Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename

[bgassassin]

Pre-release 360 dev kits used R420/R480 and then later had R580. WiiU surely is not going to have an RV770 inside or anything else from the PC world.

Since it will undoubtedly have eDRAM, equipping the devkits with a 4830 with 256-bit GDDR5 would make sense in order to get closer emulating that eDRAM. I imagine it also has similar-to-final GPU performance. 4770/5770 can't get near that bandwidth. Cypress and Barts are probably way beyond the final hardware spec so don't make sense.

I agree about the 360 dev kits since we had that discussion earlier in this thread. But for some reason some act like the alpha kit will be a 1:1 representation of the final. That line of thinking makes no sense.

I also agree with your assessment as I've said something similar (regarding the GPU choice for the dev kit).

Why on earth are people so hellbent on thinking it has to be RV7xx-generation?
I'm at leas expecting Evergreen/NI DX11-level chip, something along the lines of Turks and Juniper perhaps

I know I don't expect the final to be in that generation. I think the only thing the final GPU will have in common with an RV770 is the ALU count.

 

[Legendary]

Rangers and BabyBump jumps on any negative news that fuels their Wii U is a wii-like upgrade agenda.

Having said that, I don't think BG's expectations for Wii U are high at all, especially considering the specs people are expecting from next gen consoles. It seems pretty reasonable for a 2012 console that won't break the bank.

Considering what Nintendo's strategy is with Wii U and what little info we've got I am expecting a modest upgrade over PS360.

 

[Earendil]

Hey everyone, first post here.

I've been reading through the thread and (forgive me if this has already been discussed and I missed it) personally I think Nintendo would have to seriously go out of their way to make a system that is barely more powerful, or even weaker, than the 360.

Granted, my understanding of GPU tech is vastly outdated because I haven't really kept up with it since the days of fixed pixel pipelines and DX7 chips, but based on what I have read here and at GAF, it would seem far more costly to intentionally gimp a modern chipset. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd really like to get caught up on the new technologies, but until then I'm going to stick with the belief that the Wii U is a noticeable step up from the current gen platforms.

 

[Rangers]

Why on earth are people so hellbent on thinking it has to be RV7xx-generation?
I'm at leas expecting Evergreen/NI DX11-level chip, something along the lines of Turks and Juniper perhaps

Because a french site that was uncannily accurate on Nintendo rumors called 01.net posted that the Wii U GPU was derived from AMD R700 series. To this day that's why I use it for speculation. BG Assassin also seems to focus on GPU's from that line, not only me.

That site seems to have lost their source, so they havent been coming up with new info, but what they used to have was pretty ironclad, unlike say the garbage IGN posts.

As far as I know, the few info we have since then that seems from legit devs also point at R700 series.

Not to say the WII U GPU couldn't change, but I'd bet it wont.

If you believe I've been focusing on the high end, then you haven't been reading my posts. Since last year I have been saying no more than 1.5GB of memory when others were saying 2GB. When it comes to the GPU we've gotten at least three rumors that pointed to an RV770 in the Wii U dev kit. The one with the GPU having two disabled SIMDs. IGN's where they said they were told it's comparable to a 4850. And the Japanese site where it was said the GPU was beyond 1TFLOP, but not a 4890.

Yeah, you look reasonable but only in the context of the GAF hyperbole thread

The rumors are so thinly sourced. IGN has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. In the same article that mentioned 4850 they claimed Wii U would simply run PS360 like Call of Duty games with a little more AA and a little sharper textures (because hey, that's what a 4850 on PC does!). They're complete morons. If any console really did have a 4850 it would be a major leap over PS360 but IGN isn't tech savvy enough to know that.

I've heard of the Japanese 1tflop thing, unless we can get somebody fluent in Japanese to actually confirm what the article says, anything translated from Japanese is pretty thin. It's always hard to tell whether theyre speculating or what the context is. Besides that it's one old, trivial tidbit.

The two disabled SIMD's thing only comes from you that I know of, and I have no idea where you got it.

I evaluate each evidence on a case by case basis. And you all jump on me for "blindly believing arkam", well, if another person that seems to be a dev, comes along and posts stuff, I'll tend to believe that too. lherre for example, I think is very legit, whether he posts that Wii U has a great GPU or a poor one, that will count a lot for me.

 

[Earendil]

Because a french site that was uncannily accurate on Nintendo rumors called 01.net posted that the Wii U GPU was derived from AMD R700 series. To this day that's why I use it for speculation. BG Assassin also seems to focus on GPU's from that line, not only me.

That site seems to have lost their source, so they havent been coming up with new info, but what they used to have was pretty ironclad, unlike say the garbage IGN posts.

As far as I know, the few info we have since then that seems from legit devs also point at R700 series.

Not to say the WII U GPU couldn't change, but I'd bet it wont.

I would venture a guess that by the time Nintendo and AMD are done with the GPU, it will share very little in common with a stock R700 chip other than an approximate range of SPs.

 

[ERP]

My experience with Magazine rumors FWIW is that they usually draw/publish very odd conclusions from the facts.
Often when they do publish accurate rumors, I can guess the piece of information it's based on, but the actual published info is extremely misleading.
I know nothing about WiiU, but a magazine/website stating R700 series could just be because there was one in an early dev kit, or a box Nintendo used for demos.

 

[steampoweredgod]

I expect at least 2-3x jump.

If somehow we end up with 30-50% more performance I'd be disappointed.

 

[bgassassin]

Yeah, you look reasonable but only in the context of the GAF hyperbole thread

The rumors are so thinly sourced. IGN has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. In the same article that mentioned 4850 they claimed Wii U would simply run PS360 like Call of Duty games with a little more AA and a little sharper textures (because hey, that's what a 4850 on PC does!). They're complete morons. If any console really did have a 4850 it would be a major leap over PS360 but IGN isn't tech savvy enough to know that.

I've heard of the Japanese 1tflop thing, unless we can get somebody fluent in Japanese to actually confirm what the article says, anything translated from Japanese is pretty thin. It's always hard to tell whether theyre speculating or what the context is. Besides that it's one old, trivial tidbit.

The two disabled SIMD's thing only comes from you that I know of, and I have no idea where you got it.

I evaluate each evidence on a case by case basis. And you all jump on me for "blindly believing arkam", well, if another person that seems to be a dev, comes along and posts stuff, I'll tend to believe that too. lherre for example, I think is very legit, whether he posts that Wii U has a great GPU or a poor one, that will count a lot for me.

More like I don't look reasonable to someone with unreasonable views.

You haven't made much of an argument against those things. IGN definitely shouldn't have built that PC. But that doesn't discredit the info they got.

There was really no way to misinterpret that section in the Japanese article as it was its own paragraph. Plus the info supposedly came from a Marc Diana with AMD.

And you don't have to believe me (nor would I tell you where I got it to try and convince you), but as you can see the info I have is inline with the others.

And we "jump on you" because you essentially admitted that you only accept the things that line up with your view. I showed you that lherre said there was at least 2GB of memory in the dev kit and you didn't even respond to it. So since that's well beyond what arkam said and puts it in a "positive" light are you not going to acknowledge it now?

 

[Rangers]

Umm, yeah I did. He said 2GB would be double what is in the console. So 2GB in the dev kit, means the lower bound would be 1GB in the retail.

1GB is exactly what arkam said.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd really like to get caught up on the new technologies, but until then I'm going to stick with the belief that the Wii U is a noticeable step up from the current gen platforms.

I have to agree. Wii was a shocker in being underpowered but that's because Nintendo chose old tech. Anyone using new tech would have to have a smaller transistor budget than PS360 to stand a chance of being less powerful. That'd be of the order of 500 million transistors. That and/or much lower clocks. TBH it would be hard to assemble off-the-shelf components that aren't competitive with PS360 unless going for a very low cost and power consumption.

 

[bgassassin]

Umm, yeah I did. He said 2GB would be double what is in the console. So 2GB in the dev kit, means the lower bound would be 1GB in the retail.

1GB is exactly what arkam said.

No, you just focused on the GPU part of my post. And Arkam didn't say that at all. You're just reading what you want to read.

The current Wii U dev kit i am talking about (not this supposed new one in the last few weeks) Is slightly LESS powerful than the Xbox 360. What I mean by that is that we would have to scale back/change our Xbox/PS3 games to run on the console. Its a tri core out of order cpu with 1GB of pretty slow ram and a decently featured gpu that lacks raw muscle. Its good and efficient, just not that powerful. As we all know they can change it and according to rumors they have. But nothing they can do this late in the game is going to dramatically change its performance. When it ships it will be in the ball park of the Xbox 360/PS3 (give or take a little). But in no way will it be 2x or more powerful then the HD twins. Just not happening.

Lherre said if had at least 2GB and had indicated in another post Nintendo were targeting the max which would put it at 3GB (1.5GB for the retail kit).

 

[Earendil]

No, you just focused on the GPU part of my post. And Arkam didn't say that at all. You're just reading what you want to read.



Lherre said if had at least 2GB and had indicated in another post Nintendo were targeting the max which would put it at 3GB (1.5GB for the retail kit).

Normally I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I have a hard time believing what Arkham said. It just doesn't jive with the other comments we've heard from people. Why would developers like Crytek be happy with the specs if it were less powerful than an X360? I remember a comment by Peter Moore that it was a very powerful machine (I'll have to find the quote). Why would he say that if it what Arkham says is true? His statements just don't sit well.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I have to agree. Wii was a shocker in being underpowered but that's because Nintendo chose old tech. Anyone using new tech would have to have a smaller transistor budget than PS360 to stand a chance of being less powerful. That'd be of the order of 500 million transistors. That and/or much lower clocks. TBH it would be hard to assemble off-the-shelf components that aren't competitive with PS360 unless going for a very low cost and power consumption.

Part of me thinks exactly the same..
AMD has stopped developing GPUs slower than Juniper since early 2011, as that class of performance belongs to APUs now - the OEM-only HD7300/7400/7500/7600 are all rebadges from Northern Islands and Evergreen.
The thought of Nintendo going out of their way to pay AMD to build a custom GPU for a late 2012 console that is slower than AMD's slowest discrete off-the-shelf part in early 2011 is a bit ridiculous, to say the least.


But then I remember: Nintendo actually launched, in Q1 2011, a console with a dual ARM11 @ 268MHz, no wireless N, no pixel shaders, an infrared port (this last one is so stupid it's funny) and in the end they still managed to get a piss-poor battery life out of it.

Sometimes, it's like the company enjoys using low-tech just for the lulz.

 

[Earendil]

Part of me thinks exactly the same..
AMD has stopped developing GPUs slower than Juniper since early 2011, as that class of performance belongs to APUs now - the OEM-only HD7300/7400/7500/7600 are all rebadges from Northern Islands and Evergreen.
The thought of Nintendo going out of their way to pay AMD to build a custom GPU for a late 2012 console that is slower than AMD's slowest discrete off-the-shelf part in early 2011 is a bit ridiculous, to say the least.


But then I remember: Nintendo actually launched, in Q1 2011, a console with a dual ARM11 @ 268MHz, no wireless N, no pixel shaders, an infrared port (this last one is so stupid it's funny) and in the end they still managed to get a piss-poor battery life out of it.

Sometimes, it's like the company enjoys using low-tech just for the lulz.

Their handheld philosophy is different from their console philosophy. They have always used older tech in their handhelds, but their consoles have usually been quite powerful for their time, with the Wii being the only outlier.

 

[swaaye]

I don't think I'd call the 3DS LCD retro though. More like they spent most of the budget on that aspect alone. The same seemed to happen with Wii and the complex remote, plus the backwards compatibility boat anchor.

Nintendo also goes for a lower price point while maintaining profitability on the hardware.

It looks like they are going to the next level with remote/pad complexity with WiiU while also trying to steal their competitors' libraries. Cross platform backwards compatibility in addition to more control scheme innovation.

 

[bgassassin]

Normally I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I have a hard time believing what Arkham said. It just doesn't jive with the other comments we've heard from people. Why would developers like Crytek be happy with the specs if it were less powerful than an X360? I remember a comment by Peter Moore that it was a very powerful machine (I'll have to find the quote). Why would he say that if it what Arkham says is true? His statements just don't sit well.

I try to as well, but if he does have a kit then either they aren't getting their firmware updates, he doesn't know what he's talking about, or the issues they have are programmer related. Or some combination of those. But yeah his viewpoint doesn't line up with anything we've heard including the "50% more powerful" statement around E3.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Their handheld philosophy is different from their console philosophy. They have always used older tech in their handhelds, but their consoles have usually been quite powerful for their time, with the Wii being the only outlier.

Like you said, it was until the Wii. And it's also true that it's been over a decade since they've release any hardware that could be considered competitive with contemporary tech. I guess if you insist on saying handheld and home consoles are separate then one data point does not constitute a trend, but there's no real evidence that the Wii strategy is not the new standard operating procedure either.

 

[Legendary]

Like you said, it was until the Wii. And it's also true that it's been over a decade since they've release any hardware that could be considered competitive with contemporary tech. I guess if you insist on saying handheld and home consoles are separate then one data point does not constitute a trend, but there's no real evidence that the Wii strategy is not the new standard operating procedure either.

I'd say the fact that Nintendo's Wii U strategy is to attract some core gamers and put themselves in line for next gen ports indicates otherwise.

I doubt they think to be successful next gen they just need to repeat their Wii strategy.

 

[swaaye]

We saw Sony and MS dupe the Wii strategy. It's the way things usually go for Nintendo. They need to innovate and have a new gimmick with mainstream appeal or they probably can't compete with the giants and their infinite budgets. See Gamecube's mediocre story.

Hopefully whatever they're doing with WiiU and those giant Wiimotes works out better than 3DS's 3D gimmick.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Uh apart from the GameCube that flopped if you compare it to the ps2 saleswise Nintendo always had consoles that sold well and in the handheld market nintendo has always been untouched. Yes, even with the 3ds as its selling faster than the DS did. They only launched one console that was really different from the rest so they defenitly don't need to come up with gimmicks. Hell, most of the stuff nintendo came up with is now considerd to be normal so can we PLEASE stop the nintendo = gimmick bs? Because it's simply not true.

Btw who are those giants with infinite budgets? It's certainly not Sony and MS might be able to trow in billions but I doubt they are willing to keep trowing money at it without a chance of earning it back.

Anyway it's not like nintendo is a small company struggling to stay alive. They got plenty of cash and I don't see what MS or Sony can do what nintendo can't. Given at the facts, apart from Live Nintendo is the one that took console gaming forward for the past 20 years or so.