39 replies to this topic

[Mahmoodinho98]

what does it mean when we say a gpu has a high bandwith and what's the advantage of that?

 

 

I want to know so that once am defending the Wii U on ign or somewhere I have solid info to support my point.

[Abcdude]

I'm guessing they mean speed of the GPU.

[NintendoReport]

Just means the rate at which data can be stored or read from. High bandwith is fine as long as the system utilizes it properly and is efficient. 

 

http://superuser.com...f-a-device-mean - for reference.

Edited by Sorceror12, 31 March 2014 - 12:14 PM.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Its just another meaningless marketing term like "quality".

 

Because, High Bandwidth compared to what?  It could mean pretty much anything.

 

Its also unhelpful because if the system is not balanced you could have WAY more bandwidth than the GPU can actually use, just like you can have too much GPU power that bottlenecks due to lack of bandwidth.

 

What matters is that the overall system is balanced so you never have too much/little of anything.

[Mahmoodinho98]

is it true that Wii U gpu is faster than that of xbox one and ps4 or is it faster than what we usually expected? 

[NintendoReport]

is it true that Wii U gpu is faster than that of xbox one and ps4 or is it faster than what we usually expected? 

 

April Fools

[Socalmuscle]

Bandwidth prevents bottlenecks much like more lines on a highway prevents traffic jams.

But bandwidth needs to be coupled with processing power in order for each to be maximized.

A gpu with a lot of processing power needs a lot of bandwidth to keep the data flowing.

More cars in the highway with no traffic jams.

High bandwidth and low processing power means you'll have a lot of "room" to work with but so little data being processed that it doesn't matter.

Low bandwidth and high processing power means you run into bottlenecks, wasting cycles and starving the processor.

High bandwidth is great. Better to have too much than too little but unless it's balanced with processing power, it doesn't amount to much other than basically eliminating bottlenecks as far as data travel is concerned. It doesn't completely skin ate bottlenecks though since the processor is effectively the bottleneck in that scenario.

[3Dude]

is it true that Wii U gpu is faster than that of xbox one and ps4 or is it faster than what we usually expected? 

 

Wii u gpu is actually around 3-4x slower than the one in ps4 and xbone. Not only does it only have a small amount of the shader units ps4/bone have, its also a generation behind in shader cores, utilizing vliw5 instead of gcn. (360 is a generation behind wii u shaders for reference)

 

Bandwidth is pretty important, but vauge and useless unless you know what KIND of bandwidth you are dealing with.

 

There is:

 

instruction/operational bandwidth, which is what you need to actually perform add multiply subtract divide etc.

 

And:

 

Data bandwidth, which is used to move assets to and fro.

 

When product marketers lumps them together it (purposfully) obsfucates the meaning of the bandwidth, to simply make a big attractive looking number.

 

Operational bandwidth is for the data crunching of the shader cores. The more operational bandwidth you have the more your gpu can crunch until you reach the point where yor shader core throughput is maxed out, somewhere beloe peak theoretical performance (thanks to inevitable thins like cache misses, and waiting on dependencies keeping all cores from being utilized). Below this point you will be bottlenecking your performance, approaching it you will find severe diminishing returns, after it the excess bandwidth is wasted money.

 

Data bandwidth moves assets like textures to the processors that will, well process them. The more bandwidth you have, the more you can move at once to be processed. Below the amount your gpu can process will be bottlenecking performance as the gpu waits for data to arrive. More than what your gpu can process is wasted money.

[Nollog]

It can do more at once.

[GAMER1984]

hope that defending goes well OP

[Mahmoodinho98]

anther question, they said that Wii U can do directx 11 what is the good about directx 11?

[3Dude]

anther question, they said that Wii U can do directx 11 what is the good about directx 11?

They are idiots who dont have any idea what they are talking about or what the point of direct X is.

Wii u cant do Direct X, because microsoft owns Direct X. Nintendo would have to pay microsoft to use direct X, and thats just not going to happen.

Direct X is a collection of application programming interfaces for handling tasks so that developers dont have to write their own. Direct X in its entirety isnt even relevent to what these people think they are talking about. What they want is called direct 3d, and is the collection of api's that pertain to computer graphics.

This api collection contains code to conveniently perform common graphical tasks including z-buffering, spatial anti-aliasing, alpha blending, mipmapping, atmospheric effects, and perspective-correct texture mapping, up to shader work like normal mapping, ambient occlusion, and contact hardening shadows, among others, so you dont have to actually write it yourself.

There is literally nothing whatsoever that any version of dx can do that any programmable shader gpu cant do, or ANY processor, given enough power and resources (You could perform normal mapping in software for a gpu that didnt contain programable shaders.... it would just be really slow) because well, its shaders are programmable. The last few versions of dx havent even really introduced much of anything new, but merely more effecient practical versions of sloppily done effects that used to take up stupid resources for little payoff. They are actually EASIER to run now, than they were on previous versions.

There is nothing in direct X anything, that could not be added to open GL, And could not be done on the wii u with a proprietary application. The question is how well would it run, how much could you do simultaneously, and then, you have a million ways to optimize for speed or quantity, and if that fails, a million ways to approximate a similar effect at much faster speeds that none of those people would be able to discern from the original.

Those people are stupid and need to be slapped.

[GAMER1984]

They are idiots who dont have any idea what they are talking about or what the point of direct X is.

Wii u cant do Direct X, because microsoft owns Direct X. Nintendo would have to pay microsoft to use direct X, and thats just not going to happen.

Direct X is a collection of application programming interfaces for handling tasks so that developers dont have to write their own. Direct X in its entirety isnt even relevent to what these people think they are talking about. What they want is called direct 3d, and is the collection of api's that pertain to computer graphics.

This api collection contains code to conveniently perform common graphical tasks including z-buffering, spatial anti-aliasing, alpha blending, mipmapping, atmospheric effects, and perspective-correct texture mapping, up to shader work like normal mapping, ambient occlusion, and contact hardening shadows, among others, so you dont have to actually write it yourself.

There is literally nothing whatsoever that any version of dx can do that any programmable shader gpu cant do, or ANY processor, given enough power and resources (You could perform normal mapping in software for a gpu that didnt contain programable shaders.... it would just be really slow) because well, its shaders are programmable. The last few versions of dx havent even really introduced much of anything new, but merely more effecient practical versions of sloppily done effects that used to take up stupid resources for little payoff. They are actually EASIER to run now, than they were on previous versions.

There is nothing in direct X anything, that could not be added to open GL, And could not be done on the wii u with a proprietary application. The question is how well would it run, how much could you do simultaneously, and then, you have a million ways to optimize for speed or quantity, and if that fails, a million ways to approximate a similar effect at much faster speeds that none of those people would be able to discern from the original.

Those people are stupid and need to be slapped.

 

Tell em 3dude

[JoshZebra]

anther question, they said that Wii U can do directx 11 what is the good about directx 11?

 

There was a rumour that the Wii U supported Directx 11 but it is highly unlikely, the Wii U most likely uses OpenGL since it is the open source equivalent and they're pretty much the exact same bar the differences you would only notice if you was a game programmer.  There's no advantage really to either of them other then that OpenGL is cross platform whereas Directx is a windows based program.  However, one feature that is cool about Directx 11 is that you can access the sound and video library straight there whereas on OpenGL you have to use OpenSL ect ect.  But any differences would be hardware/ software/ programmer level and a consumer would never notice them normally.

[GAMER1984]

There was a rumour that the Wii U supported Directx 11 but it is highly unlikely, the Wii U most likely uses OpenGL since it is the open source equivalent and they're pretty much the exact same bar the differences you would only notice if you was a game programmer.  There's no advantage really to either of them other then that OpenGL is cross platform whereas Directx is a windows based program.  However, one feature that is cool about Directx 11 is that you can access the sound and video library straight there whereas on OpenGL you have to use OpenSL ect ect.  But any differences would be hardware/ software/ programmer level and a consumer would never notice them normally.

 

Um yes as 3dude has said Wii U will never support DirectX becaise it is a microsoft property... but Multiple developers (Indie) have come out and stated Wii U supports directX 11 "FEATURES" as said through its openGL applications. People have to stop believeing these major developers trying to keep the negative Wii U underpowered train going as an excuse their game is not coming to the system. Wii U isnt spec for spec the same as ps4 (obviously) but its MORE than capable for those that care and willing to put in the work.

[Raiden]

WiiU can do DirectX 11 Equivelant. Not Direct X itself

 

http://www.cinemable...hics-47126.html

 

The only console that used Direct X not an Xbox is Dreamcast because MS had WinCE on it,tho modified.

Edited by Ryudo, 31 March 2014 - 11:04 PM.

[GAMER1984]

WiiU can do DirectX 11 Equivelant. Not Direct X itself

 

http://www.cinemable...hics-47126.html

 

The only console that used Direct X not an Xbox is Dreamcast because MS had WinCE on it,tho modified.

 

also these

 

http://www.cinemable...ii-U-58370.html

Quote from the above developer.

“We will ADAPT our DirectX11 features to Wii U, not that it supports them natively. However, we are very happy with Nintendo and its console, and we think that it well deserves that extra effort.”

http://www.nintendol...dreams_to_wii_u

Quote from above link so you dont have to read all the way through.

NL: What are your overall thoughts on the system and its concept so far?

Johannes Conradie: On the tech side, having DX11 level features is pretty useful, which makes large parts of the system compatible with our other platforms. Overall the hardware itself is slightly faster than the other current-gen consoles. One very nice advantage the console has is the additional usable memory you have. Having that extra memory made development much easier compared to other current-gen platforms.

 

This is the best one http://nintendoenthu...veloping-wii-u/ quotes to follow from developer fuzzy wuzzy games armillo for eshop.

 

"In terms of hardware architecture, development say between a Power PC and an x86 hardly differs because of the high level nature of development tools today. Only when you want to do assembly level optimizations (which is becoming more irrelevant with faster processors) or transfer data cross-platform (programmer speak for endianess correction – both CPU’s processes data differently at the byte level), there might be some differences. But the vast majority of developers won’t really notice. Unity and other cross-platform tools also makes things a lot easier since you don’t have to write wrappers for the system level C/C++²⁴ library functions when doing cross-platform programming.”

 

“In terms of performance, I had to down-res Armillo on the XNA build to around 580p to get it to run smoothly on the 360. On the Wii U, I’ve left it at 720p and it also has more post-processing and lighting effects going on. I’m sure the PS4²⁵/Xbox One²⁶ are quite a bit more powerful in terms of pixel pushing, but the Wii U’s GPU feature set is also a lot closer to the PS4/Xbox One rather than Xbox 360 and PS3²⁷. I’d say it’s good enough for us indies.”

 

GoldMetalSonic: Since you said Wii U’s GPU feature set is closer to PS4/Xbox One than PS3/Xbox 360, can you comment on what possible features Wii U shares with PS4/Xbox One that PS3/Xbox 360 don’t have? Certain graphical effects?

FWG: “It supports DirectX 11³¹ type features. I can’t really discuss too much about this personally (NDA stuff), plus I’m not that experienced as a graphics programmer. But you can find some nice details on it from various sites on the web.”

 

so basically guys yes in POWER the Wii U might be closer to ps360 but in features and efficency it is closer to ps4 and xb1. I personally think we havent seen graphics that even touch on what Wii U is capable of and i am looking for the first game that can really push the console capabilities. It just requires work that AAA big publishers/devs arent putting the time and the funding into getting the most out of Wii U... THANK GOD FOR INDIES.

Edited by GAMER1984, 31 March 2014 - 11:44 PM.

[Raiden]

Yeah as I was saying it can do the equivelent of DX11. NIntendo and Sony use Open GL. I don;t know on PS1 but PS2 I believe used OpenGL and  GCN not sure. Maybe something based on it. WiiU I'm sure is. Dreamcast and Xbox line only consoles I know of that actually used Direct X.

 

Side note Nintendo used Silicon Graphics for N64 but a bunch of those guys left to make Artx and they were absorbed by ATi and that was used on GCN and Wii did as well and WiiU does,well AMD now that they own them. Xbox went Nvidia,360 went ATI,PS3 went Nvidia. Now they all use AMD. Nintendo been doing it right all alonf then.

[JoshZebra]

Um yes as 3dude has said Wii U will never support DirectX becaise it is a microsoft property... but Multiple developers (Indie) have come out and stated Wii U supports directX 11 "FEATURES" as said through its openGL applications. People have to stop believeing these major developers trying to keep the negative Wii U underpowered train going as an excuse their game is not coming to the system. Wii U isnt spec for spec the same as ps4 (obviously) but its MORE than capable for those that care and willing to put in the work.

I'm saying it is possible however it is highly unlikely, I don't think it does myself.

[Mahmoodinho98]

can some one please explain to me what edram is? and how it functions? and what are the advantges of having edram ?

and thank you everyone for educating me