figured out how to play to strengths of the system, they churned out games bursting with rich colours and Mode 7 effects that Megadrive could only dream of.

the genesis did have a few advatages over the super nes, but clealry the super was more powerful, ports always showed better garphics.  iti did googled it and all i found was super nes ports are better, i found very few games were genesis was the winner unless they were different games, with the same name.

Likewise, the PS3 and 360 have a few advantages over the Wii U, but clearly the Wii U is more powerful.

Also: http://retro-sanctuary.com/compaisons%20-%20James%20Pond%20II.html

Of the SNES version:

"Still plays well, but there's much more slowdown noticeable here, in fact some levels (such as those under water and those with a big emphasis on flying) are pretty much constantly plagued with fairly serious slowdown issues."

so you named 1 game as proof, as developers struggling and stiil even though the game had slow down it still looked much better then the genesis version, wiiu is not clearly more powerful as its not showing the results that clearly more powerful hardware shows, it doesn't matter what your excuse is, clearly more powerful hardware is suppose to let you play better versions of games, not inferior.

You can compare early PS3/Xbox360 games with this last ones, you can see that difference is very very big.



starworld on 04 March 2014
curl-6 said:
starworld said:
curl-6 said:

Likewise, the PS3 and 360 have a few advantages over the Wii U, but clearly the Wii U is more powerful.

Also: http://retro-sanctuary.com/compaisons%20-%20James%20Pond%20II.html

Of the SNES version:

"Still plays well, but there's much more slowdown noticeable here, in fact some levels (such as those under water and those with a big emphasis on flying) are pretty much constantly plagued with fairly serious slowdown issues."

so you named 1 game as proof, as developers struggling and stiil even though the game had slow down it still looked much better then the genesis version, wiiu is not clearly more powerful as its not showing the results that clearly more powerful hardware shows, it doesn't matter what your excuse is, clearly more powerful hardware is suppose to let you play better versions of games, not inferior.

Super R Type, Gradius III, plenty of early SNES games had framerate slowdown. It is well known.

Results don't mean shit when the games aren't properly optimized; early PS3 games did not show its full power, early SNES games did not show its full power, and early Wii U games do not show its full power. You're deluding yourself if you think incompetently developed shovelware ports like Arkham Origins or Assassin's Creed are indicative of Wii U's true capabilities.

assassins creed 3 and 4 are probably the most techically impressive games on wiiu. all those consoles that you compared to wiiu, are about 20x jump in power from previous generation, the only thing we have similaer to wiiu, is wii vs xbox/GC and honestly xbox games looked better, and GC games very close to it graphically, the fact that we don't even have a great looking wiiu game with proper anti aliasing, not even from nintendo after a year, and nothing coming this year as well, just shows you how close it is to 360/ps3. 



Kane1389 on 04 March 2014
sc94597 said:
Kane1389 said:
sc94597 said:
Kane1389 said:
sc94597 said:
Kane1389 said:


Nice job comparing a 2008 game with 2014 game.

Both games were/will be released at comparable periods in their lifecycle. Two years after the release of the console. If the logic that I've seen in other threads in regards to the PS4 and XBOne holds, that they are not optimized enough to show vast improvements over the latest games of last generation, then the same should hold for the Wii U vs. last generation, which means that we should compare games that were released after similar periods of time in their life cycles. If you are to argue that there is software technique advancement, we can always remember that Nintendo games are made with their own proprietary engines and Nintendo didn't develop games with such graphical feats back then. The comparison is not only valid but optimal. 

Except that those games in Xbone/Ps4 threads are cross gen titles, never designed to take full advantage of next gen power. X is not a cross gen game. 

 

And WiiU as a supposed 8th gen system should have had better looking games than anything on the ps3 right at launch just like ps360 and their successors had.

 

And lets not pretend WKC was The best looking ps3 game in 2008. I dont see any 2014 wii u game looking better than MGS4, although Watch Dogs might prove me wrong

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=179145&page=1#42

^ That thread isn't about cross-gen titles. 

Also the comparison makes sense because they're both open-world games with similar art styles. 


I have no idea why you brought that thread up,am I supposed to agree with OP?

And if you wanna compare graphics, you use the best looking games. MGS4 was best looking on PS3 in 2008, X is on WiiU in 2014.

The replies in that thread stated that the reason why the OP doesn't see a large difference between the previous generation and this generation (in regards to exclusives) is because the new consoles have not been optimized for yet. The OP should compare early releases of the 7th generation with early releases of the 8th generation, and the same logic holds with the Wii U vs. last generation consoles, does it not? Metal Gear Solid IV was not an open world game. X will be an open world game. That is where the comparison fails. 

The argument above was that both MGS4 and X were/will be released 2 years into the each console's lifecycle. 

Given that Wii U is supposed 8th gen hardware, cherry picking will not help your argument. Shouldnt U (as a supposed powerfull 8th gen hardware) have better looking games than MGS4 right out of the gate? PS3 had better looking games than anything on 6th gen right at launch and it was extremly complex to develop for, much more so than Wii U



TheLegendaryWolf on 04 March 2014
Kane1389 said:
sc94597 said:

The replies in that thread stated that the reason why the OP doesn't see a large difference between the previous generation and this generation (in regards to exclusives) is because the new consoles have not been optimized for yet. The OP should compare early releases of the 7th generation with early releases of the 8th generation, and the same logic holds with the Wii U vs. last generation consoles, does it not? Metal Gear Solid IV was not an open world game. X will be an open world game. That is where the comparison fails. 

The argument above was that both MGS4 and X were/will be released 2 years into the each console's lifecycle. 

Given that Wii U is supposed 8th gen hardware, cherry picking will not help your argument. Shouldnt U (as a supposed powerfull 8th gen hardware) have better looking games than MGS4 right out of the gate? PS3 had better looking games than anything on 6th gen right at launch and it was extremly complex to develop for, much more so than Wii U


Gen 7 was more similar to a PC than Gen 6, thus easier to develop and port. Gen 8 is basically a PC port era, with the exception of the Wii U. Wii U has a more complex architecture that has a learning curve for most developers, even Nintendo slightly struggles since they're getting accustomed to HD development. 



Around the Network
Hynad on 04 March 2014
TheLegendaryWolf said:
Kane1389 said:
sc94597 said:

The replies in that thread stated that the reason why the OP doesn't see a large difference between the previous generation and this generation (in regards to exclusives) is because the new consoles have not been optimized for yet. The OP should compare early releases of the 7th generation with early releases of the 8th generation, and the same logic holds with the Wii U vs. last generation consoles, does it not? Metal Gear Solid IV was not an open world game. X will be an open world game. That is where the comparison fails. 

The argument above was that both MGS4 and X were/will be released 2 years into the each console's lifecycle. 

Given that Wii U is supposed 8th gen hardware, cherry picking will not help your argument. Shouldnt U (as a supposed powerfull 8th gen hardware) have better looking games than MGS4 right out of the gate? PS3 had better looking games than anything on 6th gen right at launch and it was extremly complex to develop for, much more so than Wii U


Gen 7 was more similar to a PC than Gen 6, thus easier to develop and port. Gen 8 is basically a PC port era, with the exception of the Wii U. Wii U has a more complex architecture that has a learning curve for most developers, even Nintendo slightly struggles since they're getting accustomed to HD development. 

Cell is anything but similar to PC CPUs... 

The things we read here at times. ¬_¬

The Wii U is very similar to the 360. Why would developers need such a learning curve when they've been programming for such an architecture for years with the 360? 

That argument, I swear...  The only devs praising the Wii U's architecture are those who exclusively develop for Nintendo hardware. Shin'en being one of them. Why anyone would take their comments as cospel when they have no experience with anything other than Nintendo's hardware is beyond reason.


Also, take some lessons in forums posting etiquette and cut the quote trees before hitting submit. 



curl-6 on 04 March 2014
starworld said:
curl-6 said:

Super R Type, Gradius III, plenty of early SNES games had framerate slowdown. It is well known.

Results don't mean shit when the games aren't properly optimized; early PS3 games did not show its full power, early SNES games did not show its full power, and early Wii U games do not show its full power. You're deluding yourself if you think incompetently developed shovelware ports like Arkham Origins or Assassin's Creed are indicative of Wii U's true capabilities.

assassins creed 3 and 4 are probably the most techically impressive games on wiiu. all those consoles that you compared to wiiu, are about 20x jump in power from previous generation, the only thing we have similaer to wiiu, is wii vs xbox/GC and honestly xbox games looked better, and GC games very close to it graphically, the fact that we don't even have a great looking wiiu game with proper anti aliasing, not even from nintendo after a year, and nothing coming this year as well, just shows you how close it is to 360/ps3. 

Hi Ninjablade.

AC3 and 4 are FAR from the most technically impressive games on Wii U. PS3/360 textures, dodgy framerate, no post PS3-360 effects. Trine 2 and Need for Speed are far more impressive.

The reason there isn't a showcase for Wii U is because there has not been a single game made from the ground up to push its graphics yet.



curl-6 on 04 March 2014
Hynad said:

The Wii U is very similar to the 360. Why would developers need such a learning curve when they've been programming for such an architecture for years with the 360? 

Wii U does not have the same architecture as 360.

- High clock, low cache, long pipeline In Order Execution CPU (360) vs low clock, high cache, short pipeline Out Of Order Execution CPU. (Wii U)

- eDRAM that is more than just a framebuffer and needs to be used for CPU/GPU tasks as well to enable optimal performance and prevent main RAM bottlenecking.



sc94597 on 04 March 2014
Kane1389 said:
sc94597 said:
Kane1389 said:
sc94597 said:
Kane1389 said:
sc94597 said:
Kane1389 said:


Nice job comparing a 2008 game with 2014 game.

Both games were/will be released at comparable periods in their lifecycle. Two years after the release of the console. If the logic that I've seen in other threads in regards to the PS4 and XBOne holds, that they are not optimized enough to show vast improvements over the latest games of last generation, then the same should hold for the Wii U vs. last generation, which means that we should compare games that were released after similar periods of time in their life cycles. If you are to argue that there is software technique advancement, we can always remember that Nintendo games are made with their own proprietary engines and Nintendo didn't develop games with such graphical feats back then. The comparison is not only valid but optimal. 

Except that those games in Xbone/Ps4 threads are cross gen titles, never designed to take full advantage of next gen power. X is not a cross gen game. 

 

And WiiU as a supposed 8th gen system should have had better looking games than anything on the ps3 right at launch just like ps360 and their successors had.

 

And lets not pretend WKC was The best looking ps3 game in 2008. I dont see any 2014 wii u game looking better than MGS4, although Watch Dogs might prove me wrong

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=179145&page=1#42

^ That thread isn't about cross-gen titles. 

Also the comparison makes sense because they're both open-world games with similar art styles. 


I have no idea why you brought that thread up,am I supposed to agree with OP?

And if you wanna compare graphics, you use the best looking games. MGS4 was best looking on PS3 in 2008, X is on WiiU in 2014.

The replies in that thread stated that the reason why the OP doesn't see a large difference between the previous generation and this generation (in regards to exclusives) is because the new consoles have not been optimized for yet. The OP should compare early releases of the 7th generation with early releases of the 8th generation, and the same logic holds with the Wii U vs. last generation consoles, does it not? Metal Gear Solid IV was not an open world game. X will be an open world game. That is where the comparison fails. 

The argument above was that both MGS4 and X were/will be released 2 years into the each console's lifecycle. 

Given that Wii U is supposed 8th gen hardware, cherry picking will not help your argument. Shouldnt U (as a supposed powerfull 8th gen hardware) have better looking games than MGS4 right out of the gate? PS3 had better looking games than anything on 6th gen right at launch and it was extremly complex to develop for, much more so than Wii U

Look at the underlined text in the quote a few posts back. You are arguing a strawman in the bolded. Just so you can remember, the following sentence might be helpful. This entire series of quote is in response to youre original statement: "Nice job comparing a 2008 game with 2014 game." 



curl-6 on 04 March 2014

*Thread grinds to a halt now that ninjablade's alt and fatslob aren't around to turn it into a Wii U bashing session*

Seriously though, FAST Racing Neo should be interesting as the Wii U's first proper ground-up graphics pusher, even if it is an indie production.

It will also demonstrate the capabilities of the system's eDRAM, as they've stated their new engine was made possible by the fact that the eDRAM was large enough for them to do deferred rendering with all effects at a v-synced 60fps.