Support NeoGAF

[bomblord]

I would like to know this as well. I find the FLOPS units to be a very unreliable way to measure performance. I have 2x HD6850's in my PC and combined they produce 2976 GFLOPS (Source) but apparently the new PS4 is the greatest thing ever and it only produces 2000 GFLOP, so there must be a lot more to it than these numbers and I would love someone in the know to give an explanation of it.

Flops don't take into account fixed function hardware I believe and it also is a measurement of only one kind of operation. If someone finds a more efficient way to, for example draw a 3d object, you can increase the performance of a 3d engine even though flops are unaffected.

it's basically a measurement of the brute force of main computational unit in the piece of hardware.

 

[lwilliams3]

You do know that the 176GFLOPS theory is the same as the 160ALU theory you're using, right? 160ALUS at 550mhz = 176GFLOPS. You can't just compare the processor count of Latte to the XB1/PS4 GPUs when those GPUs are clocked higher. There's also little to be gained in taking efficiency figures that we have no context for (let alone invented ones) and making them a cornerstone of any comparison.

FLOPS are an imperfect metric. Without explicit information from developers about the hardware's capability or where the bottlenecks in their software were, we can't know if or how much of a role is played by memory, API, featureset or hardware efficiency in making the Wii-U perform better than the 360.

I honestly wanted to avoid using FLOPs due to the reasons you pointed out, but I admit that clockspeed was not factored in my original calculations. Perhaps that could be fixed by increasing my multiples with the Wii U vs the other consoles by 31%, but I can now see how things will get more complicated even if I try to narrow it down to a specific spec.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about high level system hardware but I do have some pretty good rudimentary computer knowledge so I hope I'm not completely off base when I ask this.

How can you have a more "efficient flop" isn't a flop a direct measurement of how many of a certain kind of calculation is performed in a set amount of time? If your doing the calculations more efficiently then they should be completed faster which would increase the total flops.

You don't, the efficiency in question is more about how much of the theoretical FLOP count is able to be consistently utilised.

I would like to know this as well. I find the FLOPS units to be a very unreliable way to measure performance. I have 2x HD6850's in my PC and combined they produce 2976 GFLOPS (Source) but apparently the new PS4 is the greatest thing ever and it only produces 2000 GFLOP, so there must be a lot more to it than these numbers and I would love someone in the know to give an explanation of it.

There is more to it, but why are you saying that because someone (who?) said the PS4 is the "greatest thing ever"? Your two GPUs combined have more processing power in their shader cores than the PS4's GPU. It doesn't mean they'll run next-gen ports for years to come without a hitch, but by that metric there's one advantage they hold (though I'm not sure how AMD's GCN FLOPS figures compare to VLIW).

FLOPS aren't the be all and end all, but you can't totally dismiss them, you have to put them in context. For a period, AMD's FLOP counts on their GPUs were known to be worth 'less' than the FLOP counts of nVidia GPUs which were outperforming them despite lower figures. If you're comparing, say the PS4 and the XB1, both of which have the same base architecture, the 600GFLOP discrepancy between them is a valid way of quantifying the gap in GPU processing power.

I honestly wanted to avoid using FLOPs due to the reasons you pointed out, but I admit that clockspeed was not factored in my original calculations. Perhaps that could be fixed by increasing my multiples with the Wii U vs the other consoles by 31%, but I can now see how things will get more complicated even if I try to narrow it down to a specific spec.

In this instance, comparing FLOPS is probably just as (in?)valid as comparing shader count, as the architectures are a (GPU) generation removed. It's sufficient to say that in terms of number crunching, the difference is pretty vast.

 

[spisho]

Rarely do FLOPS performance live up to boasts. Bragging about it is little more than marketing gimmick like Sony did with their 1.84 Tflops performance claim with the CELL. Sony lied their ass off and people ate it for breakfast.

When did this happen?

 

[krizzx]

When did this happen?

Oh, my mistake. It was 1.8 Teraflops for the GPU, which was even ludicrous as PS3's GPU wasn't even as strong as the 360s.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/05/16/e3-2005-ps3-tech-specs-2
It was 2 Tflops for total system performance. People actually believed that, and some apparently still do...http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=516032


I'd bet money that they are lying with the PS4 as well.

 

[NBtoaster]

It certainly could be, but it's not like 130k would be all that outlandish to begin with:


123k polygons. And yes, it's the ingame model.

It's obviously easier for a game like DOA5 to have extremely detailed characters than a game like Bayonetta. Less complex environments, no enemies etc.

 

[lwilliams3]

It's obviously easier for a game like DOA5 to have extremely detailed characters than a game like Bayonetta. Less complex environments, no enemies etc.

That model was used in Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor Edge.

 

[krizzx]

It's obviously easier for a game like DOA5 to have extremely detailed characters than a game like Bayonetta. Less complex environments, no enemies etc.

That is certainly true for last gen GPU's. The Wii U GPU is clearly stronger.

 

[spisho]

Oh, my mistake. It was 1.8 Teraflops for the GPU, which was even ludicrous as PS3's GPU wasn't even as strong as the 360s.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/05/16/e3-2005-ps3-tech-specs-2
It was 2 Tflops for total system performance. People actually believed that, and some apparently still do...http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=516032


I'd bet money that they are lying with the PS4 as well.

I wouldn't.

Pretty much everyone knew 1.8 tflops for RSX was a bullshit number used to counteract Microsoft's claim that Xenos was 1 tflop. It was a Geforce 7 based GPU for god's sake so it wasn't exactly hard to figure out. 1.84 tflops is pretty reasonable for a GCN GPU and it's easily over 8x more powerful than RSX, given that RSX was 160 gflops @500MHz and is inefficient compared Xenos, let alone to a modern unified shading architecture.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

8X? Those consoles aren't even 8X stronger than their last gen counterparts. I'd be stretching to say 3X which is about how much more capable the GC proved to be than the PS2.

Wait, are you saying the PS4/X1 aren't 8x stronger (PS4 is, X1 is probably 6x), but 3x? 3x more powerful than last-gen, that's what you're saying?

 

[krizzx]

Wait, are you saying the PS4/X1 aren't 8x stronger (PS4 is, X1 is probably 6x), but 3x? 3x more powerful than last-gen, that's what you're saying?

As far as pure output is concerned, I'd say 3 or 4 times. They defintely aren't 8X stronger than the Wii U like you are claiming though.

For the PS4 to be 8 times stronger than the 360, it would need to able to output 4 billion polygons per second(8X 500 Million), be capable of 4 TFLOP total system performance, have RAM capable of 160 GB/s and a GPU that has equal to 72 Ghz(8 x (3.2x3) hyper threaded performance.

Saying the next gen consoles are 4x stronger is pushing it hard.

The only thing in the next gen consoles that is a tremendous leap is memory capacity, but near half of that memory is dedicated to auxiliary console features.

 

[NBtoaster]

That model was used in Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor Edge.

If it is I really doubt it's used in gameplay. Though the environments in NG3 aren't exactly complex either.

 

[spisho]

Wait, are you saying the PS4/X1 aren't 8x stronger (PS4 is, X1 is probably 6x), but 3x? 3x more powerful than last-gen, that's what you're saying?

GPU-wise next gen is easily greater than 10x for the PS4 compared to PS3 on just pure flops alone, XBO is a little more than 5x 360 but comparing GCN to Xenos on pure flops doesn't take into account architectural improvements.

I'm also suspicious of the claim that GC was 3x more powerful than the PS2. ERP on B3D, who made games across all three consoles last gen, claimed GC was the worst performing last gen.

 

[JordanN]

Speaking of polygons, if Wii U is already doing a 130k character in what is suppose to be a technically "impressive" game, shouldn't that mean PS4/XBO will easily have 2x or more than that?

Edit:So far one game (Killzone Shadow Fall) is managing 40k characters. That's basically a Nathan Drake per character. Not sure how Bayonetta 2 can compete with this.

Tell me about it...72 GHz wtf?

He really said that? XD

 

[USC-fan]

As far as pure output is concerned, I'd say 3 or 4 times. They defintely aren't 8X stronger than the Wii U like you are claiming though.

For the PS4 to be 8 times stronger than the 360, it would need to able to output 4 billion polygons per second(8X 500 Million), be capable of 4 TFLOP total system performance, have RAM capable of 160 GB/s and a GPU that has equal to 72 Ghz(8 x (3.2x3) hyper threaded performance.

Saying the next gen consoles are 4x stronger is pushing it hard.

The only thing in the next gen consoles that is a tremendous leap is memory capacity, but near half of that memory is dedicated to auxiliary console features.

Lol

wow at this logic. Fucking nuts.....

 

[Barack Lesnar]

As far as pure output is concerned, I'd say 3 or 4 times. They defintely aren't 8X stronger than the Wii U like you are claiming though.

For the PS4 to be 8 times stronger than the 360, it would need to able to output 4 billion polygons per second(8X 500 Million), be capable of 4 TFLOP total system performance, have RAM capable of 160 GB/s and a GPU that has equal to 72 Ghz(8 x (3.2x3) hyper threaded performance.

Saying the next gen consoles are 4x stronger is pushing it hard.

The only thing in the next gen consoles that is a tremendous leap is memory capacity, but near half of that memory is dedicated to auxiliary console features.

You don't just multiply everything by 8 like that. PS4 is certainly 8x more powerful than 360. The X1 is around 6x I'd say. Saying 4x is pushing it is bologna. You don't multiply the numbers by X to figure it out. That's not taking into account the huge upgrades in efficiency from them having APUs.

GPU-wise next gen is easily greater than 10x for the PS4 compared to PS3 on just pure flops alone, XBO is a little more than 5x 360 but comparing GCN to Xenos on pure flops doesn't take into account architectural improvements.

I'm also suspicious of the claim that GC was 3x more powerful than the PS2. ERP on B3D, who made games across all three consoles last gen, claimed GC was the worst performing last gen.

That's what I suspected. I'm barely knowledgeable when it comes to hardware but I knew something was way off with Krizzx's post.

 

[Vermillion]

As far as pure output is concerned, I'd say 3 or 4 times. They defintely aren't 8X stronger than the Wii U like you are claiming though.

For the PS4 to be 8 times stronger than the 360, it would need to able to output 4 billion polygons per second(8X 500 Million), be capable of 4 TFLOP total system performance, have RAM capable of 160 GB/s and a GPU that has equal to 72 Ghz(8 x (3.2x3) hyper threaded performance.

Saying the next gen consoles are 4x stronger is pushing it hard.

The only thing in the next gen consoles that is a tremendous leap is memory capacity, but near half of that memory is dedicated to auxiliary console features.

This is the problem with using numbers like 4x or 8x to indicate power. It's talking about the whole, not the parts.

 

[spisho]

Lol

wow at this logic. Fucking nuts.....

Tell me about it...72 GHz wtf?

 

[Glorified G]

Lol

wow at this logic. Fucking nuts.....

Using multipliers usually is

 

[Barack Lesnar]

I really can't believe he just multiplied every number by 8. Does he post in here a lot?

 

[lwilliams3]

In this instance, comparing FLOPS is probably just as (in?)valid as comparing shader count, as the architectures are a (GPU) generation removed. It's sufficient to say that in terms of number crunching, the difference is pretty vast.

I used Aegies' "66% more efficient than 360's" statement as an attempt to calculate that difference out. While I'm aware that a solid answer may not be possible, is that number that off-the-mark when it comes to comparing 360's shader architecture to the GCN architecture?

 

[krizzx]

This is the problem with using numbers like 4x or 8x to indicate power. It's talking about the whole, not the parts.

Indeed. That was my point. That 8X claim has no factual grounding. Its all theoretical fan conjurations and I doubt the real world result will match.

No?

Compare this

to this

This is not 8X better.

We've gotten wayyyyy of topic though.

I think it will suffice to say that Latte will hold up well enough next gen. We know it can do this baseline http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2Nsa06KRLo and that is defnitely next gen. I'd rank the Wii U to the PS4 as I would rank the PSX to the N64.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

That's a 1080p shot of PS3 Infamous (the game was 720p or less). It's also a screenshot, not a video where you can really see the difference. PS4 Infamous is also a launch title.

I think it will suffice to say that Latte will hold up well enough next gen.

I think it's safe to say it won't, not even close.

We know it can do this baseline http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2Nsa06KRLo and that is defnitely next gen. I'd rank the Wii U to the PS4 as I would rank the PSX to the N64.

Wow...

 

[JordanN]

Krizzx is trolling yallz.

Just look at the Killzone slide. Six 2kx2k textures. There's more detail in one hand than the entire Killzone 3 characters.

And PS4 is just getting started...

 

[Silent_Ocarina]

I think it will suffice to say that Latte will hold up well enough next gen. We know it can do this baseline http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2Nsa06KRLo and that is defnitely next gen. I'd rank the Wii U to the PS4 as I would rank the PSX to the N64.

That's not even a game. I don't know how you can come to that conclusion when we haven't even seen what these machines are capable of. You downplay the advancements going from Infamous to Second Son, yet you can claim definitively that the tech demo is next-gen. This is all very subjective, and I doubt I can convince you to see things the way I do, though.

 

[lwilliams3]

If it is I really doubt it's used in gameplay. Though the environments in NG3 aren't exactly complex either.

My impression is that the model is the gameplay version. There was a nice discussion about this in the beyond3d thread it came from.

Speaking of polygons, if Wii U is already doing a 130k character in what is suppose to be a technically "impressive" game, shouldn't that mean PS4/XBO will easily have 2x or more than that?

So far one game (Killzone Shadow Fall) is managing 40k characters. That's basically a Nathan Drake per character. Not sure how Bayonetta 2 can compete with this.

There are some things to note:

- That polygon count for NG3: Razor Edge is for one character. The other enemies on screen and the environment would likely not be nearly as detailed.

- Team Ninja makes models mostly out of pure geometry instead of using normal maps. Normal maps uses resources, so the team doing that saves them some power to push higher polygon-count models. (on a related note, they were able to push the model for Samus in Other M to over 15k.. on the Wii. )

- The PS4's raw tri-setup is only a little more than 3x the Xbox 360, so I wouldn't expect polygon counts to go up exponentially this generation.

- The models for Killzone: Shadowfall has high-quality normal maps and other effects going on with them, and there can be a number of them on-screen. That is a major difference to what was going on in NG3.

 

[krizzx]

That's not even a game. I don't know how you can come to that conclusion when we haven't even seen what these machines are capable of. You downplay the advancements going from Infamous to Second Son, yet you can claim definitively that the tech demo is next-gen. This is all very subjective, and I doubt I can convince you to see things the way I do, though.

I did nothing that you just claim.

You say I downplayed the jump from Infamous to Infamous second son. That is a lie. I simply said it is not 8X better.

The Japanese garden demo was a game that was running on the Wii U hardware.. You could interact with it, which you can see if you actually watch the video. It just not a retail game on shelf. That does not change the fact that the Wii U produced it.

This has gotten far enough off topic. I am not going to debate what Sony fans believe the strength of the PS4 is as that would be a waste of effort. I'm only countering an unfounded claim, that the PS4 is X8 stronger than the Wii U. I seriously doubt that.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

I did nothing that you just claim.

You say I downplayed the jump from Infamous to Infamous second son. That is a lie. I simply said it is not 8X better.

The Japanese garden demo was a game that was running on the Wii U hardware.. You could interact with it, which you can see if you actually watch the video. It just not a retail game on shelf. That does not change the fact that the Wii U produced it.

This has gotten far enough off topic. I am not going to debate what Sony fans believe the strength of the PS4 is as that would be a waste of effort. I'm only countering an unfounded claim, that the PS4 is X8 stronger than the Wii U. I seriously doubt that.

I'm not even a Sony fan, well I am a fan but I'm a fan of Microsoft just as much. Your posts are just so out there I had to comment.

 

[krizzx]

I'm not even a Sony fan, well I am a fan but I'm a fan of Microsoft just as much. Your posts are just so out there I had to comment.

My post are in response to yours. Your post is the one that was out there with the 8x claim. I do not get why people keep coming into this thread for not other reason than to disparage the Wii U.

This thread is about analyzing the Wii U GPU, but every time someone points out where a Wii U game exceeds a last gen game, here come angry fans trying to dismiss it either by making some arbitrary claim of the 360/PS3 being able to do it as well despite all details to the contrary with no real supporting facts or flipping the argument to thePS4 even though it was never being argued that it was not stronger than the Wii U by anyone. Jordan is notorious for this. Especially the latter. Just look above. What does Killzone 4 have to do with the Wii U or any game on it? How does that further progress this discussion?

Will you please take your console war arguments somewhere else? I'm trying to make progressive contributions to the actual topic. I'm still waiting to see some from you.

 

[JordanN]

What does Killzone 4 have to do with the Wii U or any game on it? How does that further progress this discussion?

You were trotting Bayonetta 2 as a measure of Wii U's power. I used Killzone 4 to test your claims.

What in the world does this have to do wtih Bayonetta's triangle count in Bayonetta 2?

I was shooting down this.

I think it will suffice to say that Latte will hold up well enough next gen.

If that was a statement, it was served with another statement.

 

[krizzx]

You were trotting Bayonetta 2 as a measure of Wii U's power. I used Killzone 4 to test your claims.

I used facts to demonstrate the Wii U GPU's capability by using the previous Bayonetta on the last gen consoles as metric to help guess the Wii U GPU's performance.

You used Killzone 4 to show off what the PS4 can do in hopes that it would dwarf my claim for lack of a way to dismiss what I presented using actually relavent data(last gen as compared to the Wii U) like this is some fanboy spec war. How Killzone 4 relates to anything I stated is beyond me.

"Just look at the Killzone slide. Six 2kx2k textures. There's more detail in one hand than the entire Killzone 3 characters. " What in the world does this have to do wtih Bayonetta's triangle count in Bayonetta 2?

 

[antonz]

GPU-wise next gen is easily greater than 10x for the PS4 compared to PS3 on just pure flops alone, XBO is a little more than 5x 360 but comparing GCN to Xenos on pure flops doesn't take into account architectural improvements.

I'm also suspicious of the claim that GC was 3x more powerful than the PS2. ERP on B3D, who made games across all three consoles last gen, claimed GC was the worst performing last gen.

ERP must have been smoking some good shit then when he was developing games last gen. Gamecube was vastly superior to the PS2 and could stand toe to toe against the Xbox in many cases though certain weaknesses meant it couldn't 100% of the time

 

[Easy_D]

Indeed. That was my point. That 8X claim has no factual grounding. Its all theoretical fan conjurations and I doubt the real world result will match.



This is not 8X better.

We've gotten wayyyyy of topic though.

I think it will suffice to say that Latte will hold up well enough next gen. We know it can do this baseline http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2Nsa06KRLo and that is defnitely next gen. I'd rank the Wii U to the PS4 as I would rank the PSX to the N64.

It's an open world title. The graphical boost isn't going to show itself in a close up shot like that.

Edit: Whoah, Other M Samus was 15k polygons?

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

You were trotting Bayonetta 2 as a measure of Wii U's power. I used Killzone 4 to test your claims.

Looks like Guerrilla used a large portion of they're polygon budget on the environment. Its just a difference in priorities.

 

[antonz]

Looks like Guerrilla used a large portion of they're polygon budget on the environment. Its just a difference in priorities.

Its a corridor shooter for the most part. That's how they are designed. Environments made to look spectacular because the corridor is the eyecandy

 

[spisho]

ERP must have been smoking some good shit then when he was developing games last gen. Gamecube was vastly superior to the PS2 and could stand toe to toe against the Xbox in many cases though certain weaknesses meant it couldn't 100% of the time

Eh, let's drop this discussion because even though it gets brought up a lot in here it's OT. In addition to that, if the claims of a developer who's worked on all three last-gen platforms doesn't convince you, nothing said in this thread will.

 

[JordanN]

Looks like Guerrilla used a large portion of they're polygon budget on the environment. Its just a difference in priorities.

We're talking two different sets of hardware though where the far weaker one is supposedly pushing 3x the detail than what the more powerful one is doing. They [KillZone] should be able to have both higher poly characters and a detailed environment in theory. Unless there's something about Bayo2 that I'm missing (environments and characters are super weak? But others said it was also "impressive").

 

[krizzx]

Eh, let's drop this discussion because even though it gets brought up a lot in here it's OT. In addition to that, if the claims of a developer who's worked on all three last-gen platforms doesn't convince you, nothing said in this thread will.

I go by facts. "A" developers claim means nothing. A good developers claim means a lot more. There were "developers" that claimed the GC was incapable of texture effect like bump mapping and that it couldn't do bloom. But it did it in launch games. Only the PS2 was incapable of those things that gen.

Fact
Rebel Strike on the Gamecube pushed 20 million polygon at 60 FPS with dynamics shadows, advanced lighting, bump mapping, 100s of individual A.I. enemies on screen at once, destructible environments.

Fact, the highest polygon account ever achieved in a real PS2 game was 10 million polygons and the game ran at a around 25 FPS at that point.(it was one of the Jak games I believe).

Fact, highest polygon count ever achieved in the in a real Xbox1 game was 12 million at 30 FPS.

The highest achieved is what the console strength is measured by, not the lowest. Any game on any console can have problems even when running a port from a weaker system. Nintendo consoles are the only ones I see people trying to define by their worst demonstrations.

You can find a thousand ports that have issues on the Wii U. They will be just that. Ports with issues.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

This thread is hurting my head..lol

 

[lwilliams3]

As far as pure output is concerned, I'd say 3 or 4 times. They defintely aren't 8X stronger than the Wii U like you are claiming though.

For the PS4 to be 8 times stronger than the 360, it would need to able to output 4 billion polygons per second(8X 500 Million), be capable of 4 TFLOP total system performance, have RAM capable of 160 GB/s and a GPU that has equal to 72 Ghz(8 x (3.2x3) hyper threaded performance.

Saying the next gen consoles are 4x stronger is pushing it hard.

The only thing in the next gen consoles that is a tremendous leap is memory capacity, but near half of that memory is dedicated to auxiliary console features.

While I don't like how this thread has been derailed by this post, the criticism about your post is somewhat valid. You can't just multiply things like you did, especially when you consider different architecture and design. That is the same type of reason why some posters honestly believe the Wii U is much weaker than the 360.

 

[Ryoku]

In the past few pages, polygonal output alone determines the power of the GPU. Guys, there is much, much more than just polygons that the GPU has to work for. These areas, such as post processing, AA, resolution, texture resolution, bump mapping, etc, etc. also matter.

Sure, Bayonetta's model may push 130k polygons vs Helghastdude's 40k. But the PS4 is also running the game at 1080p, probably a more detailed environment, probably more AA, and other eyecandy to boot. Why is that so hard to accept as a possibility?

EDIT: And for those who believe PS2 was more powerful than GCN, get your head checked.

 

[krizzx]

While I don't like how this thread has been derailed by this post, the criticism about your post is somewhat valid. You can't just multiply things like you did, especially when you consider different architecture and design. That is the same type of reason why some posters honestly believe the Wii U is much weaker than the 360.

The claim I was responding to and JordanN trying to downplay the Bayonetta to Bayonetta 2's comparison is what derailed the thread. I did not say those were factual numbers. It was an analogy of the performance that he was saying the system had.

I said the PS4 would need to have performance "equivalent" to that, not those actual real world specs.

In the past few pages, polygonal output alone determines the power of the GPU. Guys, there is much, much more than just polygons that the GPU has to work for. These areas, such as post processing, AA, resolution, texture resolution, bump mapping, etc, etc. also matter.

Sure, Bayonetta's model may push 130k polygons vs Helghastdude's 40k. But the PS4 is also running the game at 1080p, probably a more detailed environment, probably more AA, and other eyecandy to boot. Why is that so hard to accept as a possibility?

EDIT: And for those who believe PS2 was more powerful than GCN, get your head checked.

No one ever said otherwise. That was a mute argument from the beginning brought up purely by JordanN for reasons I cannot fathom. That is a single person. No one else is trying to debate Killzone vs Bayonneta.

 

[JordanN]

Sure, Bayonetta's model may push 130k polygons vs Helghastdude's 40k. But the PS4 is also running the game at 1080p, probably a more detailed environment, probably more AA, and other eyecandy to boot. Why is that so hard to accept as a possibility?

I'm more interested in how a game is doing more work than 99% of other games out there while still being considered "impressive" on substantially weaker hardware unless again, Bayo2 operates within certain perimeters (i.e bad or sectioned off environments) or simply, the model was never a game to begin with.

1080p and AA can take a backseat in this.

 

[Blades64]

This thread has certainly gotten out of hand lately...

What's with the attacking of each other?

 

[krizzx]

This thread has certainly gotten out of hand lately...

What's with the attacking of each other?

Its nothing new. Some people refuse to acknowledge any gains made by Nintendo owned hardware over hardware made by companies they like more. That is almost always the cause.

Someone suggests a game/feature on the Wii U shows improvements over the last gen. Someone comes in for no other reason than to downplay/dismiss it by whatever means necessary. Expect this thread to explode with people downplaying graphics and performance of the Wii U when e3 comes and the more advanced Wii U games are shown off.

Many people want the worst ports on the Wii U to be the absolute measurement of its maximum capabilities for some reason.

 

[flattie]

Edit: Whoah, Other M Samus was 15k polygons?

Those character models were certainly impressive (especially Samus), but it clearly came at the expense of the environments which were basic/unimpressive to say the least, barring a couple of nice reflective surfaces. Even then, the framerate became janky in any zone that was not a corridor.

 

[ArchangelWest]

So...

Wii U = PS2
Xbox One = GameCube
PS4 = Xbox

Wii U = Dreamcast

Xbox One = Xbox

PS4 = Wii

 

[Ryoku]

I'm more interested in how a game is doing more work than 99% of other games out there while still being considered "impressive" on substantially weaker hardware unless again, Bayo2 operates within certain perimeters (i.e bad or sectioned off environments) or simply, the model was never a game to begin with.

Seeing one character model @130k polygons (which may not even end up in the game) is considered doing more work than 99% of other games out there? It's up to the developers to dictate how polygons are distributed within the game. And again, there is much more going on than just rendering polygons.

I don't get what you're asking, exactly. I'd ask you to be more clear, but I feel as if my previous post already answered this.

 

[JordanN]

Seeing one character model @130k polygons (which may not even end up in the game) is considered doing more work than 99% of other games out there? It's up to the developers to dictate how polygons are distributed within the game.

I don't get what you're asking, exactly. I'd ask you to be more clear, but I feel as if my previous post already answered this.

My whole question hinges on the claim the model is ingame while remaining technically impressive.

How many other games have 130,000 poly characters that are not PC/PS4/XBO?
http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=43975

 

[krizzx]

Those character models were certainly impressive (especially Samus), but it clearly came at the expense of the environments which were basic/unimpressive to say the least, barring a couple of nice reflective surfaces. Even then, the framerate became janky in any zone that was not a corridor.

Basic and unimpressive environments?

As for frame rate, i don't remember having lot of issues with expect in few areas and a lot of those were corridors.


Back to he GPU. Where do the rest of the analyst stand on the dual graphics engine setup? Is it a hit or miss?