Originally Posted by naschbac
Because die-size equates directly to performance?
Ouch, you and your denial again...
As not only me but ~100 other people already explained on various online forums yes, the same chip made on lower process should show comparably proportional die size decrease
with respect to other things (ie extra added due to increased leakage etc).
I thought in the other thread you finally - as you first miscalculated even the expected ratios, halved process meant half the die-size for you - understood that that Wii's GPU is apparently almost twice as big as it should be if it would be still GC's chip.
Now you're here, with this again...
The only thing unexplainable is how you end up at "the Wii is so utterly different from the GameCube in performance and features"
You know, you have a very nasty habit of putting words into others' mouth if it nicely fits into your misconception - you're using quotation marks so link these words or stop faking quotes.
based on nothing more than misinterpreted developer quotes and remarks about die-size.
For you - IIRC a self-declared chip designer ROFL - it's apparently unimaginable but as so many people already pointed out it is pretty comparable.
No, it's not the straight proportionate - you also seem to be locked into your black-and-white way of thinking - but pretty similar.
The die for a 486DX is about 2.5 times as big as the Wii GPU... maybe they should have used one of those for the graphics chip instead.
Ah, another one of your usually completely off notes... just as you misunderstood the supposed Wii CPU vs the old PPC6xx-family differences - see my posts in the other thread WRT 6xx->750 changes you got mostly backwards until my links proved you wrong - now your pretty laughable "analogy" simply ignores that 486DX and Wii's GPU, unlike GC's and Wii, doesn't share any architectural similarity, let alone one being the successor of the other... another meaningless bollocks, in other words.
The Ubisoft developers that created Red Faction
1. Red Faction was published by THQ, developed by Volition for PC, later ported to PS2,
2. only RFII, still a THQ game, still developed by Volition, originally for PS2, later for PC,
made it to
3. be a GC-port
, by the noname Cranky Pants Games
You probably meant Red Steel?
But that never been on GC as it was a Wii launch exclusive so it's hardly a base for comparison as far as I can tell.
Now that it's clear let's move on...
stated in no uncertain terms that the Wii in whole is slightly more capable than the original Xbox, but that graphically the original Xbox could do more, which seemed to be a nod to the lack of vertex and pixel shaders on the Wii GPU. They also stated that the Wii is in the same ballpark as the GameCube
...to this giant pile of complete bollocks.
Let me simply quote what Ubisoft "stated in no uncertain terms"
Q: The rumours spoke about a power comparable with that of Xbox
A: I do not have the right to speak in details of what Wii can do graphically. What one can say, it is that on the sum of all that it can do, Wii is more powerful than Xbox. But there are things which Xbox can make and which Wii cannot make.
Even if we ignore that a pretty goofy Google translation from a French interview with Red Steel team member equals "Ubisoft... stated in no uncertain terms" for you (LOL) I think it's actually the stated the other way
, don't you think?
and that for the first time at a console launch the state-of-the-art for tapping graphics and system performance was already well established due to the Wii's similarity to the GameCube in those respects... ie, there aren't a lot of hidden tricks.
Hehe, you're quite confused: reusing assets and methods
or porting things due to various reasons (ie saving time etc) and developing a new engine
are two different things.
So outside of more available RAM and a 50% boost in clock speed there's almost certainly no silver-bullet feature we don't know about lurking in the recesses of the Wii's CPU or GPU which are going to create visuals much beyond the very best GameCube games like Resident Evil 4, Rouge Squadron, and StarFox Adventures.
Declared by who? How?
Your apparent ignorance on these things hardly makes your pulled-from-thin-air statements more true...
Also, based on the only system diagram that appears publicly available the extra 64 Megs of RAM does hang off the GPU as essentially a 3rd tier or memory, so the CPU still has to use the path to the GPU to access all memory banks available... which means.... it's STILL bottlenecked in EXACTLY the same way the GameCube was.
You know, these lousy, never researched yet highly opinionated posts were the reason I stopped arguing with you finally in the other topic.
I love this console, I expect that some folks will make some pretty impressive games for it. Folks like Factor5 were able to do some cool things on the GameCube at launch, and I expect that we'll see some quality titles that have decent graphics, but I totally fail to understand where you draw these 100% assured conclusions that the Wii is just being totally untapped and that eventually we'll all see what it's really capable of. We already know what it's capable of. Without the addition of programmable shader support to the GPU it's capable of incrementally more geometry processing than the GameCube, incrementally larger or more detailed textures than the GameCube, and incrementally better AI processing than the GameCube.
Besides various empty claims - I won't address all the bollocks in this part, just doesn't worth the php and time - you seem to be stucked in your B&W world: the only thing I can be sure 100% that you were dead wrong in most of your posts as my links proved it time after time, nothing else.
And this post is not an exception either.
It's not some vast mystery.
Not for me but apparently it still is, at least for some...