Support NeoGAF

[krizzx]

Do those 15 1080p games render anything as complex as Pikmin 3, Bayonetta 2 or Wonderful 101? That's the actual thing to be discussing, not just pure resolution and framerate.

That is absolutely 100% beside the point. Stop shifting the subject.

This is why these ridiculously long argument keep going on for so long. People keep moving the goal post and tweaking the subject without actually acknowledging and anything.

The fidelity of the game is irrellevent. That is not what is being discussed. There is the soul point of focus at the moment. When that is conclude, then I will happily discuss on the complexity of the game and other matters.

And "large", but you're right. Let's not belabor the point any more.


Of which 6 are ports, and 4 were launch games.

The number of non-launch, non-port 1080p games on WiiU is between 11 and 14. So your one claim was wrong.

That is irrelevant as well.

Being a launch game or a port does not erase the fact that it was 1080p. I said that wasn't a port or launch because most game at that time were made with poor tools and most port didn't use the Wii U as the lead develop platform. That was not said to exclude all games mad ein that time frame. Just the ones that weren't 720p that fall under those categories.

 

[Easy_D]

Wow. Not even every next gen game is targeting 1080/60.

 

[atbigelow]

That is absolutely 100% beside the point. Stop shifting the subject.

This is why these ridiculously long argument keep going on for so long. People keep moving the goal post and tweaking the subject without actually acknowledging and anything.

The fidelity of the game is irrellevent. That is not what is being discussed. There is the soul point of focus at the moment. When that is conclude, then I will happily discuss on the complexity of the game and other matters.

I'm trying to shift the subject because 1080p and 60 FPS is a meaningless benchmark unless the fidelity of the game is in context. You want people to acknowledge there are 1080p games on the eShop? Fine. There is. But that means nothing. Let's try to discuss what the hardware is actually capable of.

 

[darkistheway]

I'm trying to shift the subject because 1080p and 60 FPS is a meaningless benchmark unless the fidelity of the game is in context. You want people to acknowledge there are 1080p games on the eShop? Fine. There is. But that means nothing. Let's try to discuss what the hardware is actually capable of.

Bingo.

 

[krizzx]

I'm trying to shift the subject because 1080p and 60 FPS is a meaningless benchmark unless the fidelity of the game is in context. You want people to acknowledge there are 1080p games on the eShop? Fine. There is. But that means nothing. Let's try to discuss what the hardware is actually capable of.

I'm not benchmarking anything though, so that doesn't matter. That is not the reason it was brought up.

The soul point of that statement is to show that most Wii U games that have effort put into them and/or had most of their development after the launch period are 1080p, and that the Wii U is more capable of 1080p than the last gen hardware which a lot of people claim it isn't. That would also mean that the GPU is more than just a last gen GPU with a few extra effects like so many people make an effort to limit it to when they come into this thread.

I belive that the GPU is significantly stronger than the last gen GPU's and is overall closer to the one in the Xbox1 than to the ones in the last gen console. I can't make any headway on this because the moment I post something to support this, I get bum rushed by people trying to derail the topic by twisting my statement, shifting the argument to something else, begging questions that have already been answered, making personal attacks, jumping from one subject to another and so on.

After this is established, other conclusions can be drawn. 1 thing at a time.

As I just said, I will happily discuss more minute details, but only after this is concluded. Making it more convoluted by digging into game details is just going to pad the argument and make it drag on longer.

 

[atbigelow]

I'm not benchmarking anything though, so that doesn't matter. That is not the reason it was brought up.

The soul point of that statement is to show that most Wii U games that have effort put into them and had most of their development after the launch period are 1080p, and that the Wii U is more capable of 1080p than the last gen hardware.

Number of titles running at 1080p does not indicate capability. Especially when a lot of those games (say Rayman and Duck Tales, off the top of my head) run at the same resolution on last-gen systems.

What matters is the content of that 1080p picture. PS3, 360 and Wii U can all display a single white triangle at 1080p@60 FPS. Nobody cares about that. If you start throwing around statements like "more capable", it's meaningless without discussing the fidelity of that picture.

EDIT: You are discussing 1080p as if it was some magical number indicating performance, and it is not. You cannot gleam anything about performance with this hardware when only discussing resolution (1080p) and framerate (60 FPS).

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

I wish you guys would just stop trying to convince krizzx of anything. That road leads to nowhere.

It's kinda fun though. You end up finding stuff like "they're 1080p games because i saw it on youtube" and seeing him twist his own words and keep pushing for pointless stuff.

 

[krizzx]

Number of titles running at 1080p does not indicate capability. Especially when a lot of those games (say Rayman and Duck Tales, off the top of my head) run at the same resolution on last-gen systems.

What matters is the content of that 1080p picture. PS3, 360 and Wii U can all display a single white triangle at 1080p@60 FPS. Nobody cares about that. If you start throwing around statements like "more capable", it's meaningless without discussing the fidelity of that picture.

EDIT: You are discussing 1080p as if it was some magical number indicating performance, and it is not. You cannot gleam anything about performance with this hardware when only discussing resolution (1080p) and framerate (60 FPS).

You are drawing the wrong conclusion.

1. As I just said, benmarking or determing what is more capable is "irrelevant " until the volume istelf is established, because there are still people insisting that the 1080p games don't even exist. Then we can get unto the details surrounding the games.

2. I don't think 1080p is a magic number, the rest of you do. I don't like 1080p and I have never seen the purpose in it personaly, but that seems to be what every one is making a fuss about "Why aren't Wii U ports in high res" "Why is XXXXX 720p" then they go on to use the fact that a given game is 720p instead of 1080p to downplay the hardware barring all other details. I'm trying to rectify this.

Its like what Shin'en said. They had their game running at 1080 60fps. There are even videos of it, but they found that didn't improve visual quality much at all and opted for more effects instead. No one takes these types of things into account. If they did, then this wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

There are so many people who are hellbent on pinning this console as last gen that they will use anything they can find to downplay its capability, so I must use things that stand out. 1080p is one of them. Its extremely difficult especially when the argument stops going their way because then they start using personal attacks, strawman arguments or changing the subject.

It's kinda fun though. You end up finding stuff like "they're 1080p games because i saw it on youtube" and seeing him twist his own words and keep pushing for pointless stuff.

As expected, your still using straw man argument and passive aggressive personal attacks. Where did I claim a video being 1080p on youtube "alone" meant it was 1080p as I'm pretty sure I said and posted links to "Multiple" videos from different sources? Also, why am I subject of discussion as opposed to what i actually said? I didn't know I was the topic of this thread.

 

[Liabe Brave]

Being a launch game or a port does not erase the fact that it was 1080p. I said that wasn't a port or launch because most game at that time were made with poor tools and most port didn't use the Wii U as the lead develop platform. That was not said to exclude all games mad ein that time frame. Just the ones that weren't 720p that fall under those categories.

If that's what you meant, you certainly didn't say it. You said this:

...most Wii U games that aren't launch games, or ports are 1080p.

There are no qualifiers there. The subject of the sentence isn't "1080p games" and how many of them there are. It's "Wii U games that aren't launch games, or ports" and how they're mostly 1080p.

But okay, fine, whatever, let's move those goalposts. Whether it was launch or a port doesn't matter anymore. So now this is your claim:

...most Wii U games...are 1080p.

The maximum number of 1080p Wii U games is 38. There are over 76 Wii U games, so even bending over backward to the most generous possible interpretation of your words...you're still wrong.

And that's even without taking into account the fact that, given the current discussion, it's very likely that some games you claim are 1080p aren't.

 

[atbigelow]

You are trying to fight a battle that doesn't exist. In this, the GPU Feature Set and Analysis thread, we all know the system is capable of 1080p. People have acknowledged repeatedly Wii U games exist that run at 1080p. But it doesn't matter because resolution alone is meaningless.

We are here to discuss the hardware and what it is capable of. Stating numbers of games running at 1080p does not make the hardware stand above last gen. There are already demonstratable capabilities without having to result to such parlor tricks.

I also addressed Nano Assault's resolution change earlier in this thread. It isn't anything earth shattering.

 

[Fess]

With the focus on 1080p60 and lists of games achieving this or 720p60 in this thread it's interesting to see the talk about devs aiming for 1080p30 in games for the upcoming consoles in other threads. I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this but could it be that WiiU devs are focusing more on achieving 60fps than having pretty graphics compared to PS4/XB1 devs? And does that have anything to do with the hardware? or is it simply a case of some devs prioritizing framerate over graphics and vice verse?

 

[krizzx]

If that's what you meant, you certainly didn't say it. You said this:

There are no qualifiers there. The subject of the sentence isn't "1080p games" and how many of them there are. It's "Wii U games that aren't launch games, or ports" and how they're mostly 1080p.

But okay, fine, whatever, let's move those goalposts. Whether it was launch or a port doesn't matter anymore. So now this is your claim:


The maximum number of 1080p Wii U games is 38. There are over 76 Wii U games, so even bending over backward to the most generous possible interpretation of your words...you're still wrong.

And that's even without taking into account the fact that, given the current discussion, it's very likely that some games you claim are 1080p aren't.

I'm tired of this endless begging. Why don't you show me some facts instead of assumption? Show me where I am wrong. I made the effort to go look up info and compile a list to back my claim. You just outright dismiss with nae a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. You and the rest of the people attacking me in this thread have provided little, if anything at all to contradict what I have stated other than your disbelief and dislike for what I have to say.

At this point, i doubt the developers coming in here and saying it themselves would make a difference. You are already writing off media that doesn't suit your liking.

If you don't want to accept what I say then don't, but don't come in here dragging the thread into the mud while contributing absolutely nothing progressive. To many people come here for the single purpose of attacking what I or someone else says and not contributing anything to helping us understand the capabilities the GPU. They are here for no other reason than to make sure that nothing good emerges about hardware.

From here on if you come in here begging links, telling me you what I say is wrong, twisting what I say, trying to write off what I post as something else and so on but provide no fact that show that I'm wrong or support your own claims, you will go on ignore. I've had enough of this endless arguing. I'm not here for console war nonsense. I'm here for facts and analytics.

 

[atbigelow]

With the focus on 1080p60 and lists of games achieving this in this thread it's interesting to see the talk about devs aiming for 1080p30 in games for the upcoming consoles in other threads. I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this but could it be that WiiU devs are focusing more on achieving 60fps than having pretty graphics compared to PS4/XB1 devs? And does that have anything to do with the hardware? or is it simply a case of some devs prioritizing framerate over graphics and vice verse?

The PS3/360 was definitely the "sub-HD" gen. Plenty of games ran at resolutions below 720p.

It seems like the hardware, from what we know, is setup quite well for 720p. It isn't the same situation as MS's "free AA!" claims from the 360 era.

 

[USC-fan]

You are drawing the wrong conclusion.

1. As I just said, benmarking or determing what is more capable is "irrelevant " until the volume istelf is established, because there are still people insisting that the 1080p games don't even exist. Then we can get unto the details surrounding the games.

2. I don't think 1080p is a magic number, the rest of you do. I don't like 1080p and I have never seen the purpose in it personaly, but that seems to be what every one is making a fuss about "Why aren't Wii U ports in high res" "Why is XXXXX 720p" then they go on to use the fact that a given game is 720p instead of 1080p to downplay the hardware barring all other details. I'm trying to rectify this.

Its like what Shin'en said. They had their game running at 1080 60fps. There are even videos of it, but they found that didn't improve visual quality much at all and opted for more effects instead. No one takes these types of things into account. If they did, then this wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

There are so many people who are hellbent on pinning this console as last gen that they will use anything they can find to downplay its capability, so I must use things that stand out. 1080p is one of them. Its extremely difficult especially when the argument stops going their way because then they start using personal attacks, strawman arguments or changing the subject.



As expected, your still using straw man argument and passive aggressive personal attacks. Where did I claim a video being 1080p on youtube "alone" meant it was 1080p as I'm pretty sure I said and posted links to "Multiple" videos from different sources? Also, why am I subject of discussion as opposed to what i actually said? I didn't know I was the topic of this thread.

Why do you care what other people think of the wiiu?
Really doesn't matter and you are fighting a hopeless fight.

 

[krizzx]

Why do you care what other people think of the wiiu?
.

I don't.

They can think whatever they want about the hardware. How many time have i said that I'm not here for console war rubbish?

I'm here to analyze the GPU, because I like unique hardware and this seems like an interesting challenge.

I"m not here to fight, I'm here to learn and correct misconceptions. The biggest misconception now is that the Wii U isn't a next gen system. We don't even know all that it can do, and I intend to find out what it actually can.

 

[StevieP]

Wow. Not even every next gen game is targeting 1080/60.

1) there will be a surprising amount of sub1080p content on the next HD twins

2) the Wii u is in the same generation as those HD twins, despite being far weaker hardware wise

3) it's just a resolution (as per the argument taking place with krizzx). What the developers do with their available power is the real question. Not the resolution itself. It means almost nothing. I can make you a 1080p version of qbasic's nibbles. Who cares? It's the load on the GPU that matters krizzx. Latte isn't going to be rendering something more demanding (ie call of duty ghosts) without huge compromises at 1080, even though scribblenaughts is at that same resolution. They have no correlation - it really doesn't matter. Super stardust isn't proof positive that RSX is a powerhouse either. Again, the Wii u is going to produce better looking games than the ps360. You just need to stop expecting miracles that just aren't possible. And there's no need to shit up pages of a thread for something that ultimately makes no difference. It's a better and more modern piece of hardware than previous gen, not a work of sorcery.

 

[USC-fan]

I don't.

They can think whatever they want about the hardware. How many time have i said that I'm not here for console war rubbish?

I'm here to analyze the GPU.

Then stop posting screanshots, videos or 1080p nonsense.

While you may believe this shows Is gpu under rated power is does not. The biggest improvements are from more advance hardware and ram/edram.

The biggest advantage by far the wiiu has is it large edram and system ram compared to ps360. This would allow huge increase in performance compared to any special sauce in the gpu.

Wiiu gpu is what it is at this point. No one looking anymore because there really nothing left to find out. Most people agree is 176gflop part. Some may think its higher but in the end it doesn't really matter.

 

[krizzx]

1) there will be a surprising amount of sub1080p content on the next HD twins

2) the Wii u is in the same generation as those HD twins, despite being far weaker hardware wise

3) it's just a resolution (as per the argument taking place with krizzx). What the developers do with their available power is the real question. Not the resolution itself. It means almost nothing. I can make you a 1080p version of qbasic's nibbles. Who cares? It's the load on the GPU that matters krizzx. Latte isn't going to be rendering something more demanding (ie call of duty ghosts) without huge compromises at 1080, even though scribblenaughts is at that same resolution. They have no correlation - it really doesn't matter. Super stardust isn't proof positive that RSX is a powerhouse either. Again, the Wii u is going to produce better looking games than the ps360. You just need to stop expecting miracles that just aren't possible. And there's no need to shit up pages of a thread for something that ultimately makes no difference. It's a better and more modern piece of hardware than previous gen, not a work of sorcery.

Your insenuations are wrong. I never claimed that 1080p scribblenauts made the Wii U a power house and I've been a champion of the difference bewteen what is being done and what resolution/frame rate the game is.

What you are doing in this post is what's messing up the thread. You keep twisting my words and making assumptions as opposed to actually sticking to what is written as it is written or be respectful of difference of opinion. What is messing up this thread is people coming in here with a negative agenda and trying to place absolute limits on the hardware for negative reasons and not actually trying to have a rational discussion.

I'm don't know if the hardware is weaker or stronger. That is why I'm trying to find out by providing material to support the analysis only to have it twisting and blown out of proportion by people who hate the idea tha the Wii U may not be incapable as they hope.

If at the end of the day, it turned out the Wii U was weaker than PS2 or N64, it wouldn't matter to me.

Then stop posting screanshots, videos or 1080p nonsense.

While you may believe this shows Is gpu under rated power is does not. The biggest improvements are from more advance hardware and ram/edram.

The biggest advantage by far the wiiu has is it large edram and system ram compared to ps360. This would allow huge increase in performance compared to any special sauce in the gpu.

Wiiu gpu is what it is at this point. No one looking anymore because there really nothing left to find out. Most people agree is 176gflop part. Some may think its higher but in the end it doesn't really matter.

Basically, you want me to stop pushing the discussion in a postive direction, and you don't know what i believe as you are wrong.

Most people who don't like the console agree its a 176gflop part and not for logical substantiated reasons that they can explain, but because its a low number. Nearly ever negative assumption about the Wii U have turned out to be false and driven by nothing more than some people intent have Nintendo and their hardware looked down up a negatively as they can make.

Just as many if not more believe its a 352 Gflop part and there are just as many facts if not more point to this.

I believe its in between as the size of the TMU's neither that of a 20 ALU(nearly double size) or 40 ALU component. It is in between.

I post pictures because that is the biggest indicator available unless you have access to Nintendo personal records. There is nothing more to go by unless there is another vgleak. What we see the the console doing in games tells of what its capable of and from that, we can tell what the GPU is composed of. When the you champion those low numbers, you'd think your life depends on it.

I'm only making modest estimates, but even that gets met with nothing but hostility from you and the rest of the "absolutely not much more than last gen" crew.

 

[StevieP]

I apparently have a negative agenda against everything, despite correcting someone on which generation the Wii u is a part of. And I'm wrecking the thread??

It isn't worth it. Dont know if its weaker??? I will say this, though: which resolution games are running in means less than physics. 40 watts at 40nm vs 120w at 28nm. I'm not sure why THAT question is even being posed of latte.

 

[krizzx]

I apparently have a negative agenda against everything, despite correcting someone on which generation the Wii u is a part of. And I'm wrecking the thread??

It isn't worth it. Dont know if its weaker??? I will say this, though: which resolution games are running in means less than physics. 40 watts at 40nm vs 120w at 28nm. I'm not sure why THAT question is even being posed of latte.

No, I'm absolutely 100% certain that I said you twisting what is being said and making assumption without attempting to verify is what's messing up the thread, and not the bolded which you have twisted it to be(once again) and assumed while refusing to verify if true(coincidence?).

Coming in here with negative intentions is also a reason after that.

 

[atbigelow]

Moving on from... all that nonsense above, we're seeing a solid amount of 720p60 games. Nintendo seems to be targeting it for their titles (Nintendoland, Pikmin 3, Mario 3D World) and their published titles (Bayonetta 2, W101, Donkey Kong). You do see a fairly distinct lack of AA, though (personal opinion: lack of AA doesn't bother me). I wonder if this has to do with lack of processing power or memory bandwidth or both.

Also it'd be interesting to see if those old rumors (possibly still current) about textures having to move through the slow system RAM. I think it was discussed here, or possibly in the Espresso thread, about Espresso possibly having a link to the EDRAM. If true, wonder what that kind of link is like and if can alleviate said transfer.

Discuss.

 

[krizzx]

Moving on from... all that nonsense above, we're seeing a solid amount of 720p60 games. Nintendo seems to be targeting it for their titles (Nintendoland, Pikmin 3, Mario 3D World) and their published titles (Bayonetta 2, W101, Donkey Kong). You do see a fairly distinct lack of AA, though (personal opinion: lack of AA doesn't bother me). I wonder if this has to do with lack of processing power or memory bandwidth or both.

Also it'd be interesting to see if those old rumors (possibly still current) about textures having to move through the slow system RAM. I think it was discussed here, or possibly in the Espresso thread, about Espresso possibly having a link to the EDRAM. If true, wonder what that kind of link is like and if can alleviate said transfer.

Discuss.

That is actually one of the many misconceptions that we have cleared up in this thread. It isn't "slow" RAM. The max bandwith is lower thant PS3/360's but unlike those two consoles, their is no bottlekneck to using the RAM.

You can actually get more use out of the Wii U's 12/GBs than the 360's RAM because it's bottleneck to 10/GBs on top of it being lower latency(speaking form memory here as DDR is typically lower latency than GDDR). Also, the combination of the eDRAM with the DDR3 allows for some type of efficiency boost. There was a link to it somewhere, I'll have to find it tomorrow as I need to get some sleep.

It doesn't need to alleviate anything as the initial claim that the Wii U was bandwidth starved by horribly slow RAM was never true when it was investigated.

 

[KidBeta]

That is actually one of the many misconceptions that we have cleared up in this thread. It isn't "slow" RAM. The max bandwith is lower thant PS3/360's but unlike those two consoles, their is no bottlekneck to using the RAM.

You can actually get more use out of the Wii U's 12/GBs than the 360's RAM because it's bottleknecked to 10/GBs.

Do you mind explaining how the 360's RAM is bottlenecked to 10GB/s. The 360's RAM runs at 22.4GB/s. With the CPU having a 10.8GB/s bidirectional bus and the GPU having access to the full bandwidth.

10/GBs on top of it being lower latency(speaking form memory here as DDR is typically lower latency than GDDR).

Latency difference will be minimal at best, if there at all.

 

[69wpm]

You do see a fairly distinct lack of AA, though (personal opinion: lack of AA doesn't bother me). I wonder if this has to do with lack of processing power or memory bandwidth or both.

Lack of AA? Umm, no, take a look at the tree, it's probably not high quality AA: http://nintendoeverything.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/wonderful_101_comparison.jpg

 

[Liabe Brave]

I'm tired of this endless begging. Why don't you show me some facts instead of assumption? ...I'm not here for console war nonsense. I'm here for facts and analytics.

Very well, facts and analytics. Fact: Game and Wario renders at 720p. Now for the analysis.

I assume you know how native resolution is found from screenshots, but for the benefit of others here's a quick explanation. In an image divided into discrete pixels, straight diagonal lines look stairstepped; this is aliasing. If the game is rendering at the same resolution of the display, then for each pixel on the display, the line will take a step. If the game is rendering at a lower resolution than the display, then the line will step less often than the pixels do (i.e. the display shows finer detail than the game can). In screenshots, the image size is the display resolution. So if we can find diagonal lines in the screenshot, we can count how many steps they take versus how many pixels those steps take. Keep in mind that the line has to be intended to be perfectly straight; if it's curving, that'll throw the numbers off.

That out of the way, let's go.The following are all the 1080p gameplay screens of Game and Wario that google could find. Again, this isn't a representative sample--this is all of them.

http://www.eggplante.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Game-Wario-Gameplay-3.jpg
http://nintendo-sushi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/scr3.png
http://soluce.jeuxactu.com/IMG/jpg/thumb_1354776003-1.jpg
(The last few aren't ideal for counting--they're either blurry, or it's hard to find lines definitely mean to be straight--so I've only put links.)

Here's an example of a countable line from the first picture:

I know it's very small, but you should still be able to tell that there are 6 steps on this line. If you look at the properties of the image, or open it in an editor, you'll find that it's 9 pixels high. So 1080/9*6, which is...720. I did this on the other images as well; feel free to replicate the test yourself.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Moving on from... all that nonsense above, we're seeing a solid amount of 720p60 games. Nintendo seems to be targeting it for their titles (Nintendoland, Pikmin 3, Mario 3D World) and their published titles (Bayonetta 2, W101, Donkey Kong). You do see a fairly distinct lack of AA, though (personal opinion: lack of AA doesn't bother me). I wonder if this has to do with lack of processing power or memory bandwidth or both.

Also it'd be interesting to see if those old rumors (possibly still current) about textures having to move through the slow system RAM. I think it was discussed here, or possibly in the Espresso thread, about Espresso possibly having a link to the EDRAM. If true, wonder what that kind of link is like and if can alleviate said transfer.

Discuss.

At actual 720p lack of AA is less bothersome to me, than say a game at a res lower than that. I'll take 60fps over AA on most games that are rendering at 720p personally.

In regards to those old rumors I kind of doubt them, if only because of what the Rayman guy from Ubisoft said. Remember he was talking about how they were taking texture maps and accidentally putting them into the game before they had their resolutions lowered and before being compressed. He said they were putting in texture maps that you'd see used on a movie (which would probably be 2k - 4k maps) and having no performance hit from that.

So if they were going through the system ram, either it's bandwidth is way higher than we calculated (since it was based on part numbers no idea how that could be) or it doesn't have to travel through system ram. I'm leaning towards it not having to go through system ram.

While folks looking at the on paper specs have been bemoaning the ram speed, and crying about it being a bottleneck, no actual developers have said that. I could totally be wrong here but I don't remember a single dev actually complaining about the ram, or the memory sub systems. Complaints about the CPU yes, not about the ram though.

 

[Nostremitus]

Post after post of baseless, off-topic, goal-post moving, thinly veiled console warmongering...

*off topic*
Kizzx, dude, there are only two ways I've been able to interpret your posts. Either you are a console warrior(and no, saying you aren't doesn't change the content of your posts) or you are actively trying to get this thread locked...

I enjoyed reading the discussions in this thread. That's past tense because you've almost single handedly wrecked it. Sure, there are people replying to you... ...but without your inflammatory nonsense they wouldn't be. If you really feel your discussion has merit, make a thread for it. This one isn't it. Your arguments bring nothing to the thread and are based solely on (sometimes imagined) technicalities that say nothing useful about the capabilities of the GPU.

Please, I like this thread. Stop.

 

[krizzx]

*off topic*
Kizzx, dude, there are only two ways I've been able to interpret your posts. Either you are a console warrior(and no, saying you aren't doesn't change the content of your posts) or you are actively trying to get this thread locked...

I enjoyed reading the discussions in this thread. That's past tense because you've almost single handedly wrecked it. Sure, there are people replying to you... ...but without your inflammatory nonsense they wouldn't be. If you really feel your discussion has merit, make a thread for it. This one isn't it. Your arguments bring nothing to the thread and are based solely on (sometimes imagined) technicalities that say nothing useful about the capabilities of the GPU.

Please, I like this thread. Stop.

Then you are wrong on both fronts, and I doubt anything I say is going to change your opinion. You are seeing what you want to be true.

What have I posted that is "inflammattory nonsense?" Apparently, positive information or a nonegative opinion is inflammatory when it comes to this thread.

I enjoy this thread too when its was actually people trying to make progress on the topic, but now its multiple people derailing it by attacking me(not simple replying) for having a positive opinion and vilifying me for defending myself.

Even when Bgassasin or wsshippel tried to make postive claims people attacked them in the exact same way. They twisted everything BG said and attacked him in mass and he is one of the hugest contributors to this topic

If I post anything it gets twisted or blown out proportion by people who don't like it. Show me a single instance where "I" have attacked anyone simply for saying something negative about the console or called someone who speaks positively about the PS3/PS4 in this thread(and there are a lot even though they are not the topic) a fanboy or console warrior like you are doing to me right now. When I see people post something negative I don't insult them, label them or attack them for it. That's because I really don't care what their opinion of the console is. I'm here to find facts, not for to fight these ridiculous consoles wars.

If I post anything, its because I think it can help us understand the GPU better.

I don't use personal attacks when things don't go my way. I can't say for your post right now. I actually though you were one of the ones who were above that.

I'm trying to make progress on the topic by using whatever information can be found. What are you contributing?

Do you mind explaining how the 360's RAM is bottlenecked to 10GB/s. The 360's RAM runs at 22.4GB/s. With the CPU having a 10.8GB/s bidirectional bus and the GPU having access to the full bandwidth.



Latency difference will be minimal at best, if there at all.

Yes I do mind. It has been posted in this thread numerous times. I'm not trying to be harsh but I'm tired of debates that go nowhere. I stated that I'm not responding to drive by begging anymore and I'm not digging up old information for people who come in here just to challenge what I say without making any contributions. This is manly because they usually ignore it anyway or continually change the subject of focus to something else perpetually derailing the thread. All of the info in this thread is still here for people who are truly interested in the facts and value of the information. Do a search of the thread if confirming the validity of the statement or educating yourself is truthfully your actual goal.

Latency makes a huge difference in everything. Even single numerical differences have a gigantic impact on real world performance. In the beginning of DDR3's life cycle it wasn't getting any performance boosts on DDR2 and even under performing it in some instances even though it had a much higher clock and bandwidth, because the latency to was high in comparison. Latency can make a world of difference.

I'm not getting into anymore endless debates.

 

[SmokyDave]

*off topic*
Kizzx, dude, there are only two ways I've been able to interpret your posts. Either you are a console warrior(and no, saying you aren't doesn't change the content of your posts) or you are actively trying to get this thread locked...

I bolded the answer. Seriously, just check out his post history. It's all Wii U cheerleading, with the occasional pause to make some negative comment about the PS4 / XBone. Dude is a hardcore Wii U fanboy.

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

Stuff

I bet he's just going to ignore your post

I bolded the answer. Seriously, just check out his post history. It's all Wii U cheerleading, with the occasional pause to make some negative comment about the PS4 / XBone. Dude is a hardcore Wii U fanboy.

You don't believe true gamers only need a PC/WiiU/3DS this generation? You're nuts.

 

[ab.aeterno]

In regards to those old rumors I kind of doubt them, if only because of what the Rayman guy from Ubisoft said. Remember he was talking about how they were taking texture maps and accidentally putting them into the game before they had their resolutions lowered and before being compressed. He said they were putting in texture maps that you'd see used on a movie (which would probably be 2k - 4k maps) and having no performance hit from that.

Do you have a link to that by chance? I find that surprising considering the incredible size textures at that resolution can have. The uncompressed 4k texture for a single item in a Skyrim mood I'm making is several hundred MB; the 8k Photoshop file for the base layer is 1GB. Even assuming the textures were compressed it seems crazy you could have a game running at all with the amount of memory the textures alone would eat up.

Edit: Good lord at the StevieP/krizzx exchange above. I may not often agree with him but StevieP is at least one of the more level-headed fans of the WiiU I've come across. Accusing him off negative intentions is as presumptuous as it is, I suspect, wrong.

 

[krizzx]

There are at least 5 people here derailing this thread with personal attack and not addressing the topic or any of the information presented in this thread at all.

I see why a lot of the other big contributors have left. There is no point in trying to hold a discussion because the same handful of posters will bash and misquote you endlessly for stating any opinion that isn't negative. Well, I'm tired of it.

I'm only responding to known contributors from now on and am only contributing info. Trying to debate with people who have historically trolled mine and other contributors posts, distorted what I say, thrown insults at me like "fanboy" and "console warrior" or other attempts to flame bait me with statements like "I bet he's just going to ignore your post ", ie. the people who are actually destroying this thread, would be foolish on my part and have no wish to further contribute to the degradation of this thread with off topic mud slinging with them.

 

[Easy_D]

I bet he's just going to ignore your post



You don't believe true gamers only need a PC/WiiU/3DS this generation? You're nuts.

I'm not a true gamer? I don't even have a Wii U. Only PC/3DS

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Do you have a link to that by chance? I find that surprising considering the incredible size textures at that resolution can have. The uncompressed 4k texture for a single item in a Skyrim mood I'm making is several hundred MB; the 8k Photoshop file for the base layer is 1GB. Even assuming the textures were compressed it seems crazy you could have a game running at all with the amount of memory the textures alone would eat up.

He doesn't mention the exact resolution, but again he says they could be used in movies, which to me speaks of 4k or at least 2k res.

http://www.vg247.com/2012/10/21/wii-u-surprisingly-powerful-says-rayman-creator/

Ancel said the console has “a lot of memory”, really allowing the Rayman team’s artistic grunt to shine through.

“You can really have huge textures, and it’s crazy because sometimes the graphic artist – we built our textures in very high-dentition. They could be used in a movie,” he said.

“Then we compress them, but sometimes they forget to do the compression and it still works. So yeah, it’s quite powerful.”

Which again if they're using really high res, uncompressed textures and not getting any performance hits, then I would assume they don't have to run through the system ram. Either that or the slower ram isn't causing the kind of bottlenecks people are assuming they would.

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

I'm not a true gamer? I don't even have a Wii U. Only PC/3DS

It was a small jab at one of krizzx's posts in another thread. I'm totally fine with you owning whatever platforms you like.

 

[ab.aeterno]

He doesn't mention the exact resolution, but again he says they could be used in movies, which to me speaks of 4k or at least 2k res.

http://www.vg247.com/2012/10/21/wii-u-surprisingly-powerful-says-rayman-creator/



Which again if they're using really high res, uncompressed textures and not getting any performance hits, then I would assume they don't have to run through the system ram. Either that or the slower ram isn't causing the kind of bottlenecks people are assuming they would.

Interesting. I wouldn't read to much into it, at least so far as assuming the extent to which their textures was uncompressed, as it does sound like a small amount, not the entire game's assets. Still, as someone whose low-level hardware technical knowledge is dwarfed by others on this board, your conclusion sounds plausible. I would assume higher resolution assets with larger file sizes would be bottlenecked by slow memory so if there's no performance hit, I'm intrigued.

I would love to hear a developer discuss the hardware's low-level architecture.

 

[tipoo]

Flame bait me with statements like "I bet he's just going to ignore your post ", ie. the people who are actually destroying this thread, would be foolish on my part and have no wish to further contribute to the degradation of this thread with off topic mud slinging with them.

You did this yourself, and no this isn't a personal attack, just pointing out that you are part of the problem you keep blaming on others.

Nice of you to announce that you are dipping after the argument you started didn't go your way, though.
.

Is that not flame baiting? You're part of the problem here, and you keep pretending it's everyone else.

And if everyone keeps misquoting you and misunderstanding what you say, perhaps you need to be more clear at times. You did a good deal of misunderstanding as well.

And I for one don't fit this strawman of everyone pouncing on everything that isn't negative, there's a difference between negative and hopelessly optimistic.

 

[StevieP]

Edit: Good lord at the StevieP/krizzx exchange above. I may not often agree with him but StevieP is at least one of the more level-headed fans of the WiiU I've come across. Accusing him off negative intentions is as presumptuous as it is, I suspect, wrong.

Being a fan of some of Nintendo's output should not preclude myself or anyone else from not being able to make at least an educated guestimate of what the console is and isn't. And although I've seen some documentation on the console, even without seeing such documentation it's pretty easy to see that it wasn't built to be a monster. (Hell, the PS4One aren't even built to be "monsters" like the PS360 were). It is built to be a very small, efficient refinement of technology that Microsoft and Sony already presented, but with the design paradigm of Microsoft and Sony's new consoles rather than their old ones. It's an 8th gen console with some refinements over the previous one. That doesn't make it a piece of crap, or "old tech" as has been asserted 9000000 million times on this forum, as it's probably the most customized console this generation (taking AMD's hardware circa 2010 and working for 2 years to customize it, for example). But it's not going for brute force power or anything silly like that. It's going for small, quiet, efficient, etc. It's simply designed with those goals in mind. Small, powerful, cheap - pick 2, right? There shouldn't be any doubt by anyone here (whether you believe in 176gf or 352gf or somewhere in between) that the console is going to produce better visual results than the 7th generation HD consoles. Not just because of software/engine refinements (as per the argument with Bayonetta) but because the hardware has refinements & obviously more memory as well. More ED ram, more modern graphics architecture, etc etc. There are a multitude of reasons why the console is going to produce nice things. But in the same breath, it's not going to be producing the same kinds of things that the PS4One are going to be producing. Again, you simply have to look at physics for why that is so, not just things like GPU clock/memory/etc. People should accept the above. Not as gospel or anything. Just as common sense.

As for another discussion that's run in this thread multiple times: Can it receive ports from the PS4/One? Technically, yes. It's not impossible, even with the much smaller amounts of CPU/memory/GPU available. Just as Witcher 2 or Battlefield 3 were scaled to fit certain limits, it's not impossible. But unfortunately for Nintendo's console, the business return on investment isn't there to do that as it apparently was on the 360.

I'm not a true gamer? I don't even have a Wii U. Only PC/3DS

It was a small jab at one of krizzx's posts in another thread. I'm totally fine with you owning whatever platforms you like.

Honestly, despite the fact that I do about 90% of my gaming on PCs I've always bought multiple consoles every generation (usually it's Nintendo's and Sony's consoles, because both have many worthwhile exclusives and don't require paid online) but for the first time in generations I might sit out Sony's console. I will not be paying for online, no matter the incentives. I may go PC/Wii U/3DS/(maybe Vita) this generation unless either Sony or Microsoft REALLY pull out an exclusive that makes it impossible to resist.

The majority of multiplats will be on PC, where I normally play them anyway... I always get consoles for platform exclusives. But I have a fundamental issue with paying to play multiplayer when it should be free. If Nintendo started charging (lol yeah right) I would skip their console as well. That's a discussion for another thread, but honestly I find that I get my platformer/2D sidescroller/adventure fix with the Nintendo console and the rest on one of my multiple high powered gaming PCs. At this point, with the tepid launch lineups revealed, I feel comfortable with that decision. It could change at any moment, of course, but with paid multiplayer it's a very tough proposition to consider. Not considering a PS4 obviously doesn't make me any less of a gamer. I barely play any of the consoles nowadays, anyway.

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

Stuff

I'm glad you're agreeing with me then.

 

[prag16]

Can it receive ports from the PS4/One? Technically, yes. It's not impossible, even with the much smaller amounts of CPU/memory/GPU available. Just as Witcher 2 or Battlefield 3 were scaled to fit certain limits, it's not impossible. But unfortunately for Nintendo's console, the business return on investment isn't there to do that as it apparently was on the 360.

I agree 100% with the rest of your post, but for this part, it's hard to accurately really judge at this point, and definitely not with the amount of unqualified certainty you seem to be making the statement with. It would appear that the business case for PS360 ports isn't looking great either at this point judging by the actions of publishers. And it has been argued that PS4/xbone downports maybe shouldn't automatically be assumed to be drastically more expensive than PS360 ports. As you said yourself, at least the design paradigms are closer to being in line even if you're working with "less" of everything.

 

[The_Intruder]

stuff.

Excellent post, nothing to add.

 

[StevieP]

I agree 100% with the rest of your post, but for this part, it's hard to accurately really judge at this point, and definitely not with the amount of unqualified certainty you seem to be making the statement with. It would appear that the business case for PS360 ports isn't looking great either at this point judging by the actions of publishers. And it has been argued that PS4/xbone downports maybe shouldn't automatically be assumed to be drastically more expensive than PS360 ports. As you said yourself, at least the design paradigms are closer to being in line even if you're working with "less" of everything.

I was agreeing with you. I said the business case isn't there for ports (in general). If there was a business case, it wouldn't be impossible.

 

[ColdBlooder]

Alright, then you have something better to draw a conclusion from?

I don't have any.

And i couldn't care less wich games are 1080p and wich are 720p

Wii U can do some very awesome looking games, Thats all i care about. I don't care if a game runs 720p or 1080p. Bayonetta 2, for example, looks phenomenal no matter if 720p or 1080p.

Just ignore all the people trying to downplay Wii U using the "lol its 720p" card. Cause theres nothing sadder to watch than grown adults needs to bash another product just to feel better about their own purchase and/or insecurities.

 

[krizzx]

More screens of Sonic Lost World released by SEGA to analyze. All in 1920x1080 resolution for those who care.
http://nintendoeverything.com/wp-content/gallery/sonic-lost-world_13/slw-3.jpg
http://nintendoeverything.com/wp-content/gallery/sonic-lost-world_13/slw-8.jpg
http://nintendoeverything.com/wp-content/gallery/sonic-lost-world_13/slw-7.jpg
http://nintendoeverything.com/wp-content/gallery/sonic-lost-world_13/slw-5.jpg

http://nintendoeverything.com/sonic-lost-world-screenshots-3/

I'm seeing some ZombiU like shading in the third pic coming from the light on the Wall and the shadows are pretty much being caste by or on everything on a lot of minor objects with varying degrees of detail. I've been meaning to bring this up, but the Wii U has been showcasing some really heavy shadow usage that I'm not used to seeing in most games.

I first noticed it in the Bayonetta 2 video, then the Wind Waker Wii U to GC comparison video that was released yesterday. Just go to 1:35 and look at the shadows cast by the grass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hOVb1GCfg

The grass casts shadows on the other grass. Is possible that there is shading functionality for streaming large volumes of shadows?(note, that I'm posing this question only to those who have actual real technical knowledge in the field.)


If you have time, I'd suggest watching the whole thing. The changes to the shadows are very noteworthy.

I don't have any.

And i couldn't care less wich games are 1080p and wich are 720p

Wii U can do some very awesome looking games, Thats all i care about. I don't care if a game runs 720p or 1080p. Bayonetta 2, for example, looks phenomenal no matter if 720p or 1080p.

Just ignore all the people trying to downplay Wii U using the "lol its 720p" card. Cause theres nothing sadder to watch than grown adults needs to bash another product just to feel better about their own purchase and/or insecurities.

I said the same thing. Even if its not 1080p like the articles have been claiming, it still looks better than what I'm used to seeing at and that more than good enough for me. All I care is that it is a good game personally.

And thanks for the positive response. Its been a long time since I've seen one.

 

[StevieP]

They look great, and the game itself looks phenomenal (my favourite artistic direction for the 3D sonics by far). However those are bullshots, unless Sega's found a way to do 1080p/60 with 8xMSAA. Which, obviously, is a suspect expectation.

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

First time seeing those 1080P shots of Sonic... they look far better small. Game is not pretty at all technically. By any standard. At least its clean.

 

[megabytecr]

He doesn't mention the exact resolution, but again he says they could be used in movies, which to me speaks of 4k or at least 2k res.

http://www.vg247.com/2012/10/21/wii-u-surprisingly-powerful-says-rayman-creator/



Which again if they're using really high res, uncompressed textures and not getting any performance hits, then I would assume they don't have to run through the system ram. Either that or the slower ram isn't causing the kind of bottlenecks people are assuming they would.

Toki Tori 2 dev on texture memory feature. This is old btw.

Today we discovered a new hardware feature of the Wii U that shaves off 100 megabytes of texture memory usage in Toki Tori 2!

I would not be surprised if the Wii U has a way around the RAM disparity between PS4 and XB1.

 

[Waaghals]

What's with the assumption occasionally thrown around here that the WiiU is massively more efficient when compared to anything else out there?

I'm sure it's very well designed and all, but it seems as if some people here expect it to outperform its (assumed) specs by a factor of five.

The notion that Nintendo has access to technology drawing less than 40w that outperforms or matches 200w systems, I don't get it.

 

[M°°nblade]

I disagree with your logic. Bayonetta 1 was released in late 2009 / early 2010 depending on region. Clearly the xbox 360 was the lead platform which came out in late 2005. That leaves at least 4 years (not sure when Platinum starting playing with 360 dev kits) of documentation and experimentation with development. To your point, would a Bayo 2 for PS/360 look better than Bayo 1? Yeah, probably. But Bayo 2 Wii U is exceeding Bayo 1 with maybe 2 years of work and no prior efforts for the Wii U platform (I think Bayo 2 and W101 were developed in parallel?) .

Your argument focuses heavily on experience (for example the differences between Uncharted 1 and 2, same platform, more experience). Yet you don't acknowledge at all the differences in experience between Wii U and PS/360 development.

So the question becomes to what extent does experience with PS/360 carry over to Wii U?

As to judging power and capabilities based on multi plat games, that seems wrong. You must agree that exclusives often have better graphics (Halo, Uncharted, God of War, etc) because devs have focus and don't need to worry about feature compatibility etc.

Oh, I do ackownledge the fact that there's a difference in experience between Wii U and PS360 hardware.
But I think the significance of that was greatly exaggerated when I see how, almost a year further and developers using final dev kits, the Wii U versions of multiplatform games have barely improved, relative to their PS360 versions.
You have people in this thread saying how they believe the Wii U is definitely more than twice as powerful as PS360 hardware, yet the releases it gets, one year after launch, still are on par or marginally better. I know nothing of game development but I doubt optimising your engine for the Wii U will someday give you a 100% framerate boost.

Multiplatform games are not the best tool to judge the maximum power or capabilities of a console, but they don't have to. It doesn't disqualify them at all as a meaningful way to compare hardware. Comparing how the same game looks during the exact same scene, at how many frames a second it runs on different hardware tells something about performance relative to each other. Battlefield 3 and Bioshock infinite don't exactly show the maximum power of a 7990 or a Titan either. But these games are used in benchmarks because they do tell something about the difference between graphics cards. Based on these benchmarks it's safe to say they are more powerful than an AMD 6950 HD eg..

Comparing different games (and this includes exclusives) is entirely pointless. Sure, Halo 4 tells more of the maximum power of the XBox360 than a multiplatform title. But what can Halo 4 versus Uncharted 3 tell you about the hardware difference between the Xbox 360 and the PS3? Are you comparing art design or polygons on screen? Nobody knows because you can't measure them or compare them directly. It's all subjective.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

All I have to do is look in this thread or specifically any thread that try's and paint a positive on Wii U specs or tech ability.

This all comes down to a problem of perception.

This thread has a good amount of people that have this preconception about what is going on and is looking for any sign to validate it, while ignoring all signs pointing in a different direction. At some point, you have to start questioning yourself and thinking why the person in front of you shows a different opinion.

Ingroup vs Outgroup as well.