WiiU, graphical comparisons? *spawn*
- Thread starter Liandry
- Start date
- Status
You are asking for one hell of a lecture here. Even a university course or two only covers parts of the issues.
Basically - raw FLOPS is a number that even in graphics processing only gives a ball park estimate of overall capabilities, and then only in comparison with approximate peers doing approximately the same work.
The Switches capabilites in FLOPs covers a gamut from 200-800 depending in precision and whether it is docked or undocked.
Yes it has a significantly more flexible architecture than the X360/PS3. And yes, it has roughly ten times more memory available to the game application, neglecting split pools vs. unified entirely.
Overall, it is significantly more capable, but how that translates into finished game product will be situational.
It's way more complex than a forum post can reasonably describe.
I have yet to see WiiU titles with better graphics than the best X360/PS3 games. What do you think is better from graphical standpoint?
Sorry all, I didn't realize just how off topic the question was. 
WiiU? Somewhat more modern architecture, more RAM, a comparatively huge pool of flexibly useful on-chip memory is its more apparent advantages over the x360/PS3. It has comparative weaknesses too, particularly apparent in CPU SIMD capabilites.
WiiU? Somewhat more modern architecture, more RAM, a comparatively huge pool of flexibly useful on-chip memory is its more apparent advantages over the x360/PS3. It has comparative weaknesses too, particularly apparent in CPU SIMD capabilites.
Double ram for developer (~500 MB vs 1 GB) plays a big part in texture quality. Also WiiU had 32 MB EDRAM (vs Xbox 360's10 MB) and AFAIK could sample textures from EDRAM directly. That's a big deal. Also WiiU GPU is newer than Xbox 360. With DX10+ feature set, and compute shader 4.0 equivalent capability. Xbox 360 had quite limited HDR rendering support (supported RT formats were limited and float texture sampling was slow). WiiU GPU most likely also had similar bandwidth saving features that ATI had at that time on their PC hardware (more advanced vs Xbox 360).
Super Mario 3D World, Captain Toad Treaure Tracker, Mario Kart 8, Xenoblade Chronicles X, The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild, all have better graphics than anything on X360/PS3, especially Zelda. Mario and Toad games easily can be compared to Ratchet and Clank series, and easily win.
Well better is really up to each taste.
The thing is, those games are not photorealists whereas most titles on other PS360 tried to be...
So you're spending your computation budget differently.
Anyway comparing images from different games is useless to compare performance and quality.
(Different art styles...)
The thing is, those games are not photorealists whereas most titles on other PS360 tried to be...
So you're spending your computation budget differently.
Anyway comparing images from different games is useless to compare performance and quality.
(Different art styles...)
Last edited:
Textures are better in those games, some have more geometry, and you can see that, also thise games have better lighting, and some effects.
Last edited by a moderator:
We already have done WiiU versus PS360 and the DF articles were most enlightening. Basically in 90% of comparisons Wii U was behind (usually performance) both PS3 and XB360 in graphically intensive AAA games. and often the difference between Wii U and the second was bigger than the difference between the first and the second.Textures are better in those games, some have more geometry, and you can see that, also thise games have better lighting, and some effects.
Maybe Wii U could have produced better graphics than PS3 and X360 but at what framerate ?
Because objectively Wii U is less powerful than both PS3 and X360 in most AAA games.
Rikimaru
Veteran
GTAV is better graphically than all of these.
Also God of War 3, Uncharted 2-3, LBP and so on. Ratchet Nexus is beautiful.
Typically the best of the best on 360/PS3 were a step up from the best Wii U examples. Considering the Wii U had a 176 Gflop GPU and a CPU that would be of no assistance in graphics processing, unlike the Cell and Xenon, and only pulled 35 watts was pretty impressive from that perspective. Wii U's GPU was more modern, but the VLIW5 was a much smaller leap than the jump to GCN. We also have to consider that Naughty Dog for example is extremely talented and had many many years to maximize performance on PS3. If Wii U were on the market for 7-8 years, we would have seen further advances made from Nintendo's first party teams. Nintendo seemingly aimed for a HD console similar in capabilities to the 360/PS3, maintain backwards compatibility with Wii, and be packed in a form factor not much bigger than the Wii. I think they hit their mark dead on with what they were trying to do in that respect.
I highly suggest you re-evaluate as none of those are better looking from a technical perspective.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
