WiiGeePeeYou (Hollywood) what IS it ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank god Wii isn't using GDDR3, yeah I know what faf said I even asked him about it myself. From what I gathered those were in the old specs that people have been releasing since whatever. Rock solid source says the current system is all mosys, don't, know what type
 
Thank god Wii isn't using GDDR3, yeah I know what faf said I even asked him about it myself. From what I gathered those were in the old specs that people have been releasing since whatever. Rock solid source says the current system is all mosys, don't, know what type

Thats what i've been thinking. The low latency, and a combination of high latency memory just doesn't seem very efficient.
 
Thats what i've been thinking. The low latency, and a combination of high latency memory just doesn't seem very efficient.

from whose POV? ; )

a combination of (realtively) high and low latencies is how memory systems have been devised ever since, well, genesis. or in our case since people realised you can't have the escalibur of low latency memory all across the board and not go bancrupt in a product cycle.

'thou shalt create a cascading hierarchy of increasing-latency, increasing-volume memory and thou shalt use smart promoting and demoting schemes for thy data to move across'
-- Coreinthians 13:31
 
Eh? Isn't GDDR3 really good memory?

I can see why you might think that because GDDR3 is often used at very high bandwidths in a lot of current graphics cards ect, where as 1T-Sram usually has more modest speeds. But really it all comes down how fast you run the memory and what kind of bus you use, 1T-Sram can run faster then GDDR3 and vica-versa. If you setup both memory types at the same speed (same bandwidth) 1T-Sram would be quite a bit faster as system memory, due to the fact that 1T-Sram has a latency of only about 10ns, while GDDR3 is more like 30ns. GDDR3 is really designed as video memory, where latency has a much lesser effect on performance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, she's the definition of cute, but she's clearly prerendered CG! :p

i think the phrase you are looking for is "Rendered to spec". Elebits is looking good, and it's no longer the graphical embarrassment (target render compared to realtime) it once was.
 
Anyone know how much RAM is dedicated to graphics for each console?



Also, do you guys think that Nintendo's next console will be as powerful as 360/PS3?
 
Anyone know how much RAM is dedicated to graphics for each console?

On PS3 is 256Mgs but the RSX can also use the Rambus (also 256Mgs) and the Cell use the GDDR3. On XB360 it is up to the devs and on the Wii (so the rumors says) it is also up to the devs.


Also, do you guys think that Nintendo's next console will be as powerful as 360/PS3?

No, we almost think that if we are lucky we may get the level of the RS E3 trailer later in the console life cicle.
 
Also, do you guys think that Nintendo's next console will be as powerful as 360/PS3?

I think that depending on how well Nintendo does this generation i.e. finishing 1st or 2nd place will be more aggressive with their HW next time, possibly as powerful as PS4 and X-Box 720.

However the next Nintendo console will have to be as powerful as PS3 and 360, I don't think people would accept anything less.
 
I think he actually means the Nintendo console after Wii..

Hehe. Exactly. Come on now, even I know where Wii stands here. :p

I think that depending on how well Nintendo does this generation i.e. finishing 1st or 2nd place will be more aggressive with their HW next time, possibly as powerful as PS4 and X-Box 720.

However the next Nintendo console will have to be as powerful as PS3 and 360, I don't think people would accept anything less.

I'm hoping it's true. What I'm worried about is if Nintendo succeeds on the Wii, they may feel the need to not bother upgrading even by 360/PS3 level. I mean, if it's successfull so far, why go that high next time, right?
 
I'm hoping it's true. What I'm worried about is if Nintendo succeeds on the Wii, they may feel the need to not bother upgrading even by 360/PS3 level. I mean, if it's successfull so far, why go that high next time, right?

nintendo are playing a non-lose-on-hw game here, not a retro hw game. nintendo are basically doing what ken (IIRC) once said he wanted to see sce doing - not lose on hw. that game dictates that you release on the market whatever hw can hit the target price range without capital losses; it's about how good you are at the given budget.
 
I'm hoping it's true. What I'm worried about is if Nintendo succeeds on the Wii, they may feel the need to not bother upgrading even by 360/PS3 level. I mean, if it's successful so far, why go that high next time, right?

I can totally see that happening as well. Frankly I'm quite afraid of that happening.

While I haven't been that impressed by the graphics thus far by 360 and I don't really care about graphics as much as I once did, I really just want "clean" graphics i.e. AA, AFx16 and no pixely/blurry textures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top