Can Wii achieve the same level of Xbox's Doom3?
- Thread starter ken_masters
- Start date
You don't seem to get the fact that the OS is very simple, not much more complex than the Xbox OS.
Nintendo have more experience in designing consoles and console software then anyone else. Whether that's games or GUI's/Front ends/OS's (or whatever you want to call it) for consoles they're anything but amatuers.
Where's your evidence for that? You can't access Wii's front end in a game and when you click to go to it Wii resets the system and loads it up. Why would it need to reset if the "OS" was always sitting in RAM?
Where's your evidence for that? You can't access Wii's front end in a game and when you click to go to it Wii resets the system and loads it up. Why would it need to reset if the "OS" was always sitting in RAM?
Iron Tiger
Regular
(88MB - 12MB = 76MB) + 3MB = 79MB > 64MB
Even if the OS was taking up 12MB, it would still have more memory than the Xbox. Then let's not discount the bandwidth benefits of EDRAM for storing frames, or Flipper/Hollywood's ability to draw 8 textures per pass. Wii has more memory, far more effective bandwidth, more fillrate, and a (arguably) better CPU in a fully customized architecture that's built just for playing games. I'm still not sure what exactly makes you believe it is so inferior to the Xbox.
If there's anything everyone can agree Microsoft's history brought to the table to make the Xbox a powerful contender, it's the development tools. Even today, with the X360's very un-PC-like architecture (Power PC CPU, unified memory, eDRAM GPU), their tools make it easy for developers to make impressive content easily.
Even if the OS was taking up 12MB, it would still have more memory than the Xbox. Then let's not discount the bandwidth benefits of EDRAM for storing frames, or Flipper/Hollywood's ability to draw 8 textures per pass. Wii has more memory, far more effective bandwidth, more fillrate, and a (arguably) better CPU in a fully customized architecture that's built just for playing games. I'm still not sure what exactly makes you believe it is so inferior to the Xbox.
If there's anything everyone can agree Microsoft's history brought to the table to make the Xbox a powerful contender, it's the development tools. Even today, with the X360's very un-PC-like architecture (Power PC CPU, unified memory, eDRAM GPU), their tools make it easy for developers to make impressive content easily.
TheWretched
Regular
Just because someone does it LONGER doesn't mean he is better at it... Look at Ataris software (which has done software the longest)... not really comparable, is it?
Also, compared to Sony, Sony might not have the longest track record of games ("only" 15 years now), but they have by and large the biggest first party studio of all three console makers. Does this make Sonys games better? No, and neither does length/experience. (I am NOT saying that either Sony or Nintendo games are bad, I am just saying, that their "goodness" doesn't really depend on those factors).
Atari's not really a good comparison. It's Atari in name only. The company we think of as Atari died so many years ago, and everyone in it scattered to the wind.
As no-one said Nintendo were best, it doesn't matter. The point was MS were argued to have the more efficient OS because they are an OS company and Nintendo have no experience. Teasy points out Nintendo have been creating console OSes for years. They have the experience, so overthrowing freezamite's argument. One can even point to a history of MS OS bloat to prove the contrary!
I think I can put all this OS talk to a rest with this article written by a well know wii hacker.
http://hackmii.com/2009/02/why-the-wii-will-never-get-any-better/
For those to lazy to read I'll just use this quote that sums it up pretty well.
http://hackmii.com/2009/02/why-the-wii-will-never-get-any-better/
For those to lazy to read I'll just use this quote that sums it up pretty well.
TheWretched
Regular
Exactly^^ (I was being a bit blunt in my last post, I might add, not a native speaker too, if that helps^^)
IF we looked at it that way, the 360 should have the bloated OS and the PS3 should be home free (as Sony has made embedded OSs for a very long time in their other devices).
I mean, just compare the 360 or PS3 to the Wii in terms of "in-game" OS... The Wii is like the PS2 I guess, never really used a Wii before, tbh. Nothing to do in-game, whereas the other two have many options and stuff to do in the OS in-game. This results in a WAY leaner OS for the Wii (well, not if Nintendo was so HORRIBLY bad at programming, that they needed 12MB for an OS that could do less than my BIOS) on first sight.
IF we looked at it that way, the 360 should have the bloated OS and the PS3 should be home free (as Sony has made embedded OSs for a very long time in their other devices).
I mean, just compare the 360 or PS3 to the Wii in terms of "in-game" OS... The Wii is like the PS2 I guess, never really used a Wii before, tbh. Nothing to do in-game, whereas the other two have many options and stuff to do in the OS in-game. This results in a WAY leaner OS for the Wii (well, not if Nintendo was so HORRIBLY bad at programming, that they needed 12MB for an OS that could do less than my BIOS) on first sight.
freezamite
Banned
But even without the OS, the Wii is far from the first Xbox.
Not only because of the in-game results, but also because Xbox firs GPU makes the difference, and Wii can't compensate that difference with any other component of its hardware.
Not only because of the in-game results, but also because Xbox firs GPU makes the difference, and Wii can't compensate that difference with any other component of its hardware.
So you're accepting that your remarks about Wii's OS RAM consumption are likely very wrong?
If you want to go on to argue that the NV2a in XB is so much better than Hollywood, you'll need to substantiate your point with some real factual references. You'll then need to create a convincing argument why Wii with loads more RAM and bandwidth (something that XB was starved for) is far from the original XB, rather than of equivalent averages performance with strengths in some areas and shortfallings in others.
Iron Tiger
Regular
To me, it seems pretty much analogous to X360 vs. PS3. The 360 is easier to develop for because it has great tools and a GPU whose potential is (relatively) easy to tap. The PS3's GPU is weaker in comparison, so it must be supplemented by the CPU. But the PS3's CPU is a number-crunching beast that, if harnessed, can fill in for the GPU's shortcomings.
The Wii GPU can't handle normal mapping on its own. Fine, the CPU can lend some cycles to sub for a vertex shader. But most developers aren't used to working that way, so they don't bother.
We've seen games that can handle Doom 3-style shadows. Silent Hill impressively does so while also casting shadows for hundreds of falling 3D snowflakes, and manages to run at up to 60fps.
We're seeing High Voltage Software make liberal use of normal mapping in their games. What we haven't seen is a blending of these effects to create imagery on the level of Doom 3, but I'm not ready to believe it's impossible.
The Wii GPU can't handle normal mapping on its own. Fine, the CPU can lend some cycles to sub for a vertex shader. But most developers aren't used to working that way, so they don't bother.
We've seen games that can handle Doom 3-style shadows. Silent Hill impressively does so while also casting shadows for hundreds of falling 3D snowflakes, and manages to run at up to 60fps.
We're seeing High Voltage Software make liberal use of normal mapping in their games. What we haven't seen is a blending of these effects to create imagery on the level of Doom 3, but I'm not ready to believe it's impossible.
Since you seem to like quoting "professional" developers, how about this quote:
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/specialArt.cfm?artid=1906
If the Gamecube was already on par, what does that say about the roughly twice as powerful Wii? And I tend to believe that Factor 5 is actually a studio with a proven and quite impressive technical background - contrary to, say, Telltale (or one could conclude that the iPhone is more powerful than the original Xbox as well).
Nintendos GPUs lack some features NV2A had, no doubt about it. And maybe not all of them can be compensated with more RAM, bandwidth and brute force. On the other hand, they also have some features no other GPU has, like the ITU for example.
I wouldn't put much weight in what Julian E said though, be it about any platform. But yes, the biggest advantage Wii has is the amount of RAM, which we should never underestimate. Reading the patent in that link, can't a pixel shader do what the ITU does and more? Or am I confused?
freezamite
Banned
That's right, Julian E worked for nintendo exclusively during the past gen. of consoles, and if he say that GC has the same performance than the first Xbox, then why the hell he didn't demonstrate that to us making a Xbox-looking game?
Because all he did is rogue leader and rebel strike that are ok for a GC, but are very far from reaching the level of an average Xbox game (not to talk here about high end xbox games).
About the differences between Wii and GC, the only one that has been stated is that one on the CPU regarding the L2 caché fetch modes.
While GC only had 32 bit fetch mode, wii has 32 bit, 64 bit and 128 bit fetch modes.
What does it mean? How much can this improve the performance of Wiis CPU?
Thanks.
brain_stew
Regular
I assume this is sarcasm right? Rebel Strike stands upto any Xbox game. Its probably the most impressive title of all last generation, regardless of platform.
Heck, it even ran the entire Rogue Leader campaign in splitscreen mode to boot. Good luck finding an "average" Xbox title pushing as much geometary and lights as Rebel Strike.
The fact is that both the Wii and Xbox flourish in very different areas, its debatable whether the Wii could make a good approximation of Doom 3 but the Xbox sure as hell couldn't run Mario Galaxy at 60fps.
Freezamite
Rebel Strike pushed around 20m polys per second, had loads of bump mapping, self shadowing, light scattering, pixel shaded water with physics ect all at 60fps. Can you show me anything like it on XBox that's better?
To say its like an average XBox game is laughable. Rebel Strike is an excellent example of a game that plays to GC's strengths (like Doom 3 played to XBox's strengths) and they're both stunning looking games for the time.
Having said that I do think that XBox overall was more powerful then GC.
Rebel Strike pushed around 20m polys per second, had loads of bump mapping, self shadowing, light scattering, pixel shaded water with physics ect all at 60fps. Can you show me anything like it on XBox that's better?
To say its like an average XBox game is laughable. Rebel Strike is an excellent example of a game that plays to GC's strengths (like Doom 3 played to XBox's strengths) and they're both stunning looking games for the time.
Having said that I do think that XBox overall was more powerful then GC.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
