also I would say if the do make a game to run on both systems it will be made to run on the slowest system so it would make the wii look even weaker! even though the wii versionwould look better!

if you take a 3500 athlon with a 7600gt and a 6600 duo core with a 8800 gt and pop in Cod4 and put the same settings of high quality at 1024x768 the game will look and run better on the faster system probably be unplayable on the weaker system unless you lower the in game effects! at least thats how it looks on my computer crap! still the game looks better on the 360 and PS3 then my crappy computer! if I upgraded it would look better on the PC!

Daddo Splat said: also there were 2 gamecube version correct?? they upgradeed the cpu and gpu's core clock the article above stated 405 mhz then some other places had it at 490?? so is that possibly why it was quoted at 12 million originally and 20 million later??

 No.  The original specs released had the CPU at approx 405 Mhz/GPu at 200 Mhz.  About 6-9 months prior to released, they were revise.  CPU to 485Mhz and GPU to 152Mhz.

 

The 6-12 million originaly was directly from Nintendo.  The 20 million came from 3rd party developers.  An equal raw polygon comparison was never tested but the GC could render approx 100 million raw putting it between the PS2 (75 million) and Xbox (125 million).

Viper1 said: Daddo Splat said: also there were 2 gamecube version correct?? they upgradeed the cpu and gpu's core clock the article above stated 405 mhz then some other places had it at 490?? so is that possibly why it was quoted at 12 million originally and 20 million later??  No.  The original specs released had the CPU at approx 405 Mhz/GPu at 200 Mhz.  About 6-9 months prior to released, they were revise.  CPU to 485Mhz and GPU to 152Mhz.   The 6-12 million originaly was directly from Nintendo.  The 20 million came from 3rd party developers.  An equal raw polygon comparison was never tested but the GC could render approx 100 million raw putting it between the PS2 (75 million) and Xbox (125 million).

cool ty

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-503797.html

that actually makes more sense then 2 versions!

@ Daddo Splat, Nintendo never released any specs for the wii that are full of depth, and won't let developers release them. So I'm going to guess here based off of the polygon counts of the ps2,x box,game cube, and how I think the Wii relates to them in power.

I believe the wii is right in the middle. It is 3 times more powerful than the x box, while still being 3-4times less powerful than the 360.
I think these are the polygon counts of all of the systems I mentioned.

                 Theoretical                                                    In-Game
X box         120million                                                    20 million                           6times less

1. Game cube 100 million                                          18 million                          5.5times less

Ps2          75 million                                                        12 million                            6.25times less

So the question marks mean I'm not sure , and I am doing this based of memory.

So If you average the times less polygons you could do in game from Theoretical you get about 5.9 times less polygons. So I'm going to use this. Now I'm going to have to guess the wii's polygon count based on my idea of the wii is perspective to the others.

I believe the wii is 2.5 times more than the original xbox in power. So that means I could multiply the polygon count of the xbox(120) by 2.5 to get 300. Then I divide that by 5.9. I get around 50.

Now let's try it with the game cube. 100 x 3 is 300. Divide that by 5.9 you get around 50.


My means are by far not close to accurate , because we don't even know if the developers or Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft are telling the truth about everything. SO I could be off , but this is what I think the polygon counts are.

                 Theoretical                               In-Game

1. Wii   300million polygons                30-50 million.

I could be wrong though. The hd consoles in-game polycount I think are around 200 million I think so that sets them about 4 times more powerful than the wii which is what I estimated. So I think I'm right you could do it by yourself based on how powerful you think the wii is compared to the other consoles.

@sc94597

I think your estimate (in particular polygon performance) is way too optimistic ...

My main thought is that there is a practical limit to the polygon performance you would want out of a console that only displays at 480p. The number of pixels-per-second that are displayed at 480p is 20 Million at 60fps (and 10 Million at 30fps). After you account for wasted polygons by the limitations of our clipping, culling and level of detail algorithms, after you hit (roughly) 30 Million polygons per second you will be only adding polygons which are smaller than a pixel and thus add nothing to your image quality.

The area Nintendo (probaly) focused their attention on was improving texturing performance. The Gamecube's Flipper GPU had 4 pixel pipelines with one texture unit each which was able to produce 648 megapixels and 648 megatexels per second. It is not unreasonable to expect that (along with increasing the clock by 1.5 times) Nintendo doubled the number of pixel pipelines which would increase the number of megapixels produced to (roughly) 2 Gigapixels (explaining the comments that the Wii could produce graphics in 720p), and/or doubled the number of texture units per pixel pipeline which would mean that the Wii could produce 2 to 4 Gigatexels.

To take this discussion and put it into practical terms, the Wii can produce graphics at 480p where adding additional polygons or using higher resolution textures can not be seen. If you look at the better looking Wii games you will notice that there are few polygonalization artifacts, and the textures have almost no pixelization artifacts; everythin looks silky smooth.

HappySqurriel said: @sc94597 I think your estimate (in particular polygon performance) is way too optimistic ... My main thought is that there is a practical limit to the polygon performance you would want out of a console that only displays at 480p. The number of pixels-per-second that are displayed at 480p is 20 Million at 60fps (and 10 Million at 30fps). After you account for wasted polygons by the limitations of our clipping, culling and level of detail algorithms, after you hit (roughly) 30 Million polygons per second you will be only adding polygons which are smaller than a pixel and thus add nothing to your image quality. The area Nintendo (probaly) focused their attention on was improving texturing performance. The Gamecube's Flipper GPU had 4 pixel pipelines with one texture unit each which was able to produce 648 megapixels and 648 megatexels per second. It is not unreasonable to expect that (along with increasing the clock by 1.5 times) Nintendo doubled the number of pixel pipelines which would increase the number of megapixels produced to (roughly) 2 Gigapixels (explaining the comments that the Wii could produce graphics in 720p), and/or doubled the number of texture units per pixel pipeline which would mean that the Wii could produce 2 to 4 Gigatexels. To take this discussion and put it into practical terms, the Wii can produce graphics at 480p where adding additional polygons or using higher resolution textures can not be seen. If you look at the better looking Wii games you will notice that there are few polygonalization artifacts, and the textures have almost no pixelization artifacts; everythin looks silky smooth.

 Yeah I thought it was a little unrealistic. So I made it 30-50 million. 

Interesting!

Viper1 said: People like Daddo are the exact reason Nintendo is not publicly releasing the Wii tech specs. Because average Joe simply cannot understand their context and Nintendo loses sales.

By the way I did own all three of the last gen consoles just like I own all three of this gens consoles its reall y about the games I want to play when I did play the GC version of RE4 to cause it got better looking version reviews so I said dmmit it looks good Iam playin it!

Secondly I went through the game 2x in a row had to unlock the rocket launcher for some major pay back on some bosses!

I have to admit there'e not a lot of games I'll beat and play again! So ya it was diffinetly game of the year material!

HappySqurriel said: @sc94597 I think your estimate (in particular polygon performance) is way too optimistic ... My main thought is that there is a practical limit to the polygon performance you would want out of a console that only displays at 480p. The number of pixels-per-second that are displayed at 480p is 20 Million at 60fps (and 10 Million at 30fps). After you account for wasted polygons by the limitations of our clipping, culling and level of detail algorithms, after you hit (roughly) 30 Million polygons per second you will be only adding polygons which are smaller than a pixel and thus add nothing to your image quality. The area Nintendo (probaly) focused their attention on was improving texturing performance. The Gamecube's Flipper GPU had 4 pixel pipelines with one texture unit each which was able to produce 648 megapixels and 648 megatexels per second. It is not unreasonable to expect that (along with increasing the clock by 1.5 times) Nintendo doubled the number of pixel pipelines which would increase the number of megapixels produced to (roughly) 2 Gigapixels (explaining the comments that the Wii could produce graphics in 720p), and/or doubled the number of texture units per pixel pipeline which would mean that the Wii could produce 2 to 4 Gigatexels. To take this discussion and put it into practical terms, the Wii can produce graphics at 480p where adding additional polygons or using higher resolution textures can not be seen. If you look at the better looking Wii games you will notice that there are few polygonalization artifacts, and the textures have almost no pixelization artifacts; everythin looks silky smooth.

The only thing I have to add is...

Well said Happy Squirrel.

Hm so I want to ask something. If a wii game ever supported 720p would it look bad. It seems when a console doesn't have enough power to support higher resolutions they must degrade other things. So do you think the wii could still produce nice graphics at 720p? This is asking anybody who could answer my question.