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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - My thoughts on what's Wii's standard graphics should look like

MDX on 07 June 2008

In discussing the power of the Wii in relation to Xbox/360/PS3

 

Has anybody taken into consideration that the Wii's CPU can do out-of-order-processing while the HD machines can only do in-order-processing?

Alot of the games from the HD consoles have framerate issues.  This could be a reason why.  Now truthfully I prefer lower resolutions and 60fps than higher resolutions at 30fps.

because the more "realistic" a game looks, the more important that the framerate can convey life-like animation. Otherwise I feel sometimes Im playing games in stop motion, and I get

taken out the immersion, and sometimes out of the "zone". 

 

Another point is this:

If a developer was given two years and 10 million to make a Wii game vs two years  and 10 million to make a 360/PS3 game, which game would be overall better?

My bet would be the Wii game.   Now we know that a A class or B class HD game costs somewhere from 17 to 20 million dollars.

But a Wii game from 5 to 10.

Now here is the question.  How many publishers are really putting up 5 to 10 million dollars on their Wii titles?  I bet the aren't, they are probably spending no more than 2million, and porting PS2 or Gamecube assets.  Even though they have no problem spending up to 20 million for the HD consoles?

20 million dollars = 2 AAA Wii games vs 1 AAA PS360.

Now, given that the Wii has the most units sold, and the fans are hungry for AAA titles, what would make more sense?  

You can double, even triple your chances with a hit game investing into the Wii than the PS360.  Publishers are stupid.  

The Wii could be one of the greatest consoles in history from a large game library of AAA third party games that will give Galaxy, MP3, and Smash a run for their money.

 

 

 

 

 



Around the Network
sc94597 on 07 June 2008

@MDx, explain to me about tis in-order and out of order processing. I'm interested.



MDX on 07 June 2008
 Sure no problem:
Here is the question I posed, based on my readings and the response by well respected "techie" on the forum: 
 
 
So how important is the fact that the Wii's CPU can process Out-of-order vs the Xenon and Cell both (as I understand) are forced to process In-order?

In-order processors, based on earlier processors

New paradigm:
The key concept of OoO processing is to allow the processor to avoid a class of stalls that occur when the data needed to perform an operation are unavailable. 

The benefit of OoO processing grows as the instruction pipeline deepens and the speed difference between main memory (or cache memory) and the processor widens. On modern machines, the processor runs many times faster than the memory, so during the time an in-order processor spends waiting for data to arrive, it could have processed a large number of instructions.


If the CPU's are Designed Properly it shouldn't be an Issue... It's Simply a Design Choice like Big Endian and Little Endian coding... However many groups have spoken out saying that the X360 and PS3 have Branch Prediction Issues and SlowDown that could be Caused by the use of In Order Processing... In Order created too many WaitStates where the CPU is waiting on Ram to free up... This could be corrected by Higher Speed Ram or Matching the CPU and Ram Speeds while using Several Cores... Overall it's possible that the x360 spends about 10% of it's time waiting and not processing anything same can be said for the PS3... This is where the Wii with Out of Order Processing and Hi Speed Ram is a Nice thing... You never need worry if the System is ready to handle your Request...

Let's face it CPU Clock Speeds have pretty much hit a wall... So Out of Order is the way to go in any High End System at this point... The Divide between CPU and Ram Clock Speeds will only get worse in the coming Years... This has been noticeable since Prior to the advent of the Original Pentium...

sc94597 on 07 June 2008
MDX said:
 Sure no problem:
Here is the question I posed, based on my readings and the response by well respected "techie" on the forum: 
 
 
So how important is the fact that the Wii's CPU can process Out-of-order vs the Xenon and Cell both (as I understand) are forced to process In-order?

In-order processors, based on earlier processors

New paradigm:
The key concept of OoO processing is to allow the processor to avoid a class of stalls that occur when the data needed to perform an operation are unavailable. 

The benefit of OoO processing grows as the instruction pipeline deepens and the speed difference between main memory (or cache memory) and the processor widens. On modern machines, the processor runs many times faster than the memory, so during the time an in-order processor spends waiting for data to arrive, it could have processed a large number of instructions.


If the CPU's are Designed Properly it shouldn't be an Issue... It's Simply a Design Choice like Big Endian and Little Endian coding... However many groups have spoken out saying that the X360 and PS3 have Branch Prediction Issues and SlowDown that could be Caused by the use of In Order Processing... In Order created too many WaitStates where the CPU is waiting on Ram to free up... This could be corrected by Higher Speed Ram or Matching the CPU and Ram Speeds while using Several Cores... Overall it's possible that the x360 spends about 10% of it's time waiting and not processing anything same can be said for the PS3... This is where the Wii with Out of Order Processing and Hi Speed Ram is a Nice thing... You never need worry if the System is ready to handle your Request...

Let's face it CPU Clock Speeds have pretty much hit a wall... So Out of Order is the way to go in any High End System at this point... The Divide between CPU and Ram Clock Speeds will only get worse in the coming Years... This has been noticeable since Prior to the advent of the Original Pentium...
SO how much could this benefit the wii graphically? If used right could it make some graphics comparable to first gen 360 games?

 



misteromar mk4 on 07 June 2008
blackbird3216 said:

I agree. Why move on when you don't even understand a weaker system? Maybe Nintendo did it right this time. Maybe you need to take a step backward to take step foward. Do you want to wait 2+ years for the same game that could be made with suffient graphics on the wii in 2- years? Do you want to pay 100million to make a game, only to find that, if it's not a sequel, it's not going to sell?  Actually, very few games on the HD consoles are not sequels. The "tried and true" formula is being used alot this generation. Epic's meaning of "better graphics" is to add more gray and brown. Look inside the GOW1 and GOW2 comparison inside EGM. I can't see any difference other than the addition of gray and brown in the sequel screenshots.

"If it aint a sequel, it probably aint going to sell". Big developers like Ubisoft and Activision cannot learn to take a step back. Staying on the bleeding edge of technology is not always great. Does anyone really need internet connected refridgerators or Roomba? Sure, it's convienient, but is it really worth the money? Im sure that developers never squeezed the power out of the Gamecube. It's just that they have to be so close the bleeding edge of technology, it eventually hurts them. If you don't understand a concept, or a CPU archutecture, you try to optimize you efforts to get it. How can you move onto something harder if you haven't even go the basic concepts yet? Thus, the move onto Middleware engines. 

Epic is living off the ignorance of developers. They cannot get enough profits to risk a new idea, and even developing a sequel costs to much to develop a new engine for. "The tried and true always works". But how can there be new ideas if they are not tried? There is a "blue ocean" of oportunities, yet developers fight in the "red ocean" of existing genres. One FPS, Z game , or racing games after another. When will people get bored? But because of the excalatiing costs of developing in HD, they cannot afford to make risks. Alas, the green ocean strategy is born. 

Green Ocean: Dump gallons and gallons of factory wastes such as Dogz and RRR5000 inside the blue ocean(the wii), hoping that it will get you closer to being able to get rid of the "problem"(expensive hd games). After polluting the blue ocean with crap, they go back to their work on the land working on Sequel after sequel.  Little do they know that the ocean will come back to haunt them. Sheets of paper(Wii sales reports) and syringes(success on the wii) stab them on their feet on beaches. But they are too far inside the cycle to excape. They already dumped the crap inside the ocean, and it's become green, reflecting their greed. They either clean up their mess(3rd party crap) and find better methods to deal with the problem(developing for the wii) or suffer problems that will take decades to fix. Right now, people like Ubisoft are in the dumping stage. They are hating the wii for changing their addiction of staying on the edge of technology.

Luckily, small developers such as Nnooo, High Voltage software and Bionic games are betting the boat on the wii.  And none of them are sequels. On the wii, without the necesity to create expensive "HD" graphics, they can afford to take a risk on a new IP. However, that doesn't mean the game looks horrible. By FAR! Wii's graphics are sufficient enough to gamers, yet they are not too expensive for developers to implement. They will probably become very succesful with ideas that the HD consoles wouldn't allow them to create because of budget. 

 Conclution: Nintendo hit the right spot between upgrading and staying just the right amount below hte technology curve so that the graphics look great, yet they aren't expensive for the developers to make. The developers hate the wii and are reluctant to create games for them because it's challenging their thinking for the first time in history. However, when the Small developers become successful, and syringes start popping up on their land, they better respond. Cause otherwise, their going to be suffering, making sequel after sequel just like take2. 

Best post I have read in a long time, well done, good sir.

 



-UBISOFT BOYCOTT!-

Around the Network
SaviorX on 07 June 2008

^^^blackbird3216's post was exceptionally good. If I can add couple things:

People keep saying that dev can't make "hardcore" games on the Wii because the demographics aren't there and they won't sell. What I want to know is, which games have they come out with that actually prove that statement? I don't think they have come out with any.

The odds are that if you spend a lot of money on a Wii game, it will probably sell just as much as if you spent it on an HD console.

I'll be eager to see how well The Conduit will do upon its release.



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

MDX on 07 June 2008
Let's face it CPU Clock Speeds have pretty much hit a wall... So Out of Order is the way to go in any High End System at this point... The Divide between CPU and Ram Clock Speeds will only get worse in the coming Years... This has been noticeable since Prior to the advent of the Original Pentium...

SO how much could this benefit the wii graphically? If used right could it make some graphics comparable to first gen 360 games?

----

 

I have no doggone idea. Its interesting to theorize.

But I do know this, there are three companies that will put the graphics issue to rest.

Factor 5,  Nintendo & High Voltage Games.

I suppose we will know by the end of this year or the beginning of next when their games come out.

 

Here is another take on the issue though:

TRUTH: Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200+ or better than even an Athlon XP 2800+ CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are classified as “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores. 

 The reason they can sell for so cheap is because they are not as robust or complex as what we have inside our computers. The execution theme in both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs is similar to that of what you would see in the original Intel Pentium Processor. (Not referring to the Pentium 2 3 or 4, but the original) This is because they’ve stripped out hardware designed to optimize the scheduling of instructions at runtime. As a result, neither the 360 nor PS3’s CPU contain an instruction window. Instead, instructions pass through the processor in the order in which they were fetched; hence both are “In-Order Execution” CPUs.

TRUTH: “What is the big deal? How exactly does the fact that both processors being “In-Order Execution” CPUs hurt them? Well, see the 3.2GHZ clock speed for both CPUs? The type of nasty game code, full of branches, loops etc… that would’ve been greatly improved speedwise, thanks to out-of-order execution and a wider execution core is not there to help, so that 3.2GHZ actually performs slower than out-of-order execution CPUs available to desktop computer users.

 so... Xbox 360 's Xenon is basically a tri-core cpu at 1.6 ghz each, and PS3's Cell is actually at around 1.6ghz... (equivalent to the 1.6 ghz computer processor) 

 On the other hand, Graphics-related code is great on both these processors, as graphics code is nice and parallelism friendly. There is a reason people consider graphics accelerators to be the poster child for parallelism. As a matter of fact, it’s the most successful form of parallelism the field of computer science has ever witnessed. GPUs are able to get all transistors firing that actually produce a significant real world benefit to the people using the product. 

 # #1 Both consoles are using in-order execution CPUs that are half the speed of out-of-order execution processors when it comes to running most game code, especially the more troublesome type which contains branches, loops and pointers.

So is the Wii sitting pretty with AI, Physics, etc ?

# #2 The very code they’re hoping to get improved performance outof isn't the type to lend itself so easily to multi-threading… to say it's hard would be the understatement of the century.

 

 Here is a bit of what John Carmack, technical director of id Software, has to say about this.  “I do somewhat question whether we might have been better off this generation having an out-of-order main processor, rather than splitting it all up into these multi-processor systems.”

Everyone should be aware that these processors while powerful and a leap over what the current generation consoles had, they aren’t the second coming they were marketed to be and what drives this point home even further is the fact that Multi-threaded programming on these CPUs will definitely not be achieved at the snap of a finger; the developers have their work cut out for them. 

http://killerhurtalot.gametrailers.com/gamepad/?action=viewblog&id=212652 

 

But lets be honest, the GPUs in these systems is where its at.  So how good is Hollywood??

But in regards to the CPU, I dont see the 360/PS3s CPUs outclassing the Wii CPU by "that" much.  

 

 



sc94597 on 07 June 2008
MDX said:
Let's face it CPU Clock Speeds have pretty much hit a wall... So Out of Order is the way to go in any High End System at this point... The Divide between CPU and Ram Clock Speeds will only get worse in the coming Years... This has been noticeable since Prior to the advent of the Original Pentium...

SO how much could this benefit the wii graphically? If used right could it make some graphics comparable to first gen 360 games?

----

 

I have no doggone idea. Its interesting to theorize.

But I do know this, there are three companies that will put the graphics issue to rest.

Factor 5,  Nintendo & High Voltage Games.

I suppose we will know by the end of this year or the beginning of next when their games come out.

 

Here is another take on the issue though:

TRUTH: Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200+ or better than even an Athlon XP 2800+ CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are classified as “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores. 

 The reason they can sell for so cheap is because they are not as robust or complex as what we have inside our computers. The execution theme in both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs is similar to that of what you would see in the original Intel Pentium Processor. (Not referring to the Pentium 2 3 or 4, but the original) This is because they’ve stripped out hardware designed to optimize the scheduling of instructions at runtime. As a result, neither the 360 nor PS3’s CPU contain an instruction window. Instead, instructions pass through the processor in the order in which they were fetched; hence both are “In-Order Execution” CPUs.

TRUTH: “What is the big deal? How exactly does the fact that both processors being “In-Order Execution” CPUs hurt them? Well, see the 3.2GHZ clock speed for both CPUs? The type of nasty game code, full of branches, loops etc… that would’ve been greatly improved speedwise, thanks to out-of-order execution and a wider execution core is not there to help, so that 3.2GHZ actually performs slower than out-of-order execution CPUs available to desktop computer users.

 so... Xbox 360 's Xenon is basically a tri-core cpu at 1.6 ghz each, and PS3's Cell is actually at around 1.6ghz... (equivalent to the 1.6 ghz computer processor) 

 On the other hand, Graphics-related code is great on both these processors, as graphics code is nice and parallelism friendly. There is a reason people consider graphics accelerators to be the poster child for parallelism. As a matter of fact, it’s the most successful form of parallelism the field of computer science has ever witnessed. GPUs are able to get all transistors firing that actually produce a significant real world benefit to the people using the product. 

 # #1 Both consoles are using in-order execution CPUs that are half the speed of out-of-order execution processors when it comes to running most game code, especially the more troublesome type which contains branches, loops and pointers.

So is the Wii sitting pretty with AI, Physics, etc ?

# #2 The very code they’re hoping to get improved performance outof isn't the type to lend itself so easily to multi-threading… to say it's hard would be the understatement of the century.

 

 Here is a bit of what John Carmack, technical director of id Software, has to say about this.  “I do somewhat question whether we might have been better off this generation having an out-of-order main processor, rather than splitting it all up into these multi-processor systems.”

Everyone should be aware that these processors while powerful and a leap over what the current generation consoles had, they aren’t the second coming they were marketed to be and what drives this point home even further is the fact that Multi-threaded programming on these CPUs will definitely not be achieved at the snap of a finger; the developers have their work cut out for them. 

http://killerhurtalot.gametrailers.com/gamepad/?action=viewblog&id=212652 

 

But lets be honest, the GPUs in these systems is where its at.  So how good is Hollywood??

But in regards to the CPU, I dont see the 360/PS3s CPUs outclassing the Wii CPU by "that" much.  

 

 

Hm interesting.  Thanks I now need to revise my analysis that I was going to do on the wii's graphical capabillities.

 



blackbird3216 on 07 June 2008

So basically you are saying that Nintendo made the right choice this gen.



Resident_Hazard on 08 June 2008
Mifely said:
Viper1 said:
Mifely said:

The Wii will have some decent 3rd party engines after a while, but they'll never be truly spectacular in the graphics sense. They won't suck as bad as most of the shovelware does though. Nintendo has consistantly set the high bar for their games with their 1st party titles. There really aren't engines that ever outdo them on their platforms, ever. Some come close now and then (RE4 on the GC, for example), but Nintendo will always be king. You can't ever expect more out of the Wii than Nintendo provides. Their games are fun to look at, but not astonishing in the graphics department. I would argue that "fun to look at" is what really matters to the typical Wii user, and Nintendo knows that.


You've been pretty spot on until here. Many 3rd parties outclassed Nintendo graphically on the SNES and N64. Squaresoft, RAREWare, Factor 5 and others. On GC, Factor 5 continued that trend right out fo the gate. Rare also held up their talents again for a game. In fact, Nintendo at one point during hte N64 days admitted that Rare had better tools than they did.

While these are certainly exceptions and not the rules, they are THE bar for which other 3rd parties should strive for.


I would disagree that Starfox: Adventures (Rare's only GC game that I recall) was better, graphically, than Super Mario Sunshine, Zelda: The Wind Waker, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 1/2 (2nd party) etc. On par, or pretty close, but not really better. I think I'd have to say the same about Rogue Squadron/Rebel Strike -- good stuff, but not really better than Nintendo's 1st/2nd party titles.

On the N64 and SNES... sure I suppose, but the relative differences weren't really spectacular. Nintendo is always a contender for #1 on their own consoles (just like Sony and MS are on theirs... go figure), so if you take a look at Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, etc., you have a pretty accurate picture of what the Wii can do, and will ever be capable of. Those games are good... but they aren't on par with the X360/PS3... they are, however, pretty close to the what the Xbox was capable of (like it or not). Sure, a little better -- I'm not argueing that.

What I'm getting at, is that if graphics is what you're looking for, the Wii will just never compare, due to a huge number of reasons, technical (hardware comparison with 360/PS3), financial (publishers don't want to sink money into a game which may not appeal to a large portion of the Wii's audience... pool/poker/tennis/kiddie title is a better bet for them), and otherwise. The focused demographics of the X360 and the PS3 make them much more viable platforms for risking a large project on... at least you have some guarantee of appeal to many of the console owners. With the Wii, you have to appeal to everyone from Grandma, to Uncle Bob to little Johnny, and have no guarantees whatsoever of a target audience.

Solitaire/Billiards/GemTetrisWhatever/Sudoku/Sims/BassFishingSuperPro have always reigned supreme on the PC -- financially those kinds of games are without peer. If you're a "real" gamer looking for good stuff out of your Wii... well... welcome to "mass appeal". Nintendo will always be your hero, in that regard.


No one is disputing that the graphics on the Wii will never compare to the Xbox360 or PS3--everyone knows that. The thing is that the Wii isn't a puny technical midget. It is far more capable of churning out high-quality, surprising and impressive graphical feats on it's own. It's comparable to the original Xbox in power, though the theory is that the Wii was assembled to operate much more effeciently, and therefore, capable of pulling off graphical feats clearly superior to the original Xbox. The Wii is perfectly suited to making larger, high-budget hardcore titles. The only reason anyone thinks otherwise is because third party companies are all-too-often complete and utter morons. If they put the time, money and dedication into a hardcore Wii title--and promoted it with some intelligence--it would be successful. And the more third party companies that wake the fuck up and realize it, the better each successive title will perform. You're missing the point (like too many 3rd party devs) that the Wii is intended to be "casual only" and "mass appeal only." Nintendo has always targeted a wider than hardcore audience while still maintaining a dedication to hardcore gaming. The Wii is no different. It only takes the necessary next step to make gaming seem easier to non-gamers, and fresh and new again to the hardcore. No one who owns a Wii really has any right to complain about dismal 3rd party fare on the system if they aren't buying the decent 3rd party games. I've seen people bitch and complain that "hardcore games" and "third party games" on the Wii suck or that there are too few. Yet, on their OWN Wii, all they have is Mario Galaxy, Smash Bros, and Wii Sports. They're part of the problem. They should shut the hell up and actually invest in hardcore Wii titles like Geometry Wars, Blast Works, Resident Evil 4, RE:Umbrella Chronicles, Fire Emblem, Okami, No More Heroes, Manhunt 2, etc, etc. The pictures posted of The Conduit in here should be taken with a grain of salt since they are from a game that is very much still unfinished. Now, if what was said from Factor5 ever so long ago--that the GC could do anything the Xbox could--then I expect to see the Wii routinely blowing away GameCube/PSP/Xbox-era graphics. There's no reason at all for companies to do anything that looks like a first-gen PS2 game.