In some respects, yes; in others, no.
Xbox had programmable pixel and vertex shaders - a huge boon - but the Wii has more RAM, for instance.
GI.biz: "Wii U less powerful than PS3, Xbox 360, developers say"
- Thread starter Hoo-doo
- Start date
In some respects, yes; in others, no.
Xbox had programmable pixel and vertex shaders - a huge boon - but the Wii has more RAM, for instance.
Fjolle
Member
Aw man. You could have chosen 1350 other posts from this thread that were as retarded as mine, and you still chose it. <3
Anyone that thinks that it will be able to play "high end pc games" in 1080p needs to look at how small nintendo wants the console to be and think about how much heat they can get away from that case.
I suspect me & him have very different definitions of 'high end pc version'.
I'll confidently state now that there won't be any Wii-U games mistaken for high-end PC games.
Edit:
And this is why. It just ain't happening in that tiny little case.
AceBandage
Banned
A lot because the fans will be moving the heat out very quickly?
As well as it'll have smaller died than current gen systems?
Figured, what I was probably trying to get at was if the wii was within the same realm of the xbox - performancewise - why would it be such a 'megaton' if the WiiU ended up with performance similar to that of ps3/360?
Myke Greywolf
Ambassador of Goodwill
The proof will be in the pudding, same place as it always has been.
There's a difference between running the high-end pc version of a particular game and running games as well as a high-end PC can and while it's obvious that it won't be comparable to a top of the line PC you can't simply compare these two completely different kind of architectures.
Oppo
Member
I think it's possible that the early Wii dev kits were quite powerful, but perhaps have been scaled back somewhat in light of th hardware costs of the Wii U controller getting closer to the light of day. Remember that Nintendo had a bit of a scare around the 3Ds pricing and had to pivot quickly. Perhaps the originally targeted retail price (and thus spec) has been revised?
Rocket Scientist
Member
Hi guys. Looks like you're all having lots of fun here. I don't understand why people are obsessing over this when Nintendo has already decided what it will be, so that's what it will be. E3 isn't even that far away.
many forget that:
-ms/sony spend a lot of money into their this-gen systems to make them as powerful as they could at that time.
-the wiiu will probably be sold at an affordable price ,like the wii while including a tablet-controller.
-some processing power will probably be needed for the tablet-controller.
-ms/sony spend a lot of money into their this-gen systems to make them as powerful as they could at that time.
-the wiiu will probably be sold at an affordable price ,like the wii while including a tablet-controller.
-some processing power will probably be needed for the tablet-controller.
AceBandage
Banned
So they wasted years of R&D and made a new chip set to reduce pricing? Does that make sense?
Horse Armour
Member
The people posting in the Wii U speculation thread have been hyping up this thing's graphics capabilities for months now so for it to only match current consoles at best would be a massive disappointment to people following their promises.
NeonZ
Member
In the Wii's case, Nintendo kept its core based on the GC chipset, which limited it for a console launched in that year. The Wii U should have a new architecture though (even based on the newest "sub-360" report, another GC-based architeture wouldn't even be anywhere near a 360, so it still must be a new one), so, even at a low price, it'll be unexpected and rather odd if this new architeture only matches up with consoles released 5 years ago considering the technology available now.
Different situations, Wii's biggest problem wasn't raw power alone, but the fact that it couldn't do modern techniques like the ones seen in PS360. In WiiU's case, all rumors and logic point to a gpu capable of doing a lot of the fancy stuff MS and Sony's next gen will bring even if it will be a step behind them in raw power.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
The gist of it is that the Wii was built using the architecture of the platform they were already manufacturing, and had the advantage of complete backwards compatibility with the GC as a result. They cannot simply keep on the same architecture they have now, they have to go with something new. The sorts of hardware available to them are substantially more powerful than the PS3/360, and are not that much more expensive. Twice the power doesn't equal twice the price, and when you are discussing sub-360 level performance (e.g. this thread's article), you are massively gimping your system for miniscule cost savings.
From a business standpoint, performing to a lesser degree than what is already on the market (and dominating) means the WiiU would be doomed to the same problems the Wii faced late in its life, while having absolutely no guarantees that it will replicate it's early success.
Oppo
Member
I'm not talking about a redesign, just what I said, perhaps scaled back. It's an ambitious setup, including separate screens and procs with the console controller. Something has to give somewhere for the sake of price.
AceBandage
Banned
The only thing they could scale back would be clock speeds. Which wouldn't save on cost.
Horse Armour
Member
Yes it would. Lower clocks mean higher yields and lower cooling component costs.
Oppo
Member
Ace, I know you are super invested here, but there are other answers to this question. The most obvious one would be RAM. Or perhaps the wireless communications setup between the controller and tablet. Who knows, I am only speculating, same as you.
AceBandage
Banned
So, they're going to take a chip that's similar to a 4770 (by all accounts so far), scale it back so far that it would have been cheaper just to use a much older card and call it a day?
Yeah...
You're suggesting that they destroy the selling feature of the console?
megashock5
Member
Exactly. I have no use for specs, show me the games.
It's like TVs. You can go crazy looking at numbers for months trying to research, but at some point you just go and see which one YOU think looks best.
Developers are creative people who at some level want to achieve their artistic vision. Many developers rightfully felt that the games they made could not have been executed on Wii (see Assassin's Creed, COD: MW, Skyrim, Mass Effect etc), so they chose to make them on the HD consoles.
This was done despite the Wii being the top-selling console. Developers chose to make their AAA games for HD consoles (who proved they can sustain a healthy flow of successful AAA titles) instead of making downgraded versions of the same games for Wii which would have been worse, quality-wise, and therefore probably wouldn't have sold as well.
(Think of the sales for MW3 Wii when compared to MW3 on the HD consoles)
There is no bias against Nintendo. The Wii did not exist in a vacuum and developers didn't want to keep making PS2-level games when making HD games was a realistic and profitable opportunity.
Nintendo didn't invest a lot of effort to secure content on the Wii, because they tend to rely mostly on their own games which sold just fine.
It might not be cheaper to use an old card due to availability. Like MS using 10/12GB drives in the original Xbox because it was hard to get hold of 8's.
I'm sure you realise you can downplay -anything- with a negative mindset.
AceBandage
Banned
But the card is completely custom, anyway. They're spending millions on R&D and well over 2 years to design a card that does less than something they could probably buy in bulk for cheap. I mean... you guys realize how crazy that sounds, right?
Horse Armour
Member
Seriously, where are you getting all these facts from, I mean I've never heard of it and I think I've followed Wii U spec news closely.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I'm aware of what happened, and why, because I lived it and participated in discussions and debates over the years it was happening. I'm saying that it's not hard to understand why people can think there is such a bias rather than simply because they think Nintendo Can Do No Wrong.
Power requirements, ease of cooling (in a tiny case), scalability, yield rates blah blah blah.
I've never manufactured a console but I bet there are some strange things to take into account when choosing components.
Man alive AceBandage, you were fighting a running battle in this thread when I went to bed and now you're still here tirelessly fighting the good fight.
Good luck to you. And all those that sail in you.
How this thread makes me feel (NSFW).
You people really are insane. I can't take it any longer.
Can't wait for all that yummy crow at E3.
You people really are insane. I can't take it any longer.
Can't wait for all that yummy crow at E3.
To be honest, this wasn't really the case with most games during the first years of the gen. You could tell devs were caught with their pants down and tried to do something about it, but were completely bewildered. Later on yeah, the Wii would be very restrictive to pretty much every dev.
I don't agree that all the games would have to be worse, in fact some would be better with pointer controls. You mention MW not selling as well, which isn't a fair comparison considering they never marketed the Wii versions.
Refreshment.01
Member
Pretty much every discussion since the internet became main stream. There was a time when you actually had to form good arguments to engage in a debate.
Common sense tells me this piece of news is questionable, Nintendo would have to go out of their way to piece together a console less powerful than 7 year old hardware. However, it won't be a generational leap from the current consoles.
You don't know how expensive the other parts are though. Maybe the R&D was used with one goal; making a gpu that works as efficiently as possible at a small size and low price. I'm pretty sure the controller will be a huge part of the production cost of the Wii U. But Nintendo believes they can pull another Wii because of that, so it makes sense for them to try to make the rest as cheap as possible.
Oppo
Member
No, I am postulating that perhaps something changed, like a switch from Bluetooth 2.1 to proprietary RF, or some such.
But look, it's not interesting to me to have you petulantly snipe any minor theory that rubs you the wrong way so I'll leave it at that.
I'm now expecting the Wii U to be like the GameCube for its time in that its hardware will be well balanced and efficient but not the raw number cruncher that it's competitors are.
I also don't believe that the ps4 or next Xbox will offer a "next generation leap" over the Wiiu in the same way that the dreamcast was not that far behind the ps2/Xbox and GameCube.
I look forward to reading this thread in the future and see who has crow to eat.
I also don't believe that the ps4 or next Xbox will offer a "next generation leap" over the Wiiu in the same way that the dreamcast was not that far behind the ps2/Xbox and GameCube.
I look forward to reading this thread in the future and see who has crow to eat.
Always-honest
Banned
isn't it almost HARDER to be less powerfull than a 360 right now?
AceBandage
Banned
http://www.golem.de/1106/84082.html
AMD Spokesmen commenting on the fact that the Wii U's GPU isn't based on any specific chip but is completely designed for Nintendo.
Add to that that we know where it was being deigned (Hyperbad) and that it was in the works from June of 2009 to sometime late last year.
There is just no way they spent all that time and money on something that would be weaker than the Xenos.
I'm sorry, but it's crazy talk.
at what price?
I believed that, but with the recent mutterings about Durango, I'm not so sure.
I don't think a superpowerful rival console would be healthy for the industry if it becomes the de facto development target, however.
fabricated backlash
Member
If true, they could put an IPad3 or a Vita in there, close the case and be done with it. Seriously, weaker than PS360 is passive cooled territory by now.
But lets get on with the poo flinging.
It is, and it would make active cooling completely obsolete as well.
Of course a lot of it had to do with the fact publishers were expecting PS3 to be the market leader and totally didn't see the success of the Wii coming. By that time, they were already invested heavily in HD engines and assets.
But it's not just that. I believe that developers simply didn't want to make Wii games, they wanted to make HD games that will wow everyone. The Wii Remote was supposed to be a tradeoff for the antiquated graphics and primitive online system, but at least in my opinion it never quite delivered. Simply put, the enhanced graphics and modern online systems of the HD consoles contributed more to the gaming experience than the Wii motion controls.
I think Nintendo themselves agree with me, seeing as they gave up on the remote and made a controller with the standard dual analog setup.
nope
You mean the dummies on display in E3? The design has probably changed.
Also ever opened up a gamecube? the console could had been a one third smaller atleast. The n64? the console could had been 1/4 smaller. (Im sure about my measurments, but theycould had been way smaller)
DefectiveReject
Banned
..... I think they need that room though for air flow and heat dissapation.
And poor Ace
I think now, we should just let E3 come and then see what happens. the amount of crow on both sides is high enough already!
Nah not really, the gamecube had a lot of space used up, because they wanted it to be a cube.
Refreshment.01
Member
I don't know what exactly drives these WiiU discussions, thousand of pages by now recycling the very same points over and over. It's like nobody is taking or learning anything from them. So what's the point?
The only interesting and worthwhile discussions around the WiiU so far have been the ones centered around the possible implementations of the controller and before the unveiling, the mock up ones. The circle jerk ones regarding what Nintendo franchises should appear get really obnoxious also.
You forget how burned many of us are because of the poor Wiimote (+) implementation in 3rd party games.
There is more chance the screen will be used for streaming and as a glorified map/inventory than it will revolutionnise how we play.
Just look at the 3DS which barely uses the second screen even in Mario Games.
If Nintendo releases an underspeced console at 250€, then I'll admit the have balls made out of Dragon scales. Otherwise there is no way they get < PS360 6 years after. No DirectX 11 in a 2012 console?
TheExplodingHead
Banned
So what's the consensus? Was this a bad April Fool's or is it plausible?
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
It's possible, but unlikely.
fabricated backlash
Member
Actually, looking at games like Goldeneye Wii, the Cod games, Red Steel 2, Anno, Madworld, Silent Hill Shattered Memories... i'd say 3rd parties actually delivered the best Wiimote experiences on Wii. Outside of Metroid Prime Trilogy, the wii sports games and Zelda, Nintendos own efforts with the Wiimote felt like an afterthought in most places. SMG, DKCR, MOM and NSMB for example show the worst methods of implementation of the wiimote.
I'm still not expecting 3rd parties to use the screen in any meaningfull way though, but I also expect Nintendo to leave it's potential on the table and shoehorn certain features in their games to use it.
Similar threads
- Poll