Oh no not another one" this is just a roundup of what is known and calculated estimations as well as obvious ones.
Only bold writing is Wii facts
Broadway
The Wii uses a customized 90nm PowerPC "5" @ 729Mhz
The Game Cube uses a customized 180nm PowerPC "4" 750cxs @ 485mhz.
The lowest performing PowerPC 5's "if" at 90nm@729Mhz would be close to double the MIPS performance of the Gekko.
There has been a few sources claiming the Wii uses a PowerPC 970GX.........."If" true:
Gekko = 1125 MIPS i Broadway = 2300 MIPS){Not accurate). Broadway is at least 2X Gekko performance.
Hollywood
Assuming Nintendo used the same but faster GPU for the Hollywood as the Flipper:
Flipper = 180nm @ 162Mhz , Hollywood = 90nm @ 243Mhz2 (90nm not 0.18 micron )
Using the same conversion used with the CPU comparison, the GPU would be exactly 2X the performance of the NGC's. Hollywood is at least 2X Flipper Personally i think the Wii uses a more powerful or advanced GPU.
[/B]Flipper Embedded Memory = 10.4 GB/s (Assuming same configuration as the NGC), Hollywood = about 98BG/s) (X360's = 278.4) (PS3 = 48GB/s)
NGC
24MB of 1T-Sram @ 2.7GB/a @10ns max, 16MB Dram @ 0.81GB/s
Wii
24MB of 1T-Sram 24.6 GB/s @6ns max, 64MB GDDR @ 3.2GB/s
On average the Wii's memory is 6.5 times the speed of the Game cubes
The Game Cube had a very similar "in game" polygon performance to the Xbox. People still compare Halo 30fps to Luigis Mansion 60fps.
Polygon performance of the NGC: Minimum GPU specs of the Wii ( Most likely twice of this).
1 vertex color + 1 light + 1 texture 20M polygons/sec (32 mil Max)
Nintendo claimed 6 to 9 Mil in games. That is 100,000 to 150,000 @60fps..................(Although Star Wars Rogue Squadron on Game Cube used over 200,000 in a scene @60fps)
Xbox Website Mistake
This is slightly off topic but this is funny what i got off the Xbox official website:
"The Xbox can draw 2.1 million polygons onto the screen per second. Steven Spielberg employed 300,000 polygons in the construction of each velociraptor in Jurassic Park. Back in 1993, each frame of film took hours to render. Today, the Xbox has the power to send a fat handful of raptors roaring across your screen, in real time."
The Xbox official peak triangle performance is 30 Mil (NGC 32 Mil).
So what am i getting at? why all the stupid talk?
There are many of us who believe the Wii is 1.5 times the NGC. This is impossible.
We know know The Wii is realistically "at least" 2 times the power of the NGC and Xbox and "at least" 2 and a half times the power of the PS2 ,
We are looking ata minimum of 150,000 (heavy effects) - 300,000 (Ave effects) triangles on screen in real 60fps games play.
That is 9 Mil to 18 Mil during game play and 64 mil during sex...got ya! i mean as a peak.
Now it is no longer fair to compare the Wii to the old school consoles. what about the other two.
Wii 24MB 1T-Sram = 6ns @24.5 GB/s
PS3 256MB XDR = 35ns @25.6 B/s
Due to efficiency The Wii has little but the fastest memory out of the three consoles, which has it's advantages.
X360 = 12X DVD ( Max = 16MB/s) ( Average = 12MB/s)
PS3 = 9X equivalen (Max = 12MB/s) (, Average sustained speed = about 8MB/s)
Wii = 6X DVD (Max 8MB/s) (Average = 6Mb/s)
In comparison to system memory, the Wii has the fastest drive for loading media.
Due to lack of HD, the Wii doesn't require media as big as Blueray. It's graphic resources requires less then half the media space of an equivalent PS3 game.
Polygon performance
(This is not accurate but not far off) Using the reverse rule of the Xbox and PS2's over hyped polygon specs, the PS3 and X360 can push:
X360 = 119 Million triangles per second Peak,
PS3 = 119 Million triangles per second Peak,
Wii = At least 60 Million
Overall the Wii can keep on par with the PS3 and X360 if they make more 30fps games and take time in utilizing the 1T'sram's texture compression performance.
And.
The 1T-Sram is ideal for the "So called" patent Nintendo has for Indirect Texturing. Indirect texturing .
I think this will only be used on Nintendo games because the method can be applied to any hardware if in other hands.
The Wii is a weaker console then the X360 and PS3 but the hardware was customized to bring more to the table then it's worth.
I think it's fair to compare the Wii with the PS3 and X360 graphically despite the crappy looking games on the Wii.
Only bold writing is Wii facts
Broadway
The Wii uses a customized 90nm PowerPC "5" @ 729Mhz
The Game Cube uses a customized 180nm PowerPC "4" 750cxs @ 485mhz.
The lowest performing PowerPC 5's "if" at 90nm@729Mhz would be close to double the MIPS performance of the Gekko.
There has been a few sources claiming the Wii uses a PowerPC 970GX.........."If" true:
Gekko = 1125 MIPS i Broadway = 2300 MIPS){Not accurate). Broadway is at least 2X Gekko performance.
Hollywood
Assuming Nintendo used the same but faster GPU for the Hollywood as the Flipper:
Flipper = 180nm @ 162Mhz , Hollywood = 90nm @ 243Mhz2 (90nm not 0.18 micron )
Using the same conversion used with the CPU comparison, the GPU would be exactly 2X the performance of the NGC's. Hollywood is at least 2X Flipper Personally i think the Wii uses a more powerful or advanced GPU.
[/B]Flipper Embedded Memory = 10.4 GB/s (Assuming same configuration as the NGC), Hollywood = about 98BG/s) (X360's = 278.4) (PS3 = 48GB/s)
NGC
24MB of 1T-Sram @ 2.7GB/a @10ns max, 16MB Dram @ 0.81GB/s
Wii
24MB of 1T-Sram 24.6 GB/s @6ns max, 64MB GDDR @ 3.2GB/s
On average the Wii's memory is 6.5 times the speed of the Game cubes
The Game Cube had a very similar "in game" polygon performance to the Xbox. People still compare Halo 30fps to Luigis Mansion 60fps.
Polygon performance of the NGC: Minimum GPU specs of the Wii ( Most likely twice of this).
1 vertex color + 1 light + 1 texture 20M polygons/sec (32 mil Max)
Nintendo claimed 6 to 9 Mil in games. That is 100,000 to 150,000 @60fps..................(Although Star Wars Rogue Squadron on Game Cube used over 200,000 in a scene @60fps)
Xbox Website Mistake
This is slightly off topic but this is funny what i got off the Xbox official website:
"The Xbox can draw 2.1 million polygons onto the screen per second. Steven Spielberg employed 300,000 polygons in the construction of each velociraptor in Jurassic Park. Back in 1993, each frame of film took hours to render. Today, the Xbox has the power to send a fat handful of raptors roaring across your screen, in real time."
The Xbox official peak triangle performance is 30 Mil (NGC 32 Mil).
So what am i getting at? why all the stupid talk?
There are many of us who believe the Wii is 1.5 times the NGC. This is impossible.
We know know The Wii is realistically "at least" 2 times the power of the NGC and Xbox and "at least" 2 and a half times the power of the PS2 ,
We are looking ata minimum of 150,000 (heavy effects) - 300,000 (Ave effects) triangles on screen in real 60fps games play.
That is 9 Mil to 18 Mil during game play and 64 mil during sex...got ya! i mean as a peak.
Now it is no longer fair to compare the Wii to the old school consoles. what about the other two.
Wii 24MB 1T-Sram = 6ns @24.5 GB/s
PS3 256MB XDR = 35ns @25.6 B/s
Due to efficiency The Wii has little but the fastest memory out of the three consoles, which has it's advantages.
X360 = 12X DVD ( Max = 16MB/s) ( Average = 12MB/s)
PS3 = 9X equivalen (Max = 12MB/s) (, Average sustained speed = about 8MB/s)
Wii = 6X DVD (Max 8MB/s) (Average = 6Mb/s)
In comparison to system memory, the Wii has the fastest drive for loading media.
Due to lack of HD, the Wii doesn't require media as big as Blueray. It's graphic resources requires less then half the media space of an equivalent PS3 game.
Polygon performance
(This is not accurate but not far off) Using the reverse rule of the Xbox and PS2's over hyped polygon specs, the PS3 and X360 can push:
X360 = 119 Million triangles per second Peak,
PS3 = 119 Million triangles per second Peak,
Wii = At least 60 Million
Overall the Wii can keep on par with the PS3 and X360 if they make more 30fps games and take time in utilizing the 1T'sram's texture compression performance.
And.
The 1T-Sram is ideal for the "So called" patent Nintendo has for Indirect Texturing. Indirect texturing .
I think this will only be used on Nintendo games because the method can be applied to any hardware if in other hands.
The Wii is a weaker console then the X360 and PS3 but the hardware was customized to bring more to the table then it's worth.
I think it's fair to compare the Wii with the PS3 and X360 graphically despite the crappy looking games on the Wii.
