Kurtle Squad Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 I agree with YenRug. I didn't think it was a joke to be honest.
Shyguy Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 kalm down ppl it was a big joke, sort of like the contestants on Big Brother :P
YenRug Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 What's your take on the ATI remarks Yen? I have to say, word that the "same team" that worked on the Flipper is working on Hollywood is quite interesting. As has been alluded to already, I'd heard that the ArtX team had either broken up or left the company, after the ATI takeover and the Flipper had been finished. The Flipper chip is meant to be quite unique in its architecture and the way it performs; so, knowing that (potentially) the same team have been working on its successor, with all those extra years of experience? Well, the efficiency is pretty much a given, as that's another aspect of the Flipper; after that, I would think you can expect to see some interesting lighting effects rather than raw performance, not necessarily the hardware shaders, etc, that people normally expect to see. The GC had some powerful texture compression, so that will probably continue and be expanded, with the larger memory available; that possibly ties in the the displacement mapping that's been talked about, if anyone is going to figure out an efficient way to do that then it's likely to be them.
Demuwan Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 I have to say, word that the "same team" that worked on the Flipper is working on Hollywood is quite interesting. As has been alluded to already, I'd heard that the ArtX team had either broken up or left the company, after the ATI takeover and the Flipper had been finished. The Flipper chip is meant to be quite unique in its architecture and the way it performs; so, knowing that (potentially) the same team have been working on its successor, with all those extra years of experience? Well, the efficiency is pretty much a given, as that's another aspect of the Flipper; after that, I would think you can expect to see some interesting lighting effects rather than raw performance, not necessarily the hardware shaders, etc, that people normally expect to see. The GC had some powerful texture compression, so that will probably continue and be expanded, with the larger memory available; that possibly ties in the the displacement mapping that's been talked about, if anyone is going to figure out an efficient way to do that then it's likely to be them. Best analysis I've heard so far. Nice one Yen, sounds very plausible.
thomaschung Posted June 3, 2006 Posted June 3, 2006 I'm sure we'll see good enough graphics significantly better than GC. Only a handful of games released on the Cube pushed it to it's limits - Resi 4, Zelda TP, F Zero GX, and Metroid games. That's it. All the others could have looked better. And because developing for Wii will be easy adn similar to GC, developers should be able to get the most out of it pretty quickly
xernobyl Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 "They're different chips for different platforms and different uses. I don't think it's a fair comparison to put them on a chart [to analyze]. That's not what it's all about... I think if you focus on the capabilities that the chip will have for the average consumer, with the amazement and wow factor, I think that's the value that we bring." They're GPUs how hard can they be to compare!?! It's not like comparing a cow to a UFO! This CPU is slower and has a better power consumption so it can't be compared to this one that does not. Or something like that.
pedrocasilva Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 They're GPUs how hard can they be to compare!?! It's not like comparing a cow to a UFO! This CPU is slower and has a better power consumption so it can't be compared to this one that does not. Or something like that.Just like you really can't compare a X86 architecture CPU to a PowerPC RISC because they are just so diferent... Just like you can't really compare a DirectX compliant GPU to the flipper on GC for example. Sure you can look at the numbers on a paper and compare them... but it won't be a accurate comparation... specially if you consider that one platform is highly optimized whereas the other isn't. Even Intel is droping the MHz branding now (after AMD droping it years ago) it must mean something
SpinesN Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 sure you can compair them. Doesn't mean one is better than the other but you can compair an x86 to PPC cpu based on how effectivly it does a job. Each might be better suited for different applications but you CAN compair them.
pedrocasilva Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 sure you can compair them. Doesn't mean one is better than the other but you can compair an x86 to PPC cpu based on how effectivly it does a job. Each might be better suited for different applications but you CAN compair them.you're right what I meant to say is that you can't compare them directly without considering those factors... Infact you can even compair a AMD 64 to a Banshee Vodoo 2, the Vodoo 2 when it comes to texturing abilities still has the edge over. I know it's a extreme situation with really diferent chips (and purposes) but it's never like comparing a ATi X1600 to a X1800... AMD versus Banshee it's almost like doing a forced compartion just because. With diferent architectures you can make a powerful GPU in RAW polygons who looses most of its performance when texturing them... or you can make a GPU with less RAW poligons who effectively textures them without much hit... the latter could be better in real life situations when textured polygons are used at all places. Said that... I think it makes a lot of sense for ATi to state that the Wii will output great graphics but refusing to compare it to X360, simply because we know it'll be no match on paper, it's really a matter of looking into the future games and reading more specifics about the GPU.
Jamba Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 Must be quite hard for ATI to go up there and be forced to compare two of their own products. They need to maintain the integrity of both.
KKOB Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 makes sense when everyone is still kinda working off GC dev kits. it would make sense if whats being shown is basicly GC+1 next E3 is when we'll see Wii's (and the ps3s) graphical prowess shown off a lil more.
SpinesN Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 Heh well if you must compair the banshee to an athlon 64 :p Anyway I will take your word that it is better with textures (I have never attempted to compair them). But you really bring up the point I was getting at: That different CPUs (a GPU is just a specialized CPU after all) and better at different things. In the end the flipper 2 might end up being able to do displacement mapping at no cost (just for argument sake) which would allow it to produce better looking visuals than the 360 or ps3 chip, since everything would have free mapping the whole chip could render polygons, shaders, etc... But when it comes down to it what looks better? That's the real measure of a graphics chip. And of course there can be no "benchmark" such as 3dmark on the PC since software coded for one will not work on another :p
Demuwan Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 It's a step forward I'd say. The best thing is we can only see more good things in the future. : peace:
ShadowV7 Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 Even Pikachus Thunder attack looks amazing.Can't wait for more screens.
blender Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 melee was a very early gamecube game and so I don't think it is fair to compare. Jungle beat has the best graphics on the gamecube especially on the boss fights. The techiques used are amazing. I expect to see them more widespread on the wii with some additional horsepower for more on screen action. At the end of the day I still think that wii graphics are comparable with the better gamecube games. For comparison here are some GAMECUBE screen shots of jungle beat to compare to wii smash bros brawl.
Sixfold01 Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 i like the comparison pics... they do show quite an advancement in graphics, nothing HUGE! but... a lot more texture and polygon counts right? As for ATI, they say we've just seen the tip of the iceberg... and I'm not trying to think negative... but I really don't think the graphics are gonna get THAT much better... So maybe this "iceberg" is tiny... just a little floating chunk of ice...? (don't hate me)
Hellfire Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 I'm thinking you just think JB has the best GC graphics because of the fur. The graphics are great for the game, but they don't reach Metroid, Rogue Squadron, RE4 or TP levels. Stop once and for all comparing wii's EARLY E3 DEMOS MADE ON NON FINAL DEV KITS with last generation GC games. God.
Kurtle Squad Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 Even Pikachus Thunder attack looks amazing.Can't wait for more screens. I hadn't noticed that, but it looks ways better.
blender Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 I'm thinking you just think JB has the best GC graphics because of the fur. The graphics are great for the game, but they don't reach Metroid, Rogue Squadron, RE4 or TP levels. Stop once and for all comparing wii's EARLY E3 DEMOS MADE ON NON FINAL DEV KITS with last generation GC games. God. True i like fur. In fact I love fur! I chose JB as the cartoony style is similar to the Wii games profiled. If I put the screen shot of JB next to the last SBM picture featuring DK , everyone would be wowing the wii. Historically , E3 is usually quite revealing for graphics. Even for systems that have yet to be released. Companies set expectations with their FMV trailers and demos etc (ahem Sony). So I think a comparison is perfectly valid. I still have not seen anything that tells me there is going to be a graphics powerhorse in the wii... just an incremental improvement.
Hellfire Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 Historically , E3 is usually quite revealing for graphics. No it isn't, we saw this with PS3 and X360 most of the games look way worse than what they showed with their pre rendered things. And this doesn't have anything to do with it, it's quite obvious that with developers working with GC kits graphics couldn't be spectactular. You see things too black and white, wii won't be a powerhouse but that doesn't mean it's "OLOL CG TURBO!".
Demuwan Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 Stop once and for all comparing wii's EARLY E3 DEMOS MADE ON NON FINAL DEV KITS with last generation GC games. God. Finally Hellfire has said something sensible.
Jamba Posted June 4, 2006 Posted June 4, 2006 melee was a very early gamecube game and so I don't think it is fair to compare. Why not? SSB:Brawl is an early Wii game so I'd say that this is the best case for comparison. I wouldn't say that Jungle beat is a good example of great graphics, more like TP when Link is running through the woods with his lantern, with all lose lovely lighting effects. But anyway, what's the point in measuring two consoles at different stages of their lifetime? What can you tell from it?
Recommended Posts