Pandora Potential

[mindlord]

Actually, according to Wikipedia, the Xbox can push 30 million polygons a second.
The Wii really isn't that powerful. The thing can't even render true 480p (it just stretches 640x480) so the Pandora has the superior resolution limit. As for the Gamecube, the numbers are about 20 million polygons, which makes sense considering the Hollywood GPU in the Wii is just an overlocked 1.5x version of this basically.

Yeah and Microsoft is on the record as saying 125 Million, so what are you going to believe? I've dug around some more and found that actual thruput places it more around 20 Million, which is a fair sight better than the 2.1 I found earlier, but that puts the xbox well in front of the Pandora as far as pixel pushing power. And I'm sure that 20 Million drops dramatically when you put the xbox in a HD resolution instead of the standard NTSC/PAL stuff.

The Wii is capable of true 480p, it's just that most developers aren't going to bothering coding it in.

However, until we know exactly why kind of throughput the Pandora as capable any guess we make are total speculation.

 

[C B Felterbush]

Like Chip says, the question is difficult to answer at best. Interesting enough though so is the debate over which console had better performance. In most cases the game is what determines how well the graphics look. RE4 was probably the best looking and most demanding game of last gen and it was on the Gamecube. Halo 2 looked great on the Xbox, Grandia 2, and Ikaruga looked and played better on the Dreamcast than any of their ports.

They all work different and it is an endless and redundant argument which is better.

 

[Exophase]

Pandora's 3D capabilities will be significantly better than Dreamcast's. Perhaps on the order of 2-3x, depending on where the clock speeds settle. That's all we can say for sure.

 

[CyruzDraxs]

Some best guess estimates made by TI put the Pandora's PowerVR SGX GPU at several million polygons per second. By "several" I'm guessing 2-4 million. I'm sure that someone out there has done the real numbers on this.

As far as I know the Pandora uses an SGX530, which is 14 MPolys/sec.

Also; the Xbox only looked better than the Gamecube because of wider shader support from of it's use of DirectX 8.1. By straight specifications the Gamecube GPU was more powerful than the Xbox's.

The Wii is most certainly more capable, on paper, than the Xbox--though, like the Gamecube, it is hindered by poor shader support. I would say the SGX530 is a little over halfway between the Xbox and the Wii for real world capability.

 

[fusion_power]

Pandora's 3D capabilities will be significantly better than Dreamcast's. Perhaps on the order of 2-3x, depending on where the clock speeds settle. That's all we can say for sure.

I hope the Homebrew 3D Games for the Pandora will be nearly as good as the Dreamcast Games. At least the Graphics.

 

[God Ginrai]

Some best guess estimates made by TI put the Pandora's PowerVR SGX GPU at several million polygons per second. By "several" I'm guessing 2-4 million. I'm sure that someone out there has done the real numbers on this.

As far as I know the Pandora uses an SGX530, which is 14 MPolys/sec.

Also; the Xbox only looked better than the Gamecube because of wider shader support from of it's use of DirectX 8.1. By straight specifications the Gamecube GPU was more powerful than the Xbox's.

The Wii is most certainly more capable, on paper, than the Xbox--though, like the Gamecube, it is hindered by poor shader support. I would say the SGX530 is a little over halfway between the Xbox and the Wii for real world capability.

1) The X-Box had better graphics than the Gamecube, and the shaders was not the only reason.

2) This is a topic about the capabilities of the Pandora, not about "which has better graphics: X-Box or Wii?"

-God Ginrai

 

[Prophet]

Pandora's 3D capabilities will be significantly better than Dreamcast's. Perhaps on the order of 2-3x, depending on where the clock speeds settle. That's all we can say for sure.

I wonder if we'll see any apps that really use the Pandora's full potential.

Thinking about what you said (2-3x DC), it sure makes me wish we could have some reputable commercial game devs onboard, just to see what this hardware could do beyond emulation and porting pre-existing code. It would be slightly frustrating knowing Pandora could likely handle most of the PS2/GC/XB era games, and never see it actually happen.

Maybe Craig's dev fund could lead to something like that down the road.

 

[D.C.]

It would indeed be great if the Dev Fund would lead to games which pushed the Pandora hardware.
Looking at the GP2X there are many interesting homebrew games, but most of them are overshadowed by the great quality games which are offered by the emulators. This might also happen on the Pandora with the PS1 emulator, which will offer some great games. However we might get surprised by the quality of homebrew games, which could create a much greater fanbase than that of the GP2X homebrew

On anohter note, I'm very interested in the internet (e.g. browsing, online chat) capabilities of the Pandora. However I don't have any experience with using the internet on such compact devices. Could anybody that does have experience with similar devices comment on it, how usable will such features be?

 

[Prophet]

On anohter note, I'm very interested in the internet (e.g. browsing, online chat) capabilities of the Pandora. However I don't have any experience with using the internet on such compact devices. Could anybody that does have experience with similar devices comment on it, how usable will such features be?

I've used my Axim x51v (3.8" screen, 640x480) and PSP for some internet browsing. The Axim is probably close to what Pandora would be like, but Pandora will be a little better (more horizontal resolution, keyboard, better browsers like Firefox).

Overall, it's not so great on such a small device IMO. The screen is tiny, and most pages will require some degree of extra scrolling and/or zooming to read. Certainly useable, but not something you'd want to use as your primary browsing device.

Of course, the big advantage is size and weight - Pandora will be much easier to take along than a notebook, or even a netbook. So as always, it's a matter of tradeoffs balanced against what you want to do.

 

[CyruzDraxs]

This is a topic about the capabilities of the Pandora, not about "which has better graphics: X-Box or Wii?"

Well, it IS graphical potential that the OP was referring to and actual capabilities are based on a balance of capable hardware and full-featured software to control it. The Gamecube and Wii have the hardware, but are somewhat lacking in the software. The Xbox, having been made by a software giant such as Microsoft, had strong software, but mid-range hardware. Because of the strong software support, it was much easier to utilize the full capabilities of the system, thus allowing the games to look better on average. If you look at Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube you can clearly see that, when developed right, Gamecube cames can look better than Xbox games.

That doesn't really matter all that much though, I was just trying to further explain my judgment that the Pandora's capabilities fall somewhere between the Xbox and Wii. If my tech-fanboy tangent was not of interest to you; I apologize.

 

[nexferret]

There is only one game on the Wii that looks good, and that is Metroid Prime 3. Every other game looks and plays like a PS2 game on PS1 hardware. It's a waste of space, Nintendo may as well have handed out controller port adaptors for the Wiimotes and an expansion port addon for the Wi-Fi. The sensor bar sucks too, because it doesn't give out enough IR to overpower anything else such as... power LEDs from speakers. I kid you not. I thought the X-Box was quite impressive when developers did not overuse shaders. Halo looks dire in places; the icy canyons could have starred in OOT. Metroid Prime 1/2/3 used very little shader technology, and the result is far more realistic.

 

[God Ginrai]

There is only one game on the Wii that looks good, and that is Metroid Prime 3. Every other game looks and plays like a PS2 game on PS1 hardware. It's a waste of space, Nintendo may as well have handed out controller port adaptors for the Wiimotes and an expansion port addon for the Wi-Fi. The sensor bar sucks too, because it doesn't give out enough IR to overpower anything else such as... power LEDs from speakers. I kid you not. I thought the X-Box was quite impressive when developers did not overuse shaders. Halo looks dire in places; the icy canyons could have starred in OOT. Metroid Prime 1/2/3 used very little shader technology, and the result is far more realistic.

Twilight Princess and Okami look good, IMHO.

-God Ginrai

 

[KRH]

Twilight Princess and Okami look good, IMHO.
-God Ginrai

Don't Forget Resident Evil 4. (Also GC and PS2 But still...)

 

[Prophet]

I don't own a Wii. Or a 360 or PS3. Only because I know I wouldn't spend enough time playing them to warrant the purchase - they each have something worthwhile to offer.

However, I'm pretty sure nobody who buys a Wii cares about visuals. If I were to buy a Wii, it would be mainly for the Nintendo exclusives.

 

[crasherball]

ya, i own a wii
its really about fun - and party-factor u know.
if u want singleplayer-hardcore-games get a 360

(the ps3 really sucks in all of its aspects)

 

[God Ginrai]

I don't own a Wii. Or a 360 or PS3. Only because I know I wouldn't spend enough time playing them to warrant the purchase - they each have something worthwhile to offer.

However, I'm pretty sure nobody who buys a Wii cares about visuals. If I were to buy a Wii, it would be mainly for the Nintendo exclusives.

I bought the Wii because of the price. It is so much cheaper than the other systems, and I knew that the Nintendo exclusives would guarantee it some good games.

-God Ginrai

 

[nexferret]

QUOTE
Twilight Princess


It may have had occasional moments such as the meadow shots and the believable cutscene animations, but the dungeons looked like leftover material from Tomb Raider 2 and OOT mashed together. Inconsistency hurts. And the framerate sucked.

 

[God Ginrai]

QUOTE
Twilight Princess

It may have had occasional moments such as the meadow shots and the believable cutscene animations, but the dungeons looked like leftover material from Tomb Raider 2 and OOT mashed together. Inconsistency hurts. And the framerate sucked.


I think you're exaggerating greatly.

-God Ginrai

 

[chad78]

Overall, it's not so great on such a small device IMO. The screen is tiny, and most pages will require some degree of extra scrolling and/or zooming to read. Certainly useable, but not something you'd want to use as your primary browsing device.

That's the second time in this thread you've complained about the screen size. 800 x 480 is not bad. I'm on my Eee PC right now - and it's 800 x 480 - and so are the Nokia Internet Tablets (N770, N800, N810) - and so are many other netbooks. It works. You just put the browser in full screen mode, and you're all set.

I'm just thinking you've never tried it. Once you do, I think you'll like it.

 

[fishybawb]

Resolution != screen size.

Yes, they're the same resolution, but the screens are not the same size...