TacticalElefant's forum posts
[QUOTE="TacticalElefant"]In order to better understand the constraints of the Wii's limited graphics horsepower, I decided to do a bit of studying and research, albiet somewhat in a weird way. First of all, let me get started by explaining the supposed rumored specs of the Wii's graphics processor.
Broadway GPU:
243 MHz clock speed
2 Texture EnVironmental (TEV) Units
8 Pixel Pipelines
8 Texture Units (1 on each pixel pipe)...
RyanWare
I applaud you effort, but it really doesn't prove anything about the Wii. The Wii's architecture is completely different from that of your PC, and even if they were similar, your PC has a better GPU, CPU, and more RAM. Now, one could argue that with the Wii's lack of an operating system it can get by with fewer resources and similar results. There is certainly some truth to this, but even that can't save the Wii from its ancient hardware design. The Wii's hardware was designed around 8 years ago, because the truth is, it is essentially an overclocked GameCube. This means it lacks programmable pixel shaders (which have been in virtually every GPU since 2000-2001, including the Xbox's), which are what allow efficient use of effects like bump mapping, normal mapping, pixel shaders for realistic water effects, etc. The Wii is certainly capable of these effects, but it can't crank them out as efficiently and therefore its games cannot be coated in these effects like Call of Duty 2 is, and most games nowadays are. These effects can only be used sparingly in Wii titles, giving them an overall dated look.
If it weren't for this GPU design flaw, that hearkens back to when it was known as the "Flipper" GPU for the GameCube, then it's likely that many Wii titles would already look better than the best the Xbox had to offer.
Despite the lack of programmable pixel shaders, the TEVs allow for some still really nice effects when combined with the pixel pipelines. Games like Super Mario Sunshine especially were the poster child for what the Gamecube could do. It had extensive shader effects from the crazy looking sludge, to the reflective ponds in the inner island, and the extremely beautiful ocean water effect which despite lacking reflections is some of the most amazing water I've ever seen on any system. Those same processes could be used to create extensive and beautiful bumpmaps. To say that Super Mario Sunshine "sparringly" used such nice pixel shaders is a real understatement. Even the PS2 could crank out some nice effects with the right programming and effort. Remember, I wasn't shooting for an exact when using CoD2, I was looking for a target. I just decided to test out that target with PC hardware that despite having some extensive differences, have similar raw graphical output capabilities. And I even stated that major differences like APIs, true programmable pixel pipes and texture units and raster outputs would create some real differences in some areas and not much difference in others. Oh didn't I mention that CoD2 was still running at about 15 frames per second WITHOUT FSAA?
So yeah differences in CPU (PowerPC G3 Vs. Turion x86) and RAM as well as bus transfer speeds are something to consider, but there are ways around those with proper efficient programming. Everything from sheer lack of background resources to the availabiltiy of 2 x 32 bit SIMD processing. It's amazing what developers did with the limitations of the PS2 and GC and graphical powerhouses like God of War, Gran Turismo 4, Resident Evil 4 and Super Mario Sunshine. Give them three times the potential they had with the GC and then imagine how much more they could produce on screen. My only real qualm of worry is how developers would deal with 3 MB of texture and frame buffering on the Hollywood die even with really powerful compression software. Hopefully the actual system RAM can be used to alleviate this issue. 88 MBs is a great deal of memory to have in comparison to the Gamecube.
Things to take note of:
1) The rendering API was DirectX 9. Yes it's different from OpenGL used on the Wii, however, the test wasn't for APIs, but pure theoretical fillrates. The two APIs are pretty equal in what they can do and their efficiency. Just comes down to programmer optimization and CoD2 is pretty well optimized for the effects it uses, it's just that such effects need a good GPU to run good.
2) If such a weak GPU in a computer can run a shader intensive game like CoD2 at such framerates, then it gives me insight on how well the Wii could, and CoD2 is a pretty efficient game for what it displays. Maybe a better game to test would be Far Cry or Half Life 2 as they are arguably the most efficient games on the PC.
3) No, CPU calculations didn't come into regards, nor were the focus for this test. RAM tests are almost impossible to run as a Wii game would use dynamic loading.
4) While many of you think the game looks horrible, it looks so much better in motion where you would notice the insane amounts of bumpmapping much better. If you look in the background you can see soft shadows as well.
5) FSAA wasn't used in order to make the game more stable (anti aliasing is a b!tch no matter what the system). 640 x 480 resolution was also used, so you can't see all the detail in distance parts ("HD is worthless" MY BUTT)
My next tests will be with HL2 and Far Cry.
So this thread wasn't to say "Hey CoD2 is coming to Wii" but give a good but rough idea of what we can expect. And yes I do want a Nintendo Devkit, but it's very unlikely as they are so picky about sending them out to developers.
I'm fine with what the Wii is now, as it's untapped on the hardware side, even if the "theoretical potential" isn't all that high compared to other new consoles, yet still a major step forward of the Gamecube's abilities, which are quite good and in some cases on par with the Xbox.
Tactical-
i really appreciate your thread. although im a bit lost, it's nice to see somebody applying real understanding to the wii and giving informed analysis about one of the primary issues concerning the console. (graphics) if every TC on this site was as informed as you most people would have no idea what was going on.
On the other hand, what's with your last post. are you a wii hater?
benben04
Not a Wii hater really, actually I want to get my hands on a devkit. I think it's an interesting challenge to see how much can be pulled out from a console.
The wii was designed by smarter people than you. The reason it has low memory and low graphics processing is so the console could be small and run cool enough to stay on 24/7.
A full 128 MB of system memory wouldn't do much to increase the power usage of the system. In regards to the processing elements, you can increase power by making the architecture better and manufacturing the processors using a smaller process as well as other conducting technologies that require less voltage to pump electrons at a given clock speed. The Wii already has some heat issues with the tiny constraints inside. A bit more volume to the system would have been a good idea on Nintendo's part for heat management. That or laptop ****heatsinks would've been a good idea.
Videogames. Of course it's a never ending lust for more. That's how everything in this world is. 'Nuff said.I really disagree that "visuals are the most important elements of immersion". Showing me my own granny crawling out of the grave for RE5 wouldn't hold a candle to the "pong" of my racket going past my ear in wii sports. The wii is based on the idea that "more graphics!!" is a never ending lust for polygons that ends up in a stunningly rendered 3D vomitorium.
Well I'm pretty sure the PS3 Six Axis motion sensing was Sony cashing in on what Nintendo envisioned.1:1 responses to the players actual movements and more immersive media throughout the system are the future of immersion, and of gaming. look at the sale figures and know that Microsoft and Sony, if they get the opportunity to make a next-gen console, will include motion controls and additional media outlets to highten immersion as well as graphics. I hope the X-Box 720 will fit through the door of my house.
And like I said earlier, I like a challenge, and Wii is one of those. As far as graphics and the Wii go, I don't see why a really cool, but by no means revolutionary controller can't go hand in hand with nice, crisp visuals that become the initial part of the immersion process. Why should I have to choose between the two when I can have both? Doesn't mean graphics have to hyper realistic, but effective, and in some cases the more realistic the better. Frankly I think Nintendo could have put more capability in the little box considering the good profit they make on selling a console instead of losing money. It's their genius and our partial stupidity as well as gamble for buying a system with basically 7 year old technology. So I'm a bit dissapointed by that, but anxious and fascinated on how developers will make full use of the system in light of the processing powerhouses of today's PCs and HD consoles. Because come on, you can't beat a mouse and keyboard for FPS.
Log in to comment