Wii U
Let's face it guys.
Back To: Board List | Topic List | Topic Archived
DaLagga posted... darkjedilink posted... I wasn't saying that the Xbox was better than the 360. I was pointing out that it wasn't "obviously a generational leap" at launch. I'm sorry you're too moronic to get that. Except that it was obviously a generational leap. Perfect Dark Zero was designed for the orginal xbox and gcube and therefore many of the assets were heavily outdated by the time the game launched in 2005. Even still, the game was doing things that the xbox simply didn't have the processing power to handle. And take a look at stuff like Quake 4, CoD2, or Condemned: Criminal Origins which truly did demonstrate a generational leap over the previous generation. So, PDZero is in the same boat as Arkham Asylum and DS2, in that it was originally made for last-gen hardware. As such, where do you get the idea that it's "obviously" not a generational leap? Wrong again - there are only a few graphics cards that are powerful enough to be the generational leap you're looking for, and they're all in the 78xx series. As a matter of fact, according to "unnamed sources" (the only ones you believe), the cards MS and Sony are using are less powerful than the one in the WiiU. Not true at all. Hardware advancement hasn't slowed down. The leaps made between 2001 and 2005 are not as large as the leaps between 2005 and 2012. Hardware advancement hasn't "slowed down," but the leaps of said advancement has. Do you deny that nothing like a jump between TnL to programmable shaders hasn't been forthcoming since that jump? Then how come they said IN THE ARTICLE that they just looked at the low-rez internet video by eye? Even if they tested the video, the test would be meaningless, since it wasn't recorded in 1080p, the lowest resolution required for a valid test? They never said it was a low rez video. Where are you even getting this crap? We don't know for sure what all they used outside of the 60hz video feed they mentioned. However, they have mentioned in the past that you can indeed tell if a game is rendered at a higher resolution by looking at a lower resolution image. For example, rendering a game in 1080p and then downscaling it to 720p will look better than simply rendering in 720p (helps a lot in getting rid of jaggies without even using AA). I'm not saying that's how they made their judgement (almost certainly not), but I'm just throwing it out there as an example. That is nowhere near the same thing as RECORDING a 1080p image on a 720p camera and then rendering that recording (which will have quality loss due to internet streaming) at yet another resolution. How do I know it was recorded in 720p? Because broadcast TV cameras recording in HD only record in 720p, since cable and satellite boxes can't do 1080p. I told you this the first time you waved this article around. You just ignore any fact that doesn't support the crap you literally make up. If they are really going to watch a video that cannot under any circumstances prove Reggie right and then say he's wrong, then they ARE nothing more than some random journalists who just spit out whatever gut feeling happens to hit them first. YOU believe they didn't have the materials to determine the resolution. THEY obviously believe that they did. THEY know far more about tech than you do and have an excellent reputation among those interested in analyzing game tech. Therefore, THEIR judgement in regards to what is necessary to determine resolution carries more weight than YOURS. Get it now? No, the fact is they didn't have the tools to determine the resolution AND the framerate AND the existence of AA from their source video, because there is no way the source video could give a positive outcome. If you don't believe that, prove it's possible. Until then, you're just making things up. --- Resistance is TASTY! | |
Tottentanz: It's interesting how you keep trying to reinforce the idea that the DF articles were discredited when the only thing that occurred is that their analysis stirred up a hornets nest of rabid Nintendo fanboys who simply won't accept anything negative about Nintendo. We don't know what sources they used or didn't use for certain aside for a comment about the 60hz feed. But again, they know their stuff and wouldn't publish nonsense unless they could determine resolution and framerate. Tottentanz posted... "We cant know anything" is how you start then go onto "But from what we do know, it's not exactly looking too good for the Wii U. Maybe e3 will blow us away, but I doubt it" which is the exact mentality that shows that you made up your mind before knowing anything. Oh, and I love this little bit where you quote me and leave out the vital "for certain" part. Way to completely twist what I said by selective editing. While we can't know anything for certain, we can draw general conclusions. And those conclusions lead any objective person to believe that the Wii U, at best, will only be a little faster than the current consoles (maybe twice as fast at best, which isn't much at all). Now, you can let your imagination run wild with generic PR statements if you want, but that's not being very realistic. darkjedilink posted... So, PDZero is in the same boat as Arkham Asylum and DS2, in that it was originally made for last-gen hardware. As such, where do you get the idea that it's "obviously" not a generational leap? Same boat as AA? What are you even talking about now? Of course not every game on the x360/PS3 is going to be better than what was possible on last gen hardware. As per my example, there are a ton of PC games released these days that could easily run on the PS2. But you're missing the big picture. Hardware advancement hasn't "slowed down," but the leaps of said advancement has. Do you deny that nothing like a jump between TnL to programmable shaders hasn't been forthcoming since that jump? Do you even read your own comments before you post them? Advancement hasn't slowed down but the leaps have? Contradiction much? No, the fact is they didn't have the tools to determine the resolution AND the framerate AND the existence of AA from their source video, because there is no way the source video could give a positive outcome. If you don't believe that, prove it's possible. Until then, you're just making things up. No. You simply aren't aware of what tools they had for certain. All we do know for certain is that they are a highly reputable source and do not publish guesswork. The only reason you're questioning this is because you don't like the conclusions drawn from their analysis. | |
The Dunning-Kruger effect is well represented in this topic thread. --- Religion is like spaghetti: either stiff and fragile, or wet and limp. | |
DaLagga posted... darkjedilink posted... So, PDZero is in the same boat as Arkham Asylum and DS2, in that it was originally made for last-gen hardware. As such, where do you get the idea that it's "obviously" not a generational leap? Same boat as AA? What are you even talking about now? Of course not every game on the x360/PS3 is going to be better than what was possible on last gen hardware. As per my example, there are a ton of PC games released these days that could easily run on the PS2. But you're missing the big picture. No, I'm not - you're contradicting yourself. Hardware advancement hasn't "slowed down," but the leaps of said advancement has. Do you deny that nothing like a jump between TnL to programmable shaders hasn't been forthcoming since that jump? Do you even read your own comments before you post them? Advancement hasn't slowed down but the leaps have? Contradiction much? Not a contradiction - all that's changed since the RV700 cards is clock speeds and architecture efficiency. There's nothing that the HD7990 will do that the 4860 can't. That is nothing compared to the GPU difference between the Xbox and 360. No, the fact is they didn't have the tools to determine the resolution AND the framerate AND the existence of AA from their source video, because there is no way the source video could give a positive outcome. If you don't believe that, prove it's possible. Until then, you're just making things up. No. You simply aren't aware of what tools they had for certain. All we do know for certain is that they are a highly reputable source and do not publish guesswork. The only reason you're questioning this is because you don't like the conclusions drawn from their analysis. No tools exist to ascertain the claim they made based on the video they used. That's why I question it. Find a tool that can and post it, and I'll shut up about the whole deal. --- Resistance is TASTY! | |
docexe posted... Mmmm... I was under the impression the opposite was true, but as I said, I'm not tech expert. Well, it works both ways. But generally speaking, memory is cheap while other components aren't. Therefore, you're generally going to be bottlenecked with regards to the CPU/GPU before you will be by memory. For example, I remember seeing a GPU comparison for the 4870 (same series as what will be in the Wii U, but likely much much faster than it) that compared the 512mb, 1gb, and 2gb versions of the card. In nearly every test, memory was irrelevant because in order to raise the settings enough to actually utilize more than 512mb of vram, the card simply couldn't keep up anyway so performance went to hell before the extra memory had a chance to matter. I disagree with this. Sony certainly made a mistake here in trying to use the PS3 as a trojan horse for the new tech like they used the PS2 for the DVD, but as I see it, having a larger storage media will always be a benefit for console gaming. And I just don't want to ever go back to the Playstation era when a very large game required the ridiculous number of 4 discs to run. Most games easily fit on one disc though. Skyrim for example probably has the largest and most detailed world out of any console game this generation, and that snugly fits on one DVD. Sure, a few games take more, but not all that many. It's more processing power and memory that determine the size and scope of the game world that a system can handle rather than disc space. The real problem is that the PS3 had a manufacturing cost of over $800 at launch. If they had just gone with a standard DVD player and a more conventional processor, they probably could have produced a system with the same horsepower for around half that. Or, if they had kept the cost the same but beefed up the hardware, then the PS3 would likely be a lot more powerful than the Wii U instead of just being on par with the x360. All in all, blu-ray was really a terrible idea and severely crippled the PS3 as a gaming platform. | |
1shadetail1 posted... The Dunning-Kruger effect is well represented in this topic thread. don't know this dunning, but we better get out before we get hurt... OH :O see that, I almost hit that spike wall of text --- "He aqui mi secreto, que no puede ser mas simple : solo con el corazon se puede ver bien; lo esencial es invisible para los ojos." | |
darkjedilink posted... No, I'm not - you're contradicting yourself. You're going to have to explain what you're talking about because you're not making any sense. Not a contradiction - all that's changed since the RV700 cards is clock speeds and architecture efficiency. There's nothing that the HD7990 will do that the 4860 can't. That is nothing compared to the GPU difference between the Xbox and 360. How about tessellation, which will no doubt become far more popular over the next few years. And just the fact that the GPU will likely be far weaker will certainly cripple multi-platform titles. It's not so easy to just roll back the settings without making the game look like complete crap as compared to what it would look like if they designed it for that hardware in the first place. Not to mention that performance will also likely suffer in ports. No tools exist to ascertain the claim they made based on the video they used. That's why I question it. Again, you don't even know for certain what they had at their disposal. Stop treating them like they're just some random internet journalist. Educate yourself before your criticize. | |
DaLagga posted... Again, you don't even know for certain what they had at their disposal. Stop treating them like they're just some random internet journalist. Educate yourself before your criticize. I feel the need to interject here. The following is taken directly from the DF article in question: Or perhaps not. The Zelda demo, or "HD Experience" as Nintendo calls it, is almost certainly running at a native resolution of 720p, with no anti-aliasing and seems to be locked at 30 frames per second with v-sync engaged (subsequently verified with a good look at a 60Hz feed taken from G4's broadcast coverage of the event). Now, this appears to imply that DF believes they can verify whether or not something is running in 1080p by using G4's broadcast coverage. However, said broadcast coverage was only recorded in 720p, meaning it could never be used for this type of verification. Although we still don't know what DF originally used to make their claim, the fact that they believe a 720p video can be used to see if something is running in 1080p calls into question the validity of their original methood.. | |
DaLagga posted... darkjedilink posted... Not a contradiction - all that's changed since the RV700 cards is clock speeds and architecture efficiency. There's nothing that the HD7990 will do that the 4860 can't. That is nothing compared to the GPU difference between the Xbox and 360. How about tessellation, which will no doubt become far more popular over the next few years. And just the fact that the GPU will likely be far weaker will certainly cripple multi-platform titles. It's not so easy to just roll back the settings without making the game look like complete crap as compared to what it would look like if they designed it for that hardware in the first place. Not to mention that performance will also likely suffer in ports. The 4860 can do tesselation, albeit not as well as more modern cards, which proves my point. Also, if it isn't easy to just "roll back the settings," why is it not only available on PC's, but PC's offer so many options to tailor? They also can adjust to a far greater range than 4860 to 7990. Once again, you're beaten by your own lack of knowledge. No tools exist to ascertain the claim they made based on the video they used. That's why I question it. Again, you don't even know for certain what they had at their disposal. Stop treating them like they're just some random internet journalist. Educate yourself before your criticize. I don't NEED to know what they had, since nothing they could possibly have could determine what they determined, considering the source video. Again, prove that such a tool exists - you don't even have to try to prove they used it, only the existence of such a tool - and I'll concede the whole argument. --- Resistance is TASTY! | |
Enigma149 posted... Now, this appears to imply that DF believes they can verify whether or not something is running in 1080p by using G4's broadcast coverage. However, said broadcast coverage was only recorded in 720p, meaning it could never be used for this type of verification. Although we still don't know what DF originally used to make their claim, the fact that they believe a 720p video can be used to see if something is running in 1080p calls into question the validity of their original methood.. Again, we do not know exactly what they used in addition to that footage (if anything). All we do know is that DF knows their stuff and if they didn't have the necessary tools to determine the resolution then they wouldn't have included it in the article. It's as simple as that. They are not amateurs making guesses. They do this type of analysis for a living. darkjedilink posted... The 4860 can do tesselation, albeit not as well as more modern cards, which proves my point. Also, if it isn't easy to just "roll back the settings," why is it not only available on PC's, but PC's offer so many options to tailor? They also can adjust to a far greater range than 4860 to 7990. Once again, you're beaten by your own lack of knowledge. Well, yeah. Technically, the old Radeon 8500 back from 2001 could do "tessellation" (it was called truform). That's irrelevant though. What matters is how well the card can handle it and the r700 series simply can't run it well enough to matter. Tessellation in newer games would have to be completely scrapped when designing them for the Wii U. Again, it seldom has to do with absolute capabilities and more to do with whether or not a particular card can produce a particular effect fast enough for it to be worth it. I don't NEED to know what they had, since nothing they could possibly have could determine what they determined, considering the source video. Again, prove that such a tool exists - you don't even have to try to prove they used it, only the existence of such a tool - and I'll concede the whole argument. Stop being bitter about the facts. There's no point in discussing this any further. We beat this horse to death in the original topic 9 months ago. It's your denial against the expert analysis from DF. It's not hard to tell which is more reliable. |
Facebook
Twitter
