Main > Consoles
Nintendo Wii
leapinlew:
--- Quote from: tommy on November 07, 2006, 02:31:16 am ---I was just checking out the Wii's graphics compared to the 360's and they can almost pass for the same to the naked eye.
The 360 has 3 - 4.2ghz processors compared to the Wii's 1- 729ghz, something seems abit off to me. I know the processor is hardly related to the video cards but the Xbox SEEMS so far ahead of the Nintendo on paper they should be decades apart.
--- End quote ---
What kind of display was it? Where you'll see the xbox/ps3 shine is on a large HD display.
shmokes:
729ghz . . . that's a fast processor! ;D
Seriously, the difference in horsepower is significant and immediately obvious. I'm including some screenshots. The first ones are direct comparisons of the Wii and 360 versions of Call of Duty, Madden and Tony Hawk. After that are screenshots of Red Steel, which is probably the best looking Wii game, and Gears of War which is the best looking 360 game I know of. Actually, Zelda: Twilight Princess is probably the best looking Wii game, which is pretty telling considering it'll be available for the gamecube looking 100% identicle to the Wii version exceept that it won't run in widescreen mode.
shmokes:
Keep in mind that I am unreasonably excited about the Wii and pretty much indifferent about the 360. I just think that the difference in graphics capabilities between the two systems is very significant and immediately apparent even to the naked and untrained eye.
tommy:
I'm starting to wonder why Nintendo put forth such an effort that was not the best they could have done, if only they went all out i think they could have made a console head and shoulders better then the rivals.
Why not get some heavy duty processors going in the Wii? ATI and Nintendo made a CG graphics card much better then the PS2 in my opinion. Put a gig of ram all up in that thing with a great 6.2ghz processor.
I will be getting a Nintendo and i still stand by my original post but they could have made a better console i think.
I guess i will have to wait till the next next gen system to play movie like games? Or is that the next next next gen?
shmokes:
Yeah, I agree. If the console hit at $150 I could completely overlook the subpar graphics, but $250 ain't a mainstream price, IMO. Especially with the controllers being $60 a pop. A Wii plus one controller already costs more than an Xbox 360. That's just not a significant price difference.
I want the Wii more than any other console because of the innovative controller, but graphics are important. It isn't just icing. It makes gameplay better and creates new kinds of gameplay, and makes games more immersive. Physics is important. AI is important. Sound is important. These are all legitimate pieces to the next gen puzzle and they all require processing power.
Nintendo should have either given us a truly mass market price, which they could have done while still not taking nearly as heavy a loss per unit as MS with the 360 or Sony with the PS3 (they aren't taking any loss on the hardware at all), or they should have made a console that was more competitive visually with the 360 and PS3. Since they did neither I truly doubt they will end up market leader in this round. Had they done one or the other I think they would have been.