Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename

[Teasy]

GAF still dosent seem to get what this guy is saying.

He says components are basically 2x360 overall system performance not that the images are 2x prettier.

He says overall the system is closer to 2x than 5x (somewhere between 2-3x overall, which is what I've always expected BTW). That doesn't mean the graphics can only be twice as good though. He does mention that "On paper, some components (you can guess which) are mathematically 4 or 5 times more powerful". If that component is the GPU then that will allow for much more than 2x the graphics fidelity. Of course 2x as pretty is a completely subjective judgement, there's really no point in discussing such a thing.

NOTE: I'm commenting on this before I've even looked to see what I think of this guy as far as reliability goes, so I'm not believing any of this at this point, even though it fits the kind of performance I've been expecting from the console.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I won't discuss the validity of that post, but to me it indicates 800 VLIW5 shaders @ ~500MHz for the "X360*5" part (since shader performance is the cheapest thing to multiply from Xenos), and 32/40TMUs + 16 ROPs for the "X360*2" part.
Again, a reminescence of the first rumour: the GPU being very close to a RV770.

I'll definitely be buying the console if it carries that kind of GPU performance.

 

[Legendary]

GAF still dosent seem to get what this guy is saying.

He says components are basically 2x360 overall system performance not that the images are 2x prettier.

Wow.

You never stop.

 

[Teasy]

GAF still dosent seem to get what this guy is saying.

He says components are basically 2x360 overall system performance not that the images are 2x prettier.

Wow.

You never stop.

He never will, just to clear things up:

I could be wrong, but for example, a newer IBM CPU on the Wii U may look "not as more-powerful-than-the-Xenon as i expected" to someone who just compare instructions per second ultra theoretical numbers which may moreover (so it's even more perilous to make a comparison), be indicated in different situations for each console. So the Wii U CPU could appear "just" like 1,2x Xenon. But it would be enough thanks to other optimizations dedicated to gaming on it, and coupled with a good gpu and memory.

But from what i've heard, from the impressions of my sources, the hardware has enough power to appear 2x Xbox360 on the screens. It implies then a good balance of each components (i doubt that the CPU is 0,5x the one in the Xbox360, the GPU is 8x, and the memory 10x), and Nintendo is rather known for that.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35525073&postcount=11625

Again, who knows how true it is, seems reasonable though, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Sonic]

You really are special, i mean, you bring up these ridiculus ideas that devs would KNOW before nintedo them selfs even finalized their position.

Your argument about 1 GB being enough is very weird, what on earth would you be sufficed with this. 1 GB WILL not be enough to be competitive in the long run, heck the RAM is the most important and quite probably the BIGGEST BOTTLENECK, they will NOT be able to produce games that really push some big stuff. Im talking about the console's cycle, that's the long-term, and 1GB for long term, is a suicide, with 1.5 GB they would be just fine.

Because the power of the device is useless if they can't fit all their intended textures on, eDRAM doesn't help, eDRAM is not for storing, it gets filled from the main ram , so it won't help with the bottleneck issue.

I hope that they are all talking about the main memory, while nobody mentioned GPU RAM ... but i don't know really.

It's not how it works, and for the record, it has been noted that it might be AN OLD REPORT from the old dev kits.

I think your an imposter in this forums and please stop diluting this thread. Everything that's presented you keep downplaying it.

I won't speculate much further, your personal right is to say whatever you want no matter what, but for sake of morale keep it down a notch.

The reason we don't take seriously the negative is simply because they seem have no idea what they are talking about, these "devs" that came in the forums and said it's "slower than X360" without providing any specific information that could indicate and prove that, all those that were negative didn't say which kind of RAM and didn't said the supposable model of the GPU ... nothing.

And also, some of the devlopers who migh slip out aren't necessairly the most experienced geeks to know these things enough, what if that was some QA guy or maybe some whoever person at the company who heard things over the counter and didn't remember it well enough.

One thing is for sure, those that aren't really familiar wouldn't be making up any very high predictions just because of the moral reason a normal person wouldn't be making stuff up, they might be some guys who were lurking around the company, don't know the hardware but maybe have seen the internal demo or whatever and they saw the FPS maybe, and that made them think, but that's just the possibilities.

Little understanding of the technology could tell you this cannot happen with a R700 chip that's supposedly 40nm and a 45nm CPU.

However this is all based on what we currently have. If it turns out to be less powerful then nintendo did obviously blew it and the system will probably be a massive disappointment to me personally as well as others who expected more since expectations were set by these very rumors.

Do not call Rangers an imposter. He's been on these forums a lot longer than you have and nothing in his post you quoted was any actual downplaying. It is customary for dev kits to have double the amount of RAM that is in a system, and the extra memory is used for all the things Rangers listed.

As far as your weird perception that 1 GB is not enough, why the hell not? Nintendo is looking at being competitive with 360 and PS3, clearly not the future generation of consoles. Nintendo finally wants to compete with Sony and Microsoft after it sees its actual market share of game buying people shrink to what it was in the heyday of the Wii. I would hope for Wii U to have more than 1 GB, but that's plenty enoguh to compete in the current gen.

Again, do not call Rangers an imposter. You have been warned.

 

[Stewox]

Do not call Rangers an imposter. He's been on these forums a lot longer than you have and nothing in his post you quoted was any actual downplaying. It is customary for dev kits to have double the amount of RAM that is in a system, and the extra memory is used for all the things Rangers listed.

As far as your weird perception that 1 GB is not enough, why the hell not? Nintendo is looking at being competitive with 360 and PS3, clearly not the future generation of consoles. Nintendo finally wants to compete with Sony and Microsoft after it sees its actual market share of game buying people shrink to what it was in the heyday of the Wii. I would hope for Wii U to have more than 1 GB, but that's plenty enoguh to compete in the current gen.

Again, do not call Rangers an imposter. You have been warned.

That part i do know, but
Where's the point of discussing a system in anticipation of being it a failure with bad hardware or at least slow hardware.

At the end, who cares about the dev kits, they really don't matter to anything that would factor the success of the console and consumers experience. So all this info might be for nothing, since the final hardware will not be like the dev kits, obviously the RAM being the biggest and only variable, so all these Ram rumors might be ... well , totally useless.

On the GPU side of things ... remember that the RV770 rumor also had the word for "eyefinity" so that's multiple outputs at the same time obviously tie with the fact of multiple screens ....
The point is that nintendo didn't commit to 3 screens at the same time, they will now after e3 they picked up a lot of feedback on that and they confirmed that you will be able to connect 2 tablets to WiiU, which is probably and obviously going to get something better in the GPU and RAM side of things as well to make that viable to use in a good multiplayer game, they surely won't support 2 tablets and say "oh if you have one tablet you can play in 1080p but with 2 you can get 720p on the main tv screen" - that would be ridiculous and a big loss.

So the added power could be used on Singleplayer focused games to get more graphical visual eye candy on the main screen, obviously those games going to use the second screen for the HUD and INFO that's not going to render any demanding scenes.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

(...) they surely won't support 2 tablets and say "oh if you have one tablet you can play in 1080p but with 2 you can get 720p on the main tv screen" - that would be ridiculous and a big loss.

I don't think there's anything fatally wrong with that, to be honest.
Reducing resolution when doing split-screen multiplayer has been made for many years since Goldeneye for Nintendo 64.
I'm not sure about current-gent, but I'm pretty sure the Mario Kart Double Dash for the Gamecube reduces the rendering resolution when doing 3 or 4-player split-screen.

Besides, the more tablet-centric the game is, the less you'll be looking at the main screen anyways.

 

[Earendil]

Again, do not call Rangers an imposter. You have been warned.

Just out of curiosity, what are the consequences? I mean, you've warned him, but what will you do to him if he doesn't learn?

These new rumors are interesting, but as with all rumors, I'm taking them with a grain of salt. I'd be quite happy with a console like that, but imo, all rumors are just that until more evidence is available to support them.

 

[Legendary]

Nintendo is looking at being competitive with 360 and PS3, clearly not the future generation of consoles. Nintendo finally wants to compete with Sony and Microsoft after it sees its actual market share of game buying people shrink to what it was in the heyday of the Wii. I would hope for Wii U to have more than 1 GB, but that's plenty enoguh to compete in the current gen.

I've seen a few people around the net say this before.
" Wii U is meant to compete with PS3 and 360" and it always amuses me that they actually believe it considering it makes no sense.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I've seen a few people around the net say this before.
" Wii U is meant to compete with PS3 and 360" and it always amuses me that they actually believe it considering it makes no sense.

Why doesn't it make sense? There's a remarkable lack of basic business understanding among some quarters.

Nintendo believe their product will sell on the value of its tablet experience. The rest of the system is thus designed around the best price/performance option Nintendo can go wtih based on their expectations for product interest and hopes for profit margins. If they believe the tablet will sell the machine to 100 million users regardless, why spend another $50 per system on better hardware when you can make more money off from the cheaper hardware? The only reason to invest more in the system performance is if the money-men can make a good argument that it'll increase total sales. Current gen, 7 year old tech, performance is selling 25 million consoles a year, while gamers buying awesome PC hardware to get a next-gen experience aren't showing massive growth. The evidence is that visuals aren't going to be that important unless ushering in a proper next-gen in the conventional mold. So unless Nintendo go with a monster machine to be sold on the strength of its power, wherein the tablet plays an ancilliary role, then there's nothing shocking about them being conservative.

The ongoing talk seems to be Nintendo evaluating options, getting feedback off the devs as they push the performance forwards cautiously without blowing the bank unnecessarily. Quite how there are such big arguments over this, and complaints and threats made, over what's a pretty simple matter, is kinda mind-boggling.

 

[Earendil]

If their stated desire to attract more 3rd party AAA games is true, then they would be absolutely stupid beyond belief to release a system on par with the current consoles.

 

[AlphaWolf]

If their stated desire to attract more 3rd party AAA games is true, then they would be absolutely stupid beyond belief to release a system on par with the current consoles.

Are you operating under the (mistaken) impression that the 360 and the ps3 will cease production with the launch of their next generation consoles? If Nintendo feel they will be well short of the 720/ps4 (due to launching earlier with a new controller, and a desire to be small and quiet), what sense would there be in launching a money loser just to be closer?

 

[babybumb]

Yes i see current consoles will be supported by ports for a long time. 360 can even be the lead platform for a lot of middle tier games. Nintendo should take advantage of that if their target is a five year console.

2012 is just too soon to launch high end console from a 3rd party standpoint. There is no content or teams to support such machines for the first year. They are still too much in current-gen development and are only researhcing next-gen engines. When Call of Duty launches on a new engine then next-gen has begun.

For Nintendo that is targetting families and casuals from the get go $399 cannot be the target.. i suspect they will go $299 just because they can at launch and drop to $249 when others launch new consoles or sooner if sales dont come

 

[TheChefO]

Current gen, 7 year old tech, performance is selling 25 million consoles a year, while gamers buying awesome PC hardware to get a next-gen experience aren't showing massive growth. The evidence is that visuals aren't going to be that important unless ushering in a proper next-gen in the conventional mold.

That's a chicken or the egg argument. Who would buy hardware for games that don't exist? Who would make software for a market that doesn't purchase?

Even with that, there was a substantial PC hardware uptick when BF3 came out last year and actually took advantage of DX11 GPUs which were launched 2 years ago.

We'd have to have hard numbers from Nvidia and AMD on their gpu's to get a glimpse of how big the market is for high-end graphics because the sales of games on PC will not tell the story. And with that, you'd have to keep in mind that there hasn't been a new game that was built for high end PC GPUs since Crysis1 back in 2007 and even this was the uber high end. Most new games are running fine these days even on integrated graphics.

That should tell you something.

From your argument, that tells you that nobody cares about graphics anymore.

For me, that says nobody is coding for the high end PC anymore (piracy).

When Call of Duty launches on a new engine then next-gen has begun.

That is of course unless a competitor (BF4) launches on nextgen first as a launch game running buttery smooth nextgen visuals and establishes a new NG online community before Activision can build a nextgen engine capable of taking advantage of the new hardware...

For Nintendo that is targetting families and casuals from the get go $399 cannot be the target.

I understand where this presumption is coming from, but Apple is proving this wrong on a daily basis. $500+ Ipads are flying of the shelf and into family/casual users hands. Same goes for $400 kinect bundles, ipod touch, iphones, and other uber phones (even to kids! ).

It didn't/doesn't make much sense to me either in some cases, but it goes to show, money is seemingly not the roadblock it once was (recession be damned! )

If a product is desirable enough, they will buy it. ~ If it isn't desirable enough, they won't regardless of how cheap it is (wii $99 bundles).

This lesson may have been too late for Nintendo to put into action for their WiiU plans, but hopefully that is not the case.

 

[Stewox]

I've seen a few people around the net say this before.
" Wii U is meant to compete with PS3 and 360" and it always amuses me that they actually believe it considering it makes no sense.

this

 

[east of eastside]

I'll go on record with my $249 Wii U launch price prediction.

I believe the price will be announced as "under $300" at E3 w/ the actual price specified shortly before the launch at $249.

Everything on the PS3/360/Kinect side should be $50 cheaper by then.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Didn't Iwata said wii u would be a more expensive console?

I think nintendo will launch at a higher price than only 250. They launched wii at such a low price because the hardware was so cheap and because they didn't know if wii would sell. Wii u is, imo, likely to be relatively speaking much faster than ps360/new consoles than wii was and the pad probably makes it more expensive as well. Also they don't have any direct competition from new sony/ms consoles. Since I believe it's fairly likely to for the hardware to be a fair bit faster than ps360 I can see them launching wii u at a higher price to put it in a bit more exclusive, but still afordable, pricerange and compete with wii against ps360.

Launching wii u cheap would push the wii out of the market and put nintendo in a position where they can't play with wii u pricing much anymore.

 

[bgassassin]

I'm expecting $349. $329 if we're lucky.

 

[Legendary]

$300 - $350.

 

[east of eastside]

Didn't Iwata said wii u would be a more expensive console?

More expensive than Wii is now..

I'm expecting $349. $329 if we're lucky.

Those prices are beyond Nintendo's target audience? We are all making our best guess, but I don't think Nintendo is making a core gaming console to go against Sony and MS. Nintendo never goes head-to-head.

It's another gimmick based console doing its own thing for a wide casual gaming demographic that at its core includes kids and Nintendo fans.

Nintendo is still feeling the burn of 3DS's high priced launched disaster.