Get that logical explanation out of here! It has no place in this thread!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Frostbite Technical Director on why Frostbite never came to Wii U
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Get that logical explanation out of here! It has no place in this thread!
You mean 1999 is not 1978? And 2013 isnt exactly 1999? Just in the same way that 2012 isn't exactly 1997, yes.
You make it sound as though taking an architecture originally designed to be single core running much slower than espresso on a much larger node is a trivial thing. For shame.
I'd say that kind of effort is right up there with marrying a couple jaguars to a Pitcairn, and making amd's strongest and most advanced APU to date. Not in terms of power, but in terms of end goal and engineering effort.
Different strokes for different folks! Or in this case an emphasis on low power consumption and backwards compatibility instead of raw power!
The point wsippel was trying to make, I think, is that the Wii u CPU being based on the 750cl isn't necessarily bad or even strange, because many of today's CPUs follow the same development path. My extremely powerful intel server CPUs that I'm managing as i type this have some stuff in common with the original pentium pro, and even more in common with the pentium 3. That doesn't invalidate them as "old tech". The goal set out by the engineer is the net result of many decisions. In this case, the Wii u CPU isn't weaker than jaguar because its based on the 750 or "cheap". It's weaker because of the emhphasis on power consumption (there are only 3) and backwards compatibility. The 750cl has evolved on Nintendo's dime to meet their current project's needs the same way the k7/k8 and the pentium pro/3 evolved to meet other CPU maker's needs.
ColdBlooder
Banned
The issue has propably more to do with EAs totally destroyed relationship with Nintendo than anything else.
Its alot easier blaming it on Wii U than the people that give you your work and fund your projects (Spoiler: EA)
Its alot easier blaming it on Wii U than the people that give you your work and fund your projects (Spoiler: EA)
What the hell are you talking about? You say the 750 line never evolved? That's factually wrong:
PowerPC 750 in 1997
PowerPC 750 CX in 2000 (reduced complexity, introduced L2 cache)
PowerPC 750 CXe in 2001 (improved FPU and bus)
PowerPC 750 FX in 2002 (improved memory subsystem, introduced L2 locking)
PowerPC 750 GX in 2003 (several performance improvements, bigger L2)
PowerPC 750 CL in 2007 (paired singles, L2 prefetch, L1d locking, extended instruction set)
The 750 CL is based on Gekko/ Broadway, which was quite heavily modified to meet Nintendo's needs. And we don't have to guess, just looking at Espresso makes it pretty damn obvious that IBM and Nintendo spent significant amounts of money and time on that thing. They moved it to a new process, made it multicore (the 750 line was completely unsuited for SMP), moved the L2 cache subsystem from the A2 line over, modified the bus and so on.
Nintendo had 7 years to make a system that could, at the very least, offer developers easy access to competitive current gen performance.
Making devs contort themselves to reach that level on 2012 hardware is a shame. What could or couldn't be done with a massive optimisation effort is besides the point, really. If you're coming this late with that level of hardware power, you cannot be demanding about developer effort. A certain level of performance with relatively little effort ought to be a given.
Making devs contort themselves to reach that level on 2012 hardware is a shame. What could or couldn't be done with a massive optimisation effort is besides the point, really. If you're coming this late with that level of hardware power, you cannot be demanding about developer effort. A certain level of performance with relatively little effort ought to be a given.
Horse Armour
Member
The problem comes from those decisions leading to there being no games. You can't play what doesn't exist.
Brad Grenz
Member
If they spent a lot of money on the CPU in the WiiU, they should ask for a refund.
They probably got it at walmart or something. You know how they are with open box items.
No... no.
This is pretty much mirrors my opinion on the matter. Nintendo really had to go out of their way to build a machine that's only marginally more powerful than a PS360 in this day and age. And they did. Now they are paying the price for those decisions.
No, it features one of those most power CPU's ever devised by man and a modern GPU with 2 GB of RAM. There is a conspiracy. No doubt about it.
dragonelite
Member
What level is the GPU in wiiu can it do gpgpu. Slower ram doesn't seem that good and a slower CPU also doesn't sound to well. If im not mistaken FB2 uses a software renderer for a depth test and occlusion culling so you need some good amount of bandwidth.
I reckon with the memexport function with uma you can do some gpgpu on 360.
You can do gpgpu functions on the spu on the ps3.
And to be honest as a big company i would probably also stop developing for wiiu with next gen on the corner. Dice is probably forced to make bf4 work for ps3 and 360 because user base of 150 million is just to big to ignore.
And the next gen console both will probably fly by the wiiu numbers fast.
As a gamer it does sucks but im waiting for price drop and new zelda to maybe jump in.
I'm starting to think Nintendo should sue third parties for discrimination and libel.
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
If I had to guess, I'd say there were a couple factors involved in DICE giving Wii U the finger. First off, we've got the rumours of the dev kits woefully lacking in documentation. Then consider the sales of the Wii U that are...not superb. Most likely, DICE had a go with FB2, realised the level of effort required to get it running acceptibly, and decided the effort: userbase ratio just didn't add up.
most wanted wasn't frostbite
i'm actually surprised they didn't sue sony over the name playstation when they had the chance. they should do it now. for them, litigation could be a profit center.
It isn't libel when it's true
You just painted a target on yourself buddy.
I'm not your buddy friend.
I just do a tactical retreat while you guys can continue to claim that the WiiU really is a next gen console. Despite every developer saying, 'meh'. Nintendo wanted a small console, that means very low TDP, that means, well, what you have gotten.
I'm not your buddy friend.
I just do a tactical retreat while you guys can continue to claim that the WiiU really is a next gen console. Despite every developer saying, 'meh'. Nintendo wanted a small console, that means very low TDP, that means, well, what you have gotten.
The Wii U is the most powerful 8th generation console ever released.
They probably did spend a good chunk of change on Espresso, but they designed with only Nintendo's needs in mind.
It looks from the outside that Nintendo developed a chip that would allow them to use all the experience, toolsets, and other assets that they have created over the last 10+ years working with the gamecube and wii. This is good for Nintendo, and yes Espresso has enough power for next gen Ninty games, and with lots of money and person-hours, anything else that could or will appear on ps360 including FB2/3.
But for other companies that do not have that Gekko/Broadway experience and cannot spend limited resources getting it, it is a horrible cpu for everyone except Nintendo.
Or to put it another way: If Sony released Cell v2.0 for PS4, all the experience and toolsets and investment that Sony paid for with Cell one could be used with Cell 2. But every other software maker on the planet would look at it and shake their heads, and start doing cost/benefit analysis wrt supporting it, and I'm sure there would be grumblings about Cell v2.0 being a horrible cpu.
Cell v2.0 would only have made sense if Sony didn't particularly care about 3rd party support or they believed that 3rd party support would be there regardless of what they did. Just like Gekko V3.0 only makes sense if Nintendo didn't particularly care about third party support or they believed it would be there regardless.
Truth. Although I don't consider them in the same generation as PS4 or 720, but lets agree to disagree on that and let's focus on how DICE says that the WiiU is weaksauce.
I'm not here to argue with trolls, not here to bash nor defend DICE. Just here to bring something sensible to the 'discussion,' if it can even be called that.
If they are talking about testing their FB2 engine(not even 3, but 2?) on Wii U, then I wonder how mature the system's software tools were at that time.
Criterion mentioned two main reasons why Need For Speed: MWU ran even better than PS360 versions, with PC textures and improved (night) lighting to boot.
One reason was: According to them, they didn't just take a look a the specs, did a premature analysis and walked away, but they tried to understand why the processors were weak/strong in certain areas and why, and then took advantage of the strengths.
The second - and most important to this discussion - was this:
Tools came up as one of the biggest reasons why NFS:MWU turned out as well as it did. I don't know to what extent DICE tested their engine on Wii U, but based on Criterion's comments, it's very UNLIKELY that proper tools were available at the time of testing. Also, whether or not DICE took Criterion's approach to Wii U's architecture (looking at what the processors are fast/slow at, and why) is anyone's guess, but they definitely couldn't have exploit the hardware's strength without the proper tools.
Anyway, it is what it is.
Carry on...
If they are talking about testing their FB2 engine(not even 3, but 2?) on Wii U, then I wonder how mature the system's software tools were at that time.
Criterion mentioned two main reasons why Need For Speed: MWU ran even better than PS360 versions, with PC textures and improved (night) lighting to boot.
One reason was: According to them, they didn't just take a look a the specs, did a premature analysis and walked away, but they tried to understand why the processors were weak/strong in certain areas and why, and then took advantage of the strengths.
The second - and most important to this discussion - was this:
Tools came up as one of the biggest reasons why NFS:MWU turned out as well as it did. I don't know to what extent DICE tested their engine on Wii U, but based on Criterion's comments, it's very UNLIKELY that proper tools were available at the time of testing. Also, whether or not DICE took Criterion's approach to Wii U's architecture (looking at what the processors are fast/slow at, and why) is anyone's guess, but they definitely couldn't have exploit the hardware's strength without the proper tools.
Anyway, it is what it is.
Carry on...
That all costs money, believe it or not. And looking at NFS sales, DICE may have made the more sensible choice in not pursuing it.
And I could be wrong, but NFS might not be the most CPU demanding game. Afaik the GPU is quite ok in comparison to PS360. It's just that the CPU isn't great.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Ouch.
lol "I dont consider"
Visualante2
Member
Tweet doesn't read any less bitter or jokey than GAF. Additionally it makes DICE look kind of bad if their engine doesn't scale that well in comparison to say, Fox Engine.
But to what extent is that just backwards compatibility with FB2...? Still goes back to the core issue that Frostbite never was on Nintendo platforms. Maybe it would be a different situation.
Epic is in the business of selling an engine to anyone who licenses it for any platform. That's their main source of income, and they have to match everything Crytek offers else they could potentially lose customers. They're also facing competition from Unity so again Epic is about scalability right now.
test_account
XP-39C²
This has probably already been mentioned, but the DICE guy never said that Frostbite wouldnt be possible on the WiiU. He only said that the initial tests werent promising, but that doesnt necessarily mean that the engine couldnt work on WiiU if they did more work on it and optimized it better for the WiiU hardware.
sleeping_dragon
Banned
I'm pretty sure the reason that is not on Wii U is because of the lack of RAM!
LiquidSolid
Member
Of course they didn't. Nintendo never released them. The process you described, where they had to figure out the intricacies of the hardware themselves, is what every Wii U developer has had to deal with. But a lot of developers don't have the time or budget to really figure it out, so you get bad ports or no games at all.
tkscz
Member
Which developer? Multiple devs have said multiple things.
Uhh WiiU has 4 times the amount of RAM ps3 and 360 have....
They probably could but that'd be a lot of R&D on EA's part who so far don't seem interested in pursuing Wii U.
I see I was misunderstood.
Plenty of people, including myself, have claimed that DICE don't care enough to port it - for money reasons, ROI or whatever. Very few people have claimed that it is some crazy malicious plot by EA.
It is possible that EA just don't see it as important enough to work on, nothing malicious about that. There clearly are one or two people hanging around who do believe something like that though:
Jeez, I even managed to get on the shitposts twitter. Maybe I should stop posting at 3am.
Yep, albeit slower. But that GPU thread shows that it isn't much of a problem.
prag16
Banned
Joke post?
Also, people need to stop pointing to main memory bandwidth as a crippling weakness. Not a SINGLE dev has complained, and all information points to the situation being FAR from as simple as "12.8 lulz". Until somebody can explain why it is slower in practice, this adds nothing. But nobody has done that, because nobody has a full understanding of how the totality of the memory system functions.
Most of those parotting the "slow RAM" bit undoubtedly realize this, so it's becoming very disingenuous at this point.
Did you also believe everything Maxis told you about SimCity?
That's a poor argument to counter a poor argument.
test_account
XP-39C²
Sure, that seems to be the case indeed. I ment it more as a reply to those who said that the WiiU wasnt able to run the Frostbite engine
Hen, meet egg. There are no 3rd party titles to care about in the first place.
Also my DS library is 70% 3rd party games, my 3DS library is 50%. I guess I'm not a Nintendo fan?
sleeping_dragon
Banned
Yes but PS4 has 8GB of very fast RAM.
And Frostbite 3 is on PS360 as well. The PS4 doesn't really factor into the discussion when you consider that fact.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Hen, meet egg. There are no 3rd party titles to care about in the first place.
Also my DS library is 70% 3rd party games, my 3DS library is 50%. I guess I'm not a Nintendo fan?
Definitive version of Need For Speed: Most Wanted -- sold like shit.
ZombiU, totally exclusive and for launch -- Nintendo fans en masse don't care, low sales.
Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate -- only selling to usual MonHun crowd.
Fact of the matter is, most people waiting on getting a WiiU are doing so because the new big Mario, Zelda, or Smash isn't out.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
It is in the midst of fading from this timeline.
I have a very funny feeling that "cross-gen" isn't going to last as long as we think it will. I wouldn't be surprised if during Fall 2014 lots of games are PS4/Durango/PC only. EA will certainly be "progressive" on this front, but I'm wondering what Ubisoft will do. Will they stay back and make cross-gen games, or will they go all in on "power."
Similar threads
- Poll