- Status
razor512
Distinguished
- Jun 16, 2007
- 501
- 0
- 18,940
Consoles do run a OS but compared to windows using a ton of memory, the one on the console will only use around 10-20MB
But the area where the console OS excels is not the low memory footprint but the more direct path to the hardware, allowing games to better utilize the hardware.
and since all of the hardware is the same across the board, game developers can optimize the game specifically to the console.
for example the videocard and memory in a console will never provide a playable frame rate on a game like skyrim if it was rendered the same way that the PC version will.
But since everything is the same on the console, they can get creative with rendering. they know how long it takes to load up a texture and swap textures and adjust mesh counts so they can tune the game specifically to it.
You can have closer objects rendered with a higher res texture with a better mesh count and a higher resolution light map and probably some ray tracing while a little further away things can be toned down a little more.
Look at the graphics of many modern games on the PS3 and Xbox 360, it is far better than what was available with the equivalent PC components, even now this holds true.
All in all, since all of the hardware is the same, developers can do significantly more to optimize games to look good
When comparing a PC to a console, don't look at whats currently available on the PC because it will be better, instead look at equivalent hardware then compare the gaming performance, you will see that the console is able to offer multiple times the quality.
(if you have a console that has been modded in a way that allows you to cheat, that is when the optimization breaks down, you move too quickly and the mesh count goes down as the console in unable to swap in higher resolution content)
But the area where the console OS excels is not the low memory footprint but the more direct path to the hardware, allowing games to better utilize the hardware.
and since all of the hardware is the same across the board, game developers can optimize the game specifically to the console.
for example the videocard and memory in a console will never provide a playable frame rate on a game like skyrim if it was rendered the same way that the PC version will.
But since everything is the same on the console, they can get creative with rendering. they know how long it takes to load up a texture and swap textures and adjust mesh counts so they can tune the game specifically to it.
You can have closer objects rendered with a higher res texture with a better mesh count and a higher resolution light map and probably some ray tracing while a little further away things can be toned down a little more.
Look at the graphics of many modern games on the PS3 and Xbox 360, it is far better than what was available with the equivalent PC components, even now this holds true.
All in all, since all of the hardware is the same, developers can do significantly more to optimize games to look good
When comparing a PC to a console, don't look at whats currently available on the PC because it will be better, instead look at equivalent hardware then compare the gaming performance, you will see that the console is able to offer multiple times the quality.
(if you have a console that has been modded in a way that allows you to cheat, that is when the optimization breaks down, you move too quickly and the mesh count goes down as the console in unable to swap in higher resolution content)
LORD_ORION
Distinguished
- Sep 12, 2007
- 330
- 1
- 18,930
Nintendo messed up... they should have focused on what sold their consoles. Namely the Wii controller and Wii Fit.
New HD capabilities, improved wii controllers and reigning in all the shovelware would have allowed them to continue to dominate the casual gamers.
My bet is the next version of Kinnect will do for casual gamers what the wii did.
New HD capabilities, improved wii controllers and reigning in all the shovelware would have allowed them to continue to dominate the casual gamers.
My bet is the next version of Kinnect will do for casual gamers what the wii did.
[citation][nom]sony1978ak[/nom]eeew 768 of ram? you call that HD gaming LMAO hahahahahahaahaha. just like ps3 and 360 512 of ram even 1 gig ram is outdated hardware, how can they call HD gaming ? PC is the GOD OF HD Gaming and it will all ways be[/citation]
Well, think about it, how much RAM does a GAME really utilize? 768MB of RAM is more than adequate for this console. Whilst it would be nice if the console designers would go all out on hardware so us PC gamers don't have to be dragged down by horrible PC ports, That won't be happening any time soon.
Well, think about it, how much RAM does a GAME really utilize? 768MB of RAM is more than adequate for this console. Whilst it would be nice if the console designers would go all out on hardware so us PC gamers don't have to be dragged down by horrible PC ports, That won't be happening any time soon.
shin0bi272
Distinguished
- Nov 20, 2007
- 271
- 0
- 18,930
While I agree 768mb of ram is way too little we have to remember that the system ram wont need to be very high since it will be running off of the disk. That will leave ~640mb or so for the graphics and as we can see with games like mass effect 2, a directx 9 card with 512mb of ram runs it at 60fps at 16x9 res pretty consistently.
Not sure about the powerPC chip or anything but if youre going for such a setup why not go with an intel ivy bridge with its dx11 integrated graphics? that way you save on power consumption and heat and still get the ability to do the type of cartoonish graphics nintendo is known for but this time in 1080p.
Not sure about the powerPC chip or anything but if youre going for such a setup why not go with an intel ivy bridge with its dx11 integrated graphics? that way you save on power consumption and heat and still get the ability to do the type of cartoonish graphics nintendo is known for but this time in 1080p.
I don't play console anymore, but SNES was in my opinion, the best console ever made. There was no gimmick. Just had a library of some of the best games ever made.
Who cares if its 700mb or 1gig or 4gigs. It's all about launch titles. I guarantee if Nintendo puts something like Zelda, Mario, Kirby, Super Smash Bros, Pokemon, Chrono Trigger, Mega Man, etc. the Wii U will sell like hotcakes.
But, I agree, the whole tablet controller gimmick just isn't what Nintendo should have gone for. Whether you hate Nintendo or love it, respect it. They made the most contribution and made gaming the way it is today.
Who cares if its 700mb or 1gig or 4gigs. It's all about launch titles. I guarantee if Nintendo puts something like Zelda, Mario, Kirby, Super Smash Bros, Pokemon, Chrono Trigger, Mega Man, etc. the Wii U will sell like hotcakes.
But, I agree, the whole tablet controller gimmick just isn't what Nintendo should have gone for. Whether you hate Nintendo or love it, respect it. They made the most contribution and made gaming the way it is today.
zachusaman
Distinguished
- Dec 5, 2011
- 38
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]dimar[/nom]I really hope this will teach Microsoft and Sony a good lesson. Should have used 22nm AMD APU with 8GB XDR2 shared RAM, to support future Ultra HD TVs. It's called future proof!!!!!!![/citation]
except that the cpu and gpu get outdated, not only that, but future proofing means you wont make any more money by selling them a new console.
except that the cpu and gpu get outdated, not only that, but future proofing means you wont make any more money by selling them a new console.
DirectXtreme
Distinguished
- Aug 31, 2011
- 14
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]dimar[/nom]I really hope this will teach Microsoft and Sony a good lesson. Should have used 22nm AMD APU with 8GB XDR2 shared RAM, to support future Ultra HD TVs. It's called future proof!!!!!!![/citation]
Do you realize that such hardware for a console would easily shatter the $1,000 price barrier? Ultra HD isn't even out yet, and future-proofing for it would be a retarded idea. The hardware would be too weak to render games with good graphics at playable frame rates at a resolution of 7680x4320 when it becomes common, which won't be until the end of this decade or even the middle of the next. Take this analogy for example: *It's 2002* "I'm going build a PC with the fastest hardware so I can future-proof it to max out games in 1080p when it becomes the most commonly used resolution!!!!" *fast-forwards to 2008* Damn this rig can barely run any modern games, time for an an upgrade!!!"
Do you realize that such hardware for a console would easily shatter the $1,000 price barrier? Ultra HD isn't even out yet, and future-proofing for it would be a retarded idea. The hardware would be too weak to render games with good graphics at playable frame rates at a resolution of 7680x4320 when it becomes common, which won't be until the end of this decade or even the middle of the next. Take this analogy for example: *It's 2002* "I'm going build a PC with the fastest hardware so I can future-proof it to max out games in 1080p when it becomes the most commonly used resolution!!!!" *fast-forwards to 2008* Damn this rig can barely run any modern games, time for an an upgrade!!!"
The main reason I love pc gaming is because for the most part you wont need or want to upgrade if you buy right, however if you DO want better quality either A) Wait for new games, or B) buy some better equipment in increments... with an Xbox or PS3, your pretty stuck at that video quality... for 5-8 years...
nottheking
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2006
- 311
- 0
- 18,930
My bullshit detector is screeching here. The easy one is that 768MB of RAM isn't a power of 2, and hence would require an odd number of memory controllers: that'd mean with 192-bit or 384-bit, and 6 or 12 DRAM chips, as this is the standard kept for consoles, video cards, and mobile devices. Both interface widths are beyond reasonable for a gaming console: the Xbox, Xbox 360, and PS3 all used 128-bit interfaces with 4 DRAM modules: other consoles were all smaller.
The easy money is that people, trying to get the scoop, are just fabricating numbers and claiming "inside sources" they cannot cite; IGN did this for the Wii, after all. These sort of claims don't hold up to any reasonable scrutiny; the 3DS, after all, already nearly rivals the 360, so why would a home console be only marginally better?
The 360 has shown that it actually is difficult to do 720p with HDR+AA on 7th-gen consoles: some games (such as Skyrim) are as low as 576p, which only measures in at 0.59 megapixels. (the PS3 just can't even do HDR+AA, period) Hence, simply taking the SAME games up to 1080p would require a whopping three and a half times the power of the Xbox 360. Even just going from 720p to 1080p requires an improvement of +125%. Merely being 50% more potent simply wouldn't cut it, especially given that developers have already announced 1080p ports of 360 and PS3 games for the Wii U. So this pegs the power at a MINIMUM of 2.25x. And Moore's law suggests something well beyond that.
I'm outright discarding the figures given out-of-hand: adding to the suspicion is that nothing's claimed other than the makers, and the QUANTITY of RAM, but not the type: if they'd even talked to an ENTHUSIAST, let alone an actual developer, they'd be able to get real, important figures like that. Instead, the easy money says that this is 100% fabricated. A more logical guess pegs the RAM at 2 GB (and that assumes that, in spite of the 3DS, Nintendo is still stingy on RAM quantity) with the RAM being either GDDR5 or XDR2. (Nintendo skimps on quantity, but always buys the fastest RAM) The power would be closer to around 4-6 times that of the Xbox 360 or PS3; in other words, 4-5 years' advancement through Moore's law.
The easy money is that people, trying to get the scoop, are just fabricating numbers and claiming "inside sources" they cannot cite; IGN did this for the Wii, after all. These sort of claims don't hold up to any reasonable scrutiny; the 3DS, after all, already nearly rivals the 360, so why would a home console be only marginally better?
The 360 has shown that it actually is difficult to do 720p with HDR+AA on 7th-gen consoles: some games (such as Skyrim) are as low as 576p, which only measures in at 0.59 megapixels. (the PS3 just can't even do HDR+AA, period) Hence, simply taking the SAME games up to 1080p would require a whopping three and a half times the power of the Xbox 360. Even just going from 720p to 1080p requires an improvement of +125%. Merely being 50% more potent simply wouldn't cut it, especially given that developers have already announced 1080p ports of 360 and PS3 games for the Wii U. So this pegs the power at a MINIMUM of 2.25x. And Moore's law suggests something well beyond that.
I'm outright discarding the figures given out-of-hand: adding to the suspicion is that nothing's claimed other than the makers, and the QUANTITY of RAM, but not the type: if they'd even talked to an ENTHUSIAST, let alone an actual developer, they'd be able to get real, important figures like that. Instead, the easy money says that this is 100% fabricated. A more logical guess pegs the RAM at 2 GB (and that assumes that, in spite of the 3DS, Nintendo is still stingy on RAM quantity) with the RAM being either GDDR5 or XDR2. (Nintendo skimps on quantity, but always buys the fastest RAM) The power would be closer to around 4-6 times that of the Xbox 360 or PS3; in other words, 4-5 years' advancement through Moore's law.
rohitbaran
Distinguished
- Mar 21, 2010
- 446
- 0
- 18,930
768 MB of RAM seems pretty low. Also, a CPU that is similar to the Xbox 360 CPU? Wow, Nintendo really seems keen to cut production costs by using old dated hardware lol!
BTW, showing that remote instead of the actual console isn't really helping in boosting the image of the console Toms. Even at launch, Nintendo weren't smart enough to present it properly and now, nearly everyone is showing that remote pic whenever Wii U is talked about.
BTW, showing that remote instead of the actual console isn't really helping in boosting the image of the console Toms. Even at launch, Nintendo weren't smart enough to present it properly and now, nearly everyone is showing that remote pic whenever Wii U is talked about.
[citation][nom]directxtreme[/nom]Do you realize that such hardware for a console would easily shatter the $1,000 price barrier? Ultra HD isn't even out yet, and future-proofing for it would be a retarded idea. The hardware would be too weak to render games with good graphics at playable frame rates at a resolution of 7680x4320 when it becomes common, which won't be until the end of this decade or even the middle of the next. Take this analogy for example: *It's 2002* "I'm going build a PC with the fastest hardware so I can future-proof it to max out games in 1080p when it becomes the most commonly used resolution!!!!" *fast-forwards to 2008* Damn this rig can barely run any modern games, time for an an upgrade!!!"[/citation]
Fine, maybe I overdid the specs a little. All I want is to play games at 1080p with nice AA and 60 fps (nice and smooth, without screen tearing).
Fine, maybe I overdid the specs a little. All I want is to play games at 1080p with nice AA and 60 fps (nice and smooth, without screen tearing).
tanjo
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2011
- 97
- 0
- 18,590
The processor/GPU... XCGPU based design? I hope the GPU is at least a modified 6570 (something similarly powered).
Is the battery the size of the screen to accommodate the need for more processing power and game time?
What about cooling? Would I finally hear a fan in a portable game console?
Is the battery the size of the screen to accommodate the need for more processing power and game time?
What about cooling? Would I finally hear a fan in a portable game console?
Okay, just need to point out a few things to people.
First off, the source on this states the 768MB number, but then turns around and states that Nintendo is distributing a new dev-kit with 1000MB.
This confusion contradiction aside, the source also claims that this RAM is embedded into the CPU die itself, which would make it eDRAM. This however isn't at all feasible, it'd make the CPU utterly immense, and it'd be 99% memory.
It's possible the website misquoted how this RAM was going to be utilized, it's also possible that they meant megaBITS, and are actually referring to a considerably smaller amount of memory used as CPU cache.
Even assuming that they simply meant that the CPU RAM was accessible by the CPU and GPU, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the system only had a Gig of system memory only. There's a compelling reason why most computer systems dedicate RAM to both GPU and CPU, even if each pool of memory can be accessed by either component. This is mere speculation of course, but even under this scenario it's quite possible that there could be additional memory dedicated to the GPU.
Essentially, between confusing reporting, vague reporting, and outright technical impossibilities, we can definitively state that we know nothing more from this rumored leak than we did before.
Just something to keep in mind before arguing about the horsepower in Nintendos latest purely recreational plaything.
First off, the source on this states the 768MB number, but then turns around and states that Nintendo is distributing a new dev-kit with 1000MB.
This confusion contradiction aside, the source also claims that this RAM is embedded into the CPU die itself, which would make it eDRAM. This however isn't at all feasible, it'd make the CPU utterly immense, and it'd be 99% memory.
It's possible the website misquoted how this RAM was going to be utilized, it's also possible that they meant megaBITS, and are actually referring to a considerably smaller amount of memory used as CPU cache.
Even assuming that they simply meant that the CPU RAM was accessible by the CPU and GPU, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the system only had a Gig of system memory only. There's a compelling reason why most computer systems dedicate RAM to both GPU and CPU, even if each pool of memory can be accessed by either component. This is mere speculation of course, but even under this scenario it's quite possible that there could be additional memory dedicated to the GPU.
Essentially, between confusing reporting, vague reporting, and outright technical impossibilities, we can definitively state that we know nothing more from this rumored leak than we did before.
Just something to keep in mind before arguing about the horsepower in Nintendos latest purely recreational plaything.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
New ssd old laptops weak batteries lot's money in 2025
- Started by Ronampo
- Replies: 0
-
Question Buying a new laptop. Any recommendations?
- Started by goninda1
- Replies: 1
-
Question Adding an SSD caused booting problems
- Started by dincha2
- Replies: 1
-
-
Question Which games are you playing right now please suggest me some- Started by happyclub
- Replies: 0
-
-
Question I need a best partition manager software for PC Windows 11
- Started by synthia
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter