Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename

Nintendo could still go for a split-pool of RAM like Wii. 128 MBs 1T (or whatever) and 2 GBs slowish DDR3.

 

Any way NEC and MoSys are mentioned together most likely means embedded 1T-SRAM. I'm sure you all know that's how it's been with Gamecube and Wii. I just wonder if they will copy the daughter-die layout from Xenos.

 

I would guess 64 or 128 MB of T1SRAM, if the use the BandwidthEngine at 10 Gbps a 32 bit interface would offer a bandwidth 40 GB/s for the framebuffer.

DDR3 is not very likley due to the slow and crippled memory interface (8/16 bits ICs).

For the main unified memory I would guess two 2 Gbit GDDR5 units (512 MB) at 4 Gbps over a 64 bit interface that would offer a bandwidth of 32 GB/s for textures and more.

All in all a pretty respectable aggregated bandwidth of 72 GB/s and still using less data pins than the current GDDR3 interface (128 bits) of the PS3 and 360.

By using basically the same memory size as the PS3 and 360, developers can use the same optimised texture assets and Nintendo doesn´t risk adding costly extra RAM that no one takes full advantage of due to the extra development cost.

If Nintendo also goes with a triple core Power CPU as is rumoured, porting games from the 360 will be very easy. Especially if they also go with a fast VRAM (T1SRAM) that doesn´t require tiling and will offer fast and simple post-processing.

I might add that If Nintendo goes for a memory bandwidth of the size as I specualte above there is room for a pretty powerful GPU if the memory bandwidth of the 360 and PS3 is seen as one of the main limiting factors.

 

From the amounts of RAM to the bandwidths your estimations look highly conservative ... too conservative for my understanding.

Also, I guess it doesn't make sense to use 1T-SRAM beside the embedded RAM anymore with the wide availability of GDDR3/5 (as already seen on the Wii, amount of 1T-SRAM has not been touched)

So my guess are still 27-32MB 1T-SRAM embedded on the GPU and 1-1,5GB of GDDR3/5 as main memory pool.

 

You may be right but the bandwidth in proportion to the computational power is where the balance is important and the power of the GPU is a great unknown at this time.

I would be positively surprised if Nintendo went with 1 GB of GDDR5 and they could do that and still be using just a 64 bit memory interface by just using 16 bits of the data interface of four 2 Gbit GDDR5 modules, the standard GDDR5 modules can be configured to use just 16 bits of the 32 bits data interface.

The reason why I am conservative is mainly because of Nintendos history of never taking a loss on the console sales, so they will cut any corner they can to keep the BOM down.

 

It also depends where Nintendo position Wuu regards next-gen. As an inbetween device, will they be expecting it to keep up with the next PS and XB, or do they want it to be a device with ports of the current gen? If the former, they'll have to sink enormous amounts of money into the hardware for it to remain in the same league as the new consoles, which is highly unlikely. So instead they only need invest enough for Wuu to stand out from the current crowd. Double up the GPU power and chuck in 1 to 1.5 GBs RAM and you'll have such a box, that'll accept ports from 3rd parties and look the best of all iterations, without sinking loads of money on a box that'll still look dated when Sony and MS make their moves.

I think it's right to be conservative. I don't see the businses sense in putting more hardware into Wuu than it'll warrant given its position straddling two full hardware generations. Nintendo will put in only as much hardware as they need to satisfy their vision their software, maybe with a concession to 3rd parties for once as Nntendo realise they need them.

 

It's been formaly stated that the WiiU's internal hardware was developed in order to please the 3rd-parties and not their internal software teams. And one of the things many developers bitch the most about is RAM amount.

There are also several developer statements pointing to the WiiU having more RAM than PS360 (like Colonial Marines using larger textures), so the 512MB + 128MB prediction is highly unlikely IMO.


CPU/GPU/Bandwidth performance apart, at least 1GB of UMA and/or 512MB of graphics-dedicated memory is pretty much a given, at this point.

 

I agree, but only as far as 1-1.5 GBs RAM. I'm not expecting 2+; that'd be unlike Nintendo. Over 1GB would be plenty for ports which is what 3rd parties are mostly going to be looking at on Wuu, allowing them to use PC assets.

Yeah, I think that's about right. Perhaps 1GB GDDR and a pool of 1T SRAM as Nintendo's preference.

 

We're on the same page. 32MB of embedded 1T-SRAM is what I've been thinking before this came out as well.

Actually they took a loss on the Gamecube. And they were only making $6/Wii at launch so they have cut it pretty close to undercutting if necessary. I think after what happened with the 3DS (which they are supposedly taking a loss per unit now as well), they'll have to heavily consider that route to show people it won't have a price drop six months later.

 

And what would those 32MB be used for? Isn't that an odd amount?
Too big for framebuffer only, too small for framebuffer+textures..
Unless it's also cache for the CPU..

AFAIK, that's only when the console EOL'd and sold for ~100€.

Wut?! Source for that?

Yes, I agree that selling a system at a loss (even if small) might be a key factor for getting a successful "mid-gen" console, this time.
The public/stockholder backlash for not mentioning technical specs during E3 was hard proof that everyone is afraid that Nintendo will be Nintendo again - launching an underspecced console.

 

Actually it isn't too big as a frame buffer if you calculate 1080P and 4 FWVGA tablets or 720P w/ 4xAA and 4 tablets.

 

It seems that feeding the framebuffers of a 1080p screen and 4 tablets was never in their plans, though...

 

I was just wondering, what if the eDram on the CPU is meant to be used as the frame buffer?

 

Im wondering if Nintendo wanted to allow the possibilities of using multiple WiiPad controllers, would each controller need to have its memory?

 

I'm definitely not going to act like I'm a GPU guru as I've found myself having to learn/relearn a lot of things (one of the main reasons I came here) after years away from these things. I'm probably misremembering the method to calculate the necessary amount for 1080p and 720p. I saw it posted somewhere and now I can't find it. What would be needed for textures to be included?

Yes, but he said never. GC and 3DS have already shown that's not absolute.

LOL. Take your pick.

http://www.google.com/search?q=wii+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

And the latter is a "stereotype" that I've never understood that I can only blame on bias. Nintendo goes underpowered once, and suddenly that's all they're know for. And it's those views about Nintendo that they, IMO, have virtually no shot of overcoming unless they did something stupid and made a $500 console that few people would buy. To me they would just find other reasons to justify their bias.

What would that be based on?

 

I didn't see how to edit my post, but I forgot to mention I found this press release for the Wii dealing with NEC/MoSys before and why I felt it would be embedded.

http://www2.renesas.com/news/en/archive/0606/1901.html

 

Seems to me that's one analyst being quoted in lots of places, so there's no choice when taking a pick. And I call utter bunkum on that. The innards of Wii are pretty much the same as the innards of a GC regards cost (chips so small the price difference is neither here nor then) and GC wasn't selling at a $100 loss in its last days!

Though I mostly agree, their handhelds have always been on the older side of tech, and Nintendo have a public philosophy of using older technology. I don't think the stereotype is completely underserved, and people's expectations are fairly founded regards what's being said of Wuu at the moment.

 

Guessing GC was profitable at 99 bucks...we heard a lot about how Nintendo was profitable that gen, as they pretty much always have been.

For Wii basically add nothing except the cost of the Wii mote, 64 MB RAM etc...not noticeably more expensive than gamecube.

 

^ GC was supposedly losing around that time from what I remember.

Yahbut Nintendo is spending on more than just chips. I should have been more specific when stating that number in that the amount was "$6 operating profit". I wouldn't believe the the GC was taking a big loss when it did.

True they've done that, but the handheld tech is a pretty irrelevant comparison to make for a home console. History of Nintendo home consoles vs the competition shows Wii was a one time event. As it stands, IMO the release time frame of Wii U hurts it the most this go around ... unless MS does another "launch six months after reveal" again.