Wii U

Tottentanz posted...
lol omg really?

I have a direct quote from the article in question:

"We're not entirely clear on resolution and anti-aliasing here, but it's definitely not a 1080p demo, so our best guess is that like the Zelda HD experience, it's also running at 720p."

They dont guess? They guessed right there with no factual evidence to prove anything, omg, you are funny to believe otherwise if you had actually read that article.

Which they clearly stated was a guess. You're taking what I said out of context, yet again. They don't just guess when making definitive statements regarding the tech, but naturally, like anyone, they're free to guess and speculate so long as they state when they are doing so.

They did however state quite clearly that the Zelda demo was "almost certainly" 720p. And seeing as how hardly any console games render between 72op and 1080p (GT4 is the only thing that comes to mind), 720p is certainly a very realistic "guess". Either way, they do clearly shatter the false 1080p claim for both tech demos.

Counting pixels? 1080p vs 720p and you are saying they counted the pixels? Millions?

You don't count all of the pixels to determine the resolution. They discussed the method in an article years ago: a method that was actually discovered by someone else and revealed that Halo 3 was actually sub-HD which caused a funny defense by Bungie where they were forced to admit it wasn't HD. I don't remember the details though, but it basically involves only counting pixels in a small segment of the image which can then be extrapolated to determine resolution.

Oh as far as tessellation goes, I have no answer for that because Nintendo cant use DX11 because that is owned by MS, but they will use the equal to it. By the by, you speak like all forms of programming is equal, and I have read a few articles as of late that has tessellation being used in games that actually lowers the demands on the system thanks to some of the tricks that can be done with it.

The whole point of tessellation is to lower the demand on the hardware. It's basically just a high tech version of LoD swapping which allows for far greater detail to be expressed up close. However, tessellation itself is still extremely demanding and while it is more cost effective than trying to render that level of detail using more conventional techniques, I doubt the Wii U will really be able to handle it to the extent that we are almost certainly going to see in newer games.

Do I think the Wii U can keep up with the highest end GPUs? Ummm no, and it doesnt have to considering it will compete against the other next gens which likely wont be using anything close to those "high end" GPUs you are bringing up unless they plan on making $600 consoles sold for a huge loss again.

The x360 was very high end for its day and only ran $400 while still making a generational leap just 4 years after the xbox launched. You seriously don't think Microsoft and Sony can make the same leap with a $400 system seeing as how there's a 7 year gap this time around? If anything, for $400, the leap should be even larger.

PS: It would not surprise me to find out that groups like DF intentionally wrote trash pieces like that not only to get hits on their articles but to also try to bully Nintendo into defending themselves and spilling the beans to prove them wrong. Nintendo held their tongues and upheld their NDA despite all the negative articles being written.

In other words, you don't read DF's articles and know nothing about them. Instead of accepting the facts, you try to smear them with generic attacks and baseless accusations.

DaLagga posted...

They did however state quite clearly that the Zelda demo was "almost certainly" 720p. And seeing as how hardly any console games render between 72op and 1080p (GT4 is the only thing that comes to mind), 720p is certainly a very realistic "guess". Either way, they do clearly shatter the false 1080p claim for both tech demos.

You don't count all of the pixels to determine the resolution. They discussed the method in an article years ago: a method that was actually discovered by someone else and revealed that Halo 3 was actually sub-HD which caused a funny defense by Bungie where they were forced to admit it wasn't HD. I don't remember the details though, but it basically involves only counting pixels in a small segment of the image which can then be extrapolated to determine resolution.

The whole point of tessellation is to lower the demand on the hardware. It's basically just a high tech version of LoD swapping which allows for far greater detail to be expressed up close. However, tessellation itself is still extremely demanding and while it is more cost effective than trying to render that level of detail using more conventional techniques, I doubt the Wii U will really be able to handle it to the extent that we are almost certainly going to see in newer games.

The x360 was very high end for its day and only ran $400 while still making a generational leap just 4 years after the xbox launched. You seriously don't think Microsoft and Sony can make the same leap with a $400 system seeing as how there's a 7 year gap this time around? If anything, for $400, the leap should be even larger.

In other words, you don't read DF's articles and know nothing about them. Instead of accepting the facts, you try to smear them with generic attacks and baseless accusations.

Speaking of leaving out facts, I guess you take a page from DF then?

They mention the HDD but fail to mention that the new design could have been shrunk down if they did not have to compensate for a removable HDD. Then you fail to mention that the re-design is a SoC and not just the CPU at the 45nm level which shrinking the CPU down was not the reason the system got faster but turning it into a SoC did.

Their method to judge the resolution of games likely was not designed to do this by a feed of a feed which is why they did a guess. They guessed and had no facts. IF they used that measurement, do you think they would have chosen to leave that out? No, they instead briefly make it clear that they watched tv and passed judgement on what they saw and reviewed things on poor quality streams online. Utterly laughable in my opinion to give those articles any credence.

As for launching their system at $400, not only did it not have HDMI, the only way you could get HD is if you bought their HD cables to achieve it, they sold the system at a loss but sold all the accessories such as a $99 wifi adapter at ludicrous prices, and its fail rait reflected on the rush job they did which if they took the time to actually adjust for the heat issues, they probably would have had to price it a bit higher to make up for the adjustments(more fans and repositioning a few things) but would not have had the fail rate and huge pay out to make up for all the RRoD issues.

I am not smearing them with baseless facts and generic attacks, I am directly attacking two of their trash articles that they wrote. I am bringing up specific examples and mocking their professionalism because it was absent in those articles. If they were at all professional in those articles. Those two articles are trash pieces.

Tottentanz posted...
They mention the HDD but fail to mention that the new design could have been shrunk down if they did not have to compensate for a removable HDD. Then you fail to mention that the re-design is a SoC and not just the CPU at the 45nm level which shrinking the CPU down was not the reason the system got faster but turning it into a SoC did.

There's a big difference between not covering every single angle (which is impossible) and leaving out significant facts. How much do those things matter? We don't know. Possibly a fair amount, and possibly not much at all. Either way, the "heat" article was fairly detailed and made for an interesting read. Is it definitive? Of course not, and they even explained that. But does it bring up an interesting point.

Their method to judge the resolution of games likely was not designed to do this by a feed of a feed which is why they did a guess. They guessed and had no facts. IF they used that measurement, do you think they would have chosen to leave that out? No, they instead briefly make it clear that they watched tv and passed judgement on what they saw and reviewed things on poor quality streams online. Utterly laughable in my opinion to give those articles any credence.

And we're back to this nonsense again where you like to think they just guess? Seriously? Defeated at every turn so you resort to that again? And yes, they do usually leave their specific methods out because they have been discussed before in other articles. To mention them every time would be to copy/paste a couple of paragraphs into every article they publish. It isn't necessary. We know you can determine framerate from a 60hz feed and that you can determine resolution from a video or even a picture of a game.

As for launching their system at $400, not only did it not have HDMI, the only way you could get HD is if you bought their HD cables to achieve it, they sold the system at a loss but sold all the accessories such as a $99 wifi adapter at ludicrous prices, and its fail rait reflected on the rush job they did which if they took the time to actually adjust for the heat issues, they probably would have had to price it a bit higher to make up for the adjustments(more fans and repositioning a few things) but would not have had the fail rate and huge pay out to make up for all the RRoD issues.

Most of those issues and pricing problems would not be an issue today. And again, it's been 7 years since the last leap which occurred just 4 years after the previous leap. That's nearly twice the time which means that a $400 console could easily make the same leap.

And selling at a loss is a good thing. It means you're getting hardware cheaper than what it's actually worth. Unlike Nintendo which ends up screwing the customer by making a profit out of the gate instead of selling at a loss and giving the customer better hardware for their money.

I am not smearing them with baseless facts and generic attacks, I am directly attacking two of their trash articles that they wrote. I am bringing up specific examples and mocking their professionalism because it was absent in those articles. If they were at all professional in those articles. Those two articles are trash pieces.

See, you can't even refer to the articles without calling them trash. Yes, you're mindlessly smearing them because you don't know anything about DF and simply can't stand the idea that the big N may be releasing yet another underpowered console. Not to mention that they blatantly lied about the resolution.

Tottentanz posted...
lol you are too funny.

Do I have to spell everything out? The Wii U is not even using a HDD, they are using flash memory aka SSD which runs faster with almost no heat compared to the loud, hot, slower HDD alternative.

By the by, the Slim has a SoC on the 45nm level, so comparing a 45nm CPU to a SoC is kind of silly.

Do I have to spell out more that they left out? They failed to mention the ARM and DSP which will unburden the CPU. They failed to mention that even if it had the exact same CPU as the 360(in essence 3 cores, 2 threads, yada yada), it would still out perform it thanks to more eDRAM, modern architecture, and OoO processing which will let it run circles around the in-order processing the 360 uses.

By the by, turning the system to a SoC made it faster, not shrinking the CPU.

LOL at me throwing out random hate at DF. I am directly attacking two specific articles and listing off their short comings.

I know it may seem a bit over whelming, but if they actually chose to use facts and sound reasoning we wouldnt be mocking them except they didnt and we are.

No, you're attacking only one article which was intended to be more of a speculation piece. It's not one of their typical articles. When it comes to the actual tech analysis, you have failed to provide any argument against it aside for calling them liars and accusing them of making things up to smear Nintendo.

And as I've stated before, if the Wii U's CPU were really that far advanced and could "run circles around the x360's CPU", then why wasn't this reflected in the tech demos? You have failed to answer that question to any reasonable degree: a question posed nearly a year ago. A rush job and early dev kits do not even begin to excuse or explain why tech demos designed specifically to show off the power of the console failed to provide better graphics than what is seen in the current gen.

Tottentanz posted...
Defending trash articles? lol

They are trash, and you are saying they didnt guess when they did. They observed and based judgements on tv and bad streams.

They guessed and made up facts and left out facts and made judgements based on half truths.

You are reaching.

You have no idea what sources they used for certain and/or whether it was possible to make a resolution determination from video or pictures taken at e3. If you read their articles you would know that they do not guess. They have a great reputation specifically because they don't merely guess and do use scientific methodology in producing their results. You are making baseless claims because you don't like those results.