Grampa Simpson
Banned
I'm expecting them to open it up in 2014 or 2015.
Rumor: Wii U final specs
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
I'm expecting them to open it up in 2014 or 2015.
Sales of the 360 are down though, so the market is responding accordingly to my view of the price.
Still you are commenting on hardware that we don't know about yet.
So you already know that Sony and MS won't use any DSP for sound or any additional chips to help the load of their CPU?
Again, your point is flawed to begin with because we don't know what the hardware will be.
That's not what I meant and you know it. You're not only convinced that the Wii-U will be able to replicate much of what's possible on Durango/Orbis, but also convinced that there are things the Wii-U will do that the other two cannot.
No I'm not shifting any subject, you're the one who brought up the Ps2 in relation to the PS3 even though it's hardly relevant. Yes there are specific methods one architecture uses to produce an end result, but that does not mean another architecture couldn't produce the same result through methods better optimized for that particular architecture.
Saying that a game that pushed the PS2 would choke the PS3 when ported is false. It all depends on how the port is done. Of course they can't drag and drop the code and push it over as is, but rewrite the code for the PS3 and I fail to see what it can't do that the PS2 could.
Look at what's happening in the PC gaming scene. They don't need the bandwidth that's provided by the eDRAM in the 360 to produce similar, if not better, results.
Yes it will be interesting to see what developers do with the set up in the Wii-U. In no way am I trying to dismiss the system as I have absolutely no interest to blindly troll it as some here do. However your comments are not only failing to convince me of your point, but they make me question them since they look rather one sided.
Glorified G
Member
Yeah, it's not safe to assume that at all. This is just wishful thinking on your part.
Nintendo!
nordique
Member
Its based on something Iwata said (during a ND in Japan) where he confirmed the system has 2GB of RAM in total
DSP....http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~pattrsn/252S98/Lec08-dsp.pdf
edit: I Should add, the Wii U has a DSP dedicated to audio processing
Reasonable to assume then. I was basing it on what the 360 does with only 512MBs ram, so I don't see why anyone would think the Wii U needs 1GB of ram considering Applications and OS foot prints get smaller with optimizations.
Nowadays CPUs are so powerful that I don't think audio takes up that many cycles. You'd only need a DSP if your CPU quite under powered.
I'd rather they used a DSP to off-load physics calculations since that takes up more CPU cycles. And DSPs are dirt cheap but very fast at doing maths.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Which is why I did not make a definitive statement, but been giving hypotheticals of why it could be. I thought it was perfectly clear, and that that was your original question. I you asked me if I knew the specs in such detail as to make hard predictions as 'this orbis/durango code will run on wiiU just fine', I'd have declined.
Again, I don't. I was giving a hypothetical example of a durango/orbis title that uses a sw sound pipeline. Perhaps none will. We'll see.
Vis a vis your assumption that every Durango/Orbis game will run at such a high efficiency that it will be absolutely beyond WiiU's grasp. I'm not sure whose point is more flawed.
Where did I state that 'wiiU will replicate much'? And yes, there can be things that the other two next-gens may not be able to do, if they're not properly equipped. What's so hard to grasp there?
Erm, I thought I was giving you a basic example. Apparently not.
If an architecture cannot reproduce the exact ops and their arguments at the throughput and latency another one performs those at, then the former architecture is not guaranteed to be able to reproduce everything the latter one can. The fact something has more FLOPS than something else means squat here.
Perhaps I could rewrite the original PS2 algorithm to run entirely in a shader loop. Or maybe I cannot. There's no guarantee that just because RSX is 'more powerful', it will be able to replicate the result in the same timeframe.
Wait a minute now. Are we speaking of replicating the result, or doing something which looks 'as good'? See, this is why I asked you if you were shifting the subject.
360's edram (in combination with its local ROPs) served a fairy narrow purpose - to provide read-modify-writes at a rate of 4G sample/s for color + depth, or 8Gsample/s for depth-only, or 16Gsample/s at MSAA. Nothing else. Every PC gpu that has those abilities via fat buses and clocks does not need that edram feature to do the same job. Latency has zilch to do there. Now, if you paid attention, my original post was particularly about latency.
I never implied you had some bias against any platform. I'm surprised we've been leading an argument about 'power' as it if's some magical wand which is measure by the inch. Apparently that also makes you see some bias in my position. Which, frankly, bets me, as I have to explain twice every simple hypothetical example I give. Go figure.
Like the hat?
Banned
If it turns out Nintendo is losing say $50/console, would that make the price seem more "valid" (for lack of a better term)?
frankie_baby
Member
Apparently most 360 games use a sixth of the CPU power for sound and many use a third
Yeah i did a post september assessment (after the post-E3 one) here, 5/6 right, not bad
And for the date well, a few days after 
but it was really, as explained, a date heard internally by several studios, so something happened (change of plans, switch of production between US and EURO, etc.).
XtremeXpider
Member
But Xbox 360 don't do multitasking, if a game is loaded, all apps will be closed.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
2004 was the best
test_account
XP-39C²
All of those things are OS related though.
yep of course. It's the "windows" of the Wii U with all the non-gaming stuff it runs.
test_account
XP-39C²
Ah ok, i see now what you ment
I thought you ment that those things werent OS related.It seems that I misunderstood you because I thought you were making a definitive statement based on assumptions.
Also never did I say or mean to imply that every Durango/Orbis game would run at such high efficiency that it would be beyond the Wii-U's capabilities. In fact considering how scalable engines are, I suspect many things could be ported over to the Wii-U and that possibly memory would create one of the largest hurdles.
XtremeXpider
Member
If 1gb is for OS and services and system apps, how they will "decrease" the reserved ram (1gb)?
What will be interesting to see is if devs could unload some of the stuff related to the system functions, the OS, but integrated in their games, into this "1GB for OS" pool.
Until now, they only had 1GB for their software, and it's pretty sure they implemented online multiplayer mode, voice chat, etc. So these process are loaded where, on the 1GB-OS or 1GB-games ? In the former case, it will free some memory for the rendering, etc.
Maybe this is what my sources described as "retail condition", they may be able to simulate exactly the quantity of ram available with the commonly integrated features of the system.
Well, in the end, it doesn't matter, it's nearly a given than second generation games will dispose of more than 1GB.
Until now, they only had 1GB for their software, and it's pretty sure they implemented online multiplayer mode, voice chat, etc. So these process are loaded where, on the 1GB-OS or 1GB-games ? In the former case, it will free some memory for the rendering, etc.
Maybe this is what my sources described as "retail condition", they may be able to simulate exactly the quantity of ram available with the commonly integrated features of the system.
Well, in the end, it doesn't matter, it's nearly a given than second generation games will dispose of more than 1GB.
XtremeXpider
Member
What if they need/want add features to system? maybe Nintendo reserved a 1GB for future updates with more features.
You're assumption is pretty incorrect. Ask an active audio developer working on the current 360 kits.
Refreshment.01
Member
Pretty much. We need to excercise caution here. Iwata said clearly 1 GB usable for games and the other for OS. He never said that it is tentative to change in the future. Probably Nintendo will expand OS features a lot.
This is a given that they are future-proofing the system for future updates, and all that we'll see/experience on Wii U won't be available from day one. For instance, the operating system is stored (well, it was the case in previous dev kit, wonder if it's still relevant on retail unit) on a 512MB flash, and it's pretty much guaranteed the files that constitutes it doesn't take that much space, but they planned some additional room for firmware and system updates released further during the system lifespan (and maybe for functions that will use this type of NAND).
But while there will be added features, it's likely some of the already available ones will be optimized and require less room too. I really expect that one day, Nintendo will say "ok, even if we plan to add this and that feature-wise, we are now sure that 200MB of those 1GB won't be used, so we'll allocate those to games". However, the fact that they reserved so much room for the OS since a long time now (i talked about that in February, and it was relevant even before, since at least the end of 2011/beginning of 2012 with the v4 dev kits), it means that even with optimizations, the scenario that sometimes they will shrink this system software layer to 0,5GB of the 1GB and allocate 0,5GB to games is doubtful, at least for a while.
XtremeXpider
Member
200mb seems feasible, but 512mb?
That, i don't know
Like i added in the post you quoted, if they sticked to "1GB for OS" since nearly one year, it's really because all this system software layer is occupying a lot. So optimizations ? yes. To the extent of cutting in half this imprint while it was constant for at least 10 months + adding of other functions down the line ? doubtful. But this is purely speculation, i don't know, we'll have to wait what quantity of ram may be unlocked, and my sources aren't aware of such plans, it's 1GB usable for them since a moment now.
Well just to address this a bit. The 3DS for example had quite a bit of its resources reserved and it was never addressed as a temporary thing either. You almost always have to overcompensate in areas like this or get royally screwed later on if you find out you need more.
Refreshment.01
Member
That won't happen. Is just simple flash memory. That's always been a concern of mine. Nintendo should have included a fast port for HDD use so developers could take advantage of mass storage devices for other purposes other than simple storage. USB 2.0 ports are way too slow.
Btw, Thunderbolt is way too expensive, so no.
Using a single thread on the 360 for audio tasks seems pretty reasonable. Most games just stream audio tracks straight off the disc. Nintendo however like their audio done in real time and do everything in midi.
XtremeXpider
Member
That, i don't know
Like i added in the post you quoted, if they sticked to "1GB for OS" since nearly one year, it's really because all this system software layer is occupying a lot. So optimizations ? yes. To the extent of cutting in half this imprint while it was constant for at least 10 months + adding of other functions down the line ? doubtful. But i really don't know, i can't predict the future and my sources aren't aware of such plans, it's 1GB usable for them since a moment now.
If Wii U will support multitasking, and user will be allowed to install "apps", maybe those apps will be loaded on the 1gb system ram, together with OS and services.
An example, Windows 7:
OS: 200~250mb (including services)
Cache: ~300mb
Some apps ~400mb
Almost 1gb.
Digital-Hero
Member
If the 1GB of internal memory for applications is correct.... terrible. That is the most disappointing part of the specs for me.
Well, it's multi-tasking ready, it was one of the first feature documented for third-parties, and it was to be expected considering the dual screen setting of the console. And as it's 1GB for games, yep, all the other content should run on the other 1GB pool.
Hey guys, sorry if this is seen as inappropriate to bring up in this thread, but I wondered if someone could explain the latest rumours how the three systems compare? It's been pretty confusing, and it seems to have changed quite a bit over time.
For example, I'd read that even though the WiiU won't be as powerful as the other two, the architecture would make it much easier to port to from those systems than the Wii from PS360, is that still the case? And I'd read the PS4 has less RAM than XB8, but it's quicker, what are the advantages and disadvantages of those decisions?
Just a general over view really.
For example, I'd read that even though the WiiU won't be as powerful as the other two, the architecture would make it much easier to port to from those systems than the Wii from PS360, is that still the case? And I'd read the PS4 has less RAM than XB8, but it's quicker, what are the advantages and disadvantages of those decisions?
Just a general over view really.
RIGHT, which is why I have set aside 512MB ram, and said that it's even possible to get more out of that pool if it's optimized more so, personally I do not know how much ram Netflix on 360 requires, but obviously it can't be more than 512MBs, if it's less and that is the most RAM intensive thing the Wii U does for instance, then that 512MBs pool can be tapped into. (also saying that it's quite reasonable to assume that Wii U could tap into 1.5GB of ram atm if the app software was on par with 360.
Refreshment.01
Member
If anyone tries to answer this sincerly, they will tell you is too early to tell. While obviously ports will have a less harder time than in Wii's case, we don't know the specs of the other 2 systems from the competition. WiiU is slightly more capable than the cuarrent generation, but not what one can consider a "traditional" generational leap in processing power.
The good news is that Nintendo is releasing a year early, so 2 years of ports are probably a sure thing. Much better situation than Wii's case.
Edit:Meant "early" not later.
I probably asked it wrong because I didn't really understand the explanation at the time, but I think basically the argument was new chip designs are easier to port to than older chip designs, even if the performance is the same in both, if that makes sense? So even if the WiiU was performance wise, exactly as far as away from PS4/XB8 as the Wii was from PS360, it would still be much easier to port games to, because the design itself is somehow more compatible to newer games? I know I'm stumbling over what I'm trying to say, no idea if sense can be made of that. The reason I'm questioning it now is I remember people saying it was inline with DX11, now it seems it's inline with DX9, but I don't know if that relates, or is even accurate.
Teletraan1
Banned
If they are losing $50 on the system based on the hardware information we currently have they should get new suppliers and partners cause these folks are taking them for a ride. No chance this costs them $350-400 to manufacture and distribute.
Refreshment.01
Member
Well acording to rumors is in line with DX 10.1 while the other 2 will be DX11 compilant.
Anyway, if you have not interest on Nintendo games or at least more into games from other devs then you are better off grabing any of the other 2 machines or now a gaming PC. Specs wise in 2012 the WiiU is lacking, more when you start thinking that the typical Nintendo cycle is 5 years so in 2015 this will be a very limited machine.
Wii U is more inline with PS4/XB3 tech, though it will likely be 2 to 3 times weaker. This allows for simple porting with multiplatform engines since they are designed to scale down effects and allows for all or most effects to be implemented in ports.
PS3 and 360 have a different graphics pipeline that would change the games that are ported to those systems, it also has in order execution which would really hurt ports if the games were designed for out of order.
Architecture is paramount to porting.
Performance of the systems? That really only matters as to how the games look, think of RE4 making it to PS2 with half the polygon counts and reduced effects, or XBOX to PS2 games, that is more inline with Wii U vs the other future consoles.
Metroid Hunter
Banned
So is the info in the OP proven to be false now?
Refreshment.01
Member
Even more when you consider that the 350 SKU just throws at the consumer a bunch of peripheral crap. Why no go for a 350 SKU alone with the contents of the 300 one but with a souped up part? The WiiU is out of mass market in both SKU's anyway, the competition has that segment covered. So what's the strategy here really?
You don't know what you are talking about, sorry.
DX10.1? antonz has already pointed out is incorrect, SM4? Wii U has already exceeded from those specs, and they are just a basic baseline for devs to know are there. For instance GPGPU support was pretty much introduced with DX11, at least unified shader support for it.
Also you talk about the performance, and we don't know what that performance number is. It could be 600GFLOPs or it could be around 800GFLOPs, and while that should be much weaker than PS4/XB3 numbers, it will still be portable in performance.
BTW PS4/XB3 won't touch the ~5TFLOPs GPUs that will launch this fall, not to mention the ones that launch next year, they won't even reach half the performance of current top end GPUs (4.1TFLOPs for the HD7970) so all 3 will be limited machines in 2015.
shinra-bansho
Member
This is that thing about how a 360 game used an entire core for sound isn't it?
I highly doubt most games do, if even many...
But someone more in the know can correct me.
Depends on how one looks.
The source has said something about beyond shader model 4.0 iirc?
But then people are happy to selective read that, while ignoring that the source still says it's "enhanced broadway."
As it's been pointed out, it's too early to say how they really compare. However it is safe to say it will be easier to port from the ps4/720 to the Wii-U than it was from the ps360 to the Wii.
With the ps360 we had multi-core and threaded CPUs, GPUs with prgrammable shaders, and 512MB of total memory while the Wii had a single core/thread CPU, fixed function GPU, and 88MB of memory. So you can imagine how difficult it would have been to port an engine designed to support multiple threads and programmable shaders over to the Wii which featured neither.
Now with the next gen, all 3 systems will support multiple threads and have programmable shaders to play around with. So no matter the gap between the ps4/720 and Wii-U, it will still be easier than what we saw this gen.
We really can't say this for sure.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Devs don't create games for 4-5 TFLOP gpus as the baseline so this is irrelevant, unless you wanna run at like 4k res or something. Like a Ferrari relegated to congested city streets
In all honesty I think it will be a similar situation to the Wii in terms of ports. But a lot of that will depend on install base and software demo this time around. The competitive machines will be trying to sell the experience largely on visuals and tech, trying to push that "next gen barrier". With that in mind I find it hard to believe that Wii U will handle a downport made for XB3/PS4 machines, never mind the obvious nature of it being a vastly inferior port, aside from tablet stuff.
So yeah, it's too early to tell, but my hunch is don't bet on it long term.