Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename

[Kaotik]

I meant "base design" in the sense that they took an existing design and customized it for their needs, but the final chip will still, in this case, be rooted in that r700 design (VLIW and not GCN, for example)

I know what you meant, but I still ask, why do you presume it's "base design" has to be based on architecture/chip released already at the time you start designing your customized chip?
Why do you see it as impossible scenario, that Nintendo goes and talks to AMD, we need a chip from you, what can you offer us? And AMD tells them we're making this radically new GCN-architecture, would you like your chip to be based on this architecture, instead of our old one?

What devkits have is irrelevant, they've used different architectures compared to final design most of the time if not always (like Apple G5 + 9700/X800's on XB360 devkits, 6800 SLI's on PS3 devkits etc)

 

[darkblu]

I know what you meant, but I still ask, why do you presume it's "base design" has to be based on architecture/chip released already at the time you start designing your customized chip?
Why do you see it as impossible scenario, that Nintendo goes and talks to AMD, we need a chip from you, what can you offer us? And AMD tells them we're making this radically new GCN-architecture, would you like your chip to be based on this architecture, instead of our old one?

Apparently there are pros and cons to basing your custom design on the current market-leading architecture versus basing it on something which is still on the drawing board. But from what I've heard of nintendo's design philosophy, they highly value determinism/predictable performance. That might have swayed them toward choosing an established architecture as the basis of their highly custom design.

 

[Rangers]

Maybe it was some odd technicality to do with manufacturing cost intricacies or IP or who knows, just something we're not privy too, that made the R700 architecture the choice.

 

[steviep]

Or more the start time of the design of the console chips.
I honestly think the Wii U was meant to launch in 2011, not 2012.

The 3DS was late as well, mostly due to software.

 

[ERP]

Or more the start time of the design of the console chips.
I honestly think the Wii U was meant to launch in 2011, not 2012.

The 3DS was late as well, mostly due to software.

I doubt this, unless it was a total disaster, there was no real hardware at E3 last year, and very limited thrown together demos, if anything it looked rushed to get it there.
I also think given the precipitous drop off in Wii sales you have to assume that they didn't commit to hardware vendors and timelines until Wii sales started flagging and you're looking at a 2 or 3 year lead times on a design.

 

[Kaotik]

I doubt this, unless it was a total disaster, there was no real hardware at E3 last year, and very limited thrown together demos, if anything it looked rushed to get it there.
I also think given the precipitous drop off in Wii sales you have to assume that they didn't commit to hardware vendors and timelines until Wii sales started flagging and you're looking at a 2 or 3 year lead times on a design.

They were real devkits, weren't they? Of course that doesn't tell anything of the final hardware, but the demos were interactive / playable, too, and at least the "japanese garden" demo was newer, more beautiful build on the floor compared to their keynote demo

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Despite being the weakest of the three, the Wii U's GPU supports most modern rendering/shading techniques.

What three? X360+PS3 or Durango+PS4?

 

[bgassassin]

What three? X360+PS3 or Durango+PS4?

The latter.

 

[Brad Grenz]

The latter.

So you think he's saying the WiiU supports more modern GPU tech than the PS4 and 720?

 

[AlNom]

So you think he's saying the WiiU supports more modern GPU tech than the PS4 and 720?

He's not saying "the" most. All he's saying is that the HW feature set will be much closer to whatever MS/Sony use (most of the features, but not all).

 

[steviep]

SM 3.0 (current HD consoles) -> SM 4.1 vs SM 5.0

 

[bgassassin]

So you think he's saying the WiiU supports more modern GPU tech than the PS4 and 720?

How did you get that? Li Mu Bai said "weakest of the three." Tottentranz was asking for clarification on which two that included. And I pointed to the latter.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Well, when rumours from Wii started to appear, many supported the rumours/theory that it would come with a X1600 (RV530), along with something like a dual-core PowerPC @ 1.5GHz.

I don't know if that kind of system was ever considered by Nintendo (I keep hearing that the Wii's final form ended up being the weakest option thrown at the table). But if that was the case, the Wii would have been capable of running everything from PS360 at 480p.


Maybe that's what Nintendo is aiming for Wii U this time. From an instruction-set/compliance point of view, it would be as capable as the other two (PS4/Durango), being able to run the same games but at lower resolutions (sub-1080p?), with lower-quality anti-aliasing, smaller textures, no stereo 3D, etc.

 

[kalelovil]

Maybe it was some odd technicality to do with manufacturing cost intricacies or IP or who knows, just something we're not privy too, that made the R700 architecture the choice.

Or the theory I proposed in the second part of this post: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1634967&postcount=888

 

[Mobius1aic]

Maybe that's what Nintendo is aiming for Wii U this time. From an instruction-set/compliance point of view, it would be as capable as the other two (PS4/Durango), being able to run the same games but at lower resolutions (sub-1080p?), with lower-quality anti-aliasing, smaller textures, no stereo 3D, etc.

That's been my guess and a very prudent course of action for Nintendo, since it would guarantee "multiplatform compatibility via feature set". The lack thereof screwed Nintendo over this generation big time. If Ninty goes big enough, they could have a nicely more powerful system than the PS3 and 360 that for a year would make them top dog, and when MS and Sony roll out with their next systems (presumably in 2013), the Wii U could actually be not too far off in performance.

 

[Kaotik]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/01/the-next-generation-according-to-game-developers

The ease of use compared to other consoles is assuredly attractive, too. By comparison, 63% of developers who spoke to IGN said the Wii U would be the most challenging platform to develop for. One creator went as far as saying, “we won’t be working on Wii U due to these complexities,” while another lamented the difficulty of moving innovative games unique to Wii U to other platforms. This poses the question: Will Nintendo once again need to rely primarily on first-party games to propel platform success? At any rate, the Wii U’s 2012 release window gives it a distinct advantage: time.

If the GPU would be just practicly standard VLIW5, I doubt just the CPU would make the platform "so complex"

 

[AlNom]

Maybe their SDK and/or APIs are just not that great considering it's their first major push into multicore and more advanced shading (far Beyond 3DS) (besides the controller screen issue).

 

[Grall]

If the GPU would be just practicly standard VLIW5, I doubt just the CPU would make the platform "so complex"

SDK probably immature, and then the additional touchscreen and finding something worthwile to do with that. Maybe Nintendo sets some kind of demands on devs that they find a unique use for the screen; that'd be just like them.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Yeah, for all we know the complexity isn't technical at all. Maybe dealing with Nintendo and getting concept approval and support is just a hassle at the moment.

 

[steviep]

Maybe Nintendo sets some kind of demands on devs that they find a unique use for the screen; that'd be just like them.

No, actually it'd be like the opposite