Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename

Status
Not open for further replies.
They've always gave out specs. Only the Wii and 3DS. Nintendo also never gave out specs to look good. They're the only ones that gave out real world performance numbers rather than theoretical numbers. That's why to this day, people still think the Gamecube is weaker than the PS2.

Let's face it, even if they gave out specs, would the average joe actually know what they mean?

Nintendo have frequently given out specs to look good, where they could. They pimped the crap out of "mode 7", 44khz audio, and colour palette for the SNES. They pimped the N64s "100mhz" CPU and texture filtering too. They have absolutely given out (selected) specs to make them look good. Fair enough IMO, play up your strengths.

They've not been so vocal about the Wii and 3DS, nor the WiiU. Long before release Sony and MS were in a PR war about FLOPS, vector units, various interfaces and bandwidths. MS give great presentations on developing for their hardware and make them public. Perhaps Nintendo are like this too though, and I'm just not aware of it.

Sega foolishly gave out subdued performance figures for the Dreamcast ("real world" is a misnomer when all games use the hardware differently) and said 3 million pps instead of the MSony-esque 7 or 10 million figure but that was their mistake. In some ways the Gamecube actually is weaker than the PS2, but overall I like its output more.
 
Rangers, could you please summarize w/ bullet points his feedback on the WiiU, maybe chronologically as dev kits/specs shift over time.

Thanks.

Basically this:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1619096&postcount=471

Arkam said:
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.
 
In terms of general performance, it would be quite strange if the WiiU wasn't stronger than the PS360, for the simple reason that Nintendo wants to be able to offer the best titles that are developed for the competing platforms. And if you want to make that a smooth process, you need to offer some headroom performance wise, smoother the greater the headroom, obviously. If Nintendo offers an equivalent, but different, platform, then all ports will perform worse than on the original targets, because the peculiarities of the original target such as EDRAM, or SPEs or whatever isn't available. Having your own unique benefits doesn't help bring you up to equivalence for ported code, only for natively developed applications.

So how much headroom do you need in terms of bandwidth, shader power, and so on? Damned if I know. If I were Nintendo, I'd more or less copy the Xenon CPU but substantially increase cache size, and improve the CPU<->GPU interface, ensuring that anything that runs on a 360 will run (better) on the WiiU, but with minimal additional die area or power draw. The GPU needs to outperform Xenos+EDRAM, and the easiest way to do that is to use a modern AMD design (which AMD stated was the case in their press release), and use GDDR5 for main memory. This has the advantage that using a unified memory system, the larger cache of the CPU helps reduce CPU/GPU main memory contention, and the higher main memory bandwidth further allevieates the same problem. And of course, high bandwidth is rather more straightforward to take advantage of than local memory pools with specific space/utilization limits. (You could attack the problem with a combined EDRAM/improved main mem approach as well, obviously, but that doesn't seem worthwhile.)
The main message being that if you want to have porting being a smooth process, you provide healthy margins.


If we reverse the scenario, and postulate that the WiiU is generally weaker than PS360, then we immediately run into problems as far as ports are concerned. Not only do you have to wade through your code to find ways to cut down the processing requirements generally, but you also need to jump through hoops to try to compensate for specific features of the original target that is absent in the WiiU. In effect, you would have the "porting to the Wii" situation again, where you need to reprogram major parts of your application from the ground up in order to make a port.

So - what are Nintendos stated goals regarding ports/multiplatform titles?
 
That info really cannot be believed at this point. Take a look at this:


Coming from Iwata himself:

http://wiiublog.com/blog/2011/6/30/zelda-hd-could-not-be-replicated-on-other-consoles.html

From Mark Rein:

http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2011/07/26/epic-games-very-interested-in-wii-u/

“It opens up some doors that weren’t open before on current generation consoles because it is going to be a powerful box."

That doesn't sound like a system that is less than 360/PS3....just the opposite.


bgassassin, can you post this on GAF? I'm still waiting to get accepted...
 
Entropy, I would deposit this to chew on: We have already seen multiplatform titles that "Console A" is locked at 30fps while "Console B" is at an average 28fps (drops/tearing) with a reduction in transparency resolution, texture resolution, disabled graphic features, etc and even sometimes reduced render resolution -- and the normal consumer really cannot see the difference. And while I am not a developer and just an longtime PC gamers I would say that in the above scenario "Console A" and "Console B" are more than the ~7% difference in performance for the app--if Console B had all the same settings the framerate would reduce much more and unlocking the 30Hz Console A version would also open up too.

All that to say that if the WiiU is *very* close to the 360 that is not a big deal. And it sounds like the door is open for the final dev kits and the retail versions to be slightly better than the current builds so something that is same-to-2x as fast should not be a huge issue on the graphics side for 360 ports. Even if, big if, the retail version was 95% as fast on the GPU I am sure it would be easy to make that gap dissappear and the features disabled would not be noticed by many. I am clueless, but I would bet the WiiU ends up being slightly faster.

On another note: I had noted waaaaay back with the Wii announcement that Nintendo had stuck themselves in a hard position for the Wii2 because of development talent, tools, libraries, experience, etc. The #1 reason for the WiiU to be essentially a 360/PS3 is this: As MS and Sony transition to new platforms Nintendo has access to a ton of resources that the 360/PS3 spent 7 years maturing and driving costs down on. From a publishers perspective being able to use your "B Teams" pushing your mature tools to make a WiiU/PS3/360 game instead of the bleeding edge costs of a Xbox3/PS4 title is a good move for Nintendo.

Maybe ERP, Fafala, etc will tell me I am wrong, but it seems to me that when Nintendo went with the Wii they basically stifled employee development. It takes time and money to learn new tools and efficiently mature your products to take advantage of a new platform. If the WiiU was ~ an Xbox3/PS4 Nintendo's internal devs would be pretty far behind. By going with an upgraded 360/PS3 console they can leverage industry experience, entice publishers to their new platform due to reduced costs compares to the new platforms, and with the same stone get a platform upgrade while ALSO not competiting with the new products. It would seem to me Nintendo should not want their new platform to be an Xbox3/PS4 competitor at all. In fact, I expect them to keep pitching this: Hey Publishers, do you want to spend $50M on a new Xbox3 title with an install base of less than 10M users OR do you want to spend $20M on a WiiU title with 10M users + 100M Xbox360/PS3 titles.
 
Entropy, I would deposit this to chew on: We have already seen multiplatform titles that "Console A" is locked at 30fps while "Console B" is at an average 28fps (drops/tearing) with a reduction in transparency resolution, texture resolution, disabled graphic features, etc and even sometimes reduced render resolution -- and the normal consumer really cannot see the difference.
Well, how often does the normal consumer get to see both versions? I expect they would notice the difference side by side, but it's not enough of a difference to affect the general consumer perception of the product.
 
That info really cannot be believed at this point. Take a look at this:


Coming from Iwata himself:

http://wiiublog.com/blog/2011/6/30/zelda-hd-could-not-be-replicated-on-other-consoles.html

That could only mean: It could not be on the other consoles because of our killer controller. Also, it appears based on Quaz's analysis Nintendo PR is in full BS mode, e.g. Reggie said Zelda was 1080p when it was 720p rendered. So I wouldn't drink the PR Kool-aid and dismiss more grunt level data outright.

From Mark Rein:

http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2011/07/26/epic-games-very-interested-in-wii-u/

“It opens up some doors that weren’t open before on current generation consoles because it is going to be a powerful box."

If the WiiU is 25-50% faster and has a separate display that fits both discussions though. Also note your link that this is some pretty heavy PR:

"“At the launch event at E3, some of the products that you saw running on Wii U were based on Unreal Engine technology. So that kind of gives you an idea of where we are in that space. You can certainly use our engine on that platform – it’s a natural fit from a technology perspective,” Capps added. “It opens up some doors that weren’t open before on current generation consoles because it is going to be a powerful box. I’m sure [Epic VP] Mark Rein would love anyone who’s interested to know how official our support is to get in touch with him!”"
 
Well, how often does the normal consumer get to see both versions? I expect they would notice the difference side by side, but it's not enough of a difference to affect the general consumer perception of the product.

Yes, so whether for Game-A if one console is 100%, another 97% and another 90% and Game-B one console is 89%, another 93%, and another 100% and the developers adjust resolution, texture resolution, normal maps, AA approach, transparency resolutions, etc etc to get them all ~ 30Hz and very similar graphics it really doesn't matter much to the general consumer, especially because as you note how many play the same title on competing platforms side by side?

One step further: remember how many writers made stupid arguments that technically inferior titles looked better (which is fine, art is subjective) but then concluded the under-performing platform was more powerful?

Unless there are huge differences I don't think it is something the casual consumer would even be aware off. For the WiiU in particular their sales angle is going to be the Ninny software, the New Ninny controller, and how they are getting all the big name titles, too. Yes, crappy performance would be a bad thing but they would have to have a pretty crappy box to have crappy performance.
 
That info really cannot be believed at this point. Take a look at this:


Coming from Iwata himself:

http://wiiublog.com/blog/2011/6/30/zelda-hd-could-not-be-replicated-on-other-consoles.html

From Mark Rein:

http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2011/07/26/epic-games-very-interested-in-wii-u/

“It opens up some doors that weren’t open before on current generation consoles because it is going to be a powerful box."

That doesn't sound like a system that is less than 360/PS3....just the opposite.


bgassassin, can you post this on GAF? I'm still waiting to get accepted...

Wow that is pretty weak, including the last line :rolleyes:
 
That could only mean: It could not be on the other consoles because of our killer controller. Also, it appears based on Quaz's analysis Nintendo PR is in full BS mode, e.g. Reggie said Zelda was 1080p when it was 720p rendered. So I wouldn't drink the PR Kool-aid and dismiss more grunt level data outright.



If the WiiU is 25-50% faster and has a separate display that fits both discussions though. Also note your link that this is some pretty heavy PR:

He actually claimed the GPU itself is weaker then 360's GPU, if he meant it seemed weaker because of the controllers display then why not just say that. He's also made claims about the dev kit having 1GB of RAM. Lherre who was also verified and seemed very knowledgeable said the development kits had a range of memory which started at 2GB and upwards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That info really cannot be believed at this point. Take a look at this:


Coming from Iwata himself:

http://wiiublog.com/blog/2011/6/30/zelda-hd-could-not-be-replicated-on-other-consoles.html

From Mark Rein:

http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2011/07/26/epic-games-very-interested-in-wii-u/

“It opens up some doors that weren’t open before on current generation consoles because it is going to be a powerful box."

That doesn't sound like a system that is less than 360/PS3....just the opposite.


bgassassin, can you post this on GAF? I'm still waiting to get accepted...

Good luck on that. I sat around for 6 months waiting to get approved, only to be told I didn't meet the membership requirements. I even used my work email.

I agree that what Epic said implies it's certainly not less powerful than the current systems. The idea that it is less than the 360 really makes zero sense to me.
 
If he's an artist he'll be more focused on how much memory the final platform has than the current dev kits.

If WiiU is a CGPU + edram SoC - and I still think it might be - I guess you'd be looking at a quad core Llano level GPU at the absolute top end, and possibly something smaller (45nm and all) but higher clocked. The internets tell me that the dual core Llano has 240 shaders; maybe something like that could suffice at a squeeze.
 
He actually claimed the GPU itself is weaker then 360's GPU, if he meant it seemed weaker because of the controllers display then why not just say that. He's also made claims about the dev kit having 1GB of RAM. Lherre who was also verified and seemed very knowledgeable said the development kits had a range of memory which started at 2GB and upwards.

I don't have any horse in this race but my own limited experience with dev kits is that reports about one being 1GB and another being 2GB as a starting point are not necessarily contradictory. e.g. There is the obvious (UMA vs. NUMA so the issue could be what they are talking about, GPU memory versus total system memory) but the other is how the dev kit extends memory; e.g. one person can be commenting on the platform memory (and not the dev kit memory extension) and the other commenting on the total devkit memory pool.

Or did both parties provide enough detail to clearly indicate one is a wrong?

As for the GPU performance, I remember how the Xbox 360 was running on X800s (!! R420 GPUs) at one point. And even when Xenos was used there were some initial eDRAM issues. I don't think it is unimaginable that a faster platform running with a dev kit with some boarked hardware is under performing. Actually that would be a good sign because it would indicate they have some platform specific designs.

But I wouldn't use such positive data to run wild like some where about Reggie blatantly putting out FUD about 1080p Zelda, either, as a valid data point for a super-performing WiiU.

That is why I asked for a summary of all the sources. I am more curious, I don't have an opinion or any information. You know me, I want the WiiU to be 10x faster than the 360 :cool: But outside of that I could see the WiiU being slightly slower or 2x faster and it not really being a big influence on the end product. As a consumer I would want multiple video-controllers (I am soooo mad I didn't patent my controller with LCD screen idea I mentioned here YEARS before the WiiU!!) and with the Wiimotes I would want a platform fast enough to support 60Hz (as I think faster games work better with Kinect/Wii). So I am all in favor of a 2x WiiU... but a slightly slower WiiU isn't the end of the world based on how Nintendo has effectively got their products to work.
 
That info really cannot be believed at this point. Take a look at this:


Coming from Iwata himself:

http://wiiublog.com/blog/2011/6/30/zelda-hd-could-not-be-replicated-on-other-consoles.html

From Mark Rein:

http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2011/07/26/epic-games-very-interested-in-wii-u/

“It opens up some doors that weren’t open before on current generation consoles because it is going to be a powerful box."

That doesn't sound like a system that is less than 360/PS3....just the opposite.


bgassassin, can you post this on GAF? I'm still waiting to get accepted...

Looks like someone already has. :p


As for the GPU performance, I remember how the Xbox 360 was running on X800s (!! R420 GPUs) at one point.

And before that had Radeon 9800s.
 
Xbox 360 dev kits used the fastest GPUs MS could get in decent quantities - they even used SLI 6800GTs for some demonstrations in 2005. Nintendo wouldn't have any problem finding GPUs from the PC space that could match the anticipated performance of the WiU.

It's still possible they were lowballing up until they got working silicon (which might still be slow at this point) but the situation is certainly different to the one MS faced with the Xbox 360.
 
Xbox 360 dev kits used the fastest GPUs MS could get in decent quantities - they even used SLI 6800GTs for some demonstrations in 2005. Nintendo wouldn't have any problem finding GPUs from the PC space that could match the anticipated performance of the WiU.

It's still possible they were lowballing up until they got working silicon (which might still be slow at this point) but the situation is certainly different to the one MS faced with the Xbox 360.

Not if they were trying to hit a certain TDP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top