Teh Cell

[NosBoost300]

yes it is between the two, because the x1900 series didnt use unified shaders or something like that.. it was more like, the step into getting the 2900 series

 

[Poizen22]

The 360 GPU is base on the x1950 cards, not to mention the PS3 CPU can be used to offload some of the GPU work onto it, and the PS3 RSX is OpenGL2.0 which completely slaughters the DX9 capabilities of the RSX and the 360 GPU

I Knew this was going to cause Flaming ¬_¬

but, Something had to be said

im 100% certain its the base architecture for the hd2900 series and then the wii is an x800 comparable, it actualy has a gpu almost as fast as the ps3, iuts the very very slow cpu and low memory ammount that botle necks it.

anyway like i said the 2900hd is BASED OF THE 360 GPU. they use teh same architecture preaty much.

 

[aaronkupen]

im 100% certain its the base architecture for the hd2900 series and then the wii is an x800 comparable, it actualy has a gpu almost as fast as the ps3, iuts the very very slow cpu and low memory ammount that botle necks it.

anyway like i said the 2900hd is BASED OF THE 360 GPU. they use teh same architecture preaty much.

A) Wii gpu is not even close to the ps3's gpu.
B) Saying that the wii's gpu is close to the x800 and comparing the wii's gpu to the PS3's gpu
would be saying that an x800 compares with a 7800gtx... which it does not.

 

[Baez]

The Wii's GPU and CPU are not very impressive but they don't pride themselves on the graphical ability so it really doesn't matter in this comparison.

 

[ricanflow]

Its funny cause Nintendo had the best consoles (nes, super nes) up until the playstation released.

N64 was pretty good but too expensive to make the games for it.

Ever since gamecube theyve been on a downward slope.

 

[KSoD]

Not true. Nintendo with the SNES were on par or ahead of the Genesis. They had that 3D thign with Starfox which was ahead of its time.

When PS was released they were behind cause they stuck with cartridges which hurt them badly.

But it is not that they are on a down slope. They choose gameply over GFX. They choose to make games fun to play rather than nice to look it. While some games are both. Metroid Prime 3 was a fantastic looking game. So was Super Mario Galaxy. Iw ould rate them up there with some games for the PS3 and 360 as well.

Nintendo chooses to make things more fun to play. There is nothing wrong with that. They made sure to let people know that they were not for the hard core gamers but the casual gamers that enjoyed the game play experience. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Baez]

Not true. Nintendo with the SNES were on par or ahead of the Genesis. They had that 3D thign with Starfox which was ahead of its time.

When PS was released they were behind cause they stuck with cartridges which hurt them badly.

But it is not that they are on a down slope. They choose gameply over GFX. They choose to make games fun to play rather than nice to look it. While some games are both. Metroid Prime 3 was a fantastic looking game. So was Super Mario Galaxy. Iw ould rate them up there with some games for the PS3 and 360 as well.

Nintendo chooses to make things more fun to play. There is nothing wrong with that. They made sure to let people know that they were not for the hard core gamers but the casual gamers that enjoyed the game play experience. Nothing wrong with that.

100% agree. Nintendo is the one company focusing on what really matters. They have never been on a downward slope. Gamecube might have not sold nearly as many consoles but had the same number of 9.0 or higher titles.

 

[ricanflow]

Not true. Nintendo with the SNES were on par or ahead of the Genesis. They had that 3D thign with Starfox which was ahead of its time.

When PS was released they were behind cause they stuck with cartridges which hurt them badly.

But it is not that they are on a down slope. They choose gameply over GFX. They choose to make games fun to play rather than nice to look it. While some games are both. Metroid Prime 3 was a fantastic looking game. So was Super Mario Galaxy. Iw ould rate them up there with some games for the PS3 and 360 as well.

Nintendo chooses to make things more fun to play. There is nothing wrong with that. They made sure to let people know that they were not for the hard core gamers but the casual gamers that enjoyed the game play experience. Nothing wrong with that.

I think you misread my post mak.

I said exactly that, Nintendo was ahead of its time with consoles up until the PlayStation released.

The N64 was powerful but the games were expensive to make since they used cartridges. And yes the snes was more powerful than the genesis, i had both consoles as well as the nes.

What keep the genesis alive for so long was sonic, those games were legendary.

 

[aaronkupen]

Nintendo needs to concentrate on software innovation rather than their so called hardware innovation. I'm sick of playing the recycled characters and the recycled franchises.

 

[zedman3d]

Wii blows.

Seriously, i mean, it may have interesting games that make use of some new physical functionality but you will never get any decent modern games, and im not just saying that because its hardware is sub par (intentionally maybe) and cant run it but because no serious games creator chooses to release stuff on such a family orientated console.

Its like, dont get the Wii if you enjoy playing First Person Shooters, Role Playing Games, Racing games, action games.... well. Any game.

Arnt 90% of the games released on the Wii made by Nintendo anyway? And 30% of that 90% have the same characters in it? Why bother.

Me takes me some Fable 2, Farcry 2, Fallout 3, Gears of War 2, Project Gotham 4, Bioshock, Assassins Creed and Half Life 2 any day over Smash Brothers Brawl...