Does this mean that the Wii is superior to the X-Box?Tecnical specs included! :)

  • 81 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for beinss
beinss

1838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51 beinss
Member since 2004 • 1838 Posts
The Wii is nothing but Cube 1.5. Only fanboys say otherwise. That does not mean great graphics are not possible. Look at RE4 or NG. Both are better than anything currently out on the PS3. But that does not make the Wii strong at all.
Acenso
And the 360 is Xbox 1.5 as well. Atleast as far as everyone is concerned. (
Avatar image for Ninten007
Ninten007

3129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 Ninten007
Member since 2005 • 3129 Posts

Yea how much can the Wii scale up in graphics in comparsion to the GC? The GC proved its graphical capablities at LAUNCH with Star Wars Rouge Squadron 2 with nice graphics, framerates, sound and up to 200+ TIE Fighters on the screen at once with huge Star Destroyers and the Death Star. If the Wii is so much superior why no game surpassed this launch GC game from 6 years ago? 360 launch games surprassed Xbox games, PS3 surprassed PS2 games.

I will become a believer when the Wii is running better than RE4 or Chronicles of Riddick/Ninja Gaiden without any problems, but I just dont see it doing so.

Developers are concentrating on the Wiimote so why should they waste time going after graphics when it is not Nintendo's goal? The goal is to get the most simple gameplay that even your granny can play it.

Last, sheep are hypocrites. Last gen. The GC>>>>PS2 in graphics and the GC is only for the true hardcore gamers while the PS2 is for the noobies and casuals. Nintendo is now after the casual market with cheap technology and yet yall embrace it?  Even the 7 year-old PS2 is showing off impressive visuals comapred to this Wii joke.

Avatar image for thnickaman13
thnickaman13

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 thnickaman13
Member since 2006 • 633 Posts
so the topic was answered, we have all of the facts,
why is this still such a big deal?
Avatar image for Davis092
Davis092

1449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 Davis092
Member since 2006 • 1449 Posts
If it's more powerful than all the last gen systems then it is a current gen system /thread
Avatar image for Ninten007
Ninten007

3129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 Ninten007
Member since 2005 • 3129 Posts
[QUOTE="poopinloop32"][QUOTE="SmashBrosLegend"][QUOTE="Ninten007"]

Here's the link http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/04/wii-hardware-is-basically-a-gc-says-miyamoto/ . The head honcho of Nintendo and the man all sheep worship said it: Wii is basically a GC.

SmashBrosLegend

Self owned. It says this right in that article: " This is not to say Wii won't scale in the graphics department, but logically not as much as the 360 or PS3 will."

thats not his point

What does it matter if he says it is basically a Gamecube? The specs obviously suggest that it is more powerful than Xbox, and it says right in the article that the Wii is more capable than the Gamecube.

Really? I didnt know you were one of the key members who worked on the Wii at the Nintendo headquarters. Nintendo has been mum on the specs of the Wii and only the people especially Miyamoto who actually worked on the darn thing admitted it is basically a Cube.

Sheep accept it, the Wii is an overpriced GC just made cheap by Nintendo and sold for a maximum profit.

Besides you dont need to be making threads like these because frankly you say graphics dont matter to yall.

Avatar image for topgunmv
topgunmv

10880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#56 topgunmv
Member since 2003 • 10880 Posts

Im pretty sure the xbox used a modified p3.

[QUOTE="SmashBrosLegend"][QUOTE="Ninten007"][QUOTE="SmashBrosLegend"][QUOTE="Ninten007"]

Sorry sheep. Even Miaymoto said the Wii is basically a Gamecube. If the Wii is so superior to the GC/Xbox then why is it not showing? Dont give my but Super Mario Galaxy looks great because it can be done on GC. All they did was make balls of planets and a black sky with stars, so they can put all the detail on Mario and the environment. Prime 3 looks like its predecessors. If SSB came out at the end of the GC's lifetime it could clearly do Brawl graphics.

Now sheep stop making graphics/techinal specs because yall said you dont care for these things and that gameplay only matters. Such hypocrites.

Marka1700

Read my last post.

I trust Miaymoto more than you. He said the Wii is basically a GC. He worked on developing the system, not you. I cant belive you said the Xbox techinal specs are pathetic when it was really good for the era it is in. The Wii's specs are horribe for this generation and it has done nothing to prove that it has better graphics than last-gen consoles.

I said the Xbox CPU is pathetic in terms of architecture, which it is. The Wii's specs are right in from of your face, with a link and everything. The Wii is superior to the Xbox, which is what this entire argument is about. I am not comparing it to the PS3 of the Xbox 360.

Fanboys just go look at all my meghertz and megbytes and dont understand anything about the underlyings that affect how the the machine actually works. For a start the xbox uses a chip similar to a celeron, any PC enthusiast knows cellerons are utterly rubish for games. saying a 700 mhz Celeron = 700 Broadway is like saying 2.2 Ghz celeron = 2.2Ghz 64 Bit athlon.

Avatar image for SmashBrosLegend
SmashBrosLegend

11344

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#57 SmashBrosLegend
Member since 2006 • 11344 Posts
[QUOTE="SmashBrosLegend"][QUOTE="poopinloop32"][QUOTE="SmashBrosLegend"][QUOTE="Ninten007"]

Here's the link http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/04/wii-hardware-is-basically-a-gc-says-miyamoto/ . The head honcho of Nintendo and the man all sheep worship said it: Wii is basically a GC.

Ninten007

Self owned. It says this right in that article: " This is not to say Wii won't scale in the graphics department, but logically not as much as the 360 or PS3 will."

thats not his point

What does it matter if he says it is basically a Gamecube? The specs obviously suggest that it is more powerful than Xbox, and it says right in the article that the Wii is more capable than the Gamecube.

Really? I didnt know you were one of the key members who worked on the Wii at the Nintendo headquarters. Nintendo has been mum on the specs of the Wii and only the people especially Miyamoto who actually worked on the darn thing admitted it is basically a Cube.

Sheep accept it, the Wii is an overpriced GC just made cheap by Nintendo and sold for a maximum profit.

Besides you dont need to be making threads like these because frankly you say graphics dont matter to yall.

1. I'm not a sheep 2. I didn't make this thread 3. The specs are in the original post, plain as day. Learn to read. They were leaked by IGN.
Avatar image for SmashBrosLegend
SmashBrosLegend

11344

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#58 SmashBrosLegend
Member since 2006 • 11344 Posts

Im pretty sure the xbox used a modified p3.

topgunmv
I does, but it is almost identical to the Celeron Mobile after the modifications.
Avatar image for Ichiroisawsome
Ichiroisawsome

713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 Ichiroisawsome
Member since 2006 • 713 Posts
[QUOTE="SyluxElite"]

Wii specs:

88MB DDR3 RAm @700mhz 3MB texture memory
729mhz CPU
242mhz GPU

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#60 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
Give it to Factor 5 and let them show us if it is or not. :P
Avatar image for Ichiroisawsome
Ichiroisawsome

713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 Ichiroisawsome
Member since 2006 • 713 Posts
To answer your question YES. But some of the info is wrong. The GameCube used 24MB on die (LSI) 1T-SRAM for system ram and embedded ram (3MB edram) as the graphics ram. The GameCube also had 16MB of DRAM (ARAM) for sound and other non essential information. The Wii uses second generation 1T-SRAM (24MB) as on die (LSI) system ram, 3MB 1T-SRAM as graphics edram and 64MB GDDR3 (this is debatable because most info points to 1T-SRAM) as off die graphics ram. The Wii also has 16MB of SRAM for sound and non essential information.
Avatar image for SyluxElite
SyluxElite

8950

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#62 SyluxElite
Member since 2006 • 8950 Posts
[QUOTE="Ichiroisawsome"]To answer your question YES. But some of the info is wrong. The GameCube used 24MB on die (LSI) 1T-SRAM for system ram and embedded ram (3MB edram) as the graphics ram. The GameCube also had 16MB of DRAM (ARAM) for sound and other non essential information. The Wii uses second generation 1T-SRAM (24MB) as on die (LSI) system ram, 3MB 1T-SRAM as graphics edram and 64MB GDDR3 (this is debatable because most info points to 1T-SRAM) as off die graphics ram. The Wii also has 16MB of SRAM for sound and non essential information.

Thank you. You are one of the few people, esides SmashBrosLegend, who actually helped me instead of being jerks. Again, thanks. :)
Avatar image for poopinloop32
poopinloop32

4949

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#63 poopinloop32
Member since 2006 • 4949 Posts
[QUOTE="Ichiroisawsome"]To answer your question YES. But some of the info is wrong. The GameCube used 24MB on die (LSI) 1T-SRAM for system ram and embedded ram (3MB edram) as the graphics ram. The GameCube also had 16MB of DRAM (ARAM) for sound and other non essential information. The Wii uses second generation 1T-SRAM (24MB) as on die (LSI) system ram, 3MB 1T-SRAM as graphics edram and 64MB GDDR3 (this is debatable because most info points to 1T-SRAM) as off die graphics ram. The Wii also has 16MB of SRAM for sound and non essential information.SyluxElite
Thank you. You are one of the few people, esides SmashBrosLegend, who actually helped me instead of being jerks. Again, thanks. :)

all i said was the only way the Wii will prove that it looks better than the Xbox is if the Wii gets a 3rd Party game that looks as good as Riddik..then SmashBrosLegend attacked me for no reason
Avatar image for rexoverbey
rexoverbey

7622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#64 rexoverbey
Member since 2002 • 7622 Posts

The Xbox data is wrong too Xbox 1 used a Custom 733MHZ P3 processor not celeron. Also you fail to mention things about Xbox 1 having a custom audio chip which had dolby digital, Xbox 1 had some 720p games, and also Xbox 1 has pixel shaders which Wii does not. I think the processor is probably faster in the wii and so is the ram, but the GPU without pixel shaders and no DD is a big letdown IMO.

BTW wikipedia is not a good source ;)

Avatar image for LaiGaiGeng
LaiGaiGeng

180

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 LaiGaiGeng
Member since 2004 • 180 Posts

Wii specs:

88MB DDR3 RAm @700mhz +3MB texture memory
729mhz CPU
242mhz GPU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#Technical_specifications

Compared to the Gamecube:

GC specs
485mhz CPU
162mhz GPU
24MB normal RAM+ 16MB video RAM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube#Hardware_specifications

Compared to X-Box:

Xbox Specs:
733mhz Intel Celeron Mobile Processor
233mhz GPU
64MB RAM @200mhz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBox

I'm not tecno savy so I really don't know. Can someone clarify for me? :)

SyluxElite
The common misconception with numbers; CPU/RAM are be arbitrarily/superficially higher. That doesn't mean it's overall performance is better. Perfect example is what 3D card manufacturers do to sell their Video Cards. 7900 to a 7650 same memory, but preformance wise, the 7650 runs like a card from the 5 series; also the Cell follows suit. Numbers are deceptive until preformance and results are factored in.
Avatar image for SyluxElite
SyluxElite

8950

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#66 SyluxElite
Member since 2006 • 8950 Posts

The Xbox data is wrong too Xbox 1 used a Custom 733MHZ P3 processor not celeron. Also you fail to mention things about Xbox 1 having a custom audio chip which had dolby digital, Xbox 1 had some 720p games, and also Xbox 1 has pixel shaders which Wii does not. I think the processor is probably faster in the wii and so is the ram, but the GPU without pixel shaders and no DD is a big letdown IMO.

BTW wikipedia is not a good source ;)

rexoverbey
A past post in this threas proved the Wii has shaders. Take a look around for it. Its there. :wink:
Avatar image for Pangster007
Pangster007

4426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#67 Pangster007
Member since 2004 • 4426 Posts
[QUOTE="SyluxElite"][QUOTE="Ichiroisawsome"]To answer your question YES. But some of the info is wrong. The GameCube used 24MB on die (LSI) 1T-SRAM for system ram and embedded ram (3MB edram) as the graphics ram. The GameCube also had 16MB of DRAM (ARAM) for sound and other non essential information. The Wii uses second generation 1T-SRAM (24MB) as on die (LSI) system ram, 3MB 1T-SRAM as graphics edram and 64MB GDDR3 (this is debatable because most info points to 1T-SRAM) as off die graphics ram. The Wii also has 16MB of SRAM for sound and non essential information.poopinloop32
Thank you. You are one of the few people, esides SmashBrosLegend, who actually helped me instead of being jerks. Again, thanks. :)

all i said was the only way the Wii will prove that it looks better than the Xbox is if the Wii gets a 3rd Party game that looks as good as Riddik..then SmashBrosLegend attacked me for no reason

why does it have to be 3rd party?
Avatar image for rexoverbey
rexoverbey

7622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#68 rexoverbey
Member since 2002 • 7622 Posts
[QUOTE="rexoverbey"]

The Xbox data is wrong too Xbox 1 used a Custom 733MHZ P3 processor not celeron. Also you fail to mention things about Xbox 1 having a custom audio chip which had dolby digital, Xbox 1 had some 720p games, and also Xbox 1 has pixel shaders which Wii does not. I think the processor is probably faster in the wii and so is the ram, but the GPU without pixel shaders and no DD is a big letdown IMO.

BTW wikipedia is not a good source ;)

SyluxElite
A past post in this threas proved the Wii has shaders. Take a look around for it. Its there. :wink:

It does not have pixel shaders it may use software to emulate but it cannot render per pixel shading in real time.
Avatar image for JohnWinger
JohnWinger

1903

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 JohnWinger
Member since 2007 • 1903 Posts

Wii specs:

88MB DDR3 RAm @700mhz +3MB texture memory
729mhz CPU
242mhz GPU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#Technical_specifications

Compared to the Gamecube:

GC specs
485mhz CPU
162mhz GPU
24MB normal RAM+ 16MB video RAM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube#Hardware_specifications

Compared to X-Box:

Xbox Specs:
733mhz Intel Celeron Mobile Processor
233mhz GPU
64MB RAM @200mhz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBox

I'm not tecno savy so I really don't know.  Can someone clarify for me? :) 

SyluxElite

Considering the Original Xbox was made like 8 years before the Nintendo Wii, it proves my point Nintendo is garbage.

Avatar image for Darth_Stalin
Darth_Stalin

8681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 Darth_Stalin
Member since 2005 • 8681 Posts
It has slightly higher specs, but it is no leap.
Avatar image for poopinloop32
poopinloop32

4949

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#71 poopinloop32
Member since 2006 • 4949 Posts
[QUOTE="poopinloop32"][QUOTE="SyluxElite"][QUOTE="Ichiroisawsome"]To answer your question YES. But some of the info is wrong. The GameCube used 24MB on die (LSI) 1T-SRAM for system ram and embedded ram (3MB edram) as the graphics ram. The GameCube also had 16MB of DRAM (ARAM) for sound and other non essential information. The Wii uses second generation 1T-SRAM (24MB) as on die (LSI) system ram, 3MB 1T-SRAM as graphics edram and 64MB GDDR3 (this is debatable because most info points to 1T-SRAM) as off die graphics ram. The Wii also has 16MB of SRAM for sound and non essential information.Pangster007
Thank you. You are one of the few people, esides SmashBrosLegend, who actually helped me instead of being jerks. Again, thanks. :)

all i said was the only way the Wii will prove that it looks better than the Xbox is if the Wii gets a 3rd Party game that looks as good as Riddik..then SmashBrosLegend attacked me for no reason

why does it have to be 3rd party?

because Nintendo is already fimiliar with the HardWare..its up to the 3rd party devs to find out the Wii
Avatar image for mangobear
mangobear

1392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 mangobear
Member since 2006 • 1392 Posts
[QUOTE="SyluxElite"]

Wii specs:

88MB DDR3 RAm @700mhz +3MB texture memory
729mhz CPU
242mhz GPU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#Technical_specifications

Compared to the Gamecube:

GC specs
485mhz CPU
162mhz GPU
24MB normal RAM+ 16MB video RAM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube#Hardware_specifications

Compared to X-Box:

Xbox Specs:
733mhz Intel Celeron Mobile Processor
233mhz GPU
64MB RAM @200mhz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBox

I'm not tecno savy so I really don't know. Can someone clarify for me? :)

JohnWinger

Considering the Original Xbox was made like 8 years before the Nintendo Wii, it proves my point Nintendo is garbage.



I aprove of this point. Do people not realize how dumb this is? A system thats retailing for 250$ released in 2006 is competing with the specs of a system released 5 years ago that sells now for 150$.
Avatar image for Pangster007
Pangster007

4426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#73 Pangster007
Member since 2004 • 4426 Posts
[QUOTE="Pangster007"][QUOTE="poopinloop32"][QUOTE="SyluxElite"][QUOTE="Ichiroisawsome"]To answer your question YES. But some of the info is wrong. The GameCube used 24MB on die (LSI) 1T-SRAM for system ram and embedded ram (3MB edram) as the graphics ram. The GameCube also had 16MB of DRAM (ARAM) for sound and other non essential information. The Wii uses second generation 1T-SRAM (24MB) as on die (LSI) system ram, 3MB 1T-SRAM as graphics edram and 64MB GDDR3 (this is debatable because most info points to 1T-SRAM) as off die graphics ram. The Wii also has 16MB of SRAM for sound and non essential information.poopinloop32
Thank you. You are one of the few people, esides SmashBrosLegend, who actually helped me instead of being jerks. Again, thanks. :)

all i said was the only way the Wii will prove that it looks better than the Xbox is if the Wii gets a 3rd Party game that looks as good as Riddik..then SmashBrosLegend attacked me for no reason

why does it have to be 3rd party?

because Nintendo is already fimiliar with the HardWare..its up to the 3rd party devs to find out the Wii

sure, but if a game is capable up to a graphics point, it doesn't matter who made it right?
Avatar image for SkateGame
SkateGame

893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#74 SkateGame
Member since 2005 • 893 Posts
I think the system looks great. Especially when you look at Super Mario Galaxy and Brawl. Those games look awesome. I can't wait for third parties to start making actual games rather than these tech demos. Hopefully, 2007 will be the year of the Wii.....
Avatar image for Tristam22
Tristam22

1598

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 Tristam22
Member since 2006 • 1598 Posts
[QUOTE="JohnWinger"][QUOTE="SyluxElite"]

Wii specs:

88MB DDR3 RAm @700mhz +3MB texture memory
729mhz CPU
242mhz GPU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#Technical_specifications

Compared to the Gamecube:

GC specs
485mhz CPU
162mhz GPU
24MB normal RAM+ 16MB video RAM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube#Hardware_specifications

Compared to X-Box:

Xbox Specs:
733mhz Intel Celeron Mobile Processor
233mhz GPU
64MB RAM @200mhz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBox

I'm not tecno savy so I really don't know. Can someone clarify for me? :)

mangobear

Considering the Original Xbox was made like 8 years before the Nintendo Wii, it proves my point Nintendo is garbage.



I aprove of this point. Do people not realize how dumb this is? A system thats retailing for 250$ released in 2006 is competing with the specs of a system released 5 years ago that sells now for 150$.

Ah yes of course you approve of his point (which is only 3 YEARS OFF).
Avatar image for DA_B0MB
DA_B0MB

9938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76 DA_B0MB
Member since 2005 • 9938 Posts
The wii only has 88MBs of RAM?... :?
Avatar image for hyruledweller
hyruledweller

3168

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 hyruledweller
Member since 2006 • 3168 Posts
[QUOTE="JohnWinger"][QUOTE="SyluxElite"]

Wii specs:

88MB DDR3 RAm @700mhz +3MB texture memory
729mhz CPU
242mhz GPU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#Technical_specifications

Compared to the Gamecube:

GC specs
485mhz CPU
162mhz GPU
24MB normal RAM+ 16MB video RAM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube#Hardware_specifications

Compared to X-Box:

Xbox Specs:
733mhz Intel Celeron Mobile Processor
233mhz GPU
64MB RAM @200mhz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBox

I'm not tecno savy so I really don't know. Can someone clarify for me? :)

mangobear

Considering the Original Xbox was made like 8 years before the Nintendo Wii, it proves my point Nintendo is garbage.



I aprove of this point. Do people not realize how dumb this is? A system thats retailing for 250$ released in 2006 is competing with the specs of a system released 5 years ago that sells now for 150$.

You realize wii will probs dominate this gen?
Avatar image for Ichiroisawsome
Ichiroisawsome

713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 Ichiroisawsome
Member since 2006 • 713 Posts

The Xbox data is wrong too Xbox 1 used a Custom 733MHZ P3 processor not celeron. Also you fail to mention things about Xbox 1 having a custom audio chip which had dolby digital, Xbox 1 had some 720p games, and also Xbox 1 has pixel shaders which Wii does not. I think the processor is probably faster in the wii and so is the ram, but the GPU without pixel shaders and no DD is a big letdown IMO.

BTW wikipedia is not a good source ;)

rexoverbey

While the XCPU core is a coppermine, the cache is a paltry 128k just like the celeron. Now for some education. The Wii has a semi programmable TEV engine (just like the GameCube but with more flexibility), programmable T&L engine (the GameCube's was fixed) and a programmable shade tree blending engine (fully programmable just like the Xbox's pixel shaders but more advanced). So again what are you talking about Wii not having programmable pixel shaders?
Avatar image for DisPimpin
DisPimpin

2513

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 DisPimpin
Member since 2006 • 2513 Posts
The Wii is nothing but Cube 1.5. Only fanboys say otherwise. That does not mean great graphics are not possible. Look at RE4 or NG. Both are better than anything currently out on the PS3. But that does not make the Wii strong at all.
Acenso
So RE4 and NG look better than anything on PS3? Fanboys are funny. :-)
Avatar image for blacktorn
blacktorn

8299

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#80 blacktorn
Member since 2004 • 8299 Posts
The Wii overall is more powerful than the Xbox however the Xbox has a shader engine (i forgot what it's called) that enables the gpu to do shadows and other things only on the GPU freeing up the cpu and ram to do othert hings,but the wii's GPU doesn't have this certain shader thing (i probs sound like an idoit now lol) so it has to work harder to do shadows and other effects so in all i think the wii ends up on par with the Xbox,put looking at ninja gaiden,halo 2 and fable on the Xbox that isn't a terrible thing,Already the screens we've seen of Mario Galaxy are more than enough proof that the Wii can not only do what Xbox can already do but a few things more as well.
Avatar image for yermomsboxx
yermomsboxx

6348

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#81 yermomsboxx
Member since 2005 • 6348 Posts
Wow, the Wii really pwned six year old hardware. A winner is them!
Avatar image for rexoverbey
rexoverbey

7622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#82 rexoverbey
Member since 2002 • 7622 Posts
[QUOTE="rexoverbey"]

The Xbox data is wrong too Xbox 1 used a Custom 733MHZ P3 processor not celeron. Also you fail to mention things about Xbox 1 having a custom audio chip which had dolby digital, Xbox 1 had some 720p games, and also Xbox 1 has pixel shaders which Wii does not. I think the processor is probably faster in the wii and so is the ram, but the GPU without pixel shaders and no DD is a big letdown IMO.

BTW wikipedia is not a good source ;)

Ichiroisawsome

While the XCPU core is a coppermine, the cache is a paltry 128k just like the celeron. Now for some education. The Wii has a semi programmable TEV engine (just like the GameCube but with more flexibility), programmable T&L engine (the GameCube's was fixed) and a programmable shade tree blending engine (fully programmable just like the Xbox's pixel shaders but more advanced). So again what are you talking about Wii not having programmable pixel shaders?

The Wii does not have programmable shaders it uses texture blending same as what Geforce 2 did with vertex shaders. Earlier programmable shaders like the ones in the Xbox 1 would also do texture blending, but also had tex-address (texture addressing) ops & shadows 3-d tex. There was also programmable per vertex shading which is more than likely possible with the Wii since it allows for programmable per pixel lighting. IF wii had programmable shaders we would also know which version it would be just like we know Xbox 1 was SM1.4(technically PS1.1), PS3 is SM3.0, Xbox 360 is SM3.0+, Nvidia 6800 SM3.0, X800 SM2.0, etc. As for the Xbox 1 CPU as I already said it was a Custom P3 even if it did have less L2 Cache. it's FSB was twice that of the Celeron. Xbox CPU performance will be closer to a Pentium III than a Celeron. Celeron processors are greatly crippled by their low FSB speed. Plus it is an 8 way set on the L2 cache where as the Celeron was 4 way set. Who needs schooled now?