StreetsAhead
Member
Pikmin 3 makes no use of AA as far as I can tell from all the jaggies on my screen.
-
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.
WiiU "Latte" GPU Die Photo - GPU Feature Set And Power Analysis
- Thread starter Thraktor
- Start date
- Status
Pikmin 3 makes no use of AA as far as I can tell from all the jaggies on my screen.
Apophis2036
Banned
Yeah, there is no AA of any kind used on Pikmin 3 imo.
That new Mario looks super clean though !.
ArchangelWest
Member
There are 145 pages on this thread. If you're really looking for proof and not being a snide asscrack then: Congratulations, you found your way to the thread here at NeoGaf that shows it all!
Smurfman256
Member
MSAA is where the game takes samples from surrounding pixels near edges and uses data from those samples to smooth out jaggies. FXAA is essentially where the GPU searches out edges and just blurs over them. MSAA is more memory hungry, but looks nicer, while FXAA is less demanding, but can murder texture quality.
Fourth Storm
Member
Probably. Plus, MSAA would require larger buffers in the eDRAM, and if Shin'en are any indication, there are many other uses for the eDRAM that devs have probably chosen to exploit over performance-draining MSAA. As was recently noted in one of these tech threads, the industry seems to be moving towards improving shader based AA (FXAA, MLAA) techniques in order to maximize resources.
lightchris
Member
As an addition to that: MSAA is a hardware based feature which is supported by GPUs, while FXAA is pure software based post-processing, meaning that is applied after the image wholly rendered. This makes FXAA easy to apply to any game, indepent of the engine or rendering techniques (that's why you can even apply it retroactively on screenshots of games to see what they would look like with it). On the other hand it's not always that easy to make MSAA work nicely.
As for the quality, MSAA actually adds detail to the image by rendering parts of it at a higher resolution, while FXAA is just an approximation to real anti-aliasing.
Which is a bit sad in my opinion. It's not bad as a makeshift when the other option is no AA at all, but it can't replace traditional anti-aliasing. As general graphics of games improve, so should image quality which proper AA is an important part of.
The amount of resources that using that eats up is too much. No matte what the situation, I just don't see the point in implementing MSAA on a console. The resource it wastes could be using for more substantial content.
Nano Assault Neo does as well and we know how much of the Wii U's power that wasn't using.
Smurfman256
Member
not according to the jaggies on my screen, it doesn't.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
The problem with pure MSAA solutions is that they do little to attack two nasty issues which did affect Xbox 360 and PS3 games: surface aliasing (reflections, specular highlights, other shader based effects) and thin and long objects (power lines, cables, grass blades, tree branches, etc...).
A lot more effects are not simple texture layers mixed together, but include a lot of dynamically generated content or content transformed by shaders. This introduces aliasing that MSAA cannot cure: with MSAA you take several samples per pixel, but they all share the same color so they cannot do much about aliasing on surfaces for example.
lightchris
Member
Well it's a subjective matter of course. Maybe I'm still a bit spoiled, thinking back of the the years from 2001 to 2005 where >90% of PC games could be played with flawlessly working MSAA (also there were less shaders and thus less shader aliasing). But I think even on consoles image quality can be important, and it will get more important over time if you don't want all your high res expensive content to be held back by it. Maybe it's not yet the time, at least not for Wii U, but the future can't be post process-AA imo.
The bolded ones are only an issue when alpha testing is used, and even this can be solved by using alpha to coverage. You just have to do it right.
Other then that I agree that multisampling is not a perfect solution either, you'd need supersampling for that. What I've heard from developers though is that many problems with shader aliasing had its root on PS3/360 hardware and can be solved with the next gen consoles (can't elaborate on this further though, just telling what I picked up).
I got it from this quote from the games developers.
Shin'en said:
I still find it sad how people are quick to label everything bad on the Wii U like its the highest performance that the console will ever see
Its like saying Halo 3 and Gears of War 1 are the height of the 360's power. Better visuals then what we are seeing now will never surface over time on the console.
The console in is infancy with many "known" faults in the ability to properly use its hardware was showing better visuals then most 7 year experienced 360/PS3 games. Now here we are basely hammering at its ability to do AA.
I found a list of games and there visual performance taken from B3D though I question its accuracy do to it listing Nano Assault Neo as using no extra effects despite the devs stating otherwise.
http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1676919&postcount=5
For the record we have visual footage and confirmation from Shin'en that Nano Assault Neo had was initially running at 1080p with no problems. I've encountered many people who tried to use the fact that the final game wasn't in 1080p as some form of proof of incapability on the Wii U's part when it clearly isn't. I'd imagine all of the others faults people disparage the GPU have less to do with the hardware.
It's not saying it's using AA. Anyway AA isn't something you need developer confirmation on, if it's there you can see it. And there doesn't seem to be any:
http://i4.minus.com/iVFGsvrLHjxAY.png
Smurfman256
Member
Fueh? Where's this "visual footage?"
Apophis2036
Banned
Don't misunderstand me as I agree with you on a lot of what you say in this thread but I don't beleive there will be anything like the leap from Gears 1 to Gears 3 on WiiU or Uncharted 1 to Uncharted 3 for that matter.
Two main reasons -
1. Artstyle - Most Nintendo games use the 'cartoony' artstyle so seeing advancements in a single console generation is much harder when comparing to a realistic artstyle.
2. Budget - Halo 3 cost $55 million to develop, Halo 4 cost a reported $100+ million. Same for Uncharted, the original cost just $20 million with the sequels reported to have cost closer to $50 million.
Not only do development teams become far more competent with the hardware after some years but they also have much larger budgets to work with on sequels which also shows in the leap between titles, something I just don't think Nintendo are interested in.
Iwata himself said the following this year -
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/120127qa/04.html
"As we will showcase the Wii U at E3 in June this year, the detailed announcements must wait until then, but we are aiming to make a system which shall not be forced into competing with the others where the contenders can fight only with massive developer resources and long development times as their weapons. Having said that, however, as I mentioned, it is true that, in some software areas, we need to be engaged in the power games. Take The Legend of Zelda franchise, for example, the fans must be looking for the graphic representations that they do not see as cheap at all when the title is released for the Wii U. When it is necessary, we do not hesitate to role out our resources."
I don't want to take this thread OT but until Iwata leaves I can't see Nintendo ever matching the other consoles on tech or on software budgets. I really like the guy but part of me wants to see him step down in April so that we get a Nintendo console at least on par with XBO in Winter 2015/6.
Apophis2036
Banned
Maybe I'm going blind but I'm looking at that pic on a 36" HDTV and I can't see any jaggies ?.
Smurfman256
Member
I'm looking at it on a 24" 1920x1080 monitor and I can see PLENTY of jaggies.
DreadPirateRoberts
Member
They're most apparent (to me anyway) on the vines(?) to the right, and the rock to the left.
Apophis2036
Banned
Must be my eyes then or I'm just not as sensitive to graphical flaws.
Apophis2036
Banned
Yeah I see that now you point it out but I would never have noticed. Also doesn't the game run at 60fps ?, there is no way you would notice that imo during gameplay.
I need to learn to multi quote... sorry.
DreadPirateRoberts
Member
Yeah no, when i'm sitting across the room from my TV playing the game, it's not very noticeable, now if it were on my PC monitor two feet from my face...
also, i usually just edit the second quote into the first post.
As MSAA is a hardware feature (and has been around a long time), there isn't much "implementing" to do. Developers can choose to sacrifice the performance/memory to do it or not.
The "vines" are doubly aliased -- geometry stairstepping as well as shader-based specular aliasing. MSAA will fix the former, but the latter is much harder to fix, as any AA solution for shader aliasing needs to be temporally coherent as well.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can really miss how aliased those vines look. It's practically the pathological case for aliasing!
Smurfman256
Member
Is it just me, or does Wind Waker HD seem to be using some form of SSAO?
Look at the black halos around Link and Tetra (specifically, around their legs). That's usually a telltale sign of screen-space ambient occlusion (why they would want to USE IT, I have no idea since their is very little to be self-shadowed).
Look at the black halos around Link and Tetra (specifically, around their legs). That's usually a telltale sign of screen-space ambient occlusion (why they would want to USE IT, I have no idea since their is very little to be self-shadowed).
Is it just me, or does Wind Waker HD seem to be using some form of SSAO?
Look at the black halos around Link and Tetra (specifically, around their legs). That's usually a telltale sign of screen-space ambient occlusion (why they would want to USE IT, I have no idea since their is very little to be self-shadowed).
Yeah, though it doesn't really mesh with the art style.
It certainly looks to be quite bad implementation as well.
I wonder why they didn't use old school black/darkened circles under characters feet, it would have looked better.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
But those images aren't from the actual game. Is this visible in what they showed at E3?
Nintendo has stated an restated that they aren't trying to compete with them. Why would we need 3 of the same console?
Nintendo's goal is the same as it entered console market long before Iwata became president or was even employed there. They are targeting affordable hardware with ease of access. They compete with price and user friendliness, not specs. This is how it should be. One console offers a low cost. 1 console offers high specs. 1 console offer unique T.V. interfaces. They aren't suppose to be "on par" with each other. They are supposed to be unique. The PS3 and 360 have twisted people's view of gaming because they are so similar.
1st Their target is not the same as Microsoft's or Sony, so why would they want to make a console to be on "par" with them? Par as in how? In specs? There is a lot more to a console than specs. Let me let you in no a fact. In the history of gaming, the weakest console always strongest console has always sold the least and the weakest console has always sold the most.
2nd Secondly, the PS4 and XboxOne were nothing more than a fantasy at the time the Wii U was announced and the time it launched. How could Nintendo make hardware to compete with something that didn't even exist? There was no word on any new hardware from Sony and Microsoft. Also it wouldn't have mattered what Nintendo put in the console. The GPU in the PS4/XOne didn't even exist when the Wii U was announced and cost of technology on par with the current PS4/XbonOne at that time would have been much higher. The Wi U would have been 600 console at the least. It still would not have mattered what Nintendo put in the Wii U, because Microsoft and Sony would have still had all the time in the world to use more advanced technology that had just come at a lower cost.
Truthfully, you should thank Nintendo for the PS4/XOne launching at the end of the year with the hardware specs they have. To my knowledge, no major has ever launched in less than a year of its announcement in history. The Wii U forced Sony to get the PS4 and XboxOne faster than they normally would. They also both cop...adopted the Wii U's control setup straight from the start this time instead of 4 years in. The reason the PS4 and XboxOne are both using derivatives of he same GPU, the same CPU and the same amount of RAM is because that was best they could get for their money on such short notice. A lot people were claiming that this was just a new business practice for modern times, but it had more to do with the fact that they could not waste taking the time to custom build and refine parts like they have in the past. They absolutely had to use stock hardware. Every day that Wii U sat on shelves as both the strongest console and the only next gen console out was one more day of market share they would lose to it and they didn't want to risk Nintendo getting to far of an upperhand on them. There was no way of telling how the Wii U would fair at this point in time back at the start of the year. Heck, Sony announced the console without even having a console to show. That's just how much they were in a rush.
As far as Iwata goes. Nintendo has made more money from the hardware he brought in (the Wii, DS and 3DS) than they have made from all of their other hardware combined. He is the best thing that has ever happened to Nintendo. Why people hate this man so much is beyond my comprehension. The only thing I can think of is that they hate Nintendo so much that they want them to remove him stop being so successful. Last I checked, they posted a profit in all of their quarterly reports this year.
Do you know how many years Sony and Microsoft lost money on their console division? Do you know how many years Nintendo lost money on their console division? How many buildings has Nintendo had to sell to post positive numbers? How many people have they had to lay off?
It really makes no sense to me how Sony has been losing billions year on end but people choose attack Nintendo's gaming business practices when they have been steadily turning profit.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Nano+Assault+Neo+1080p
I'd imagine the footage wherever people keep old videos or old dev previews for the game. There were many videos showcasing Nano Assault Neo running at 1080p prior to launch.
How to people forget things so quickly. I thought this was common knowledge for anyone who following the console before its launch date.
Apophis2036
Banned
I don't think anyone is asking for '3 of the same console' but it would be nice as a Nintendo fan not to have to buy a PS or XBOX aswell as a Nintendo console just to play 95% of third party games. Now I'm not saying they would get full third party support had WiiU been on par with even XBO specs but it would be getting far, far more ports, esp come late 2014 when we start to see a lot of 'next gen only' titles arrive.
Much of the rest of your post is irrelevant to what I said and to this thread so I will leave it there with regards to quoting you.
I don't know how anyone can be happy with a 176GFLOP GPU, 2GB's of RAM and a Tri Core CPU based on a 2002 design console in 2013 though, esp one that costs just $50 less than a console which is at least 8x as powerful as it.
Hopefully Iwata leaves in April and we get a CEO who knows that for Nintendo to continue in the console hardware business, it needs to provide a console 'on par' with Sony and MS's consoles to have any chance of third party support. Until they do we will continue to get massive periods of software droughts between first party games on Nintendo consoles. It would be no different to if Sony or MS tried creating a console with no third party support.
The WiiU will have some fantastic games, of that there is no doubt but for the rest of it's life it's going to be gathering dust in my living room only to be started up three times a year when a big Nintendo franchise arrives, that is truly sad imo.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
more like they took the models out of the game and put them in windfall island for comparisons and such, but didnt fully add the artstye back in
Then link one.
The Jaguar was the weakest and put Atari out the console market.
The Dreamcast was the weakest and put Sega out the console market.
So maybe the weakest console that survives sells the most. Otherwise it cripples the company.
Nostremitus
Member
OFF TOPIC POST filled with personal opinion...
You know, if all of the people stating this sentiment had purchased a Wii U it would probably get the games... It's a self-fulfilling prophesy that nintendo doesn't get 3rd party support at this point...
It all comes back to Nintendo leaving a bad taste in consumers' mouths and making little to no effort in any attempt to fix the problem. It takes an advertising budget and the will to use it.
The Dreamcast was the stronger.
It was released in the same gen as the Saturn/N64/PSX. It is not part of the PS2/GC/Xbox1 gen. It didn't last long enough to be part of it. Not that I see what this has to do with the Wii U GPU.
Nostremitus
Member
Source?
Rushersauce
Banned
176GFLOP? Isn't that, like half of the GFLOPS of the WII-U?
Apophis2036
Banned
I don't agree, most of the people saying it were hardcore Nintendo fans, the same 3 million hardcore Nintendo fans that bought WiiU at launch. I don't believe sales are the issue with third parties anyway, the tech is the major stumbling block.
If WIiU was x86 based with even 4GB's of RAM and an 800GFLOP GPU it would have gotten games like BF4, Destiny and the rumoured 'next gen' version of GTA V imo.
Apophis2036
Banned
Lol what ?!.
Dreamcast was part of Gen 6 - DC/PS2/GC/XBOX. Talk about revising history to suit your point lol...
That's nothing but assumptions, hyperbole and blatant inaccuracies (the 8x thing is especially ridiculous). Also how can it cost $50 less than a console that isn't available yet? If WiiU still has that official price when these other consoles release then you can claim its just $50 less.
WiiU's GPU processing capability still isn't certain. He's just using the lowest possible interpretation, for obvious reasons when you read the rest of the post..
Apophis2036
Banned
PS4 is 10x more powerful than PS3 on paper, WiiU is commonly accepted as being 2x PS360 which means PS4 is 8x more powerful than WiiU.
'For obvious reasons' ?...
FIrst of all I'm a massive Nintendo fan, second of all I own a WiiU (have done since day one) and thirdly '176GFLOPs' has been pretty much settled on during the past 7000+ posts in this thread (if there is new info that points to it being more powerful then let's hear it ?).
Some people just can't except WiiU for what it is tbh after expecting so much in the speculation threads (IBM Power 7 CPU / 4GB's of RAM / 1TF GPU).
It is what it is and I'm sure there will be plenty of great games released for it but tech wise it reeks of a penny pinching Iwata lead Nintendo, laughable when you think how much cash they are sitting on...
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
Uncharted 2 budget was like 20 something, still one of the best looking games this gen. I would hope Nintendo could at least invest 20 million in a game.
Doesn't MSAA take it's samples from sub-pixel data, not surrounding pixels? Taking data from surrounding pixels is just another way of describing a blur filter like FXAA.
Nintendo makes console for first party development foremost, no point in creating a monster machine when the their teams have budget restrictions, Nintendo don't see the high budget AAA hollywood scheme as viable, so they create a machine that fit to this logic. I'd wish they would diversy its ip library as Sony, but it's something that's not in Nintendo's DNA.
Apophis2036
Banned
His point was WiiU will see the same kind of visual leaps as was seen between year one PS360 games and year 6 or 7 games. Uncharted 3, God of War Ascension, GT6, Last of Us and Beyond all cost far more than $20 million. You need a budget leap as well as experience using the hardware to get those kind of massive visual gains. I don't believe Nintendo will spend that kind of money on any game outside of Zelda.
They have actually spent $20 million on game development before, it was Twilight Princess.
That is correct and why people keep bumping this thread. They take any PR statement and try to twist it to match what they hope the wiiu to be...
Really these people have hurt the wiiu so much, people had been told it was around 1TF then at least 600Gflop, that is confirmed!... and so on. It was design to be on the same level as ps360 and that is what it is...
So if the Wii U got discontinued in 2014 you would consider it in the wiiPS3360 gen? Dreamcast was discontinued in 2002 after all the other consoles were released.
Wasn't it? Less RAM, processors clocked slower than Saturn, PSX, N64. Or maybe 3DO was weaker. Either way, things weren't great for the weak consoles.
Erm that's not how multiples work. Purely based on your assumptions not my own. If PS360 is 1 and PS4 is 10 and you have WiiU as 2 (2x PS360) then that means PS4 would be 5x WiiU (5x2=10).
No it hasn't been settled in the slightest. Its simply that everyone had put as much info and theory out as they could so things basically stopped on that score without a firm conclusion. We got to a range and that's as close as its going to be for a while IMO. I don't need to give you new info to point to it being more powerful when there was no info that was even close to being conclusive on its performance to begin with.
People have accepted WiiU isn't a super power long ago and I think I'm perfecty capable of understanding and accepting solid facts (WiiU's RAM bandwidth, lower than I expected but I accept its a fact). However that doesn't mean I have to agree on every aspect, especially when there is plenty of contradictory evidence.
You may be a Nintendo fan but that particular part of your post I quoted stunk of a dislike for something IMO, if not Nintendo then I suppose just WiiU itself.
Apophis2036
Banned
First bolded -
So What is the range if it's not 176GFLOPs ?, 200, 320 ?.
Second bolded -
I think you are reading far too much into my post just because it doesn't paint the console as some halfway house piece of tech that sits squarely in between PS360 and PS4/XBO, it's much, much closer to PS360 than it is to the two new consoles.
lostinblue
Banned
Your math sucks balls.
PS3 is 180 GFlops
X360 is 240 GFlops
PS4 at 1.84 TFlops is 10 times a PS3 alright, but... the ratio doesn't scale as you're implying it to in regards to something that doubles PS3/X360 performance.
If Wii U is/was 360/480 GFlops (double the aforementioned platforms) that means
(2xPS3) 360 GFlops x5 = 1.8 TFlops
(2xX360) 480 GFlops x3.8 = 1.824 TFlops
So, worst case scenario based on your citation is 5 times (big difference to 8x), best case scenario 3.8 times; if the Wii U was performing roughly double in regards to PS360.
But PS4 is not the lowest denominator of this gen, that'll be XBone (easily), so said difference for the lowest denominator could actually be
(2xPS3) 360 GFlops x3.4 = 1.224 TFlops
(2xX360) 480 GFlops x2.5 = 1.2 TFlops
Best case scenario 2.5 times, worst case scenario 3.4 times.
Starfish Hero
Member
You should know "Gflop" performance across generation of GPU cores does not scale like that. It how at 176 glfop wiiu gpu can out perform x360....
The range is 176/281/352.
Could you stop this "you can't accept it" line, it really got old in these threads a long time ago. I'm well aware it doesn't sit squarely in between 360 and PS4.
There's a big difference between not bigging up a console to something its not and posting a load of hyperbole and inaccuracies. If it wasn't deliberate then fine, it seems some of it just came down to some confusion on multiples.
Since you probably missed my edit (I edited my post above to reply to your edit) I'll post it here:
Ah I see, that's not how it would work, purely based on your assumptions not my own. If PS360 is 1 and PS4 is 10 and you have WiiU as 2 (2x PS360) then that means PS4 would be 5x WiiU (5x2=10).
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll