Could be, but there is a saving to be made to embed that 24 MB. Leaving only one external pool. If not they should really design it with a single larger memory pool.
WiiGeePeeYou (Hollywood) what IS it ?
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
- Status
Could be, but there is a saving to be made to embed that 24 MB. Leaving only one external pool. If not they should really design it with a single larger memory pool.
That's not really a savings. A likely 64-bit GDDR bus to some surface mounted DRAMs is not a black art. Bloating your GPU another 200M+ transistors and sacrificing yields in the process, on the other hand, is something that simply cannot be afforded in an economical $250 console.
This is all pretty straight-forward. The Gamecube had two external memory pools. For the sake of compatibility, Wii retains these, including the existing 24 MB 1T-SRAM pool. The 8-bit/16 MB DRAM interface is swapped for something a bit beefier. The CPU and GPU receive modest clock speed increases and perhaps a few other upgrades (512 KB L2 on the CPU, potentially some changes on the GPU).
Anything else is really stretching it, in my opinion.
Don't remember the exact number but IIRC it was marginally higher then the SRam (kinda like XDR and GDDR in PS3).darkblu said:
I have no idea if 24 is embeded, but unified pool would probably be cost prohibitive. And making all ram into some cheaper variant might compromise backward compatibility.V3 said:
No-one believes that info.
thank you for reply.
I found two good close-ups of our hero, AiAi, from one generation to the next.
Super Monkeyball Cube:
http://cubemedia.ign.com/media/e32001/monkey/bg07.jpg
Super Monkeyball Wii:
http://gonintendo.com/wp-content/photos/7a6330b6e592ed3619f1a7fcbd9b709b.jpg
Just something worth looking at, that's all.
Super Monkeyball Cube:
http://cubemedia.ign.com/media/e32001/monkey/bg07.jpg
Super Monkeyball Wii:
http://gonintendo.com/wp-content/photos/7a6330b6e592ed3619f1a7fcbd9b709b.jpg
Just something worth looking at, that's all.
Inst the GDDR latency higher than the A-Ram on the GC? If so, considering that A-Ram it is used not just for audio but also code, how can they have BC with all games on the GC?
Also this means that they did some good rework to the flipper/hoolywood so it can handle the much higher latency than 1T-Sram of GC. I wonder what more they did reworked for Wii.
BTW
FC:V pics+Interview
http://wii.ign.com/articles/733/733951p1.html
It is just me or they are worst than XB version (blaming bad/rushed port IMO)
Last edited by a moderator:
Since the A-RAM on had an atrocious bandwith of 81MB/s I highly doubt that it's even anywhere near the latency of GDDR. The GDDR should have a much lower latency.
Thanks.
Anyone knows what they mean with this "Overall the Wii is more powerful than an Xbox, even if the Xbox can do some stuff that the Wii can't."? I guess that it can do more polys/lights/s and other things also possible on the GC (eg self shading and the ones presented on gamasutra article) faster than XB would do, but not some advanced shading methods possible on XB (eg vertex shading based, "fast" normal mapping ...).
Ooh-videogames
Regular
The textures are low resolution, there's no normal mapping to speak of. Which is what I assume to be is what they are suggesting the Wii can't do. But, I believe, if Crytek was able to perform there version on the Cube, it is more than likely possible on Wii.
This is one of the problems I see with Nintendo decision to not use something similar to PC tech. Unless you have a developer willing to put the time in to come up with the algorithm to perform normal mapping, you want see it. This is the time I wish Nintendo had picked up Factor 5.
that bandwidth was a function of the ultra-low-clock and ultra-narrow bus. we don't know anything about the RAM latency per se. although the bus clock already sets fairly lax latency requirements. for what it's worth the GDDR may have 4 times higher latiencies per bus clock but a 4 times faster bus would keep the pool's latencies as seen from outside to A-RAM levels.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ooh-videogames
Regular
What I don't get is the overall visual quality of SC
A, compared to FC:V. Texture quality, what looks like normal mapping, shadows.Also why the lack of bump mapping, and what is going on with Midway performing some new shading affects in Rampage.
Yeah, it looks terrible. This is a disgrace. How can you not have normal mapping in a game like far cry. Nintendo has shot themselves in the foot with this hardware.
Who's this No-one character?
edit: Wow those Far Cry shots really do look like ass. I don't remember my Xbox Far Cry Instincts looking like that.... These shots look very blurry with quite poor textures. The forest up the mountains has been culled down a ton too. What? Couldn't it handle the 2D trees!?!?!
http://media.wii.ign.com/media/846/846381/img_3931987.html
I mean YIKES! There's some horrible dithering going on in the smoked area. OMG or is that DRAW IN?!? The gun looks like something out of Project IGI (heh!!). The ground texture is appealing to the judges for a worst-ever award. The tail of the Heli has some beautiful heavy aliasing going on. But! Wait! There is bloom! This game's running 480p and looks like that!?
Let me just say that I played Far Cry on a Radeon 9600 with 64MB RAM. A Mobility Radeon 9600. And, it looked a hell of a lot nicer than this.
Last edited by a moderator:
They would have been better off not releasing those screens. I want to not believe "Overclocked Cube," but Ubisoft is making it hard.
re the those misfortunate recent FC:V shots:
what do you expect, people? Ubi have been totally bandwagon-jumping the wii with those 8 titles. originally 2 of those (RS and RRR) were actually designed as full-fledged titles for the platform, and the rest being just quick cash-ins. i would not be surprised if the level of development effort that went in the low-profile ones was somewhere in the vicinity of xbl arcade games (no offence for the live arcade intended).
i would not draw any conclusions from such low-profile titles, and even less so take them for hw estimates.
what do you expect, people? Ubi have been totally bandwagon-jumping the wii with those 8 titles. originally 2 of those (RS and RRR) were actually designed as full-fledged titles for the platform, and the rest being just quick cash-ins. i would not be surprised if the level of development effort that went in the low-profile ones was somewhere in the vicinity of xbl arcade games (no offence for the live arcade intended).
i would not draw any conclusions from such low-profile titles, and even less so take them for hw estimates.
- Status
