Wii U Speculation Thread 2: Can't take anymore of this!!!
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
baboon is a monkey in german its called Pavian, in english as far as I know baboon
AceBandage
Banned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLmf5IekxC0
Salmon threats to eat bear from bear's dinner plate.
Bear ignores cries.
salmon and bear??
Hmm, maybe for selling ability comparison!!
Yes there are a lot more salmons (WiiU) than bears (nextBox)!!
You are right!!!
WiiU will win the next gen race "confirmed"
Refreshment.01
Member
Nintendo is telling you the same thing it did with the Zelda GC demo. Guess what it is?
Not much really
Right on the money! That's more than anything due to the clause you have to sign when buying a console, the one that says "you are allowed to buy only one console and one only." So the Wii owners that were tied by the contract and couldn't play PS360 games would see a huge jump in graphics.
Excuse me for being blunt but the bold part shows you don't know what you want much less what people want. Slight visual bump? consoles are way behind in the visual department to even think that we have reached a plateau, where we are seeing diminishing returns and a "slight visual bumps" with fast stable frame rates would be more than enough.
WiiU won't bring those people back. These people want a solid online infrastructure that Nintendo just can't provide, one that it's also needed for the important third party offerings..
MrGreencastle
Member
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case, and that "next-gen" lasts even longer than this one - and I'm perfectly fine with that.
I imagine the Wii would have done a lot better amongst the core, if it had more comparable specs to the Xbox 360 or PS3. I mean, realistically, there's a ton of great content on the Wii, largely first-party, but even then, there's games like Xenoblade, Monster Hunter, and big hitters like Call of Duty are on the platform, too, only in a lower graphical form, etc. Had the online system been slightly more robust, too. I think the power was really the only thing keeping every EA, Activision, etc, game on the platform. One could argue that the power would have driven up costs, making it less successful amongst the market it has sold so well in now, but I think the balance is much more in Nintendo's favour this time around.
Nintendo is telling you the same thing it did with the Zelda GC demo. Guess what it is?
Not much really
Right on the money! That's more than anything due to the clause you have to sign when buying a console, the one that says "you are allowed to buy only one console and one only." So the Wii owners that were tied by the contract and couldn't play PS360 games would see a huge jump in graphics.
And that's only considering the excellent first party typical Nintendo stuff that it will see. EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc, being on board to do AC, Battlefield, CoD, and what not, will most certainly be a pretty big selling point in a category that the Wii just didn't really compete in. If it looks better than Xbox 360, and if Wii-U is out first (highly likely, on both counts), then I'm sure it will do great. It's like the best of both worlds.
specialguy
Banned
Confirmed multiple times:
- Triple core PowerPC-based CPU
- RV770 GPU, probably RV770LE variant (I personally think it's not the final GPU)
- 1+ GB RAM, type unknown
Heard once, still unclear:
- CPU is a new architecture (confirmed somewhat by IBM press release)
- CPU is clocked > 3 GHz
- CPU has 3MB L2 cache, which is unevenly split among the cores
- 32MB of EDRAM on the GPU
- RAM is a unified chunk
specialguy
Banned
Where is this confirmed?
I actually agree with the other two. Triple Power PC and 1+GB RAM seems pretty sure.
The thing that keeps nagging me is I've heard it's DDR3 though, which would cripple it.
We need an overall picture of the system, I'm afraid it will be crippled in bandwidth somehow, so that the excess memory isn't as useful as it should be.
I've also heard the 32MB EDRAM thing, but also consider that a rumor for now.
DaSorcerer7
Member
Specialguy knows this, its been said to him many times ..but he won't believe it because of his "its nintendo" mentality.
This isn't typical of Nintendo hardware designs. The N64 is really all that I can think of that had a significant bottleneck.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
And yet, 'slight visual bumps with fast stable framerates' is what PC has been delivering over consoles in the eyes of the general public. If that much. The rest is all better online. But there consoles have been making good strides to catch up.
Why is that? Or did you just pull a 'lol, nontendo'?
N64 was nintendo going too darn hi-tech. Basically, nintendo's ps3. Thing is, when you go 'too darn hi-tech' you're much more prone to cut corners as your BOM is already heart-attack-inducing.
First mentioned by IGN as an "R700" and some weird Japanese website as an RV770 (wasn't convincing at that point I admit), then confirmed by lherre (presumed to be an Ubisoft developer), and subsequently confirmed by bgassassin (who knows some guy).
It's actually not a matter of agreeing or not, it has what it has
. I don't know why people say DDR3 would cripple it, as well-used DDR3 is much faster than the GDDR3 in the 360 for example.The 32 MBs of EDRAM sounds plausible, I think. Nintendo introducing some sort of a crippling bottleneck doesn't make sense at all, and it would be hard to claim anything like that when so little is known about RAM types and bus widths.
First mentioned by IGN as an "R700" and some weird Japanese website as an RV770 (wasn't convincing at that point I admit), then confirmed by lherre (presumed to be Ubisoft developer), and subsequently confirmed by bgassassin.
It's actually not a matter of agreeing or not, it has what it has
The 32 MBs of EDRAM sounds plausible, I think. Nintendo introducing some sort of a crippling bottleneck doesn't make sense at all, and it would be hard to claim anything like that when so little is known about RAM types and bus widths.
Whatever happened to those 96 to 128 MB rumors?
specialguy
Banned
First mentioned by IGN as an "R700" and some weird Japanese website as an RV770 (wasn't convincing at that point I admit), then confirmed by lherre (presumed to be an Ubisoft developer), and subsequently confirmed by bgassassin (who knows some guy).
It's actually not a matter of agreeing or not, it has what it has
The 32 MBs of EDRAM sounds plausible, I think. Nintendo introducing some sort of a crippling bottleneck doesn't make sense at all, and it would be hard to claim anything like that when so little is known about RAM types and bus widths.
DDR3, the absolute fastest on wikipedia (DDR 2133) has a transfer rate of ~17GB/s if I'm understanding right (and somehow I doubt Nintendo will go with bleeding edge, but lets say they do). Now if you go dual channel you'd have ~34 GB/s, again if I'm doing it right.
360 has ~20GB/s but has the EDRAM setup, PS3 has ~40GB/s between two busses (no EDRAM), and HD 7970 has 264 GB/s. It seems to me like Wii U bandwidth would be firmly in this generation then if so.
R700 obviously comes from the 01.net rumors and are credible, the question to me is whether RV730 or one of the beefier two RV740 or 770. I believe in RV730 until convinced otherwise. So on that note, no offense but could you point me too lherre's post on the matter? I trust bgassasin's source somewhat, but only somewhat. I trust lherre a lot though.
Refreshment.01
Member
Yet you are a smart guy and should know that a good spected PC offers more than a slight visual improvement. And that the status quo is affected by some sort of impasse that we have reached due too developers seeing consoles as the most profitable market.
You don't have to put the stupid "you are a fanboy rutine" with me Blu. We have crossed words other times and even if we don't have matching viewpoints in much things, you should know by now im above fanatic bantering.
Nintendo can offer a kick ass online infra structure. Problem is their competitors are way ahead of them and they didn't prioritize that at an eralier time to be at least competitive. People heavily invested in online gaming don't think much about Nintendo.
Of course the Wii U isn't going to match the 7970. If Nintendo would use DDR3 at ~1000MHz, it would indeed achieve a 30% higher bandwidth than Microsoft had in the 360. Nintendo's processor cache and GPU EDRAM are a lot bigger though. Then again, rumours hinting at 1.5GB unified RAM could mean a 50% bus width increase or that they're using a smaller bus with GDDR5. Nothing really indicates DDR3 or GDDR5 or any other type of RAM though.
lherre confirmed this before I was a member, so I'd be grateful if somebody else could find it. What's sure is that there's nothing indicating an RV730, except for some speculation by Digital Foundry.
That might be true, but on the other hand, being ahead with an established service also has its drawbacks. Being in a position where you can look at what all those established services do or don't do well, cherry picking the best ideas and developing something new from the ground up is a great way to revolutionize. Contrary to Sony or Microsoft, Nintendo doesn't really have to worry much about compatibility or alienating customers. Not that I expect them to do something big, but with Nintendo, you never know.
specialguy
Banned
Sure, but 30% higher than 360 puts it basically in this gen, not the order of magnitude needed for next gen.
For the lherre/RV770, well then I remain unconvinced. Guess I could comb his post history someday LOL.
Oh for heaven's sake...
1) You're right, I don't think they can compete with Kinect - but I've also argued that I don't think anything can right now. Kinect is peaking at the moment, and it's finding success with a demographic that cares the least about graphics. So I think Nintendo spending their first year going after a spoken-for market with more powerful hardware would be a waste of a head start and said powerful hardware. That isn't downplaying Nintendo's franchises (and ability to create new ones), as I think they could compete for gamers in that year with quality titles aimed at them, and go after casuals later. It's called strategy.
2) Wii U Sports, Wii U Fit, and an HD Racer would be a terrible launch lineup for me. I hate the "Wii___" series and and I've never liked racing games (although Project C.A.R.S. looks sort of fun.) Doesn't mean I devalue their contribution to Nintendo's success, as evidenced by the repeated times I've used them in my argument. Am I not allowed to have preferences? Didn't know that being a Nintendo fan meant I had to be a company man...
3) I still believe that established Nintendo franchises would be ineffective at pulling in a new gamer audience, or at least not as effective as new IP, despite the fact that I've repeatedly said that these are games that I would want a new Nintendo console for. One only has to look at sales of Skyward Sword, arguably one of Nintendo's biggest guns when it comes to a core experience, to see that maybe their established franchises aren't resonating as strongly as they once did. One could also look at the success they've had with new IP ALL GEN to see the potential a new IP has to pull in a fresh audience. Again, I just don't see how this is even debatable.
EDIT: And I hope you had fun going over all my posts in this thread looking for material.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
What a good-specced PC can do is not the subject - the subject is, how the general public perceives that. Me, personally, I cannot wait till we finally can afford to do robust GI on our GPUs - I'm really tired of the all smoke and mirrors. And we are gradually getting there. But in the game industry, people are in to make money - things like install bases and priceranges are crucial. Technology elitism is nigh irrelevant, if not harmful.
No offense meant. I just expect people to put more reason in their posts in this thread. Unless you jest, of course (I often do).
Nintendo's competitors are way ahead in terms of online mindshare, not in terms of technology. Two gens ago MS stepped in with the know-how and intention to build an adequate (by PC standards) online infrastructure. They succeeded off the bat, and further solidified that over the course of the next gen. You can say it was costly, you can say building mindshare does not come overnight. But you cannot say 'vendor X can never repeat that', given vendor X (1) has the funds, and (2) appears to have the motivation this time around. Nintendo might be conservative in many aspects, but they're not idiots. They are well aware Apple has been eating console makers' lunch. Nintendo will take out their monetary guns this time, if not for MS or Sony, then for Apple. And everything we've heard so far indicates that's exactly what they're doing. In case you haven't yet, get yourself a 3DS and observe the advancements nintendo have been doing since the DS(i). Nintendo are catching up, fast.
Refreshment.01
Member
But that works for Sony and MS also. They could retroactively add the best features that Nintendo could've come with, also establishing middle points in the relationship with third parties is a time consuming process. But anyway getting an online service it's more of an iterative process and that demands time and money more than anything else. In my limited knowledge, there's not much Nintendo could do to revolutionize an online service, it's just a matter of features, price and reliability.
People here might be interested in the following from this thread:
(By digital I assume they mean downloadable)
Seems to indicate that they'll have some sort of downloadable games for Wii U's launch, which would be good news if true as it'd mean full online services like eShop from day 1.
THQ PR said:
(By digital I assume they mean downloadable)
Seems to indicate that they'll have some sort of downloadable games for Wii U's launch, which would be good news if true as it'd mean full online services like eShop from day 1.
Refreshment.01
Member
We have to keep the context here, this is the WiiU thread. So let me simplify the point to keep the discussion focused.
In the WiiU generation the online minded consumer won't care about Nintendo much. Be it because of mind share or technology won't change the result. That's how i think about the issue.
The fact remains that Nintendo was short sighted to not give more importance to the online aspect of gaming earlier than they did and the competition benefited from the fact, and this will influence the WiiU performance..
Ok everyone,
I came accross that one here.
http://www.nintengen.com/2012/01/speculation-wii-u-gpu-vs-xbox-720-gpu.html
But if that is true what is written there and even if the performance differs a bit in real gaming...
Then the gpu choosen by Nintendo is very powerful isn't it??
Then we dont need to worry or?
Why is that (if true) that the performance of a newer gpu can be worse than the one of an older??
I'm confused with that...
I came accross that one here.
http://www.nintengen.com/2012/01/speculation-wii-u-gpu-vs-xbox-720-gpu.html
But if that is true what is written there and even if the performance differs a bit in real gaming...
Then the gpu choosen by Nintendo is very powerful isn't it??
Then we dont need to worry or?
Why is that (if true) that the performance of a newer gpu can be worse than the one of an older??
I'm confused with that...
Well have you seen the new xbox thread, will that be also this gen?
Not if the changes alienate your userbase. Anyway, we'll see. I believe we've yet to see what the Network Service Development Department was working on for the past two years.
Well, the first number stands somewhat for the generation (/series) of the card. Obviously the 4xxx is older than the 6xxx. The other numbers pretty much stand for how high up the ladder this card is within its generation. The 6670 will likely have a couple of newer features the 4850 won't have, but in an armwrestling contest, the 4850 might still win (check some benchmarks). I have an 4890 (top of the line 4xxx) and it's still pretty much a beast. Though when doing 3D modeling & rendering, I can't have my GPU render the image, because it doesn't support the newest OpenCL (AMD is supposedly working on that) while a newer yet lower specced card from ATI/AMD, can. Just as an example, because totally irrelevant to this console comparison.
I understand that.
I know that they are customized.
But personally I dont know how they customize it, but think they will even make it a bit better somehow.
So based on rumors the PC-cards that come closest to the finally used ones are mentioned above.
I only wanted to state that that comparison made me even more happy in some ways cos it shows that an older gpu is not automatically outperformed by a new gpu.
And the way they will probably optimize/customize it will make it even better.
Just explaining in laymens terms how cards compare. To many, those numbers are just numbers. And obviously, it IS going to tell you something, as they will not be using an RV770 to cripple it to match the 360, and the "nextbox" will more than likely still be in the same ballpark.
No, they will probably be completely different. Even if the Wii U chip isn't going to be different, then definitely the Next Xbox chip will be. The comparison is useless. Development hardware is not the same as final console hardware. And the Next Xbox doesn't even have development hardware yet!
http://mynintendonews.com/2012/01/25/wii-u-twice-as-powerful-as-xbox-360-claims-develop-source/
Fun with numbers.
Apparently on 2x as strong as the 360
Oh wasn't the original source, the original source had this gem as well
Fun with numbers.
Apparently on 2x as strong as the 360
Oh wasn't the original source, the original source had this gem as well
IceDoesntHelp
Banned
Can these people spouting out rumors make up their minds already :/
I don't tend to bother with reports that the Wii U's X times as powerful, due to how completely subjective that is (if the Wii U's CPU ran at 6.4Ghz that'd put it in the crazy powerful category, whereas if the GPU has 480 SPUs at the same clock rate as Xenos that'd be well on the lower end of speculation).
However, I found this quote from the original article to be pretty interesting:
Racing-gaf, what studio could they be talking about?
IceDoesntHelp
Banned
Probably Codemasters. (I know they don't just do Racing games, but its the first studio that popped up in my head)
mugurumakensei
Member
Uh you should reread that article. The article states a source said it was 2x last year, and the dev kits had a significant boost but due to NDAs they cannot currently verify IGNs claim of 5x. It's implied though that Develop believes IGNs claim.
Actually the last sentence just confused the heck out of me really, but I get your point.
And that was other thing wanted to point out, is he mentions that developers are under strict NDAs so for the folks who were clamoring about Project CARS being a sign of weak 3rd party support, it seems they either didn't sign NDAs or slipped.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
yeah they even say at the end:
So they've been hearing the same as IGN, at least generally speaking.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
A 2x to 5x jump is huge. That has to be talking about RAM. Has to be.
IceDoesntHelp
Banned
Speaking of Project CARS, the Wii U logo isn't up on the main page anymore.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
lol owned
mugurumakensei
Member
remember X360 went from X800 to X1800 class from initial to final devkits. As well, 3DS got a sizeable boost from IGNs early devkit rumors to final 3DS. Always keep in mind that unreleased hardware is a moving target.
TheCongressman1
Member
How about something like these sticks, Nintendo?
Same low form factor, but with the tilt action.
It's not really a big deal for me, just a thought.
Same low form factor, but with the tilt action.
Maybe even with click!
The Ninjas got to them.
The non-final devkits did >2x on graphics and could probably have done >2x on CPU. If you add all that together, you could end up with 5x more powerful. If you don't add it together, you get 2x.
Basically we don't know what everybody's even talking about.
Ninjas strike again. EDIT: beaten!
- Status