frankie_baby
Member
Sound has taken up to 33% of CPU load in some 360 games and generally takes up 17%, not including dedicated audio hardware has led to a major waste of system resources
WiiU "Latte" GPU Die Photo - GPU Feature Set And Power Analysis
- Thread starter Thraktor
- Start date
- Status
Sound has taken up to 33% of CPU load in some 360 games and generally takes up 17%, not including dedicated audio hardware has led to a major waste of system resources
2%? No, processing sound on a CPU that you are also using for other major tasks will eat up far more than 2% of its resources Also, the 360 CPU has to process the OS. The Wii U has a chip for that as well I believe.
I've read that the OS and sound can take up almost 2 whole CPU cores on the 360.
frankie_baby
Member
We did used to think it had though current thinking is it may not have
lwilliams3
Member
On sound: The GBA only had to worry about a few small sounds compared to what the newer systems has to do. A former employee of Microsoft from the Beyond3d boards (bkilian I believe), stated that games could take one thread or even one core of 360s CPU. Durango is rumored to have a monster multi-core processor for its DSP.
On coprocessors: There is an ARM Processor inside Latte to handle some tasks. There is also apparently another ARM (dual core?) that is handling some other things.
On memory: It is described by Nintendo as a "memory-intensive" system. Slow DDR3 memory for its 2GBs, combined with fast eDRAM for a 32MB pool of memory and other little caches throughout the system.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
This figure keep coming up, but I too find it pretty incredulous. Where did that 33% quote come from? Or even 17%? I'm aware that there's 5.1 software sound mixing and positional calculations (although I'm not sure DSP in WiiU would be able to help with any of that anyway, especially positional audio calculation) and whatnot, but still that seems like far too much. BF3 is probably the game that has the most complex audio subsystem of any popular game right now, and I find it truly hard to believe that they could have dedicated a whole CPU core on X360 just for audio, considering how much else they had to do for the rest of the game.
frankie_baby
Member
Fourth Storm
Member
I believe Marcan has stated that Espresso does run the OS kernel. It shouldn't take up too many resources though. I have to dig around for the quote.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
I thought there was like one game that used a full core for sound on the 360. Most used one HW thread or less.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I just saw it. Yes, he legitimately knows things, but to me that seems more like it must have been a case of something wasting too much processor time using terribly inefficient sound library or something. One thread (17%) I guess I could believe although I think in BF3 every task was just being dynamically allocated to threads as needed, so it couldn't simply be measured discretely like that.
On the other hand I am aware that both PS4 and X720 have some dedicated audio hardware, so there's probably something to it.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
I would not go that far. The A9's in Tegra3 don't have NEON. NV realized their mistake and fixed it in Tegra4 but Tegra3 will remain forever as 'the castrated A9s'.
Anybody who worked with audio software knows that it's really easy to destroy even the most powerful CPU with just a few dozen voices and some effects.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Yes, when you have to reprocess samples and apply effects to them. Games usually just play samples, and the extent of processing is just mixing them to different channels at different volumes and possibly applying some low quality echo/reverb effect to them.
JordanN
Banned
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-now-on-to-compete-over-graphics-7936301.htmlIwata said:
Why do they say the opposite? I don't know, you have to talk to them. I'm pretty sure every developer has a story to share.
Wii U is like the first console ever to not blow past last gen consoles graphically. Be it anecdotal, the Wii U does everything so close to current gen. 720p, 30fps, no AA, same shaders etc.krizzx said:
Now compare this to powerful next gen consoles like PS4 or 720. Everything about them so far says they're heads and shoulders above PS3/360. The first footage of PS4 games are better. Where's the Wii U's equivalent?
Am I saying Wii U will never surpass PS3 graphics? No. However, you have to be in serious denial at this point to not see the Wii U is closer to PS3/360 than PS4/720 and that's where the graphics will stand.
It does? I thought that was done by Starbucks or whatever that arm chip is.
You are twisting his words to mean something completely different than what he stated.
" Iwata admits the console can't run everything perfectly"
He did not make any such statement. He simply reiterated their stance on going for the highest specs.
That is a lie. The Wii U shading capabilities are DX10.1 equivalent minimum(there have been reports saying DX11 as well) compared to DX9 and Shader Modal 4.0 to the 3.0 in the 360/PS3. There are 2 ports on the Wii U and one in the making that have substantial improvement in AA/resolution , framerate and shading.
That assessment is completely wrong. It does not have the same shaders at all. Its mostly straight ports that are 720p 30 FPS, because they are straight ports. A straight port will run o better than it did on the system it was made for unless it is designed to and will likely run worse where optimizations to account for different architecture were not made. Most games that are built from the ground up are 720p 60 FPS or 1080p.
The Wii U already surpassed the 360/PS3 capabilities at launch with Trine 2 Director's Cut. The dev stated explicitly that the Wii U version of the game could not run on the PS3/360 without downgrades.
No one questions that the PS4/Xbox 3 are stronger. They were designed to be. Bringing them up for comparison is needless and pointless. It serves no purpose where they are not being challenged to begin with by Iwata own words(when quoted properly). People keep making this big deal of the Wii U competing with the PS4/Xbox3 when it wasn't made with their specs in mind to begin. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...beef-console-microsoft-and-sony-might-produce
Fourth Storm
Member
Ah, I see. Hmmm, maybe that could be why the OS optimization update lead to increase in performance on different games for a lot of people.
fabricated backlash
Member
I wonder that myself, given how so many are already openly burning bridges, it wouldn't probably be much of a deal, unless they don't want to deal with Nintendos lawyers.
Fourth Storm
Member
That's what I was thinking as well. It's feasible such optimization could gain you a few frames here and there.
JordanN
Banned
What else is he saying? It's obvious the console was built with specs taking the backseat. Consequently, it wont run everything well as a result (because they never prioritized it).krizzx said:
Edit: Not going for the highest specs doesn't contradict.
These ports can still be improved though if Wii U was significantly more power. Instead, only few games do go that far. Most games being 720p (and less!) is still seen as discouraging to Wii U's power.krizzx said:
One title is not the same as a whole montage of even better looking games than Trine.krizzx said:
It all goes back to what I said. Wii U is still in PS3/360 range. It's not doing anything significantly more.
I was making a point about being better than PS3/360. They have the power to not struggle whereas Wii U does not.krizzx said:
frankie_baby
Member
You answered your own question there
They know full well that doing so would be very bad. Basically they are saying "Oh we aren't making WiiU stuff" but that's for now. If the console passes thirty or forty million then watch them all go "Ah well yes we do have a project in the works". None of them really want to count nintendo out. Don't be surprised if even EA change their minds at some point. It's an industry that is now run by money men. If there's money to be made then they'll bend over backwards to do so, even if that includes fucking over fans as much as possible.
And there is the small matter of Nintendo not giving detailed specs to devs, so they'd just be guessing, like us.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...beef-console-microsoft-and-sony-might-produce
The console was built with efficiency and ease of access in mind. Iwata also said specs were also important. They were just not important in the way that you consider them, ie, having the biggest numbers to boast about.
That doesn't mean anything. Games do not make themselves. You do not understand the meaning of the words "straight port". The graphics and performance of the game will not automatically upgrade themselves. The devs have to spend the money and take the time to do so themselves. The 3 game I pointed out are examples of where that was done.
In truth, every port could have been substantially upgraded on the Wii U, but it would have cost much more to do so and taken much longer to make the optimizations and improvements needed. Publishers and developers have bills to pay deadlines to meet. What you are saying is like saying that because you are only seeing an 18 wheeler pull a small car, that it can't pull anything bigger. Its an illogical claim.
There are no games that run at less than 720p on the Wii U to my knowledge, but most 360/PS3 did and were merely upscaled to 720p in reality. Being able to achieving 720p at 30 fps in all things alone would make the Wii U far ahead of the 360/PS3. Also, even for the games that are output at the same screen resolution, the Wii U versions always have a higher quality textures.
One title(a launch port no less) is enough, for it would not be possible at all if what you said was true. Most eshop games are 1080p and no less than 720p 60 FPS. The Wonderful 101 will be running at 720p 60 FPS and I believe Pikmin 3 will as well. Monster Hunger 3G Ultimate runs at 1080 60 FPS. There are many more.
JordanN
Banned
And? Matching the tdp of a toaster doesn't stop the console from struggling with engines. It only exuberates it.
I find it odd Publishers wouldn't spend the money for Wii U but can spend money for other consoles to have their ports running with improvements. Especially if we're only talking cosmetic changes like resolution or AA.
Publishers have games to sell so it's only to their advantage to use the power if it was there.
Is the core of the game composed of PS3/360 level assets? If so, I'm still right.krizzx said:
So are PSN/XBL.krizzxv said:
This is an upressed Wii/3DS game. Pikmin 3 also isn't impressive.krizzx said:
Does graphics really matter? ever since Playstation, I don't think graphics have ever won a generation. Even with handhelds it is this way, just think about that... Also Wii U is not the first, I am not sure if Wii was, but it certainly came before Wii U and fell behind the Xbox in a lot of effects for instance.
Think about it this way, everyone knew the Wii U wasn't going to compete graphically with the PS4/XB3, yes most people thought it would be (ridiculous number incoming) ~3x 360 but it will end up closer to half that. However people also expected PS4 to be 3TFLOPs and it is closer to half that as well. My point is Wii U being weak is something only people who don't want the console in the first place mostly care about. The general gamer has a hard time telling PC from 360.
Wii U's real problem comes from lack of 3rd party support and it is something Nintendo won't be able to fix, not because of the power of the console, but the sales of 3rd party software on the platform. The idea that 3rd parties would be there if Nintendo was powerful enough was debunked in the gamecube era. (not enough disc space? only 3 shoulder buttons?) do you really think those things mattered to developers during that era but couldn't be bothered to care that PS3's discs were 5-6 times larger than 360's? or that PS3 had faster ram and six axis controls?
I've said it in another thread but Wii U's problem comes directly from their audience buying their consoles for their games primarily, something Sony and Microsoft don't have to worry about, to those consoles Halo, Forza, Gears of War, Uncharted, Grand Turismo are only important bonuses for a large majority of the audience of those platforms. Nintendo lives and dies by it's 1st party software.
So yes Wii U is similar in performance to last gen consoles but it has new effects and extra ram that can be leveraged these are things that held back previous generation by a large amount, so lets wait and see just how much better Wii U's software will look, especially when this last generation really showed some beautiful titles that the average gamer couldn't probably tell apart from PS4 software already shown.
Haha, no it doesn't. It's closer to 1080p 30fps. Wipeout HD actually runs at 1080p 60fps and looks 1000x more impressive than MH3U.
JordanN
Banned
Third party support depends on it. Gameplay is influenced by it. Engines are built around it. It's also a selling point.
If it weren't for the Wii attracting casuals, who knows where the sales could have been in the face of PS3/360. Certainly having the worse graphics is hardly favorable.
Even in your handheld example, PSP saw alot of games that wouldn't have come to DS. It was also the first real challenger to Nintendo.
The console that had the biggest impression (before the Wii) won. PS1 successfully pulled off 3D. Genesis had 16-bit dominance till SNES arrived. PS3/360 combined have outsold Wii and are still selling.z0m3le said:
If PS4/720 sell out at launch, it's only going to get worse for Nintendo.
Black Ops 2 is 880x720 (2xAA) and Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed = 1024x576 (post-AA) Darksiders 2 = 1152x640 (post-AA). Also, most 360 and PS3 games did run at 720 native.
Where was this stated?
Black Ops 2 on Wii U has the same resolution as the PS3 and 360 versions.
Edit: To the above: Here. (I have no idea how credible this is though)
http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
I was showing that not all WiiU games are 720p or more. I assume by 720 we mean 1280x720.
Third party support isn't coming even with stronger hardware, that is a reality most people should be able to see clearly and there is plenty of examples for it... Gamecube being the easiest to point to. Wii U itself is another actually, since it isn't seeing last generation titles that came out after its release. GTAV, Bioshock, Tomb Raider, Dead Space, Crysis 3, BF3 and BF4. Heck even Madden is going to miss Wii U, hardware isn't the issue with any of those titles. Crysis 3 was already working on the platform when EA said "No" to Crytek.
All gameplay that currently exists on both PC and last gen consoles, every idea we currently have can be explored with Wii U, no issue exists. This isn't the first 3D console or the first programmable shader generation, it even supports GPGPU. There is literally no limit to game design, only presentation.
Wii U runs just about every engine out there, and CAN run others, the main issue is EA and Nintendo had a falling out and they are the major developer who has backed away from Nintendo (no other major developer was even at the table that doesn't support Wii U currently)
It's a poor selling point, as Xbox(og) and Vita have shown us.
The first real challenger to Nintendo was GameGear, Neogeo to a far lesser extent, Wii U however holds no limitations similar to PSP and DS.
This is clearly debatable, for instance PSX did not sell well until 1997 (FF7's release) the real reason it won the generation was not a wow factor that Nintendo had locked down a year earlier with Mario 64. It was because of game genres and N64's complete lack of 3rd party support, RPGs which were hugely popular at the time had no place on N64 but were abundant on PS1 and lead to a healthy ecosystem for that platform, but these things didn't happen until after N64 had already launched, before this, PS1 sold 7 digit figures in a year iirc.
Genesis also lost dominance not from power but features, the SNES could display transparencies and mode 7 was impressive for the time. Sega's main failure though was a lack of supporting their hardware properly, they always adapted Add-ons instead of featuring key software for their platform.
PS3 and 360 have certainly outsold Wii, but neither platform has outsold Wii in hardware or software.
Wii U couldn't realistically do worse than it is, especially with software coming out on the platform later this year, no matter what PS4/XB3 do.
JordanN
Banned
Sony and MS are wasting their time if stronger hardware had no effect on third party support.z0m3le said:
But here we are, Unreal Engine 4 is being demoed on PS4.
Oh sure but it's the less powerful Nintendo consoles that continue to not see any action from it oddly enough.z0m3le said:
Third parties will continue building games that require more power. People in turn also buy these games.
All handhelds before PSP sold a small fraction of what Nintendo's [handhelds] sold. They weren't really competition.z0m3le said:
While not similar, the console still has a sizable gap in performance, which is all that stops porting anyway.
Iwata's full quote:
(then he talks about how the gamepad adds cost which isn't really relevant to this discussion)
There is a paragraph break between the two bolded sentences which separates the first part form the second but they are obviously closely connected. He says that you can't just dump any code on there and expect it to run perfectly without tweaking it to draw upon the systems strengths.
What does that even mean? Any game or port can always be improved further if whatever system is on has more horsepower. Also, not sure if someone else has brought that up but I seem to recall that, at some point, the GAF tech analysis pointing clearly into the direction that the system was designed for 720p mostly.
If Sony and Microsoft decided to release consoles with only twice the performance of 360, Developers would still support those consoles because they have to. Hardware increases is a way to separate themselves from their previous hardware and to a lesser extent, Nintendo.
As I've already pointed out, last gen titles are missing on Wii U, for no other reason than they didn't want to support it, it had nothing to do with power.
If what you were saying was true, you'd see PS3/360 titles continuing to port to Wii U thanks to them being similarly powered, but what your saying isn't true, thus my list above of half a dozen titles that won't give Wii U the light of day even before it was launched last holiday season.
JordanN
Banned
This still is a hardware issue.D-e-f- said:
Why have other consoles seen improvements from ports whereas Wii U is clearly minimal? Is doubling the resolution and frame rate clearly out of Wii U's range or what?D-e-f- said:
Well that seems stupid but then why are there any 1080p games?D-e-f- said:
JordanN
Banned
You do realize an issue with this? Either MS or Sony would have the ability to one up each other since developers do want to work with the better hardware? Someone else could also enter in the space and make hardware for those third parties to work on.
The Wii U gets games and misses them too. It's just like Gamecube except it's against a dying last gen wheres Gamecube competed with other next gen consoles.z0m3le said:
1) How is it an "issue"? You can't just throw 360 code on PS3 and then call it a day, expecting your game to work just as well or even better. This is not a PC that you just install a game on and then install that same game on another PC with a better GFX card and expect better frames and new effects that suddenly appear because the other card didn't support them.
2) I don't understand. Please provide examples of ports on other consoles that have seen improvements without extra work being put into them.
3) Why wouldn't there be 1080p games when the game as it is designed happens to run perfectly fine at 720p? Not every game throws so much stuff on-screen that it needs to run at sub-1080 resolution to run well. Like I said, I don't know if that notion has since been thrown overboard but as I understood it, "designed for 720p" has nothing to do with excluding it from pulling off higher resolutions. Just simply that it could theoretically do more and better at 720.
baggagelizard
Banned
Consensus:
The Wii U is probably 2008-2011 tech compared to the 2004-2006 tech of the PS360. It's newer and is in the DX 10.1 - 11 equivalent range feature-set, giving it a tech advantage over the PS360. It does not have "grunt" power, rather having efficiency in power consumption and design.
It is nowhere near as powerful as the PS4nity, but its design has a few similarities (AMD, GPU centric design, OOE execution, etc.) possibly making it easier to port down games.
It's not doing well, and it needs software and good marketing. It's not an XBOX. It's not a Playstation. You can't pretend it is, or hope it will be one. It's a nintendo console.
Now if that will be a good thing or a bad thing, we will see..
I am looking forward to the PS4. There may be so many polygons on screen that it would be impossible to count them all.
The Wii U is probably 2008-2011 tech compared to the 2004-2006 tech of the PS360. It's newer and is in the DX 10.1 - 11 equivalent range feature-set, giving it a tech advantage over the PS360. It does not have "grunt" power, rather having efficiency in power consumption and design.
It is nowhere near as powerful as the PS4nity, but its design has a few similarities (AMD, GPU centric design, OOE execution, etc.) possibly making it easier to port down games.
It's not doing well, and it needs software and good marketing. It's not an XBOX. It's not a Playstation. You can't pretend it is, or hope it will be one. It's a nintendo console.
Now if that will be a good thing or a bad thing, we will see..
I am looking forward to the PS4. There may be so many polygons on screen that it would be impossible to count them all.
Wishmaster92
Member
Could you direct me to the reports talking about dx11? I want to read them, I know nintendo land is at least dx10(equivalent effects) the lighting is some of the best i seen in any current gen consoles, all running at 60fps. Can't wait to see some games using dx11 effects on the wii u if it supports.
baggagelizard
Banned
remember though, these would be equivalent effects as Microsoft owns and created DirectX ..... and XBOX is the DirectX Box.
JordanN
Banned
Well I'm assuming having more power means you can brute force this code. Iwata saying they're not putting out a CPU that does is an allusion to it.D-e-f- said:
Uh, work obviously had to be put into them to get the improvements. Why isn't Wii U seeing this?D-e-f- said:
Why is it designed to do better at a lower resolution as opposed to a higher one? 720p itself is less demanding than 1080p so that seems redundant.D-e-f- said:
Wishmaster92
Member
Yep i understand that's why i said equivalent effects, just how ps3 runs open gl? But it is more or less equivalent to dx9.
No it doesn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAfwCzkv2Hk&feature=youtu.be
But that falls to the category you describe to your other posts, it is a straight port from Wii with a little work on textures and filtering.
X trailer shown more complex geometry and better shaders and from the looks of it was running at a stable framerate probably at 30 fps with amazing particle effects and online multiplayer.
It's funny though that everybody forgets to mention X as a graphic example of the Wii U but always they cherry picking Shadow Fall against half ass ports for comparison on the Wii U.
Are you even know what are you implying with this post? Coding a game is the same as tuning a car engine. You will need tools, the know/how of the engine and support from the manufacturer. This is not happening with the Wii U. All tools are provided by Nintendo also the final dev kits arrived on November 2012 so this ports that came out were not on the final dev kits. Also Unreal is not supporting Nintendo most of the port games like Mass Effect, Batman Arkham City have engine problems running on the console because the developers forced, as you say, the engine on Wii U with their own tools. So if you want to blame someone for the poor ports blame the middleware developers that are not supporting the Wii U and publishers for not giving more time and money for Wii U development.
The returns on investing on Wii U right now is not profitable, this is business not charity, publishers want in this volatile economic climate safe investments with big returns, Wii U is uncharted territory for devs and different from what Microsoft and Sony are doing which is more safe bet for them. Sony and Microsoft licensed all the big middleware engines like unreal 4 so their consoles will have support Nintendo didn't so we have this kind of situation on big publishers give the middle finger on Wii U.
That sentence does not make any sense.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
The GPU it's supposedly based on is DX10.1, so it should at least be 10.1 equivalent unless the rumors are false or things were stripped out during the seemingly extensive customization. And the WiiU supports stuff added in 11 (tessellation, maybe not exactly to DX standard though, and GPGPU stuff). Not going to pretend I know as much about this as some others here but I don't think 10.1 -> 11 was actually a huge change. Could be wrong though.
And geeze, this topic has gone to complete shit.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Sorry I went to sleep not long after posting.
I was going by faulty intel with part of that. I thought Starbuck handled more of the OS load than it apparently does.
The Mem architecture is interesting because of how many separate pools with separate speeds there is in the system. I mean you've got the anemic Mem2 pool of 2gigs DDR3 at 12.8gb/s, Mem1 or 0 is either the 32MB eDram at 70.6gb/s or the 3MB SRAM at 100+gb/s.
It's an odd memory design. Far from the UMA design most devs seem to prefer.
1) This is getting to specific for my knowledge. I just don't think you should be so quick to assume something should basically "just work." The huge difference in basic hardware architecture between last gen machines and WiiU should be reason enough as I understand it.
edit: AkiraGr said it well, I think. Aside from the Unreal thing as apparently Epic supports WiiU with UE3 (they just don't feel like porting UE4 over). At least that's what Rein is always babbling about when someone asks why there's no UE4 for the system.
2) Why isn't Wii U seeing this? Wait it isn't? Need for Speed Most Wanted doesn't exist? Deus Ex HR Director's Cut doesn't exist? (Well, technically it's not out yet so you could argue it doesn't^^) And even Arkham City got some upgrades (while suffering from framedrops, granted - that can be traced back to non-final dev kits, though).
I still don't really understand the point you're trying to make here. There are games on shelves for Wii U that clearly show when a tiny team even tried a little bit to put some effort into upgrading their port, they (nearly) achieved parity with the PC version of the same game. It's all matter of time and resources dedicated to that version of the game.
3) Why is it redundant? As you said, 720p is less demanding by nature. Also, the difference between 720p and 1080p on a TV that you sit farther away from than a PC monitor is less noticeable (before someone gets in my face about this: I did not say there is no difference, I'm saying it's not that crucial when playing on a TV). Given Nintendo's general design philosophy of efficiency over raw power, it makes sense to balance the system to perform best at 720p while leaving the door open for native 1080p games that are less demanding.
Yes, and graphics are just a few JPGs. You're really underestimating game audio massively. Here, maybe you want to read a bit:
http://www.fmod.org/fmod-studio.html
http://www.audiokinetic.com/products/208-wwise/
JordanN
Banned
So Nintendo is now holding back developers with tools? This is strange. This is more and more becoming Nintendo's fault.AkiraGr said:
Why is this phenomenon only popping up for Wii U? I'd like to hear the same explanations for other consoles like Dreamcast, PS2 or Xbox.AkiraGr said:
Again, better graphics are suppose to increase sales. Just doing straight ports when far more power is there, seems counterproductive.
It was said 720p was chosen because it performs better at that but it would still perform better because 720p uses less resources than 1080p. Unless you really love 720p above all else, there is no reason to not to include 1080p.
Nintendo isn't holding back anything or anyone, the tools simply weren't ready in time. Happened to Sony as well back in 2006.
- Status