Jump to content


Photo

possible reason many early games underpreform


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 tboss

tboss

    Pokey

  • Members
  • 1,242 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 04:37 AM

thought a little, most games from X360 and PS3 from what i know uses the CPU to help the GPU push out better graphics, the wiiU CPU is not designed to help with graphics. Many early wiiU ports are done by very low end port teams, many of which used 1 wiiU CPU core and likly didnt know enough to push the CPU graphics boost code off the CPU. now if the GPU is waiting on the CPU to do graphics code on 1 core optimized to take advantige of its weaknesses, it would likly suffer from framedrops. and in most games its only framedrops with better effects.  many of the CPU help can likly be put off to the GPU and still work better.  This also now seems like a much more likly reason for wiiU ports to peform poorly compared to others than simply unrealistily weak GPU(which would be pushing very early xbox360 quality games at stats some people came to beleave.)

 

i also never heard this explenation anywhere else so i am putting this here.



#2 Mewbot

Mewbot

    I'm batman

  • Members
  • 2,027 posts
  • NNID:R00bot
  • Fandom:
    Legend of Zelda and Super Smash Bros.

Posted 21 August 2013 - 04:41 AM

I've heard explanations like this before.

 

It seems like the (GP)GPU in the Wii U is capable of doing much of the work for the CPU, but the devs weren't coding for that and forced the CPU (which is less powerful than the 360 and PS3 CPU's) to do all the work causing performance issues.


Y U READ THIS?...WHY IS THERE TEXT HERE? LOL WTF
       bi5tzqg.gif
 

                                 Wii U ID : R00bot


#3 3Dude

3Dude

    Whomp

  • Section Mods
  • 5,482 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 05:00 AM

I've heard explanations like this before.
 
It seems like the (GP)GPU in the Wii U is capable of doing much of the work for the CPU, but the devs weren't coding for that and forced the CPU (which is less powerful than the 360 and PS3 CPU's) to do all the work causing performance issues.


This is not true.

Espresso destroys xenon/cell in general purpose/drhystones. Its getting extremely obvious with titles like tw101 having absolutely no billboarding.

Its only 'weaker' in flops/whetstones, as are ps4/xbone cpu's.

banner1_zpsb47e46d2.png

 


#4 Mewbot

Mewbot

    I'm batman

  • Members
  • 2,027 posts
  • NNID:R00bot
  • Fandom:
    Legend of Zelda and Super Smash Bros.

Posted 21 August 2013 - 05:03 AM

This is not true.

Espresso destroys xenon/cell in general purpose/drhystones. Its getting extremely obvious with titles like tw101 having absolutely no billboarding.

Its only 'weaker' in flops/whetstones, as are ps4/xbone cpu's.

Espresso is the CPU right? 

 

So I guess it's just lazy coding then. :/


Y U READ THIS?...WHY IS THERE TEXT HERE? LOL WTF
       bi5tzqg.gif
 

                                 Wii U ID : R00bot


#5 3Dude

3Dude

    Whomp

  • Section Mods
  • 5,482 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 05:28 AM

Espresso is the CPU right? 
 
So I guess it's just lazy coding then. :/


Lazy is an easy dismissal. But its likely a combination of multiple factors.

1. Lowest level least experienced teams handle those ports. All ports that ended up better on wii u were done by the original team.

2. Nintendos gx2 and hardware documentation was missing in action. Devs were only using 1 core because they didnt know Nintendo chose against having an auto thread schedueler.

So, 2 cores sat idle.

Even with all that, even the 'bad' ports have better performance than ps3 versions, and with vsync on, so no screen tearing.

banner1_zpsb47e46d2.png

 


#6 tboss

tboss

    Pokey

  • Members
  • 1,242 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 09:18 AM

I've heard explanations like this before.

 

It seems like the (GP)GPU in the Wii U is capable of doing much of the work for the CPU, but the devs weren't coding for that and forced the CPU (which is less powerful than the 360 and PS3 CPU's) to do all the work causing performance issues.

 

i know thats not true, 1 core with code reliying on its weakest attributes (likly core 0 for early devs, later ones are likly smart enough to use core 1 as main), to run a game in a way the CPU wasnt designed too. code using the cpu as it is designed should be close to PS4/X1 CPU's give or take, nothing acreat enough to tell for sure though. 

 

also where have you heard this explanation?



#7 Mewbot

Mewbot

    I'm batman

  • Members
  • 2,027 posts
  • NNID:R00bot
  • Fandom:
    Legend of Zelda and Super Smash Bros.

Posted 21 August 2013 - 10:58 PM

i know thats not true, 1 core with code reliying on its weakest attributes (likly core 0 for early devs, later ones are likly smart enough to use core 1 as main), to run a game in a way the CPU wasnt designed too. code using the cpu as it is designed should be close to PS4/X1 CPU's give or take, nothing acreat enough to tell for sure though. 

 

also where have you heard this explanation?

I haven't heard this explanation, just ones like it. 

 

And 3Dude already said it was wrong. :/


Y U READ THIS?...WHY IS THERE TEXT HERE? LOL WTF
       bi5tzqg.gif
 

                                 Wii U ID : R00bot


#8 wombateer

wombateer

    Red Koopa Troopa

  • Members
  • 74 posts
  • NNID:wombateer
  • Fandom:
    Splinter Cell.

Posted 25 August 2013 - 05:45 AM

I'll guess we shall have more of a picture of what the Wii U can do (if the developer, that being Ubisoft) makes of Watch Dogs. Do they take it towards the Xbox 360/ PlayStation 3, or take it as close to the Xbox One/PlayStation 4 as they can?

 

Time will tell.



#9 tboss

tboss

    Pokey

  • Members
  • 1,242 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 07:31 AM

I'll guess we shall have more of a picture of what the Wii U can do (if the developer, that being Ubisoft) makes of Watch Dogs. Do they take it towards the Xbox 360/ PlayStation 3, or take it as close to the Xbox One/PlayStation 4 as they can?

 

Time will tell.

 

they will probly put more time into it than blacklist(even judging by ninty directs they didnt acknowledge blacklist as a well made wiiU game but did so for AC4 and watchdogs), it is a X1 port most likly andn that in itself should make it run better than a 360 port, but i expect it to be ruffly half way inbetween overall.



#10 Desert Punk

Desert Punk

    Chain Chomp

  • Members
  • 656 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 11:03 AM

I still don't get why there is any debate on this. The wii u cpu is weak.

 

The gamecube, wii and wii u are all based on the PPC750 architecture and we know the wii u uses this because only one core is used for wii mode on the wii u but the other 2 cores are identical. The speed is 1.24ghz so you have an easy calculation of around 8000 dmips for the 3 cores. Yes there is more cache which means the cpu is better utilised but it can't go above the dmips figure.

 

All the figures are clearly listed here;

 

http://en.wikipedia....ions_per_second

 

The AMD Jaguar cores are meant to be just over 3 dmips per mhz so by multiplying by 1600 then 8 you have about 40,000 dmips. Same figure for both ps4 and xbox one.

 

I know the devil is in the detail but this gives you a rough idea of the performance difference.

 

Obviously then you have to weigh in other factors like the wii u low bandwidth main memory, fast 32MB video memory, seperate arm cpu, xbox one kinect/operating systems, 32MB fast memory, ps3 cell ppu's etc. which add or detract from performance. The PPC750 is a very old chip architecture dating back to 1997. 

 

The xbox 360 xenon chip may be poor but each core has a dual thread and it runs at 3.2ghz so that is 6 threads at 3.2ghz. Yes its a rubbish cpu but with 2x the threads and over 2.5x the speed of the wii u cpu it gives it a huge advantage in final speed for integer performance. The difference in floating performance is even more huge but not as significant as the wii u gpu takes up the slack there.

 

I really wish people would stop pretending the wii u cpu is not weak. The issue is clearly seen in so many games with low frame rates. We all know the wii u gpu is not at fault, its a superior spec to 360 and PS3 but clearly there is an issue in the wii u spec causing many games to underperform and have sometimes cpu intensive features removed. The architecture of the wii u gpu is likely to be of an AMD design that require 30% less assistance from the cpu as well.

 

http://www.eurogamer...ations-face-off

 

It is getting ridiculous when everywhere else people have realised the wii u is current gen performance but you come here and people are pretending its competitive with ps4 and xbox one or signficantly more powerful than ps3 and xbox 360.

 

The evidence of how powerful the wii u is can be easily understood by looking at reviews that compare wii u versions to other versions on other consoles. That is the evidence. You'll learn nothing useful from reading the rantings of a fanboy.



#11 Poptartboy

Poptartboy

    Spiny

  • Members
  • 249 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 11:20 AM

I still don't get why there is any debate on this. The wii u cpu is weak.

 

The gamecube, wii and wii u are all based on the PPC750 architecture and we know the wii u uses this because only one core is used for wii mode on the wii u but the other 2 cores are identical. The speed is 1.24ghz so you have an easy calculation of around 8000 dmips for the 3 cores. Yes there is more cache which means the cpu is better utilised but it can't go above the dmips figure.

 

All the figures are clearly listed here;

 

http://en.wikipedia....ions_per_second

 

The AMD Jaguar cores are meant to be just over 3 dmips per mhz so by multiplying by 1600 then 8 you have about 40,000 dmips. Same figure for both ps4 and xbox one.

 

I know the devil is in the detail but this gives you a rough idea of the performance difference.

 

Obviously then you have to weigh in other factors like the wii u low bandwidth main memory, fast 32MB video memory, seperate arm cpu, xbox one kinect/operating systems, 32MB fast memory, ps3 cell ppu's etc. which add or detract from performance. The PPC750 is a very old chip architecture dating back to 1997. 

 

The xbox 360 xenon chip may be poor but each core has a dual thread and it runs at 3.2ghz so that is 6 threads at 3.2ghz. Yes its a rubbish cpu but with 2x the threads and over 2.5x the speed of the wii u cpu it gives it a huge advantage in final speed for integer performance. The difference in floating performance is even more huge but not as significant as the wii u gpu takes up the slack there.

 

I really wish people would stop pretending the wii u cpu is not weak. The issue is clearly seen in so many games with low frame rates. We all know the wii u gpu is not at fault, its a superior spec to 360 and PS3 but clearly there is an issue in the wii u spec causing many games to underperform and have sometimes cpu intensive features removed. The architecture of the wii u gpu is likely to be of an AMD design that require 30% less assistance from the cpu as well.

 

http://www.eurogamer...ations-face-off

 

It is getting ridiculous when everywhere else people have realised the wii u is current gen performance but you come here and people are pretending its competitive with ps4 and xbox one or signficantly more powerful than ps3 and xbox 360.

 

The evidence of how powerful the wii u is can be easily understood by looking at reviews that compare wii u versions to other versions on other consoles. That is the evidence. You'll learn nothing useful from reading the rantings of a fanboy.

You'll also learn nothing reading the repeated nonsense that you spout. The funny thing is 3Dude constantly supplies you with evidence as to why you are talking nonsense then you disappear only to reappear about a week later with the same nonsense again. 

 

As you feel like comparing games across platforms feel free to read the one I have here. http://www.lensoftru...x-360-vs-wii-u/

 

Feel free to completely ignore the large difference between the screen tearing on the 360 and PS3 versions. I'm sure you'll do the same with the bit that says the Wii U version is the best experience as well. 



#12 3Dude

3Dude

    Whomp

  • Section Mods
  • 5,482 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 11:21 AM

Desert Punk, on 25 Aug 2013 - 3:03 PM, said:
I still don't get why there is any debate on this. The wii u cpu is weak.

The gamecube, wii and wii u are all based on the PPC750 architecture and we know the wii u uses this because only one core is used for wii mode on the wii u but the other 2 cores are identical. The speed is 1.24ghz so you have an easy calculation of around 8000 dmips for the 3 cores. Yes there is more cache which means the cpu is better utilised but it can't go above the dmips figure.

All the figures are clearly listed here;

http://en.wikipedia....ions_per_second

The AMD Jaguar cores are meant to be just over 3 dmips per mhz so by multiplying by 1600 then 8 you have about 40,000 dmips. Same figure for both ps4 and xbox one.

I know the devil is in the detail but this gives you a rough idea of the performance difference.

Obviously then you have to weigh in other factors like the wii u low bandwidth main memory, fast 32MB video memory, seperate arm cpu, xbox one kinect/operating systems, 32MB fast memory, ps3 cell ppu's etc. which add or detract from performance. The PPC750 is a very old chip architecture dating back to 1997.

The xbox 360 xenon chip may be poor but each core has a dual thread and it runs at 3.2ghz so that is 6 threads at 3.2ghz. Yes its a rubbish cpu but with 2x the threads and over 2.5x the speed of the wii u cpu it gives it a huge advantage in final speed for integer performance. The difference in floating performance is even more huge but not as significant as the wii u gpu takes up the slack there.

I really wish people would stop pretending the wii u cpu is not weak. The issue is clearly seen in so many games with low frame rates. We all know the wii u gpu is not at fault, its a superior spec to 360 and PS3 but clearly there is an issue in the wii u spec causing many games to underperform and have sometimes cpu intensive features removed. The architecture of the wii u gpu is likely to be of an AMD design that require 30% less assistance from the cpu as well.

http://www.eurogamer...ations-face-off

It is getting ridiculous when everywhere else people have realised the wii u is current gen performance but you come here and people are pretending its competitive with ps4 and xbox one or signficantly more powerful than ps3 and xbox 360.

The evidence of how powerful the wii u is can be easily understood by looking at reviews that compare wii u versions to other versions on other consoles. That is the evidence. You'll learn nothing useful from reading the rantings of a fanboy.

You have severely misinterpereted all the nformation you have linked to, but everyone already knows this about youso im not getting into that branch of specifics.

The wiiu has stronger memory bandwidth than ps360, despite having 'lower' main memory bandwidth, because its edram is 3x the size of 360's (no for ps3) which means it can do the entire frame buffer in a single pass, and fit things like all the local render targets in the edram instead of dipping in main ram AND be used as a scratchpad for cpu...

While the 360 had to dip into its main ram bandwidth over several passes, eroding it away to well below the 'poor' 12.8 Gb a second you are so proud of misunderstanding.

Both jaguar and espresso are under 3dmips, espresso is 2.42 and if iirc jaguar is 2.7 something. Which is nice, until you think about how jaguar is on a process twice as small as espresso and '40 million years newer', and thats all its got.

As for Xenon (and the rest) Thats peak theoretical performance punk, and xenon never exceeded 65% of its peak theoretical performance. broadway was 90 something, as are jaguar and espresso.

Why? Because it was a deep pipelined architecture (so it could reach those clock speeds you are talking about). With really really bad branch prediction, and no fail protection for if a branch was taken.

That means that whenever xenon missed a branch, the pipeline would stall until it was flushed, this was on average a 500 cycle penalty where NOTHING was being done on that thread. And it happened a LOT.

This is why instancing and billboarding were so prevalent on 360, because multiple iterations of the same models doing the same thing were very easy to stream with simd, and since they were all doing exactly the same thing, werent a concern for branch prediction.

This is why the wonderful 101 has hundreds upon hundreds of completely unique models, all in different frames of animation and doing different things, while say, kameo or dead rising only have a handful of the same models repeated over and over again, and all doing the same exact action as there counterparts, just in different places, with only a small group near the player with 'active' ai. If you were to begin circling 'matches' you would have a screen full of circles.

Its fake. Being strong in simd, ps360 were very good at providing a high volume of instanced and billboarded fakes. Higher than espresso (without gpgpu assistance).

But for doing the larger number of unique and independantly controlled objects, Espresso crushes ps360. And it is already being showed less than a year into the consoles life. Perhaps you should look at what ps360 were doing in their first year.

banner1_zpsb47e46d2.png

 


#13 Poptartboy

Poptartboy

    Spiny

  • Members
  • 249 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 11:39 AM

The most ridiculous part is talking as if we're all idiot fanboys who just believe anything. The fact is I have seen what Pikmin 3 looks like with my own eyes. The whole game when it's raining looks stunning. I'm sure PS4 and PC games look better still, but it is clear to me that Pikmin 3, W101, X, Bayonetta 2, and Mario Kart are simply a step above what I have been seeing on 360 since I got one in 2006. 



#14 Desert Punk

Desert Punk

    Chain Chomp

  • Members
  • 656 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 11:50 AM

Again the real evidence is how games perform which is where the wii u is really struggling.

 

As for your other comments they seem to basically state the wii u achieves high performance despite weak specs where as the 360 and PS3 perform poorly with their stronger specs. There is absolutely no evidence to back up your opinion.

 

No one is under any illusion that the wii u can' perform graphically to a higher standard than 360/PS3 for games with low cpu requirements.

 

Yes the wii u has 32MB of video memory and yes that gives the console a huge advantage that the frame buffer resides in that memory. Many 360 games also have the full frame buffer in its 10MB and the ps3 is split with 256MB video memory and 256MB main memory each with its own bandwidth. The wii u doesn't hold all the cards when it comes to good design. Each of these consoles were designed to perform as well as possible. The PS3 may have had little regard for the developers who faced a steep learning curve but later games clearly show it to be very powerful and impressive when properly programmed. All 3 consoles are excellent but both ps3 and 360 were limited by the technology available at the time where as the wii u is limited by extreme cost cutting but end performance is much the same across all 3 formats.

 

This is clearly not important really though. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Capcom are a very good developer with some strong impressive titles under their belt and with an improved gpu in the wii u they still couldn't get the wii u operating at a good frame rate for Resident Evil Revelations. It can't even match the outgoing older formats. While your views may be believed here by other fanboys they have no credibility anywhere else. There is nothing complicated in the wii u design. It is not a ps3 if anything like the 360 it has hit the ground running with good performance for its spec. If anything its even easier to develop for than the 360. It's easy out of order CPU design, the fact the GPU provides the required floating point performance and reduces load on the cpu. There is plenty of memory and no restriction on shoehorning the framebuffer into video memory. Its an excellent design on many levels but ultimately limited by a weak cpu and a gpu that is only marginally ahead of the 360.

 

Anyway as previously stated the reviews tell the real story of wii u.



#15 Poptartboy

Poptartboy

    Spiny

  • Members
  • 249 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 12:09 PM

Again the real evidence is how games perform which is where the wii u is really struggling.

As for your other comments they seem to basically state the wii u achieves high performance despite weak specs where as the 360 and PS3 perform poorly with their stronger specs. There is absolutely no evidence to back up your opinion.

No one is under any illusion that the wii u can' perform graphically to a higher standard than 360/PS3 for games with low cpu requirements.

Yes the wii u has 32MB of video memory and yes that gives the console a huge advantage that the frame buffer resides in that memory. Many 360 games also have the full frame buffer in its 10MB and the ps3 is split with 256MB video memory and 256MB main memory each with its own bandwidth. The wii u doesn't hold all the cards when it comes to good design. Each of these consoles were designed to perform as well as possible. The PS3 may have had little regard for the developers who faced a steep learning curve but later games clearly show it to be very powerful and impressive when properly programmed. All 3 consoles are excellent but both ps3 and 360 were limited by the technology available at the time where as the wii u is limited by extreme cost cutting but end performance is much the same across all 3 formats.

This is clearly not important really though. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Capcom are a very good developer with some strong impressive titles under their belt and with an improved gpu in the wii u they still couldn't get the wii u operating at a good frame rate for Resident Evil Revelations. It can't even match the outgoing older formats. While your views may be believed here by other fanboys they have no credibility anywhere else. There is nothing complicated in the wii u design. It is not a ps3 if anything like the 360 it has hit the ground running with good performance for its spec. If anything its even easier to develop for than the 360. It's easy out of order CPU design, the fact the GPU provides the required floating point performance and reduces load on the cpu. There is plenty of memory and no restriction on shoehorning the framebuffer into video memory. Its an excellent design on many levels but ultimately limited by a weak cpu and a gpu that is only marginally ahead of the 360.

Anyway as previously stated the reviews tell the real story of wii u.


And yet Splinter Cell which I'd imagine is doing more with AI than Resident Evil has no screen tearing and therefore is better on Wii U.

Time after time you pick games that fit what you want everyone to believe. Any time someone points out something that's better on Wii U there is some excuse as to why it is.

The fact that you keep referring to launch games shows what rubbish you are talking. Now you're even trying to convince people by talking about how great of a developer Capcom are.

Still ignoring Pikmin 3, Bayonetta 2, Splinter Cell, Mario Kart 8, etc etc etc.

How about instead of talking rubbish you post some screenshots of games that compare to W101 and Pikmin 3?

#16 Aiddon

Aiddon

    Blooper

  • Members
  • 174 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 12:19 PM

You'll also learn nothing reading the repeated nonsense that you spout. The funny thing is 3Dude constantly supplies you with evidence as to why you are talking nonsense then you disappear only to reappear about a week later with the same nonsense again. 

 

Didn't someone once say the definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing hoping the outcome is different?



#17 Poptartboy

Poptartboy

    Spiny

  • Members
  • 249 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 12:31 PM

Didn't someone once say the definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing hoping the outcome is different?


I guess we're all insane :)

#18 Aiddon

Aiddon

    Blooper

  • Members
  • 174 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 12:44 PM

I guess we're all insane :)

 

I guess we are, considering that this thread has people reexplaining the same thing over and over again and yet they keep coming back. I'm starting to think this is just a ritual done here to blow off steam.



#19 tboss

tboss

    Pokey

  • Members
  • 1,242 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 08:01 AM

Also wiiu framerate drops in splintercell only happen on cpu code/ai heavier code while 360 and ps3 drop more on cutsceenes, which arnt cpu intensive.

#20 Arkhandar

Arkhandar

    Dry Bones

  • Members
  • 479 posts
  • Fandom:
    Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Kirby, DK

Posted 28 August 2013 - 08:16 AM

Also wiiu framerate drops in splintercell only happen on cpu code/ai heavier code while 360 and ps3 drop more on cutsceenes, which arnt cpu intensive.

 

It's exactly the opposite. PS360 drop in gameplay, Wii U drops in cutscenes.


If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?

Posted Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Anti-Spam Bots!