Take a look at the lower right corner. The battle takes place over a huge, realtime rendered city. There's a lot of detail in the background.You mean this?
The polycount on the model doesn't appear to be particularly high. You can see it's silhouette isn't very rounded, and the design; jagged back, sharp teeth and spikey features are quite cuductive for a model that looks complex but has low polycount.
-
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
Indeed.
Then there is also the detail in the enemy such as its teeth, its tongue, the actual effects going on are larger in scale and more detailed. The battle is faster paced with more animations.
And of course, the textures are much higher resolution.
The only similarity between that and the Bayonetta shot are that the enemies are both big. That's a terrible comparison. Everything else is a far below what was going on in Bayonetta 2.
Just the polygons in the main character model are miles apart. 130k+ for Bayonetta in case you don't remember.
You know, I never noticed before but the water is reflecting the background.
How many polygons and animations did Kratos have again, and at what frame rate?
http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/6683.html
It gives us a rough idea of how powerful this system is especially when compared to 7th generation tech. So can it handle those GOW bullshots with that IQ? Or would sacrifices need to be made? If it can handle those bullshots, then how much more powerful is it from the 7th generation?
The ps3 can't handle gow bullshots. That's why they're bullshots
But as we've seen before the buildings are quite simple:
And Bayonneta is certainly not 130k polygons in gameplay, that's horribly inefficient. There would be so many sub pixel polygons (at 720p and the amount of camera space she typically takes up) that the majority of them would not translate into visible detail.
So I guess "one" of the hundreds of variable buildings and other objects in the background not all being the most detailed in gaming history dismisses the entirety their existence.
Its still more detailed than the ground in this pic, even taking into account that this is a bullshot from a game running at half the frame rate http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/6683.html of Bayonetta 2. http://i.imgur.com/WIHkEXk.jpg
What are you going to nitpick from this one?
Those are some nice plants beside the river by the way. Didn't notice those before, or the shadows they are casting.
Weaker? That is not true. The gamecube was actually technically stronger in a lot of areas, primarily its polygon pushing capability, faster memory/disc speed and it ability to run mulitple shading effects as a low cost.
The Xbox1 was simply much easier to develop for, and it was easier to produce higher quality games for most devs since it pretty much used PC hardware and offered the storage potential higher memory volume.
The game that holds the 6th gen record for the highest polygon count achieved is a Gamecube game.
Smurfman256
Member
Is it just me, or for the size of Bayonetta herself onscreen, does her poly-count look needlessly high?
They are bullshots due to what exactly? IQ right? Super clean etc. So again, can the Wii U produce that? I mean, I bet the PS4 won't have trouble. But what about the Wii U?
There's nothing on WiiU that restricts use of MLAA.
Of course they are. They have to be, because there are so many of them. Most buildings in Shadow Fall would look exactly the same if viewed up close. In the particular scene you posted, that background is visible for about 0.1 seconds as you're speeding by at several hundred kph, so adding more detail, even if the system could handle it, would be a waste of resources.
So I guess "one" of the hundreds of variable buildings and other objects in the background not all being the most detailed in gaming history dismisses the entirety their existence.
Its still more detailed than the ground in this pic, even taking into account that this is a bullshot from a game running at half the frame rate http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/6683.html of Bayonetta 2. http://i.imgur.com/WIHkEXk.jpg
What are you going to nitpick from this one?
Those are some nice plants beside the river by the way. Didn't notice those before, or the shadows they are casting.
Plenty to nitpick.
The red effect from her kick is quite low res (see the petals)
A close examination of her shadow reveals some lacklustre shadow filtering (similar to MGSR)
The reflection is likely a static cubemap (its not reflecting anything on the side of the water)
The plant shadows appear to be baked like other parts of the environment.
I think it's a really bad press shot too, the scene has horrible readability.
Of course that God of War shot isn't that impressive either, there are better shots to take of that scene.
I do agree.
I mean the shot looks nice, but yeah nothing that impressive. The plants seem like simple billboards, but most plants are in any game.
In my opinion.
Who think the graphics & Animations better like me in the video below?
Ryse
http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_ryse_son_of_rome_gc_gameplay_2-30620_en.html
Bayonetta 2
http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_bayonetta_2_e3_showfloor_gameplay-30254_en.html
God of war 3
http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_god_of_war_3_trilogy-14649_en.html
In gameplay.
Bayonetta 2 > God of war 3 > Ryse
In Cut sense.
Ryse> Bayonetta 2>God of war 3
It's depend on the developer we all know Xone stronger than PS3,Wii U .
Edit:
Updated
Who think the graphics & Animations better like me in the video below?
Ryse
http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_ryse_son_of_rome_gc_gameplay_2-30620_en.html
Bayonetta 2
http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_bayonetta_2_e3_showfloor_gameplay-30254_en.html
God of war 3
http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_god_of_war_3_trilogy-14649_en.html
In gameplay.
Bayonetta 2 > God of war 3 > Ryse
In Cut sense.
Ryse> Bayonetta 2>God of war 3
It's depend on the developer we all know Xone stronger than PS3,Wii U .
Edit:
Updated
You're placing very heavy weighting on animations there.
At first I was wtf, but much of the video is GOW2 lol.
Broken Hope
Member
I'm fairly certain that if the Gamepad is just mirroring the primary screen it's not having to use any extra resources to display, just like on my PC if I mirror my screen it doesn't suddenly drop my framerate, games where the Gamepad is showing a completely different thing though like some multiplayer games do then sure, but not just simple mirroring.
airmangataosenai
Member
This is a common trick in games, the city is nothing more than simple blocks with a flat texture, this sort of environment is very easy for the game to render.
It gives an epic feel for an aerial fight for sure but it is nothing technically impressive.
The_Intruder
Member
The first bayonetta model is 60000 polycounts ingame with guns(if I remember correctly), i don't see why the bayonetta 2 model cannot be 130000 polycount ingame with guns (again), the wiiu has more raw power...
w1gglyjones
Member
Constantly comparing the graphical fidelity of PS4 or XB1 games to Wii U games detracts from discussing the potential of the Wii U, IMO. The same can be said about constantly comparing it to PS360. Note that I say emphasize constantly because of course it makes sense to draw comparisons.
That being said, framing the discussion around "is it more powerful than PS360?" and "yeah, but it's no where close to PS4/XB1" kind of sucks.
Another worthwhile discussion that I rarely see happening is that of: Wii U games have come in a spectrum of graphical fidelity... 1) so how complicated is it for devs to get the most out of the hardware 2) and what is the hardware capable of when there is very little effort put into a port.
Between developing for the GC/Wii and 360/XB1, I can't see how devs would have a hard time taking advantage of the Wii U hardware... or am I wrong?
That being said, framing the discussion around "is it more powerful than PS360?" and "yeah, but it's no where close to PS4/XB1" kind of sucks.
Another worthwhile discussion that I rarely see happening is that of: Wii U games have come in a spectrum of graphical fidelity... 1) so how complicated is it for devs to get the most out of the hardware 2) and what is the hardware capable of when there is very little effort put into a port.
Between developing for the GC/Wii and 360/XB1, I can't see how devs would have a hard time taking advantage of the Wii U hardware... or am I wrong?
That blanket statement makes no sense. It depends on how dense and detailed the buildings are, and they're quite dense and detailed in this particular case.
That city probably has same number of polygons as enemy character.
Exactly, they look better, while rendering on 1080p on the old 7th generation consoles. How they move has no relevance to performance. My point still stands then, those two consoles couldn't' dream of doing something like Halo 4 or TLoU at 1080p, but since Injustice is a fixed world size there is less for the hardware to do.
"Dynamic and alive" backgrounds are missing my point entirely. Everything in a smaller space has less total detail than a large open world game, does it not? I don't think the failure of communication is on my side, since you both seem to be playing into my point?
And I don't know if one of the above posts was directed at me, but I'm certainly not in the camp trying to make it seem weaker than the PS360. I'm just saying even those old now-weak consoles can do a fixed size side scroller at 1080p, which confirms those games are easier to render at higher resolution. This is not rocket science.
lostinblue
Banned
Not really as Nintendo really did hit a jackpot then.
GC managed to pull more polygons per second by a great margin and being a texturing beast; something XBox really wasn't (and could only pass 4 textures per pass vs GC's 8).
Because in the end that was something developers really wanted/needed, it literally made it so that throughout the generation Xbox was stuck doing the "polygon trick"; which is rendering the scene twice just so it can manage to match the 8 textures per pass GC did for free.
It meant that they were halving the already lower attainable polycount; which is why Halo 1 was a 10 million polygon game and then Halo 2 actually had less polygons going on just so it could have bump mapping on every surface.
It also didn't have dedicated memory for framebuffer and texture cache and that made it so that it had to "fish" for it on the main memory bank, framebuffer alone would amount to 8 MB at all times, in the end it still had more memory to work with but it had much higher latency and bottlenecks going on; the whole multipliers balancing act really paid off on Gamecube in making it efficient just so it didn't have to wait or loose cycles waiting for stuff.
Of course both platforms had advantages and disadvantages, for instance Gamecube did EMBM basically for free (used on every surface in Mario Galaxy) and that would be preferable to use on it than DOT3 (which I reckon was an incomplete implementation too); with Xbox it was the contrary, the type of bump mapping that would be cheap for GC would be hefty for it, and vice versa, so one had to take that into account. Xbox also had some problems with stuff like transparencies; they were pricey on it.
Then again, Xbox was a home PC GPU, so it was actually designed to go over 480p (and it did); AA was also easier to pull since despite loaning RAM from the main bank, it had more of it. Feature set was also more modern and documented, but the GC was hardwired to match a lot of those features on the cheap anyway; for anyone that wanted to loose their time on it, that is.
I definitely wouldn't say Xbox was the most powerful; that was the notion back then (helped by Microsoft itself, as it has been said that they gave developers incentives just so their version of the game in multiplatform was better; which would make sense, otherwise why would they bother? they don't bother today and certainly didn't bother on GC a lot of the times despite there being scenarios where PS2 was 30 fps, GC being based on it was 60 fps with better water, and then you had the Xbox version which was the prettier but stuck on 30 frames per second again) and it certainly did have more expensive parts going on, yes, but Gamecube certainly was doing more with less to the point of saying that whatever was there on paper for Xbox didn't really apply to the real-world scenarios; or surpass those of Gamecube on a steady principle.
Blimey, my comment about the PS3 and 360 melting was obviously tongue-in-cheek, hence my clarification afterwards saying that they would slow to a crawl. Jeez...
But my point still stands, Bayonetta 2 (amongst those other games I listed) should be considered a 'generation apart' or 'next gen' because they're impossible to produce on last gen's hardware. The Gomorrah boss in particular looks like it could be a candidate for tesselation, the game is running at a solid 60fps and v-synch is enabled. There's absolutely no way that RSX or Xenon can reproduce that even with the cityscape missing. Take away the v-synch and drop it to 30fps without the buildings and you may have a shot, but then you still may need a fixed camera to be able to see anything other than a screen tearing clusterfuck.
But my point still stands, Bayonetta 2 (amongst those other games I listed) should be considered a 'generation apart' or 'next gen' because they're impossible to produce on last gen's hardware. The Gomorrah boss in particular looks like it could be a candidate for tesselation, the game is running at a solid 60fps and v-synch is enabled. There's absolutely no way that RSX or Xenon can reproduce that even with the cityscape missing. Take away the v-synch and drop it to 30fps without the buildings and you may have a shot, but then you still may need a fixed camera to be able to see anything other than a screen tearing clusterfuck.
There's nothing on the boss that indicates tessleation or that it's detail is unachievable on PS3 or 360.
She was 23000, don't know if that includes guns but they are very unlikely to more than double it.
lostinblue
Banned
Bayonetta 1 - Bayonetta 53,910 polygons (with all 4 guns) [8,068 polygons per pistol]
The_Intruder
Member
I think it's the model without the four guns.
Anyway now we're back in the wiiu is in the same ballpark as the 360 and ps3... That become really annoying, it's like a circle that will never end...
With some titles already released, developpers comments, videos and pictures of the 2014's games, we can say the wiiu isn't in the same ballpark of the 360/ps3 nor the ps4/xbone, but in middle.... Closer in some point to the 360/ps3(raw power), closer in some point to the ps4/xbone(architecture modernity, gpu features equivalent dx11).
We need to go forward with "new informations" like the shinen comment "casacade soft shadows" and not going to say in old e3 bayonetta2's screenshots (yes now it's old).
By that logic, the Vita and the 3DS are a generation apart. As are the Wii U and the PS4 / XBone.
lostinblue
Banned
They could be.
It's pretty obvious Wii and PS3/X360, or DS and PSP had generational leaps going on.
That doesn't mean they're not competitor products of the same console generation though.
I'm inclined to think that, compared to those, and compared to 3DS to Vita, the Wii U might actually have the lesser generational leap; I mean, other than the differential in power all those consoles were heavily proprietary and that made it so that ports had to change everything in the transition; Wii U actually has a feature set in close parity with newer platforms coming out this year.
Look at Dreamcast, it was certainly a generational leap above PSone/Saturn/N64; but it didn't hold a candle to PS2, GC and Xbox. Nintendo is clearly hoping that we live in a era of diminishing returns so a platform that stands in between, like that; can actually have a shot.
For the time being and before the other systems launch though, that's the generational leap we have, and it's showing some pretty results on choice software (read: exclusives).
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
Now you've done it...
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
That's one big assumption on your side and if you want to actually know what people think about it you should actually ask them.
Theories should be tested if you are interested in facts.
That's probably the cutscene model, 23k for in game.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
There's actually nitpicking done on purpose, how do you resort to that.
You mean this?
The polycount on the model doesn't appear to be particularly high. You can see it's silhouette isn't very rounded, and the design; jagged back, sharp teeth and spikey features are quite cuductive for a model that looks complex but has low polycount.
The 3D model of Gomorrah has much more polygon than the first one.
Bayonetta also moreover.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
The 3D model of Gomorrah has much more polygon with compared with the first one Bayo.
Bayonetta also moreover.
Both picks should have her rendered with weapons and other details.
The 3D model of Gomorrah has much more polygon than the first one.
Bayonetta also moreover.
That's true. The game as a whole does look more impressive than the first game.
By that logic, yes.
But that logic is of course flawed. That would mean WiiU is "next gen", Xbone is "next next gen" and PS4 is "next next next gen". It's ridiculous.
WiiU is the next generation of Nintendo hardware. PS4 is the next generation of Sony hardware. They are both "next gen" regardless of their respective power. "Next Gen" is not a standard to measure hardware performance by. It's a pointless thing to bring up.
WiiU is much closer to PS360 than PS4Bone in terms of raw power. This is a fact. Let's move on.
In fact,let's leave this thread alone unless there is some new info on the Latte GPU to discuss
By that logic, yes.
But that logic is of course flawed. That would mean WiiU is "next gen", Xbone is "next next gen" and PS4 is "next next next gen". It's ridiculous.
WiiU is the next generation of Nintendo hardware. PS4 is the next generation of Sony hardware. They are both "next gen" regardless of their respective power. "Next Gen" is not a standard to measure hardware performance by. It's a pointless thing to bring up.
WiiU is much closer to PS360 than PS4Bone in terms of raw power. This is a fact. Let's move on.
In fact,let's leave this thread alone unless there is some new info on the Latte GPU to discuss
No, that is not remotely fact. Not unless you know something about the CPU and GPU capabilities that the rest of us don't.
DX11 features, GPGPU, Shader Modal 4/5 and adaptive tessellation were not available on the last gen consoles in any form.
On top of that, we are seeing more than double the polygon count in a lot of games when compared to similar last gen games and a higher number of individual effects all while outputting to two screen at once. The raw power of the Wii U is no less than 2x that of the last gen consoles.
Indeed, that's pretty much all I was pointing out.
GT6 uses adaptive tessellation.
You've got it wrong (or have misunderstood).
He said the Wii U is closer to PS360 than it is PS4One in RAW POWER, which is absolutely true. Wii U, however, has a much newer feature set in its innards. That feature set is closer to the new consoles. Even its design paradigm is closer to the new consoles with a lot less juice.
However, its raw power is not. In raw power (i.e. we're talking flops and such) it is closer to the PS360. Ideaman used to call it a "360+" and that is probably an accurate way of looking at its polygon pushing ability.
SmokyDave said:
I believe I remember reading it's some smoke-and-mirrors way of accomplishing it. Someone with more experience with adaptive tesselation (such as blu) could probably correct either of us here.
Yes it is. I think you misunderstood what I said. (see below)
This explains it without me having to type, thanks.
Yes it is. I think you misunderstood what I said. (see below)
This explains it without me having to type, thanks.
I still still say that is not true.
We do not know the actual true raw power of the GPU, It is still heavily speculated, and the CPU is overall more capable when used properly.
In RAW power, its over twice as strong as the last gen consoles. That combined with the modern feature sets would place it closer to the XboxOne in my book.
It would not be a simple comparison. The Wii U uses 45 and 40nm fabrication processes for the CPU and GPU, the One and PS4 use 28nm. Even if you looked at the TDP for the APU and CPU+GPU, it wouldn't do them justice as 28nm can pack a lot more transistors in smaller power envelopes.
krizzx, I take your ignoring my point about Injustice running 1080p on the 7th gen dinosaurs to mean you now agree? Running a game like that isn't as hard as large world games.
Even with a smaller node in play, if you compare 40w to 120w, you're going to be able to deduce something pretty quickly.
What point, and what do you mean a 7th gen game like that?
Are you trying to correlate that to Smash Brothers U? I hope not. They are miles apart.
The closest thing to that on the PS3 is Playstation All-Stars and that already been covered. You can hardly get a more accurate comparison than that. Other relative comparison would be LBP Kart racing to Mario Kart U, or Bayonetta 1 to Bayonetta 2. Those are Apples to Apples comparisons. Injustic vs Smash is like comparing Apples to Tomatoes.
The comparison you are trying to force is like comparing Wipeout HD(1280x1080p) or Ridge Racer 7(1900x1080p) to MotorStorm(720p).or Blur(720p). The only similarities are that they are somewhat in the same genre. Injustice wasn't doing anything technically strenuous in the least. Even the 360 can pull off 1080p when there isn't really that much going on. Heck, the PS2 output some games in 1080i. The mere existence of a 1080p games here or there means absolutely nothing without context which your argument is severely lacking.
What exactly was your point? I see nothing to debate.
What? Why is Injustice a bad comparison? It's far more detailed than All Stars. But still, missing my point. Injustice is able to run on 1080p because of the fixed world size meaning less textures and polygons etc in total, other open world games with more detail can not and often have to dip below 720p. Just pointing to Smash and saying it runs on 1080p as being proof that the Wii U can handle other games at that res is silly.
You know what though, screw all that, the proof is in the games. What open large world games run on 1080p on the Wii U?
prag16
Banned
Even if it has double the raw power, that still puts it much closer to PS360 than PS4 (more like 10x the "raw power" of PS360) strictly in "raw power".
I'm on board with a lot of what you say (a lot more than the average poster here) even though you tend to go to the extreme end and grab onto any best case scenario possible at times. But this is one you're just not going to win.
Can you show how you arrived at this figure?
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll