WiiU "Latte" GPU Die Photo - GPU Feature Set And Power Analysis

Status
Not open for further replies.
You may be right, shouldn't have deleted "the earliest" :)

And wouldn't it be Gen5 (by EA's standard *g*)?



Why?

How about "Xbox 6" since Xbox will be 6-feet under by 2016?

I know some people called it Xbox Two, but that still doesn't make sense.

That means dropping BC and I dont think that is a choice Nintendo would make lightly.

Sometimes, Nintendo's going to have to sacrifice something...And if they can still find a way to put emulation on it, it will be fine.
 
If the Wii 3 released in 2016 than that would be a 4 year life of the Wii U...That's not gonna happen, the Wii 3 will release in 2017 or 2018 (prediction is 2018).

I'm thinking 2.3TF, with 10GB of ram, with 9-10 cores.

I'm thinking third parties might pressure Nintendo into going the same route as with PS5 and Xbox 9th Gen (I really don't know what to call the Xbox One successor).

That may be difficult if the next Nintendo console comes out in 2017 and we don't see PS5/XBox4 until 2020 or even later. Have MS and Sony indicated if they'll shorten the life cycle of these consoles compared to PS3/XBox 360?

6 core CPU, 1 TF GPU, 8 GB GDDR3 RAM, 64 GB FLASH.

Why would they use GDDR3 in 2017 though?, it won't even be in general use by then which would make it expensive. GDDR5 is getting cheaper and its use in PS4 will push availability up and price down also we're on the verge of DDR4 and other RAM technologies. I think predicting the kind of RAM isn't worth doing. I'll lean more towards Meelow's prediction, lets all bookmark these posts and come back in 2017 :D
 
That may be difficult if the next Nintendo console comes out in 2017 and we don't see PS5/XBox4 until 2020 or even later. Have MS and Sony indicated if they'll shorten the life cycle of these consoles compared to PS3/XBox 360?

Sony said the PS4 will last 10 years like the PS3, but that doesn't mean much because the PS3 will probably still get games in 2016 but it will be replaced by the PS4.

And even Ubisoft says "we don't want to wait 7 years for the PS5", so if the Wii 3 releases in say 2018 than a 2019 launch for the PS5 and Xbox 9th Gen than it will be possible.
 
For me at this point, only developer comments matter and that's developers that have actually written code for the hardware. So many posted here that the WiiU lacked memory bandwidth ignoring, in some cases the embedded memory on the GPU. Then today, to read that some PS4 games are having framerate issues because of alpha transparencies, something that is bandwidth dependent. Everyone here knows that the PS4 has 176 GB/s of bandwidth, but its experiencing the same issue(. So this idea that Latte is a 160 shader part GPU to me is a uneducated guess by people that have no experience in semi conductor design and fabrication.
 
M°°nblade;64716911 said:
Even with the eye of the beholder etc ... I can't see how or why people even try to make a contest of this. There is no contest.

I don't get why you're confusing "holds up against" with trying to "make a contest." There is no denying which one looks better on a technical level but I never even suggested such a comparison. The original comment wasn't even about a direct comparison between wii u and ps4/xb1, I was merely saying it's not surprising that people would look at X and think it was beyond last gen.
 
That's nice. All of Nintendo's milked franchises are nice. New IP would be nicer.

I'm sorry, but the 2nd Donkey Kong Country game in a couple decades is considered "milking" now?

If they had gone with an x86 based CPU for the WiiU (think Llano/Trinity with double the SP count) they could've software emulated all their past systems and have Xbone performance levels for the upcoming games.

They would develop the emulators internally with intimate knowledge of their past hardware. Performance and fidelity could be much better than what you are seeing on enthusiast developed emulators for other platforms. Worst case scenario they'd have to optimize on a game to game basis and focus on the best sellers first.

Wishful thinking, even with Nintendo's internal knowledge of their CPUs. They'll be faced with what Sony's facing with Gakai: recompiling every game, game-by-game, which is a herculean task that will not result in perfect emulation by any stretch.




In my previous post I forgot to mention that they'd be bringing Xbone level performance to the market a year earlier than the competition. It would've been priced higher, I'm guessing between $399 to $449 to break even, if they insisted on including the tablet controller. By the time the PS4 launched the production cost would drop to profitability levels with adoption of recent technology like 20 nm DRAM and freeing up of 32 nm production slots at GloFo since AMD would be moving to 28 nm.

Meh... just a nice little fantasy that, had it realized, would drive me back to being their fan.

First thing's first, even if Nintendo released a system targeting Xbone performance, the third party support wouldn't be there as many have suggested over and over. Second, if the system were priced even higher (despite the proposed increase in specs) it would be tanking even harder, and losing more money per console than it already was. A recipe for disaster even worse than its current recipe.
 
Are we sure? those reflections on those car were... almost non-existent, and looked pretty bare in several areas.

EDIT: Looking again, I'm not sure of my own opinion either. I can only view it in 480p... lol (don't ask why -__-)

BGAssassin found the original footage and it wasn't WiiU.



M°°nblade;64716911 said:
Based on the gifs people made? Yes, then it does seems to hold up against Titanfall.

But that's just the magic of low res gifs.


Low res gifs make people fill in the details that may or may not be there in full resolution.


If you look at the trailers of both games in their native resolution, full screen, Titanfall destroys X.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goe6IB1DLZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atTvHk9CxOM

Even with the eye of the beholder etc ... I can't see how or why people even try to make a contest of this. There is no contest.

Well... i disagree. I'm not saying there is no difference at all, but if there is, it's rather minimal. Actually, i'm pretty sure that if you editted both trailers into one with the most impressive scenes from both, many people wouldn't even notice (unless they knew both games/trailers) beforehand.
 
Really?

lol

Please enlight me what is so lol worthy.

Do you think IBM aren't capable of develop this architecture further (like they did from GC/Wii to WiiU)? I am not saying this would be the best or easiest way, but I don't see why Nintendo has to be "drunk as fuck" to go this way.
 
Off-TV play is honestly a compelling enough reason to me. The specs I listed would be more than enough to run faithful next gen ports at 720p, the exact resolution of the gamepad screen.

Imagine playing an intense multiplayer game of The Crew, Plants vs. Zombies or the next Call of Duty while lying in bed, chilling on the terrace or relieving yourself on the can. XD

If the above option was presented to me I'd consistently pick the WiiU multiplats above others, maybe even go WiiU exclusive.

Off-TV play is nice and convenient, I'll give them that. I can think of many uses for the gamepad, but it's a bit frustrating to see that no one, not even Nintendo, cares to utilize it to it's fullest potential. A horn in Mario Kart? What the hell?
 
Please enlight me what is so lol worthy.

Do you think IBM aren't capable of develop this architecture further (like they did from GC/Wii to WiiU)? I am not saying this would be the best or easiest way, but I don't see why Nintendo has to be "drunk as fuck" to go this way.

It does seem as if now with PS4, Xbone, and PC all sharing the x86 architecture, it would be quite foolish of Nintendo to buck the trend and go with PPC once again. Combined with Wii U failing to light the world on fire, it would cement Nintendo's isolation (if that has not already happened) and ensure no 3rd parties jump back on board. I think we'll see an ARM-based tablet console before then, however, if any successor is to come. Under Iwata at least. Current Nintendo are stuck in the mindset that they cannot compete graphically.
 
Why would they use GDDR3 in 2017 though?, it won't even be in general use by then which would make it expensive. GDDR5 is getting cheaper and its use in PS4 will push availability up and price down also we're on the verge of DDR4 and other RAM technologies. I think predicting the kind of RAM isn't worth doing. I'll lean more towards Meelow's prediction, lets all bookmark these posts and come back in 2017 :D

I hope you didn't take his post seriously. He's a vocal "Nintendo hardware is weak garbage" supporter, so obviously he's now alleging they'll do even worse next time.
 
I have been looking at footage from Bayonetta and Bayo 2 and its true, that should be the best comparison to go by, and IMO they look like a gen apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqgtpTkCQ3Q Bayo 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dFfVBdRWmw Bayo 2

Bayo 2 is also 60 fps, not that video for that I recommend to download the 60fps video
http://www.gamersyde.com/download_bayonetta_2_e3_showfloor_full_gameplay-30289_en.html

Just noticed, does Bayonetta have a new voice actor?
 
I have been looking at footage from Bayonetta and Bayo 2 and its true, that should be the best comparison to go by, and IMO they look like a gen apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqgtpTkCQ3Q Bayo 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dFfVBdRWmw Bayo 2

Bayo 2 is also 60 fps, not that video for that I recommend to download the 60fps video
http://www.gamersyde.com/download_bayonetta_2_e3_showfloor_full_gameplay-30289_en.html

Looking at the 2 trailers I can't really see any difference. I haven't been impressed by B2 at all to be honest, the games that show what the Wii U can do are the Nintendo games and X.

As soon as I saw B2 I thought it looked quite poor, the only thing it has going for it is the frame-rate, which is a shame cause it should be better, W101 looks very impressive.
 
Looking at the 2 trailers I can't really see any difference. I haven't been impressed by B2 at all to be honest, the games that show what the Wii U can do are the Nintendo games and X.

As soon as I saw B2 I thought it looked quite poor, the only thing it has going for it is the frame-rate, which is a shame cause it should be better, W101 looks very impressive.

Wow @ opinions!! ok
 
Now, what about OpenGL? The Wii U uses some version of that, and the feature set is not completely the same as its Direct-X equivalent.

As far as OpenGL vanilla I'm not sure off hand, I believe so as it's more open than DX11. DX11 MS says this is how tesselation is done and that's that. OpenGL I believe has gone open source. (I could be wrong here need to double check that).

That all said though, we don't know what kind of tesselator the Wii U GPU has. They could have upgraded to a newer one, or they could be running vanilla rv7xx tesselator, I don't think we have a positive answer on that one.
 
Wow @ opinions!! ok

Don't get me wrong, I love the Wii U and own one, I just haven't seen anything that impressive with Bayonetta, but I will wait till I see it irl before I make a final judgement.

The Nintendo games and W101 just look so clean and smooth, might be just the styling or something.
 
Wishful thinking, even with Nintendo's internal knowledge of their CPUs. They'll be faced with what Sony's facing with Gakai: recompiling every game, game-by-game, which is a herculean task that will not result in perfect emulation by any stretch.

If Sony intends to offer streaming of PS3 games they have no choice but to use actual PS3 hardware in their servers. No other hardware out now or in the foreseeable future could emulate PS3's exotic system architecture at usable speeds. PS3 emulation is out of the question.

Emulation also doesn't require any alteration of the software being ran, in worst case the program accesses the target hardware in an unconventional way (coded "to the metal") and needs a custom driver. Not needing to replicate the API and drivers from scratch would be a major advantage for Nintendo. GC/Wii hardware isn't terribly complicated and even Dolphin already provides more than satisfactory experience with the large majority of titles. It simply requires high specs.

First thing's first, even if Nintendo released a system targeting Xbone performance, the third party support wouldn't be there as many have suggested over and over. Second, if the system were priced even higher (despite the proposed increase in specs) it would be tanking even harder, and losing more money per console than it already was. A recipe for disaster even worse than its current recipe.

Nintendo failed to generate any positive buzz about the system from the very beginning.

They never bothered revealing the specs and the early software didn't show marked improvement over high end Wii games, let alone PS360 ones. This led potential early adopters (dedicated gamers) to believe it was not a worthy upgrade at Nintendo's asking price.

They chose to focus their promotion on a new hardware gimmick, the much debated Wii U gamepad. A hardware gimmick that tries to replicate the gaming experience offered by a tablet. A type of experience aimed at the most casual of gamers on devices that are heralded as a threat to the way dedicated gamers like to consume their main source of entertainment. A hardware gimmick for which according to many they've yet to provide a compelling example of use.

True it was a hardware gimmick that created sales and ultimately won the "console warz" last time but that gimmick was simple, intuitive and above all properly utilized. The Wii U pad failed to catch on, and by the time must own titles are available, a wider audience might simply not give a shit due to tarnished reputation.

They failed to move the initial batches which usually sell out even in absence of strong software support (this is Nintendo after all). The system was plagued by software issues that required a lengthy update and could potentially brick your system. Third party publishers rightfully pulled their support which in conjunction with Nintendo failing to push their first and second party titles out of the gate created a lengthy release drought.

Why am I listing all these things (that I'm sure you're aware of) to you? To show you that price alone was not the issue but rather the whole package and its perceived value. They could sell this at $200 right now and I personally still wouldn't buy one (at any price really).

Being a year ahead to the next gen arena would have been an invaluable advantage. After such a long generation, just the potential of improvement in graphics and gameplay alone would generate enough hype to sell through the initial batches. Strong initial sales would entice publishers to throw their support behind the system, ensuring a steady stream of (enhanced) releases driving sales even further. Who wouldn't want to play the best console version of Black Ops II, DmC, Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, BioShock Infinite and so on? Grand Theft Auto V a timed exclusive among next gen systems? Yes, please.

Gamers were hungry for something new, even if it initially just meant shinier graphics and smoother gameplay. Nintendo could've capitalized on that and maintain momentum throughout entire generation (the xbone debacle would've swayed a lot of people towards them). Now that I'm done fantasizing I'll just repeat my earlier sentiment: Hindsight is a 20/20 bitch.
 
I have been looking at footage from Bayonetta and Bayo 2 and its true, that should be the best comparison to go by, and IMO they look like a gen apart.

Eh, better is one thing but it's not that much better, mostly just lighting and a lack of screen tearing. If the IQ were better, I might concede a bit more. It's tough to judge though since youtube compression muddies the picture up a fair bit.

btw, you can download a better version of the trailer directly from platinum's site here.
 
Eh, better is one thing but it's not that much better, mostly just lighting and a lack of screen tearing. If the IQ were better, I might concede a bit more. It's tough to judge though since youtube compression muddies the picture up a fair bit.

btw, you can download a better version of the trailer directly from platinum's site here.

Ok so please download this
http://www.gamersyde.com/download_ba...-30289_en.html
I see it much cleaner, better lighting, seems also more geometry
 
Yeah I've seen the gamersyde video. It looks better than the trailer but it's also off screen footage which can make things look better than they actually are. I'll reserve final judgement until I see the game for myself.
 
Holy shit. My reply to you AGAIN from just a few pages ago.
Shin, i do understand, you are basically explaining what differentiates DX 10.1 from DX11. And efficiency is a crutial part you seem to be resting importance here. The problem here is that Wii U supports "compute shaders" has no reliable source. Or at the least i would argue that Nomura is as good as a source as the one proclaiming what the Wii U supports.

Also the "tesselator" in the Wii U is supposed to be in the same capacity as the AMD ones prior to the 5000's series of video cards and that one is not very practical to use in gameplay situations. As we saw in how almost no PC game used it.
but you seem to be underestimating the issue of dev experience on a mature toolset with actual documentation.
To be clear i am not understimating the importance of dev experience or toolset. Those are important factors clearly. But what im saying is that in the specific case of the Wii U the reasons you arent seen a significant jump in visuals from titles from the past gen (as we usually see) has to do more with the Wii U hardware capabilty.
Then please explain why early PS360 games looked like turd compared to games available now. The gap between PS360 launch games and games 6 to 7 years later on those platforms, is arguably just as wide as the gap between late PS360 games and launch PS4/XBone games. I'm not claiming WiiU is immensely more powerful,
I have explained in detail my position in the past and i'll do it again. First im not sugesting what you claim i am, that's your invention. Of course developers will improve as their experience with hardware increases, that's so obvious is not even worth to disscus.

Secondly, the example above doesn't fit here. The Wii U is runing ported games from a previous generation either slightly worse or slightly better. That's not the norm in videogames, for example the Xbox360 or PS4 are runing the ported games at double the resolution, in many cases with improved frame rates and better image quality.

I have no problems for example if Nintendo decided to compete with hardware that is a genration behind. But if they chose to do so their price should reflect that or the "ginmick" of the console should justify that decision.

I hope this is clear now.
I have been looking at footage from Bayonetta and Bayo 2 and its true, that should be the best comparison to go by, and IMO they look like a gen apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqgtpTkCQ3Q Bayo 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dFfVBdRWmw Bayo 2

Bayo 2 is also 60 fps, not that video for that I recommend to download the 60fps video
http://www.gamersyde.com/download_bayonetta_2_e3_showfloor_full_gameplay-30289_en.html
Ok, but why is a generation appart?
 
Just because of that? That is absurd!


And no there is no magic that will make WiiU games look comparable to X1/PS4 or PC, no closer to metal API, no HSA, no X86, nothing. Unless Dev are intentionally ignoring or gimping PS4/X1/PC.

Despite being significantly more powerful they are also easier to work with.

There is no magic that will make the PS4/XboxOne look like the PC either. 1 of those 3 does not belong with the other.

Your next gen console are not gaming PCs and they cannot compare to them. Stop trying to thrust them into the same category. The PS4 and XboxOne will do nothing more then "restrict" the content on my PC like the PS3/360 have done for years. Having Crysis 1, a game released in 2007, being the most technically advanced on the PC for years did not make me happy. I'm expecting the PS4 and XboxOne to do the same.

No one has ever argued that a Wii U game would look like a PS4 or XboxOne game, so why do people keep bringing this up in arguments? Its not contributing to anything progressive. If it is no contributing to the progress then its just bashing for no reason. Please take console war posts to a thread that was made for them. I want to actually keep focus on the GPU's capabilities, the actual topic.

This thread isn't about fanboyism, its about the finding capabilities of the Wii U GPU. I've noticed that a lot of specific posters who come in and speak negatively of the hardware do so for fear that it may actually be concluded that its more next gen then they want it to be. If you are not here to contribute to deciphering whats in the GPU then what is your purpose exactly?

It does seem as if now with PS4, Xbone, and PC all sharing the x86 architecture, it would be quite foolish of Nintendo to buck the trend and go with PPC once again. Combined with Wii U failing to light the world on fire, it would cement Nintendo's isolation (if that has not already happened) and ensure no 3rd parties jump back on board. I think we'll see an ARM-based tablet console before then, however, if any successor is to come. Under Iwata at least. Current Nintendo are stuck in the mindset that they cannot compete graphically.

These are some really off base presumptions. I thought Nintendo was repeatedly adamant that they were never interesting in or trying to compete with Sony and Microsoft in specs and have been on that route for nearly a decade. They try to compete with price, accessibility and functionality.

It will never cease to confuse me why people want 3 of the same console.

*sigh* I really wish we could get back to deciphering the GPU capability and stop blasting Nintendo for doing things we don't like.
 
Nintendo failed to generate any positive buzz about the system from the very beginning.

They never bothered revealing the specs and the early software didn't show marked improvement over high end Wii games, let alone PS360 ones. This led potential early adopters (dedicated gamers) to believe it was not a worthy upgrade at Nintendo's asking price.

They chose to focus their promotion on a new hardware gimmick, the much debated Wii U gamepad. A hardware gimmick that tries to replicate the gaming experience offered by a tablet. A type of experience aimed at the most casual of gamers on devices that are heralded as a threat to the way dedicated gamers like to consume their main source of entertainment. A hardware gimmick for which according to many they've yet to provide a compelling example of use.

True it was a hardware gimmick that created sales and ultimately won the "console warz" last time but that gimmick was simple, intuitive and above all properly utilized. The Wii U pad failed to catch on, and by the time must own titles are available, a wider audience might simply not give a shit due to tarnished reputation.

They failed to move the initial batches which usually sell out even in absence of strong software support (this is Nintendo after all). The system was plagued by software issues that required a lengthy update and could potentially brick your system. Third party publishers rightfully pulled their support which in conjunction with Nintendo failing to push their first and second party titles out of the gate created a lengthy release drought.

Why am I listing all these things (that I'm sure you're aware of) to you? To show you that price alone was not the issue but rather the whole package and its perceived value. They could sell this at $200 right now and I personally still wouldn't buy one (at any price really).

Marketing mistakes have been made, yes, but apart of that your reasoning does not convince me.

The gamepad is not a "GIMMICK", as much as the Wiimote wasn't one (the missuse of this word to dismiss something people don't like drives me crazy!!). It's a standard controller with extra functionality and an extra screen. It is NOT a fucking gimmick, goddamnit!

Is the PS4 controller a gimmick, because it comes with a touchpad?

They failed to move the initial batches which usually sell out even in absence of strong software support (this is Nintendo after all). The system was plagued by software issues that required a lengthy update and could potentially brick your system. Third party publishers rightfully pulled their support which in conjunction with Nintendo failing to push their first and second party titles out of the gate created a lengthy release drought

So what? Early problems many consoles had during their launch periods. And no, 3rd Parties didn't "rightfully" pull their support, what kind of stupid argument is that? Only because something doesn't immediately work as intended, doesn't mean you should completely abandon it. What kind of logic is that? By that logic, 3rd parties should have abandoned the 360 with it's RROD problems a long time ago.

Some people are so biased on this forum, my god...
 
Current Nintendo are stuck in the mindset that they cannot compete graphically.

Why would they have any other mindset after the performance of their most powerful consoles per generation(N64, GCN)? 3rd parties generally seem to care about consoles' power way more than Nintendo does, yet apparently no amount of power can make them gravitate to Nintendo consoles. These factors combined, I can't see what incentive they'll have to create another console that stands on equal ground as the competition(not to mention, this route usually comes at expense of not having any unique - and costly - special features).

Though many will disagree, to me it's pretty clear that Nintendo made the right choice with Wii U(execution aside)by focusing on an affordable console with a very unique appeal(gamepad), and still have just enough power to create impressive looking games. As long as 3rd parties avoid Nintendo consoles like a plague, this will probably be their mindset for as long as they make consoles. That'll have both positive and negative consequences.
 
Ok, but why is a generation appart?

Ok first of all it is my appreciation from looking at the videos.

I will not even consider the PS3 Bayo 1 as that was a complete disaster.

From this sources on Bayo1, on the 360 is not a locked 60fps and more like 46fps average. Also even on the 360 there is tearing to be considered.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-bayonetta/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-bayonetta-demo-showdown-blog-entry

Now on the Wii U I don't have a formal analysis but it is said to be 60fps and from various impressions I read the demo did not have any drops surprisingly, everyone said it was extremely fluid, so the 60fps at this time does not seem to be BS. No mentions of tearing either, and from most Wii U games, an often overlooked feature, we might expect V-sync to be enables, thus reducing tearing. I have to add that Bayo 2 is not a title on mature 6 year old hardware so to me this differences if they hold are pretty significant.

Now next, my OPINION, so I respect whatever take someone else has on this, I don't care. From the not off screen footage and Bayo 1 footage I have watched, the models, including enemies and Bayo herself seem to be more detailed, don't really know if there is more geometry or it has to do with other graphic techniques, I would speculate it has something to do with more geometry. The lightning also seems better IMO, the game is not so dark, but the enhancement in lightning is not anything amazing.

So yeah, I will give you that there are no reliable sources so obviously take this as my opinion.
 
Why would they have any other mindset after the performance of their most powerful consoles per generation(N64, GCN)? 3rd parties generally seem to care about consoles' power way more than Nintendo does, yet apparently no amount of power can make them gravitate to Nintendo consoles. These factors combined, I can't see what incentive they'll have to create another console that stands on equal ground as the competition(not to mention, this route usually comes at expense of not having any unique - and costly - special features).

Though many will disagree, to me it's pretty clear that Nintendo made the right choice with Wii U(execution aside)by focusing on an affordable console with a very unique appeal(gamepad), and still have just enough power to create impressive looking games. As long as 3rd parties avoid Nintendo consoles like a plague, this will probably be their mindset for as long as they make consoles. That'll have both positive and negative consequences.

You are 100% right. It was, in fact, when Nintendo made the strongest consoles that they received the least 3rd party support. Power was never the issue, but those who hate Nintendo will always make it the issue. That is what is most important "to them" and what they want it to be about. A few other facts in gaming history are that the weakest consoles of each gen sold the most in that gen, and that the only time in which a game console outperformed the PC was in fact when Nintendo first released the N64.

Nintendo outlined what they did with the Wii U and why clearly, but there are some who keep trying to skew it into something else for the purposes of bashing. They chose the gamepad and began designing it in 2007 right after the Wii was released before any popular tablet ever hit the market or the tablet boom, yet I still see some people try to insist that they were copying the tablet(which came after their decision). They made it clear that they're biggest focus was hardware price lower development cost, not hardware power with having the best graphics not being important to them, but people keep trying to thrust them into graphics competition that they excluded themselves from.


Back on the main topic.

I'd say that we can now finally conclude that the Wii U GPU has substantially more polygon drawing capability than the last gen hardware. At this point, arguing against it would just be beating a dead horse. Many people have observed and concluded as such. Of course, dev comments confirmed this before the console even hit a shelf, so I don't see why this was ever debated.
 
Ok first of all it is my appreciation from looking at the videos.

I will not even consider the PS3 Bayo 1 as that was a complete disaster.

From this sources on Bayo1, on the 360 is not a locked 60fps and more like 46fps average. Also even on the 360 there is tearing to be considered.

http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-bayonetta/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-bayonetta-demo-showdown-blog-entry

Now on the Wii U I don't have a formal analysis but it is said to be 60fps and from various impressions I read the demo did not have any drops surprisingly, everyone said it was extremely fluid, so the 60fps at this time does not seem to be BS. No mentions of tearing either, and from most Wii U games, an often overlooked feature, we might expect V-sync to be enables, thus reducing tearing. I have to add that Bayo 2 is not a title on mature 6 year old hardware so to me this differences if they hold are pretty significant.

Now next, my OPINION, so I respect whatever take someone else has on this, I don't care. From the not off screen footage and Bayo 1 footage I have watched, the models, including enemies and Bayo herself seem to be more detailed, don't really know if there is more geometry or it has to do with other graphic techniques, I would speculate it has something to do with more geometry. The lightning also seems better IMO, the game is not so dark, but the enhancement in lightning is not anything amazing.

So yeah, I will give you that there are no reliable sources so obviously take this as my opinion.
Thanks for taking the time to explain Mega.

So parting from that point of view. If Assassins Creed IV ends up runing 720P/30 fps in Wii U but the PS4 version runs at 1080P (probably 60 fps). Acording to your reasoning PS4 is a generation above the Wii U then, since it's runing at double resolution and frame rate. Plus, dev teams have more experience with Wii U hardware with multiple games under their belt already.
 
Thanks for taking the time to explain Mega.

So parting from that point of view. If Assassins Creed IV ends up runing 720P/30 fps in Wii U but the PS4 version runs at 1080P (probably 60 fps). Acording to your reasoning PS4 is a generation above the Wii U then, since it's runing at double resolution and frame rate. Plus, dev teams have more experience with Wii U hardware with multiple games under their belt already.

I don't want to argue about the term generation, and even as it has only started by the Wii U and what was shown at E3, which personally I don't trust (see watchdogs underperforming next to E32012). The term generation is very subjective, I would like to retract from using it, lets just say that Bayo 2 to me has a significant improvement over Bayo 1.

We have PS360, the further up XB1 and PS4. Somewhere in between we have Wii U, which guys like you say it is on par with PS360. PS4 and XB1 are just starting as well as Wii U, so where to place the Wii U has been basically the discussion in this thread.

ACIV @60fps I am not so sure, the latest DF article for the E3 PS4 says it was 30fps.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=64908056#post64908056

edit: I have been playing Uncharted 3, and that game has amazing graphics, I imagine The Last of Us looks better. Now GTA V, MGSV are not gong to look bad either. What I find funny is that the same argument people apply with these games toward the Wii U can be applied to XB1 and PS4. Some current gen games look simply amazing and most people could be very satisfied with that. This has to do probably to this gen being so long.

People are going to be disappointed at next gen launch games, at least I am now after looking at both XB1 and PS4 DF articles.
 
I don't want to argue about the term generation, and even as it has only started by the Wii U and what was shown at E3, which personally I don't trust (see watchdogs underperforming next to E32012). The term generation is very subjective, I would like to retract from using it, lets just say that Bayo 2 to me has a significant improvement over Bayo 1.
You side stepped the question there.

We are not discusing the meaning of generation here. Wii U, PS4 and X1 are in the same cycle. The "generation above or below" is just a quick way for us to express when an improvement passes from marginal to significant. So this is cleraed up.
ACIV @60fps I am not so sure, the latest DF article for the E3 PS4 says it was 30fps.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=64908056#post64908056
I know that already. Multiplayer runs right now at 1080P/60 fps. So i'll ask again:
If Assassins 4 multiplayer (to be more precise this time) runs on the Wii U 720p/30 fps and in the PS4 1080p/60 fps. Would you consider that "significant improvement" over the Wii U?
We have PS360, the further up XB1 and PS4. Somewhere in between we have Wii U, which guys like you say it is on par with PS360. PS4 and XB1 are just starting as well as Wii U, so where to place the Wii U has been basically the discussion in this thread.
What guys like me say is that the Wii U is more capable than 360/PS3 but is not the jump we expect from a cycle transition, specyally not from one that lasted 7 years. And is kind of contradictory hearing people been technically impressed with the 2nd wave Wii U titles while considering PS4/X1 showcases as nothing to write home about.
 
You side stepped the question there.

We are not discusing the meaning of generation here. Wii U, PS4 and X1 are in the same cycle. The "generation above or below" is just a quick way for us to express when an improvement passes from marginal to significant. So this is cleraed up.

I know that already. Multiplayer runs right now at 1080P/60 fps. So i'll ask again:
If Assassins 4 multiplayer (to be more precise this time) runs on the Wii U 720p/30 fps and in the PS4 1080p/60 fps. Would you consider that "significant improvement" over the Wii U?

Ok lets suppose it runs 1080p60, sure that is a significant improvement.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-hands-on-with-playstation-4
The unstable performance of the game's Sony conference appearance isn't in evidence during our private look at the game, and there's no frame-rate dips at all during its 10 minute stretch - while reports came from the showfloor of a 60fps multiplayer experience, this was clearly a silky-smooth 30fps presentation.

What guys like me say is that the Wii U is more capable than 360/PS3 but is not the jump we expect from a cycle transition, specyally not from one that lasted 7 years. And is kind of contradictory hearing people been technically impressed with the 2nd wave Wii U tittles while considering PS4/X1 showcases as nothing to write home about.

Speaking for myself, that has to do with my expectations of the Wii U vs what was shown, and also considering the jump from Wii to Wii U, this is why I am more impressed.

Again with PS4 and XB1 I can see a significant improvement, but at the end falls short with my expectations, the jump is not that impressive. Its not jumping from SD to HD, I mean you get better framerate, 1080p and better lighting, post processing effects and textures. 720p vs 1080p is actually better to swallow than 480p vs 720p.

So obviously this does not mean Wii U > Xb1/PS4, it means my perception from both considering where they are coming from.

I will leave it there, this thread has been derail to no end and I am part of the problem. ..... Goes back to NSLU.
 
Why would they have any other mindset after the performance of their most powerful consoles per generation(N64, GCN)? 3rd parties generally seem to care about consoles' power way more than Nintendo does, yet apparently no amount of power can make them gravitate to Nintendo consoles. These factors combined, I can't see what incentive they'll have to create another console that stands on equal ground as the competition(not to mention, this route usually comes at expense of not having any unique - and costly - special features).

Though many will disagree, to me it's pretty clear that Nintendo made the right choice with Wii U(execution aside)by focusing on an affordable console with a very unique appeal(gamepad), and still have just enough power to create impressive looking games. As long as 3rd parties avoid Nintendo consoles like a plague, this will probably be their mindset for as long as they make consoles. That'll have both positive and negative consequences.

Don't really want to re-open this debate (it was done to death in one of these threads), but I will just say that there were a few significant factors which affected 3rd party support on the N64 and Gamecube that were unrelated to hardware "beef."

I also believe that, while the Gamepad is a cool device, it has proven to be a costly mistake. The accelerometer in the Wii Remote was different in that those MEMS chips cost pennies to produce. It didn't jack up the price of the console significantly and it added to the perceived value in the eye of the consumer. Things like better graphics and blu-ray playback also add to the value of a console. So far, consumers do not appear to be finding as much value in the Gamepad. Thus, I would say (and it's easy to do so in hindsight, of course) that Nintendo would have been wiser to have built the system around an enhanced Wii Remote and/or another feature which didn't cost so damn much to produce. They then would have a bit more wiggling room as to how beefy to make the hardware as well.

These are some really off base presumptions. I thought Nintendo was repeatedly adamant that they were never interesting in or trying to compete with Sony and Microsoft in specs and have been on that route for nearly a decade. They try to compete with price, accessibility and functionality.

It will never cease to confuse me why people want 3 of the same console.

*sigh* I really wish we could get back to deciphering the GPU capability and stop blasting Nintendo for doing things we don't like.

Sorry krizz, I didn't see this. You're right that Nintendo have been on this path for a while now (since Wii so about 8 or 9 years since they started planning perhaps). I simply don't agree with the mindset that they "can't" compete. Actually, hardware is probably one thing that they can compete in. They've got great partners. It is probably much more difficult for them to compete in areas like online infrastructure, OS functionality, and built in apps (I have tried TVii and find it horrendous - a complete waste of resources that will sell the system to nobody). Competing in hardware, or at least getting to a level which makes it easier for third parties to develop for, should actually be the easy part. IBM and AMD are good hardware partners. And with how many Wiis were sold last gen, I would assume that Nintendo could get as good a deal, if not better, than the ones MS and Sony have gotten out of AMD. And those systems are much more powerful, have a bunch of extra features, and reasonably priced for what they offer (slice off $100 for Kinect on Xbone if that helps you see my point). We could have easily had our 640 SPU machine. Easily.

I actually don't want three of the same system. The reason I argue that more hardware power is a good thing is because I truly believe (and multiple devs have indicated) that increased power would have brought more third party support. I like Nintendo consoles. Part of it is personal attachment, admittedly, since I grew up with the NES. I want to see and support strong 3rd party efforts on their consoles - just picked up Sonic Racing Transformed, in fact. I also enjoy the unique control schemes Nintendo consoles have offered. The Wii Remote was my favorite controller of last generation - I find it to be ingenious. Nintendo apparently did as well, because shortly after it was released, I believe it was Miyamoto who outright stated that their next console would not drastically shake things up once again, but build on the concepts of Wii. Yet, they've essentially done that by focusing on the Gamepad and not improving the Wii Remote at all. That being said, I still enjoy the Gamepad, and enjoy the unique offerings it allows.

Ultimately, I may have my opinions, but I do still enjoy many of Nintendo's games and really just want the company to keep on going. Iwata's fate lies with their next annual financial results. If he meets the target, good for him! I will continue to support. And good for Nintendo. If he does not (and it's fair to speculate that this might end up being the case), then it's very much for the good of the company as a whole that they re-evaluate the direction they have taken.
 
One of the biggest reasons we got a gamepad as a default control scheme was because third parties wanted a dual analog pad. Not a Wii remote (which I would have preferred as well).
 
Why would they have any other mindset after the performance of their most powerful consoles per generation(N64, GCN)? 3rd parties generally seem to care about consoles' power way more than Nintendo does, yet apparently no amount of power can make them gravitate to Nintendo consoles.

Power had nothing to do with the failure of either of those consoles.

The N64's cartridges
N64's complex architecture
Gamecube's 1.5GB optical discs
Nintendo's licensing and royalty requirements during N64 era
Poor marketing throughout both eras
Poor business models
Nintendo's own poor relationships with 3rd parties and western industry
Nintendo scaling back internal support for the Gamecube early in its life
etc

Frankly i find the argument that the N64 and Gamecube proved powerful hardware isn't viable for Nintendo to be completely wrong. Those systems failed due to other factors, power was NOT one of these. If anything technical power was one of the few reasons the N64 even survived.

Nintendo are yet to deliever a powerful game console that wasn't pathetically gimped in numerous other ares. Cartdiges, 1.5GB optical disks, crap royalty and licensing requirements...

Maybe there will be a day were Nintendo release a powerful console that isn't gimped and hamstrung by other dumb decisions, we're yet to see that.
 
The Gamecube mini DVD could have fit GTA that generation. There are quite a few multi-dvd 360 titles. That's all that really needs to be said.
 
The Gamecube mini DVD could have fit GTA that generation. There are quite a few multi-dvd 360 titles. That's all that really needs to be said.

But again there were other factors behind why 3rd parties didn't want to support the Gamecube. You'd also be lying if you said the Gamecube's 1.5GB disks were not detrimental to the system's success.

That fact remains that in both the N64 and Gamecube's case technical power was not a factor in why they failed. Aspects such as storage mediums, marketing, licensing, royalties, functionalities, relationships with industry, business models, these were the deciding factors. So for Nintendo or anyone to say the N64 and Gamecube proved there's no room for a high powered Nintendo console as far as i'm concerned is ignoring the realities of why those systems failed. Power wasn't a problem, crap decisions elsewhere were.
 
But again there were other factors behind why 3rd parties didn't want to support the Gamecube. You'd also be lying if you said the Gamecube's 1.5GB disks were not detrimental to the system's success.

As the 360 proves - where there is a will, there is a way. There wasn't a will with the Gamecube. Most of the generation's biggest titles would have fit within one or two discs.
 
Ok lets suppose it runs 1080p60, sure that is a significant improvement.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-hands-on-with-playstation-4




Speaking for myself, that has to do with my expectations of the Wii U vs what was shown, and also considering the jump from Wii to Wii U, this is why I am more impressed.

Again with PS4 and XB1 I can see a significant improvement, but at the end falls short with my expectations, the jump is not that impressive. Its not jumping from SD to HD, I mean you get better framerate, 1080p and better lighting, post processing effects and textures. 720p vs 1080p is actually better to swallow than 480p vs 720p.

So obviously this does not mean Wii U > Xb1/PS4, it means my perception from both considering where they are coming from.

I will leave it there, this thread has been derail to no end and I am part of the problem. ..... Goes back to NSLU.

Yeah, I believe this is what is generally going on as well. People looked at Wii U's paper specs and its launch titles and made some somewhat pessimistic conclusions to what type of graphical improvements that we will during the system's lifetime. Then they looked at the paper/rumored specs of the PS4 and Xbox One and some posters got a bit too optimistic on what to expect. Those who expect all Xbox One/PS4 games to run seamlessly at 1080p/60fps (for some reason) got upset when reality hit them. Those who expected the PS4 to have a very noticeable boost over the Xbox One at this current stage got even more disappointed. On the flipside, alot of people who defended the Wii U's capabilities up to this point generally seem happier than before now that we can see how well some of Wii U's 2014 games are doing.



The Gamecube mini DVD could have fit GTA that generation. There are quite a few multi-dvd 360 titles. That's all that really needs to be said.

Hey StevieP, do you believe publishers are bit more optimistic with Nintendo/ Wii U after E3? If anything, I would think that they would be a bit more weary about at least one of its competitors.
 
Is the Wii U powerful enough to house two different GUIs? One GUI would be for those who want to use the gamepad, and another would be for those who want to use the pro controller.

Also, for god's sake, I really want to turn off the music that plays in the menu.
 
Nah. The publishers who are still on board are going to be on board for a little longer as they try to find the audience. The rest of them are waiting it out for a while longer... Or the rest of the generation if there's little money to be made.
 
As the 360 proves - where there is a will, there is a way. There wasn't a will with the Gamecube. Most of the generation's biggest titles would have fit within one or two discs.

But i was never debating that.

What i was debating is people who use the N64 and Gamecube as proof that powerful Nintendo consoles cannot be succesful.

I believe this is bullshit. Those two systems failed for other reasons.

Do you disagree with this?
 
Power had nothing to do with the failure of either of those consoles.
I said it before, Gamecube has more third party support than Wii U and the Wii (in certain areas).

It doesn't make sense to blame power when PS2 itself was more powerful than Dreamcast and we saw the impact it had on it (PS2 gonna launch nuclear missiles, lol). Xbox ease of architecture also sprang forth PC development who now dominate the industry.
 
Question, some of us were talking about Square's Enix DX11 statement for Wii U, and people already said that Wii U has pretty much all the features to handle everything DX11 have.

Would it be possible for Square Enix if they see enough demand to make a Wii U version of KH3 and FFXV?
 
But i was never debating that.

What i was debating is people who use the N64 and Gamecube as proof that powerful Nintendo consoles cannot be succesful.

I believe this is bullshit. Those two systems failed for other reasons.

Do you disagree with this?

Obviously there is multiple reasons why a console fails. It's never one.

For example, I would say a $499 Wii U that has Xbone specs would be a drastically worse failure than the current Wii U, and as is proven by the existence of the lack of current generation ports on the system (which is why people bring the Gamecube up in the first place), it wouldn't guarantee any level of third party support.

The lack of ROI and perceived demographics are much bigger factors in something like that.

But we are taking this thread far, far off topic.

Meelow said:
Would it be possible for Square Enix if they see enough demand to make a Wii U version of KH3 and FFXV?

It's not like porting is impossible. Unlike the Wii, the Wii U does have the necessary "unified shader architecture" to port games (and yes, its Open GL equivalent is 4.x). However, whether the cost to adapt those titles to Wii U is the bigger question. And I doubt Squeenix sees that right now. It's not just the large CPU and memory deficiency. Much of that can be worked around with much lower resolution assets and across-the-board reductions in, well, everything. Similar to the way we can play games on PC with a $900 GTX 690 with everything cranked, and then drastically lower the sliders when we want to play on a $80 GPU (obviously not that simple, but as an example it works). It's entirely opportunity cost. Though I'd argue KH3 should probably get a port, Squeenix sees its (console) future eastern audience on the PS4, and its future western audience on the Xbox. Not on the Wii U.
 
Question, some of us were talking about Square's Enix DX11 statement for Wii U, and people already said that Wii U has pretty much all the features to handle everything DX11 have.

Would it be possible for Square Enix if they see enough demand to make a Wii U version of KH3 and FFXV?
When was this confirmed? There's still the DX 10.1/11 issue so stuff like tessellation, even though Wii U could support it, is not compatible with DX 11.
 
When was this confirmed? There's still the DX 10.1/11 issue so stuff like tessellation, even though Wii U could support it, is not compatible with DX 11.

The PS4 also isn't technically compatible with DX11, it has the features though, Wii U uses features of DX10.1 which isn't a big difference from what people said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom