Are there any technical reasons why Nintendo couldn't or shouldn't use ARM for Wii2?

As if dismissing PowerVR for GPGPU wasn't nonsensical enough, turning around to then suggest Tegra of all things?

Compared to the current excuses for console CPUs, ARM is better than them, at least (and in the context of "CPU" work).
 
You said:

"I doubt that the Power VR series of GPUs does any form of GPGPU work although that doesn't exclude an SOC based on Tegra if they wanted to go down that route."

Maybe I misunderstood?
 
I doubt that the Power VR series of GPUs does any form of GPGPU work although that doesn't exclude an SOC based on Tegra if they wanted to go down that route. Since the ARM cores are highly customiseable I wouldn't put it past them to add a vector unit or two to each core.
PowerVR already fully supports OpenCL (SGX544 was the first one if I remember correctly). And according to recent benchmarks (iPad2 vs Xoom), the new SGX543MP2 is considerably faster than Tegra 2. The MP4 found in NGP has double shader cores compared to MP2, so it should be pretty powerful in GPGPU also. Much faster than ARM CPUs for vectorized floating point calculation.
 
You said:

"I doubt that the Power VR series of GPUs does any form of GPGPU work although that doesn't exclude an SOC based on Tegra if they wanted to go down that route."

Maybe I misunderstood?

I was doubting, but obviously I was wrong? :p

PowerVR already fully supports OpenCL (SGX544 was the first one if I remember correctly). And according to recent benchmarks (iPad2 vs Xoom), the new SGX543MP2 is considerably faster than Tegra 2. The MP4 found in NGP has double shader cores compared to MP2, so it should be pretty powerful in GPGPU also. Much faster than ARM CPUs for vectorized floating point calculation.

Thanks, I had thought mobile GPUs had vastly reduced features that is all.
 
Back
Top