|
I'm not so certain about dazila's statement.
The Wii's final confirmed specs, straight from Nintendo indicate a 900mhz processor. BUT this number is deceiving. It is a powerpc based processor(A different production line, with a different name, but the architecture basis remains like the GCN). It's based on Apple processor systems, which means that even with a lower number of processor cycles; it can physically process more raw data per CYCLE than the processors from $ony and Micro$oft. Now, their processors have loads more cycles to work with, so they WILL put out vastly superior amounts of data; but I would like to stress the fact that the 900mhz number is deceiving, because while it is less cycles, much more can be done PER CYCLE than the other two systems can. I would anticipate the Wii's comparison to the 360/PS3 to be like the PS2 to the original XBox: close, but still not nearly as pretty.
It's too hard to make raw numbers, and even after launch, it's not really decipherable, you need to see the second and/or third wave of games to really make that statement, and that's a ways off. As far as statements that the Wii looks just as good as the 360; those statements fall in three categories:
-People who don't understand graphics
-People who are looking at tiny pictures and/or low res videos
-People who are full of it(Sometimes classified as fanboys).
Don't get me wrong, I'm picking mine up this weekend, but it's not MEANT to graphically compete with the other two; it's a different ballgame altogether, and that's why I'm so interested in getting one.
"Its not stupid, its advanced!" - The Almighty Tallest, Invader Zim |
